[MUD-Dev] NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies -No, Really! (By R. Bartle)

[Eric Random]

--- olag at ifi.uio.no wrote:

> Well, I disagree. People will be quite happy to refer to anything
> from walk-through 3D models to the entire web as "virtual world".

I consider the terminology of virtual world a continuum. I would
consider a 3D walk-through model, depending on particular
characterics, a type of virtual world, but I would also not consider
the terminology used in such structures of metaphor, simile, and
allegory as definitive usage. Such structures in human language
allow for any word, regardless of how rigidly defined, to be used
loosely. As I said in a previous post, you will always find such
slippery terminology.

>> Since when does knowledge of existing systems limit the creation
>> of new ones?

> Well, since people started to build houses, not to mention cars?

I don't understand the argument. Are there not creative means of
habitation and transportation since the invention of the modern home
or car? Are not new means of habitation and transportation possible
by use of knowledge? I think you are more speaking to popularity,
technology, and consumption, rather than creativity. But, again, I
don't quite understand your argument.

> Hmm.. Genres are culturally defined and cannot as such be fully
> defined by characteristics of the objects, but to a large extent
> by context, IMO.

Certainly, a genre may be culturally defined and lacks rigidity;
this has not been debated. You had argued that a genre is not a form
of classification. You are further implying that classifications
are, by definition, rigid. A classification need not be rigid, and a
genre is a form of classification. If this is indeed not what you
believe, we may have a language barrier which surpasses the term
"virtual world." This is similar to the experience of an opposing
argument that objects tend to fall up, where up means towards the
ground, and as such, up is a distinction, not a direction. Huh?
You've lost me.

> I.e. "games" are those things which you find in certain shops, or
> those things which teenagers spend time with etc... Often endowed
> with style, but style is certainly not what we care about here?

Interesting that you bring up the term game, considering it has both
a definition in popular society and professional definition in
mathematics. Genres can characterize on matters such as style, but
are you asking me should virtual worlds be characterized on such
matters of style? I would say it could, as style is a design element
in which to distinguish between virtual worlds, but not something in
which, say, a virtual world can be distinguished from something that
is not.

> I guess I just have to disagree with everything you said here. :)

I see your dialogue is rooted more in disagreement than discussion.
Such disagreements in language and behavior in dialogue which tends
to digress rather than progress are the very reasons why committees
form in the first place. Oddly, another topic in which you disagree
with without expounding the merits of your disagreement. :)

> Ah, but we know that. The problem isn't MUD-Dev, the problem is
> the surrounding world.

Pardon me, but didn't you initiate an argument in Nov 2004, that you
disagree with Koster's use of the term "virtual world" as an
umbrella term? I assumed you disagreed with the term usage in
MUD-Dev, as that was the forum in which it was used. I am not
concerned about the surrounding world. There are many terms which
have both a professional and a layman definition. The surrounding
world may be unaffected regardless of how rigidly defined a term may
be professionally.

I have simply argued that the term virtual world is a general
classifier and has a use professionally, has a definition rooted in
the nature of its conception, and accurately encompasses the design
challenges one may face in its creation. Further, I argued that we
may sharpen such a definition to understand the particular types of
virtual worlds which tend to be discussed in MUD-Dev. Your response
to my argument tends to be disagreement, and I have thus assumed you
are arguing otherwise. When I reach the point in an argument where I
begin to lose sight of what, exactly, the argument is about, I find
it most civil to simply bid, adieu. I respect your input to the
community, and value your viewpoint on this matter, but I must bid
this particular argument, adieu.

/nods with tongue placed firmly in cheek.

- Eric Random
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev