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

[olag at ifi.uio.no]

Eric Random:

> 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.

Ah well, to me "virtual X" means "essence of X, but not neccessarily
the implementation you would expect". In other words, pretty much
the dictionary version. So "virtual world" means something which has
the essence of a world, something which you can interface
with/reason about as a world. I've found this interpretion to be
compatible with other uses in computer science: "virtual memory",
"virtual functions" etc.

What is an interactive world? Well, at least a collection of
connected places that allows you a vague sense of being present in a
location from which you observe and provides you with some means for
navigation. This holds for at least subsets of the WWW and 3D
walk-throughs. So, I don't think the use is entirely metaphorical.

> I don't understand the argument. Are there not creative means of
> habitation and transportation since the invention of the modern
> home or car?

Not really. We are pretty much limited to seeing one particular
solution.

Think about this: I am not at all sure that it is beneficial for
designers to spend too much time in games they really like and
define their field of interest by them. Maybe they are better off
playing games they dislike, then at least they will find some
problems to address.

You are not going to invent flying carpets if you define your field
to be cars.

> of classification. You are further implying that classifications
> are, by definition, rigid.

Of course not, love isn't rigid. However subjective classifications
that rely heavly on tacit knowledge are less useful for a
discourse...

"she is lovely", "no, she is awful"...

> 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 don't disagree with Raph in particular, I just attach my own
comments to whatever post seems most useful rather than starting a
new thread on the topic... You might as well say that I disagree
with Bruce Damer's use of the term, or whoever used it before
him. Btw, in his book he tends to use the term to refer to social
worlds, while MMOs are referred to as gaming worlds IIRC. It's funny
in a way, both Damer and Bartle try to cover both, but Bartle puts
games in the centre and Damer puts non-games in the centre...

I don't care what language people use on MUD-Dev as long as I
understand what they mean. They may speak in Swedish if they want
to.

> The surrounding world may be unaffected regardless of how rigidly
> defined a term may be professionally.

A good reason to stick to simple definitions that are compatible
with regular use of the atomic terms "virtual", "world" etc.

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