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

[Wayne Witzke]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:30:42 +0100, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
<olag at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> "Matt Mihaly" <matt at ironrealms.com> writes:

>> Just like the physical world, virtual worlds are not easily
>> broken down into simplistic "black or white." They're about
>> shades of grey.

> I totally agree, but in the physical world I can set my own goals,
> choose my actions and go to different places. Not all the time,
> but most of the time. I view those as key defining qualities. If
> those don't hold then just call it a MOG or an online
> entertainment. If the world aspect isn't important to the system,
> why insist on labelling it as a virtual world? Two systems can
> share qualities without being essentially the same thing. So, a
> system can both be a multi-user game and a virtual world, and a
> multi-user game may be on the borderline of being a virtual world.

You can choose your own goals in *anything*.  Even if you're playing
Monopoly, you can choose whether you want to go after the railroads,
or put a hotel on every square, etc.  Every goal might not be a
winning goal, but that certainly doesn't preclude the opportunity to
have and pursue your own goal.

Heck, even with Tic Tac Toe, a player can have their own goals.  If
a player's goal is to put an X in every corner, what's stopping them
from trying it?  Again, it might not be a *winning* goal according
to the "rules" of the game, but there's nothing stopping the player
from *having* or *pursuing* that goal.

In the end, the goals of any game/virtual world are going to be
defined by the player, not by the game itself, no matter what the
designer has in mind.  If the design is so strict that the player
has literally *no* choice in the matter, well, then, it's not a game
or a virtual world, it's a play, a movie, a book, something that I'd
wager nobody that reads this mailing list would consider a part of
this industry.

Now, does this mean that I would label Monopoly or Tic Tac Toe as
virtual worlds?  Probably not.  But, I don't think that the ability
for a player to define their own goals has anything to do with that.

> It is rather pointless to refer to all multi-user systems as
> virtual worlds, although most multi-user systems can be viewed as
> virtual worlds. At the end of the day everyone will use their own
> definition based on what their own interests are, of course. I
> just don't think the definitions people come up with are
> particularly good for general use. IMO, they tend to arbitrarily
> exclude things the authors devalue and include somewhat peripheral
> things that authors value.

I don't recall that Dr. Bartle's definition or use of "Virtual
World" had any particular bias...  He used that term for the very
specific purposes that he has already laid out, to prevent the
further proliferation of terminology that has led to the plethora of
acronyms that currently plague this industry.  He needed some term,
so he picked "virtual world."

> Note: I am not claiming that defintions are useful in their own
> right, or that terms and their definitons are "scientific", but I
> also don't like that they move to far away from their origin. We
> should be able to discuss the virtual world qualities of a system,
> the game qualities of a system as well as the social qualities of
> a system.

I see your point in wanting to keep the world, social, and game
qualities separate for discussion...  And, I see the point that
using the term "virtual world" might seem to bias the discussion in
favor of the world aspects of a system.  However, since every system
in this industry has some world aspect, even Monopoly (e.g. Marvin
Gardens) and Tic Tac Toe (the grid surface) (although, again, I'm
not sure I'd categorize those as virtual worlds....  it just seems
like overkill), why not use the term "virtual world" as an umbrella
term?  Is there any example of any online game where there isn't
some concept of a world?

Using the word "game" has its problems, because there are some
systems out there that have nothing like what I would call "game"
aspects. The word "social" has problems because it's not a required
element in the systems that we put together (well, in theory....
such a system might not retain players very well), and it can also
be used to describe pure chat systems, such as IRC.  "Virtual World"
certainly seems like the closest thing to being a real umbrella
term.

It might help if we were able to come up with a list of defining
characteristics for those systems that are part of this
industry. Then maybe a definitive solution might present itself.

--
Wayne Witzke
wayne.witzke at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev