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

[Dana V. Baldwin]

Adam Martin wrote:

> I'm tempted by "online game" which I've seen creeping in as the
> general gaming press (and even mainstream press) get more
> comfortable with the gamut of things in this arena, and gain the
> experience and ability to make their own terms.

As you point out, its too broad. Texas Holdem is an online game, not
specific enough to the genre.

> Literally, "online game" is very confusingly similar to any
> multiplayer game. But colloquially this phrase is very strongly
> associated with "non-multiplayer" if only because "multiplayer" is
> so well-established that people would wonder why you didn't say MP
> if you meant it. Through MMOG/MMORPG/MMOFPS/MMORTS it's also
> gained a fairly solid association with the general concepts (it's
> the part of the names that is common across multiple genres).

MMOG is nice as it covers the multiplayer aspect but again falls
short of not describing the genre for precisely the oposite reason
that Virtual World fails. MMOG fails to describe in any way the
playspace that is definitive to the genre.

M** is also a fairly generic and unappealing to the senses sort of
moniker. Its got no sizzle.

Virtual World fails because it does not imply a game or the ammount
of participants that make up that game. Almost every computer game
is a virtual world to some degree but take "Fable" as a recent
example. Its certainly virtual and the world is obviously existant.

World at least suggests some level of persistance, which may or may
not be as important as evolving. It also suggests habitaion.

The only suggestion that I have to offer on the matter is that
perhaps a sequel to the bookshelf classic could be called "Defining
Virtual Worlds" -OR- "Why D is for Dungen?".

-Dana V. Baldwin
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev