The Defining Line

Comment

Comment by Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona on May 24, 2008 at 2:39am

Yes, I agree, immersion, interaction with others in multiuser environments, background and quests are important elements. I think that graphics are not. Graphics make it good or bad, but don't define a virtual world.

Today we don't call VW to a MUD, but in the past, when the graphics cards where horrible, multiuser MUDs were called VW. See the books by Richard Bartle, for example.

I think this is a rather subjective notion. In fact, you call virtual world to something in which you can be immersed and where you take actions that seem a parallel life.

Comment by Nicholas Ernst on May 23, 2008 at 8:33am

Thank you for adding your thoughts to this thread.
I ask these questions mainly as an interest in public opinion, as the only definition I've ever found for virtual worlds was listed on a wikipedia site.

Wiki Definition

However, I'm a firm believer that definitions change with time and are themselves dependent upon the term's usage by the populace at large.
For instance, a shirt is defined by Merriam Webster as...
"a garment for the upper part of the body: as a: a cloth garment usually having a collar, sleeves, a front opening, and a tail long enough to be tucked inside trousers or a skirt"...yet, in today's society we have many things commonly considered as shirts by the public, that don't necessarily fit that definition, and some that would technically fit the definition but not be called a shirt.

Virtual worlds have become common and varied enough that they are beginning to go the same route. Everyone will have their own opinions about whether an environment claiming to be a virtual world truly fits their personal definition, but I'm sure there are some aspects upon which we can commonly agree.

As an example, I don't personally feel that text based virtual worlds, such and MOOs and MUDs, would fit my personal definition of what makes a Virtual World. They might be the original precursors to VWs but in comparison are no more alike than Neanderthal and present day man. I feel that if MUDs were truly VWs, then I would in all fairness have to consider some of the old chatroom and irc style tabletop gaming I used to do in the same category.

I wholeheartedly agree that sites like Facebook, MySpace, and other similar networking sites should not be classified as VWs. Perhaps they deserve a similar, related category of their own, but I would be very hard pressed to agree that they are the same even if one does represent themselves with pictures and can manipulate their personal page and communicate with others.

I'm on the fence about the idea of single user environments being VWs. On one hand, I can see plenty that give you all the opportunity and tools to manipulate the world, but I feel that communication with others is an aspect that is essential for any VW.
Perhaps, like theme, interaction with others could simply be a factor that helps determine whether a VW is good or not.


As time progresses I will certainly add more thoughts to this, and hope others will too.

Comment by Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona on May 22, 2008 at 3:43pm

You can read my article:

what are virtual worlds

"A virtual world is a simulated space, ambient or environment that is created inside a computer. Not necessarily it has to be a 3d world. It can be 2d, text-based, or whatever."

1: Is there even a difference in your mind, between a virtual world and an interactive website?

Yes, there is. A virtual world does not have to be a website, it can be run in a standalone application. For example, Travellers Network virtual worlds, Furcadia, the Palace etc use their non-browser applications for visiting their worlds.

So a virtual world is not a website. It can be inserted in a website (for example, a VRML/X3D world, a Vivaty space, or an ActiveWorlds world).

An interactive website can have virtual worlds or not.

2: If you do see a difference, what aspects might create that divide? Is it the immersion factor?

Yes, in a virtual world you take part in the world and its action. You get inside the world, you move inside it, you live there in. In a web page, you just get or share information. A virtual world is a place to live and share virtual experiences.

3: Does a virtual world have to be 3d to be considered a true virtual world to you?

Not at all. 2D worlds or text MUDs are also virtual worlds. You just have to be able to get immersed and represented by an avatar that can be 3d, 2d or text.
Examples: virtual 2d world: the Palace. virtual text world: any MOO, MUD, etc.

4: If interaction is a factor, at what level do you consider it enough to be a virtual world? Are a collection of themed mini-games enough for you to consider an interactive website to actually be a virtual world?

You must have certain level of freedom of action, in my opinion. You must be able to interact with the world and the people to some degree. The degree you can do that defines how good or bad is that virtual world.
An interactive website with games is just that. It can be a virtual world if people can enter the games, stay there, and interact between them...
A game is not always a virtual world. If the game has a rigid structure of getting a goal, it can lack of real immersion and is just what is called a "quest".

5: Is a "theme" required at all for a virtual world?

Not, but it helps to the psychological immersion of visitors.

6: Would you consider networking/personal exposure sites such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube to be virtual worlds?

No, they are websites. Virtual worlds are simulated spaces, environments. They simulate the real world, although somewhat idealized or altered. A virtual world is a space (text, 2d or 3d) in which you move in a similar way to real world, between locations. A website is just a document that is hyperlinked to others.

I hope I could help you with my answers.