My space or yours?

Steven Davis posted an interview with Matt ("Iron Realms") Mihaly that provides good insight into one of the oddly surviving niches of the virtual world ecosystem: text mediated worlds.   Raph's mention emphasizes their virtual goods/ RMT / business model that apparently inspired the Puzzle Pirates' Doubloon system.

My question for here is different.  Are text worlds virtual worlds?  More specifically, I wonder about the representation of space and geography in text worlds...

The question is a strawman.

I personally believe that the Iron Realms and MUDs are virtual worlds, and my suspicion is that most of us here believe this too.   [I have to say this else risk the wrath of Richard.  Kidding aside...] 

Yet sprinkled in and amongst comments in recent discussions (e.g. the one here) as well as in the past seems to be a basic confusion about what a virtual world is and how it differs from an 'imaginary world.'    Often attributed to 'virtual worlds' is a requirement that one provides a coherent presentation of place and space.  It is uncertain what such a presentation must be, though the extreme cases are clearer.   For example, the requirement that a virtual world graphically simulate a Vermont countryside is too restrictive.

One might argue that in the classic text world paradigm, a MUD, the rooms are organized around at least an abstract map.  Yes.  But so too is a hierarchical chat room.   Then the counter point might be that there is an imaginary spatial/geographic component to that map.   Etc.

There feels to be a slippery slope here, somewhere. It is a slope hinted at eloquently by Ren a while back  ( "Where am I" ) and recently with a bit more prosady by Tim O'Reilly's post on GeoBliki:

GeoBliki is an Open Source Ruby-on-Rails application that integrates many other open source components including Community MapBuilder and supports many of the OGC web services: WFS, SAS, WNS, SPS, WPS...

A GeoBliki is a sensor-data node publisher. Data can be published in various forms, which can be made accessible to local or remote users for free or for a fee. Users can register to existing subscriptions around areas of interest and be notified via email/IM or GeoRSS feeds when new data, comments/annotations on the existing data become available.

Local users can access the data blog and/or the geo-wiki. The blog gives a
chronological perspective of the data while the geo-wiki allows for hierarchical
views based on user-driven topics or specific geographic features of interest. Users are encouraged to interact with the data and/or other users about the data. Chat and forums are built-in. Map/data annotations will be coming very soon.

Maps, chat, social-networking 0verlay, chronological ranking, hierarchical user-defined topics, geographic category publishing (and subscription)... oh my, did I say maps?

What is spatial and geographic takes on a different meaning when viewed in conjunction with other abstractions.  Is a graphic world where you teleported everywhere more or less a virtual world than a text one where you walked everywhere - albeit in a strange textual spiderwalk?

Or we can just give up and say everything is a virtual world.

Comments

[Anyonymous]

Nate said: "One might argue that in the classic text world paradigm, a MUD, the rooms are organized around at least an abstract map. Yes. But so too is a hierarchical chat room."

Ah, language. Ah, metaphor.

Can we give up and say everything is a virtual world? Please let's not.

First of all, a "chat room" is a "room" in the same way that a "mind map" is a "map." It is a metaphorical construct, not intended to actually convey a physical, geographic reality. The thoughts in my head or the ideas in a plan that go onto a mind map don't have physicality, but it's handy to think of some ideas "connecting" to each other or having "proximity" to others in terms of "navigating" between concepts. All scare quotes quite intentional, thank you.

In a chat room, we are in no way referring to a room. Nope. Never not. It is not a place in any sense of the world, in any sense of a "world," in any kind of geographic way. There is only operational proximity. If I am "in a chat room," I can type, you can read, and vice versa. That is the only purpose of the tool. It's like a phone. If you call me, we can talk. Wherever the two phones are, we are sharing "that room." Does that make our phone conversation "a virtual world?" If that's as far as we're going to push that term... well, that's way, way out there.

A text-based MUD, though, usually has some kind of geographically intentional limits. It is meant to provide "a world." A place. If I write, as in the olden, simple days:

You begin in a meadow, bounded by steep, purple, unclimbable mountains to the north and west. A beautiful stream runs from the mountains through the meadow to the south. To the east lies a path, which, as you awake from your slumber, seems to pass directly into the rising sun. Choose...

HIKE EAST [or] SPLASH NOISILY SOUTH

You've got a by-god map of a geographical world in front of you. Is it as comlicated or complex as a starting area in WoW? Is it as graphic? Does it afford as many choices? Of course not. But it's a map in the "description of a place" sense of the world, not a "description of a concept" sense of the word.

And since "world" can mean "concept," as in "the world of my dreams," this is where we get all funged up in this conversation, which, I guess, we're having on this thread now, which is cool ; )

[Steven Davis]

It is probably incorrect to talk about RMT as the system used by Iron Realms. Iron Realms economy does not allow "real money" to exit the game (virtual world) except to Iron Realms. The basic economy of credits and gold all occurs in-game. If we included RMT in this definition, there is no reason to have the term as every game (virtual world) with any "cash" in their business model would qualify.

RMT is probably most clearly defined as a player-to-player exchange of some amount a legally recognized currency for in-game (in-world) goods or services. Such transactions may or may not be authorized by the game operator. If RMT is is not authorized or supported by the game operator, the typical channel used is the in-game "gifting" feature in conjunction with an external payment channel.

While fiddling with definitions:

Is a virtual world "an abstract interaction system for multiple participants designed to encourage emergent behavior between its participants"? In this case, MySpace and LinkedIn are not virtual worlds as they do support participant interaction, but it is of a tightly defined nature (the emergent "cyberbullying" and "identity mimicry" in MySpace were not designed-in features, nor does the service actively support them). QQ is a virtual world in that the idea of virtual marriages and gifting are intended to foster "interesting" participant interactions.

[Raph]

Virtual worlds always attempt to simulate space of some sort -- it could be wacky crazy space, but there's an explicit attempt there. IRC does not.

[Steven "PlayNoEvil" Davis]

The reason I was reluctant to include a notion of "space" is that many virtual worlds allow a teleport or other instant change of location function that they effectively collapse geography.

"Space" is just a particular abstract interaction system... just like economics and "chat" ;).

The reason I would not include IRC as a virtual world is that it is not designed with the intent to spur "in IRC" emergent behavior. IRC does one thing - chat.

eBay is not a virtual world because there is no "in-eBay" emergent behavior even though it has a notion of "space" (the structure of its search engine and rating system), economics, and communication (Skype & email).

[Andy Havens]

And, for some reason, that first comment was devoid of my signature. That "Anonymous" is moi.

[Andy Havens]

Steven: Just because a virtual, graphic (or textual) space is collapsed or compressed by an in game mechanic like teleportation, does not, in any way, collapse the *meaning* of other uses of geography within the world. For example, in SL, I still have to buy land, even though you can teleport to it. I still have to build on it, walk on it, fly over it, fall down to it, etc. If your house is south of mine, I can still see it from my south-facing windows. Land has color, substance, etc. All kinds of graphical, build-able, economic and interactive restrictions.

The fact that I can engender an experience of "from here to there" more quickly due to a device called "teleport" as opposed to "walk" no more invalidates the geographic metaphor than the device of "airplane" invalidates distance in the real-world. It *changes* the experience of space, certainly. But to say that space is "abstract" and unimportant to the core idea of virtual worlds is, I think, incorrect.

We exist, ultimately, in a physical space -- we cannot escape our corporeality. Until such time as my mind itself can float freely in some non-meat space, freed even from the bonds of the flesh-brain-sponge itself... there will always be an "in here" space vs. an "out there" space. An up and a down, a left and a right. No matter how hard we try to get away from it (and oh, I try some days), there is a primary, non virtual world from which all others stem.

And we use the words of the world so freely in ways that are not, frankly, "real." When we move "up and down" in a hierarchical list... that has nothing to do with "up and down." We mean "less specific and more specific." What the heck does that have to do with higher and lower altitude? It's because the way we outline things often goes from the top to the bottom of a page, and we indent from left-to-right, and that translates, in many cases, to "more specific = down." Detailed = "down in the details." Vague = "up in the clouds." The 60,000 foot view as opposed to the "ground level" view. Getting lost in the weeds.

We are inextricably tied to our physicality. Which is fine. Until we start being imprecise about our use of terminology when trying to contrast or compare "worlds of mind" (metphor) with "worlds of play" (games?) with "worlds of stuff" (classes of objects) with "worlds of people" (groups) with "worlds of behavior" (functions). Anything calss of behavior can, yes, in a poetic sense, be a bloody world. For the love of pete, MySpace is a world. And it's virtual, of course, because it's not the world in which I'm sitting here, typing away, breathing, wishing I'd had more sleep last night, in Ohio, a state in the US, drinking bad coffee. OK. Fine.

My poetry, when collected, is "a world." It's the world of my metaphoric and versified thoughts. And it's virtual, because it is not the world of Ohio, etc. The UI for my poetry is www.Lit.org. Whoo-hoo. Go there and experience that VW. Or not. At least not while sober; drinking heavily improves that VW, I gar-ohn-tee.

But if we're going to talk about VWs in any kind of meaningful way, I will keep saying that, no... not "everything" is a virtual world. There needs to be a mapping -- in some sense -- to the original world. Or it's virtualness is *of* NOTHING. Which is the problem with my "Poetry World." It is a virtual experience that simulates... what? What part or parcel of the actual world is being virtualized? Pieces of paper? Conversations? That's not the world. It's a virtual book. Or a virtual club. Or a virtual conversation.

How's this for an idea?

WoW is a "virtual world." VW. It is one, concrete, rule-bounded experience. SL is "virtual worlds." VWZ. It is a number of shared worlds that are tied together by some central ideas and laws. MySpace is a "virtual virtual world." VVW. Because it simulates the kinds of experiences we share in real world 3rd spaces. On its own, no. Not a VW. It requires the same effort put forth by pen-and-paper gamers or club owners or salon managers or librarians or den mothers to "transform" a space (in this case, a digital one) into a "shared, other, bounded environment."

I could live with that. ; )

[Michael Chui]

I get the feeling I hit a nerve. =P

But I agree with Andy on space being non-abstract, and raise him by declaring economics and chat to be non-abstract as well.

[Pete]

It seems to me that at the very least, a virtual world would require consensus, at least asynchronously.

If this was -all- that was required, then poetry world, the phone conversation, and MySpace would all be virtual worlds. I am hesitant to dispute this vigorously... but I'd certainly say that these "places" tax the metaphor of space ( deriving from "virtual world", certainly ) pretty heavily. We tend to be able to map ( heh ) our notions of place and space onto these things without to much difficulty.

But perhaps we can refine that a bit; technologically-supported consensus with some foundation in a sense of "place".

And, of course, the idea that it is not the "real world". It seems to me that some sort of overlay or augmented reality might not count as a virtual world, per se.

What else?

[Andy Havens]

@ Michael: A nerve? Well, sure. The specific use of language is appropriate when dealing with the main topic of a space ("heh" back at Pete, ; ))

I'll see your "economics" and "chat"* and raise you "persistence" and "interactive parity" as non-abstract requirements of a VW, too.

Spaces that are not there when I return after exit -- a phone conversation -- aren't worlds, I don't think. Bubbles? Whatever. And I don't feel that my personna at Amazon.com is an avatar or that my experience there is world-like. Because, frankly, though they keep all kinds of data on me, and though I interact in a persistent "space," sometimes with other users, it is in no way a "two way street" (more "heh").

But that raises an interesting question.... For those who say that MySpace is a VW... Why isn't Amazon.com? Or is it? If you say it is... I will spank. ; )

[Hellinar]

Seems to me there is a pretty clear distinction between virtual worlds and non virtual worlds if you take a Server centric view. In both MySpace and EQ you have a server presenting a view of an underlying database to a client computer. In MySpace, the Server enforces a page like view of the world. If you want to change the MySpace database, the Server enforces the use of edit like tools. In EQ, the Server enforces a space like view of the database. If I want to change the underlying database, the Server enforces an event like method to do so. I kill an Orc (poor Orcs), I give my friends a sword, I get a quest from the King. On this measure, Iron Realms would qualify as a virtual world.

It’s the Server enforcing the rules of space and time, and mediating all in world transactions, that make VWs a new thing in the world. And therefore worthy of some separate discussion. We have been able to present underlying data in a page like way for thousands of years, and modify in it an edit like way for a similar amount of time. But previously, the only way to enforce space like behavior was to actually build a physical space. And even that was limited by this universe’s laws of physics. An ancient king could indeed build a castle. But he could never make it hover in the air. A ancient king could forbid killing of civilians in war, but he could never enforce it absolutely as a Server can in a Virtual World.

I think Stephen has hit one of the pertinent nails on the head when he says “eBay is not a virtual world because there is no "in-eBay" emergent behavior”. The space like and event like properties of Virtual Worlds evoke emergent behaviors that you don’t get when posting to a blog. Or at least, that has been my personal experience.

[Matt Mihaly]

I don't really consider this a real question with all due respect to the OP (I get the sense he doesn't either), and I don't really see anyone arguing against text virtual worlds being called virtual worlds, but I'll throw these random thoughts in:

1. If analog movement (as opposed to the digital movement in text MUDs) is a requirement, all graphical MUDs just lost virtual world status as well, since my understanding (I am not a techie) of movement in graphical worlds is that you are just skipping from point to point over very short distances (ie you can't truly be literally EVERYWHERE on a line. You can only be on discrete points of that line, exactly like a text MUD, even if there are many, many of those discrete points).

2. In both the cases of a text MUD and a graphical MUD, the world exists only in the minds of the player. A graphical MUD is showing you a coded 2d picture which your mind assembles into a concept/picture/whatever. After all, "3d" is a misnomer when applied to games running on traditional monitors. WoW is presented in a two-dimensional medium (your monitor) with coded visual clues that allow a properly trained human mind to visualize the space as 3d.

3. If graphical representation is required for "virtual worldness" then I think you've just made the claim that virtual worldness is actually purely in the eye of the beholder and is subjective. Try telling a blind person, for instance, that graphics are required for worldiness. He might reply, "So when I walk to the store later, I'm not walking through a world, because I can't see it?"

--matt

[Thomas Malaby]

If held at gunpoint and asked to define "virtual world", the idea in this thread that I would hew most closely to is the emergent behaviors one. It is closest to how I articulated my answer in the previous thread, and furthermore has the advantage of involving practical consensus in its formulation. The tendency for these kinds of discussions to reach for formal features as a basis for differentiating is, to my mind, unfortunate.

If a domain is rich enough in possibilities that it can generate for its users a distinctive, reliable, and shared disposition about how to act within it, then "synthetic" (or, if you must, "virtual") "world" may be the most useful way to describe and analyze it. One of the clear advantages, in the context of the OP here, is that this makes no demands about graphics vs texts, but preserves the still significant differences between MySpace and a text MUD.

[Andy Havens]

What Thomas said.

Here's an interesting question: What is the minimum number of "possibilities" within a "domain" that are "rich enough" to generate a "reliable, shared" VW?

IE, what is the simplest possible VW? And, then, what's the most complexificated thingamahoojitz, rich in possibilities, shared, distinctive, reliable ding-dongs that still ain't a VW? IE, the whole shebangabang... but no emergent behavior?

MySpace ; )

[Thomas Malaby]

As you might expect, I wouldn't seek to find a "threshold" number (I won't be tempted into formalism! ;-) ) Can't we let the proof be in the pudding? If someone performs an analysis of MySpace that convinces us, empirically and analytically, that this is going on there (and then proceeds to add, "so we might want to start calling it a synthetic world"), then that would be that, wouldn't it? Isn't this the spirit of open inquiry we want?

[Altimit]

I'm curious as to where the online forum falls into this category. There is certaintly a sense of persistence, and members have their own distinctive personality identified by an avatar. It also can have emergent behavior as to acceptable grammar, emoticon use and signature design. The main non-worldness about those spaces is that they don't try to represent a physical space at all (except for RPG boards of course).

[Mind Booster Noori]

As said in previous comments, "A text-based MUD, though, usually has some kind of geographically intentional limits. It is meant to provide a world", a MUD _is_ a virtual world. It was also said (and true) that chat rooms like IRC or IM'g aren't "virtual worlds", but that doesn't mean that there are no "chat virtual worlds": there are and Talkers and MOO's are examples of that exactly.

In the same way, a social network (also as said) isn't a virtual world, but provides a community that could be interacting in one. That's way there's a new concept appearing - interwine a social network with a virtual world: Kaneva is a social network that will soon open their private beta for Kaneva's Virtual World.

Summing up,

A virtual world is a computer-simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact via avatars. This habitation usually is represented in the form of two or three-dimensional graphical representations of humanoids (or other graphical or text-based avatars). A social network like MySpace doesn't fit in this description - at all, but talkers do.

[Michael Chui]

A social network like MySpace doesn't fit in this description - at all, but talkers do.

You forgot to specify why. Because I don't see it. =P

"other graphical or text-based avatars" is pretty poor phrasing. Require avatars, and then stop, because the lack of a descriptor on the type of avatar automatically includes all kinds. ...or are there kinds of avatars you want to exclude? (in which case you should say "non-[blah, blah] avatars".)

What is the minimum number of "possibilities" within a "domain" that are "rich enough" to generate a "reliable, shared" VW?

Is it even quantifiable? But I would suggest that richness should be measured in terms of the rate at which possibilities increase.

The simplest possible VW would be similar to the thought experiment I proposed back in the other discussion: one that is essentially a talker.

[Hellinar]

Thomas> If a domain is rich enough in possibilities that it can generate for its users a distinctive, reliable, and shared disposition about how to act within it, then "synthetic" (or, if you must, "virtual") "world" may be the most useful way to describe and analyze it. <

I’d say this captured pretty well one of my intuitions about what would be a virtual worlds. But a more formal, functional definition is useful if your long term goal is to actually engineer a Virtual World. Then you can at least compare worlds in a functional sense. And check if such things as a PvP switch, or teleportation, have any measurable statistical effect on how people act in the world.

[magicback (Frank)]

Why don't we just drop the whole "world" discussion and talk about "virtual" first.

As Andy stated, we have virtual offices, virtual communities, virtual this and virtual that. I think we can all agree with the usage of virtual; usage that generally focus on the physical nature of something.

So for lack of better word, I'm think conceptually with just "virtualities": multiple constructs of something physical.

On Raph's blog, Raph pointed out that MTV has created a Virtual Laguna Beach (VLB) which is based on the Laguna Beach TV show rather than the actual Laguna Beach which the show is based on. BTW, Raph's key point was that it was using There.com's platform.

Anyway, I pointed out that if we just drop the whole "world" discussion and just focus on "Virtualities" we might have a better understanding.

What I am seeing is that we are building many constructs that contain some or many facets of what we already know from a physical/corporeal perspective. What's more is that we are also starting to add new facets beyond the physical perspective such that if we add all of the facets the whole is greater than the sum.

So the simple usage of virtualities is that it is a construct of something we know and understand physically/corporeally.

So where LB the show is based on the LB community, VLB is based on LB the show. Perhaps VLB club of Laguna Beach can be formed physically at LB to be based on the VLB community online.

See where I'm going with this line of thinking?

Frank

[nate combs]

Thomas>
The tendency for these kinds of discussions to reach for formal features as a basis for differentiating is, to my mind, unfortunate.

If a domain is rich enough in possibilities that it can generate for its users a distinctive, reliable, and shared disposition about how to act within it, then "synthetic" (or, if you must, "virtual") "world" may be the most useful way to describe and analyze it.
-----------------------

If one goes with this sense of "virtual world" - as a process (with emergent qualities) over measurable features, then I would say that a "virtual world" is the better phrase and a "synthetic world" is misleading. A synthesis suggests knowledge of the parts. If no claim about what those parts are is made...

[nate combs]

Frank>
So where LB the show is based on the LB community, VLB is based on LB the show. Perhaps VLB club of Laguna Beach can be formed physically at LB to be based on the VLB community online.

See where I'm going with this line of thinking?
-----------------------------

Okay. What if we could all meet in your living room once a week and exchange ideas in a beardy style imitating the discussion of this weblog (a LARP of sorts). In your living room we would be at a location somewhere on this globe. This weblog less so. Which is the more virtual experience?

[Thomas Malaby]

@Nate:
To me, the risk of "virtual" sustaining a misleading opposition to "real", is significantly more than "synthetic" suggesting a misleading philosophical meaning. We're talking about what word or phrase would convey to the public what it is we talk about here. I doubt many of them would read "synthetic" in a Hegelian fashion. Instead, they would understand it in its more familiar meaning: "prepared or made artificially" (Free Dictionary).

That's not to say that I think it's got legs; as I 've already said, I think "virtual world" may be here to stay. /shrug

[Michael Chui]

Maybe it should be read as "A place that is virtually a world"?

[KaVir]

It was stated "More specifically, I wonder about the representation of space and geography in text worlds..."

Yet not all text-based muds use rooms. Some use coordinate-based systems, representing space and geography in exactly the same way as a graphical mud. The only difference is the way in which that information is presented to the user.

[Anyonymous]

This is getting phun.

First, @nate: You're having at us, eh? There are, clearly, features of VWs -- and other tools involved in all kinds of synthetic, virtual and otherwise computerized communications -- that are well beyond the possibilities of purely natural, live, face-to-face living-room yakkity-yak. But because I can't put a real conversation on hold, speed it up, slow it down or save it for later, does not mean I'm going to start referring to my chats with mama as "virtual voice mail." That which came first, and is real, is real. This blogspace is virtual for the salon. It may have advanced characteristics and functionality beyond the conversation pit (I call the beanbag chair!), but you would not have the latter approximation without the former.

@Thomas: I'm not seeking to tempt you into formalism... yet. On this topic. This really is one of those examples where I *feel* the worldliness of one vs. another system. If it quacks like a VW, etc. My point was to simply say that some minimal types of behavior must be allowed... some kinds of interaction... some forms of expression... before we stop calling something "a bulletin board" and start calling it "a VW." I'm not saying, "You need these 3 specific things," but it's fun to think about what those 3 things might be, eh?

[nate combs]

First, @nate: You're having at us, eh? There are, clearly, features of VWs -- and other tools involved in all kinds of synthetic, virtual and otherwise computerized communications -- that are well beyond the possibilities of purely natural, live, face-to-face living-room yakkity-yak. But because I can't put a real conversation on hold, speed it up, slow it down or save it for later, does not mean I'm going to start referring to my chats with mama as "virtual voice mail." That which came first, and is real, is real. This blogspace is virtual for the salon. It may have advanced characteristics and functionality beyond the conversation pit (I call the beanbag chair!), but you would not have the latter approximation without the former.

-----------

I take Frank's point as that it may become less useful after a while to think of virtual places as "second" to a real place: somehow an approximation.

Frank's example: with VLB recursion, with enough feedback - reality and virtual forms may intertwine and feed off of each other. The Klingon language phenomenon. So if a blog is a (virtual) approximation of your beanbag chair and its conversation pit, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a parody of TN, for example, is a parody of your living room. These places, whether virtual or real originally, seem to become a "first class place" onto themselves after a while.

There is that old saw about the kid who drives for the first time thinking it was awfully similar to a video game: his real driving experience is an approxmation of a video game driving experience grounded in a different real driving context elsewhere (NASCAR?).

Okay. So this is interesting stuff, is there anything useful?

If I have to improvise here it might tie back to Raph's earlier comment that virtual worlds "attempt to simulate space of some sort -- it could be wacky crazy space, but there's an explicit attempt there." Yes okay, there is a space, but it doesn't have to be rooted in a real world form. Why not abstractions. And if game worlds are such goal oriented places, why not then a spatial representation that supports the in world goals more explicitly?

E.g. Perhaps a social networking space makes more sense for many online places that might debatably qualify as virtual worlds.

[nate combs]

Thomas>
To me, the risk of "virtual" sustaining a misleading opposition to "real", is significantly more than "synthetic" suggesting a misleading philosophical meaning. We're talking about what word or phrase would convey to the public what it is we talk about here. I doubt many of them would read "synthetic" in a Hegelian fashion. Instead, they would understand it in its more familiar meaning: "prepared or made artificially" (Free Dictionary).
---------------------------------

I agree the virtual vs. real dichotomy is a misleading one. I guess my quibble with a "synthesis of parts without talking about the parts" approach to defining a virtual world is deeper than how one perceives "synthetic." I think it is worthwhile to discover what those parts might be, at least from a thought experiment and 'downhill synthesis' perspective - even if coming up with a formalism and definition seems analytically intractable now for all cases.

In other words, here are these four things, A, B, C, D, which when combined with each other in these sorts of ways permits the worlds W, and W1 to exist... that sort of thing.

[Thomas Malaby]

I have no quarrel with proceeding in that fashion, Nate, as long as the fact that these will always be, to a certain degree, heuristics is kept in mind.

But then, I look at your penultimate comment (where you cite to Raph) and I'm struck by the turn back toward features of the environment (even, it seems, absent people) as somehow the right place to start. To do what you suggest directly above, shouldn't we focus on the point where the users and the architecture meet?

[?]

Thomas,

i find it a bit disappointing that your attempt at "defining the game" hasn't really transpired into this thread. My 4 cents:

1. from your paper i would pick three dimensions of description for "a world": (a) ontology (rules, subjects, objects, verbs & nouns, etc...), (b) diverse contingency, (c) interpretable outcomes at the end of a "game cycle" which tend to leak back into meatspace in a huge variety of ways

2. the debate here in this TN thread seems to be based mostly on ontological arguments (i.e. defining "what features or rules a world has")

3. by looking at web applications and the social processes they entail from all the perspectives mentioned above (and possibly incl. dimensions i have no idea of currently) using fine-grained differentiations on all of them you will be able to give every particular observation its proper place in a type of "high level web ontology" most of you guys might be able to accept

4. in consequence, before starting to discuss a particular "virtual world" one would specify more closely whether one is interested in e.g. ontological aspects, in aspects of contingency generation, or in social aspects of interpretation, the generative abilities of a certain community etc.

so in the case of myspace:
(a) ontological structure: much flatter (single layer horizontal network albeit extremely large) than in a MMOG/MMORPG/MUD and mostly as flat as SL (aka web pages in 3D)
(b) contingency: obviously reduced in terms of internal mechanics, but there nonetheless if you take social contingency in terms of unexpected friendships *and* abusive practices into account (somewhat cynically speaking ...)
(c) interpretation of outcomes: closely tied to the primarily social processes in myspace which probably entail the emergence of certain "micro-cycles" of "making/un-making friends", "digging/un-digging" certain offerings etc. its here where i would start to look for details of processes that lend themselves to analogy with "game-play" - in a pragmatic spirit of empirical soc sci...

[Thomas Malaby]

@?: Well, that's very gracious of you to spin out the connection that way. I hesitated (as in the other thread) to "push" my way of thinking about things too strongly in the context of someone else's post. (I also doubt I could have put the connections together so eloquently!)

[nate combs]

Thomas>
I'm struck by the turn back toward features of the environment (even, it seems, absent people) as somehow the right place to start. To do what you suggest directly above, shouldn't we focus on the point where the users and the architecture meet?

-------------------

While I don't think an ontological approach is sufficient to account for a 'virtual world' I think it still may be necessary.

Primarily, because to do otherwise would seem to almost collapse the entire definition down to social processes. Nothing wrong with that except that - it seems to me - one will end up with a definition w/out sufficient tooth: weak predictive and broad descriptive value. For example, I don't think it would be hard to stretch all sorts of social gatherings, online or otherwise into such a category.

I think it would be useful to be able to look at the features of an application and be able to correlate that via some algebra to the processes that emerge.

?'s comment "before starting to discuss a particular "virtual world" one would specify more closely whether one is interested in e.g. ontological aspects, in aspects of contingency generation, or in social aspects of interpretation, the generative abilities of a certain community etc."
seems reasonable as far as it goes. But I worry that separating these concerns will essentially lead to stove-pipe models none of which are complete enough to describe the elephant (so to speak).

Nate: "But I worry that separating these concerns will essentially lead to stove-pipe models none of which are complete enough to describe the elephant (so to speak)."

This is exactly why i would propose to keep *all* the different dimensions on the table and make sure that it's clear which one is currently in focus (but that doesn't mean that you *ignore* all the rest completely!)

Nate: "I think it would be useful to be able to look at the features of an application and be able to correlate that via some algebra to the processes that emerge."

Isn't it possible to extract the data needed for this description from a given "world server"?

In addition to analysing the code of the server engine you would need to use techniques derived from data mining and semantic ontological analysis yet with the huge advantage that the "verbs & nouns" are mostly known beforehand and pretty clearly defined (in contrast to semantic data mining in meatspace where finding an adequate ontology for "organization X" is extremely difficult.

[Andy Havens]

For some reason, I've been getting tagged as "Anonymous" on this machine... hmmm... So that last A. was me. My bad.

[?]

Andy, your writing style is unmistakable ;-D)

[Thomas Malaby]

Nate wrote:

I think it would be useful to be able to look at the features of an application and be able to correlate that via some algebra to the processes that emerge.

I heartily agree, and this led me, in formulating my Linden Lab project, to want to explore the production of that architecture as a social process. Yes, this is exploratory work (I think calling it "descriptive" sells it a bit short, but I understand what you're saying), but until we untangle enough of the factors in play here, in my opinion, it is premature to reach for predictive conclusions for their own sake. This doesn't by the way, spell "no utility" for the makers of these worlds. Reading a canon of great case studies goes a long way toward instilling good instincts about design decisions.

[nate combs]

?>
i would propose to keep *all* the different dimensions on the table and make sure that it's clear which one is currently in focus (but that doesn't mean that you *ignore* all the rest completely!)

------------------------
Okay. But why the need to say which one is in focus? When I hear this I think that each category is not orthogonal to each other. Any possibility of contradictory models across categories?

[?]

Nate: "When I hear this I think that each category is not orthogonal to each other. Any possibility of contradictory models across categories?"

I guess the possibility cannot be ruled out. I'd prefer to discuss this based on actual empirical data "from the field" (what other way is there to infer any type of even modestly broad model?)

Computer science theory and design combined with social science field work in my view has a certain tendency towards circular reasoning though - which may be unavoidable if your ultimate goal is to make sense of the (i.e. your own) human brain...;-)

[Tyche]

Is this really a virtual discussion? I can't hear anyone talking at all. I think this is an imaginary discussion rather than a virtual discussion. If this were a true virtual discussion you would have instantly recognized the sarcasm in the above.

[Michael Chui]

You have just heard the sound of one hand clapping. Welcome to level 2. Kill ten rats.

[Norman Maynard]

As to the original question of the post, I am probably one of the few here who generally excludes text-based environments from discussion when talking about virtual worlds. This is not because they are fundamentally different(they may or may not be as far as I'm concerned), but merely for pragmatic reasons.

When I talk about virtual worlds with economists or other academics, some key issues that always arise are psychological reality and whether users in virtual worlds behave in the same ways as individuals in 'real' economies. Arguing for textual environments satisfy this requirement is to some extent more difficult than for worlds that engage the senses more, and since graphical worlds are by far the more prominent anyway, I drop MUDs for the sake of simplicity.

As to the 'virtual'/'synthetic' debate, again as my perspective is more geared toward introducing the concept to a wider academic audience, I find 'virtual' to be the more pragmatic term. In my experience (talking to people in economics, psychology, and religious studies) the virtual/real distinction is not a problem in the sense usually feared, and as far as philosophical questions are concerned, it is hardly irrelevant anyway.

Thus, while the debate may rage within VW scholarship, I think we should also keep in mind that this is still a new concept for many fields, and simplicity is a better way to introduce it.

[Michael Chui]

Norman, you may want to browse DRSales. Dragonrealms is a text-based game.

[magicback (Frank)]

The understanding of the concept of VW by the broader population is shaped by media exposure: SL, WoW, etc. These are the prime reference points many will have. It's easy to use these common reference points to introduce people into the broader facets of VW.

As there are many facets, perhaps we can look for some common markers. To that end, I think we can check whether the 'world' is trying to represent the physical, social, economic, and dynamics (4 markers) of something.

Thus, instead of dimensions (or specific qualifiers), we're looking at markers.

So for GeoBliki, it does have the markers for a VW (physical and social, perhaps). It qualifies as 'virtual', but I personally would want more markers of what a 'world' is to say that it's a VW. For some MUDs, they were designed with an intent of worldbuilding.

I don't think the developers of GeoBliki or myspace intended to design a world. However, it can evolve into a VW as people start to add more elements of what a 'world' should have.

Frank

[Richard Bartle]

Andy Havens>Here's an interesting question: What is the minimum number of "possibilities" within a "domain" that are "rich enough" to generate a "reliable, shared" VW?

Virtual worlds arise when a number of independent components come together to create a structure that wasn't possible in any of them individually. In my book, I list these components as follows:

1) The world has underlying, automated rules that allow players to make changes to it.
2) Players represent individuals "in" the world - their characters. All interaction with the world and other players is chanelled through characters.
3) Interaction with the world takes place in real time.
4) The world is shared.
5) The world is, to at least some degree, persistent.

I could probably have said this a bit more cleanly than I did, but as a set of criteria I think they're reasonable. I certainly feel that if you want to count something as a "virtual world" that doesn't satisfy all these criteria then we need a new term to describe those things that do.

Richard

[?]

Norman: "When I talk about virtual worlds with economists or other academics, some key issues that always arise are psychological reality and whether users in virtual worlds behave in the same ways as individuals in 'real' economies. Arguing for textual environments satisfy this requirement is to some extent more difficult than for worlds that engage the senses more, and since graphical worlds are by far the more prominent anyway, I drop MUDs for the sake of simplicity."

I have to disagree. The economics simulations/strategies games used widely to introduce students to running a company as "team of corporate executives" in my experience are *completely* based on text and numbers. No graphics. No videos. These games are closer to MUDs or tabletop RPGs than to WoW.

[Andy Havens]

@Richard: I assume that, as far as those five rules go, if things *other than* those rules take place, it's OK. IE, that they are inclusive, but not exclusive rules. It they're exclusive, then WoW doesn't count as a VW, because.

1. Players can't change the world, really. Just their own set of stuff, levels, relationships, etc. The world remains, pretty much, the same as I left it. So "the world" includes player-specific data, right?

2. Not "all" interaction involving the world is through characters. Much interaction with WoW occurrs on bulletin boards, in out-of-game chat, etc., explicitly between players. Some of which is sanctioned by the publisher. The publisher also allows for multiple characters per player, and some players create multiples in order to more efficiently play "their main." They communicate this info to their guild through their player, which is, clearly, extra-characterular communication.

3. Much interaction in WoW is in real-time. Some is not, as there is a mail system, and some of the extra-world comms are on, as I said, bboards, fan-sites, etc. [Note: I also have a personal problem with this rule, but I'll cover that later]

4. There are shards; servers. So the "worlds" are shared. But not *the* **world**.

5. Oh, yeah, the world is persistent. I kill an NPC and he's back in 45 seconds so that another PC can kill him for the same quest. Highly persistent plot globules. But not persistent logic. So something's persistent, anyways.

So... While I *feel* that WoW is a VW, I'm just checking to be sure that the we're talking about the same things here ; )

[Michael Chui]

Andy,

Re #5: persistence refers to persistence across a server reset, as opposed to systems that get rebooted and wiped.

Re #3: The mail system isn't non-real-time. You don't pause the game to write and mail your letter, do you? The real world is no less real time from the presence of a postal system.

To your other points, I laugh, because it sounds to me like the end result of this discussion just might disqualify WoW as a VW. I think that's a very amusing possibility, but I don't think it'll happen.

[Thomas Malaby]

Great fodder for pushing this stuff further, Richard.

#1: This one (at least) is tricky if formulated that way. Instead, I would ask whether the players' (and other factors') actions have durable effects (whether on the environment or elsewhere). Or even better, ask whether the effects of their actions accumulate (such as in the forms of capital I described here). This allows us to see how, at least in WoW's case, there are a large amount of accumulated effects (in gear, levels, player competence, social relations, offices/roles, etc), despite the overall lack of effects on the world itself (hmmm....AQ gates...and that may be about it).

Also, I find "automated rules" a fascinatingly slippery portmanteau phrase ;-).

#2: I don't see any reason for this, if it means that either multiple or RL identities are disallowed.

#3: I'm not sure I see the reason for this, on its own. I would instead suggest that this is a proxy for something we think is important -- a kind of performative immediacy that calls for acting in an ad hoc, rather than always contemplative or reflective, mode. To me, this is a signal that a certain depth and range of performative challenge must be present.

#4: I don't know what this means, unless it means that the users' experience of the world is shared; then I would very much agree. :-)

#5: See #1 :-)

Norman: When I talk about virtual worlds with economists or other academics, some key issues that always arise are psychological reality and whether users in virtual worlds behave in the same ways as individuals in 'real' economies.

Don't know why one would bother looking at a world like WoW where players can't build anything. You're studying an economy that just doesn't support any introduction of external innovation.

[dave]

"Don't know why one would bother looking at a world like WoW where players can't build anything. You're studying an economy that just doesn't support any introduction of external innovation."

But there is innovation.

In Guild Wars players run shuttling service to help players achieve areas of the map they haven't visited yet. This is a player driven innovation.

The use of DPK (Dragon Kill Points) but raiders to determine who gets the loot. Here is a mini-economy within the larger economy. Not coded by the devs, not covered by any manual, yet it exists. It is player innovation.

Additionally, you have the idea of 'need before greed' that is present in some grouping situation. How does an economist explain the behavior of a player saying, 'I know I can sell that for 500 gold but you take it. You can use it.' Altruism in a virtual world?

All interesting stuff and well worth the look.

[Andy Havens]

@Michael: Mama always said... persistence is as persistence does. If I wipe the server of character details, but leave the ability to keep my player-to-player social contacts for a game world where that -- guild relationships, out-of-game bboard info, meet-up data, etc. -- is highly important to success... then the server wipe is less important than the social data. If however, I leave character data in place -- making that data persistent, but do not allow for any (or easy) RL player-to-player contact in order to facilitate out-of-game persistence... well... My point is that there are different levels and kinds of persistence when you have *players* and *characters* and *objects* and *terrain* and *locations* and *quests*... all of which can be variously persistent (or not), depending on the means and ends of the publishers and players.