« The Cookie Monster Economy and "Guild Socialism" | Main | I Gamer »

May 03, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c022953ef00e5520be7288833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Atlas of our Terra Nova?:

Comments

1.

I agree a wikified version would be really nice. I wonder if we started one rolling, would it go anywhere? It will certainly be worth looking at this to see some of the lesser known worlds.

Check out the remarkably succint description of WoW:

"Currently the largest MMORPG (massively multiplayer online game), where avatars explore, fight monsters, go on quests, build and interact with others for which they are rewarded with money and other things."

2.

I'm a little surprised at how spotty, incomplete, and sometimes flat-out wrong this list is. There seems to be no consistent rationale for listing things either.

For instance:
* They include Club Marian but not Sherwood RPG, which is far larger and more popular.

* They skip the hundreds of virtual worlds whose primary interface is text entirely (some of which have larger user-bases than a number of the virtual worlds, and it's clearly not from a lack of room since they feel it's worth including some virtual worlds that aren't even operating any more (though they're far from comprehensive about that).

* They also left out dozens of primarily graphical-interface virtual worlds, again with no seeming pattern.

* They include both AdventureQuest and Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, both of which are single-player games, lacking even multiplayer modes as far as I'm aware (I haven't played AQ a ton, but I beat Hulk when it came out a few years ago on the original Xbox.) I could see someone being lazy and just assuming AQ is a virtual world, though of course all you have to do is fire it up once to realize it's not, I can't see any reason whatsoever to include Hulk unless you're also going to include pretty much every single-player video game ever made.

* They include some companies but in a very haphazard and odd fashion. For instance, Areae is not a virtual world nor a virtual world product - it's a company (and its product Metaplace is included). Why not include Sony, Microsoft, NCSoft, K2, The9, Vivendi, etc in that case?

It's not a matter of missing some corner cases here or there - it's a bafflingly weird list that seems to have no rhyme or reason as to what they decided to include.

--matt

3.

Yay Matt! See? This is why it needs to have the collective intelligence involved... I'm just impressed that anyone tried.

4.

(I was going to point out you don't really "build" anything in WoW, but I thought I'd try not being critical.)

(See how long *that* lasted!)

5.

Sorry Greg, but it's like looking at a periodic table of the elements, seeing entries for 'mustard' and 'chinchilla' but none for xenon, carbon, or iron. Hard to avoid commenting on the oddness!

6.

The points pointed out by Matt should certainly be taken into consideration. Apart from that, they could certainly use a peer review. AQ is as much of a VW as tetris is a FPS.

You don't really need a Wiki for this sort of thing though. You could just as well just link the different terms to Wikipedia sites, as quite a few of them are very well described already.

7.

I got invited to this thing. Fortunately, I saw a talk by Prof. Delwiche, who said that this founder:

http://www.associationofvirtualworlds.com/contact_us.php

is the same Edita Kaye as this person:

http://www.amazon.com/Skinny-Pill-Edita-Kaye/dp/0963515047

This Edita Kaye got fined for fraud:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/skinnypill.shtm

nb: virtual worlds do not make you skinny.

8.

(Note to self: in the future, just be critical.)

9.

Check out its description of Spore.

10.

and so on...

11.

Guys guys. You missed out Animal Crossing Wild World and Burnout Paradise. To name two that are, you know played by lots of real people.

12.

Ditto, need to be more critical! But that's why the hivemind works so well...

13.

There *was* a wiki attempt to do this from Federation of American Scientists:
http://vworld.fas.org

though last update was early 2007

14.

Thanks for all of the comments. The wiki idea is a very good one and I will investigate. I am grateful for all constructive comments.

As for personal attacks, I really think that they're unfortunate (and they're also inaccurate). Take a look at what's going on at the Association of Virtual Worlds. A group that has grown from 0 to nearly 1600 in three months. A publishing division that has a series of books in development, from "How To" books, to "Success Stories" related to virtual worlds, to a book on the corporation and how virtual worlds will impact them.

As an HR attorney and former global IT executive, I, personally, am passionate about the medium of virtual worlds and how they, unlike anything before them, have the ability to eliminate the challenges of distance.

I care very deeply about the Association, its people, and all of its potential to advance this wonderful industry. It is an innovative and terrific group and I invite all of your to participate. Thanks.

15.

Dave, I'm glad you found your way here (I think!). Do take the comments in context... I, for one, appreciate the effort that went into it, despite the quibbles here and there. Any gripes people have about the content could be easily rectified by giving the power to the people. :-)

16.

Is this some kind of hi-school list making project?

The comments to this entry are closed.