Some degree of persistence is key (just so we can rule out Pong), some degree of immersion is key (just so we can rule out chat rooms), and the social dimension is key (just so we can rule out Morrowind). But I think that the remaining factors listed there are are essential to limit the VW field to the core issues. Some of that is redundant - e.g., I think immersion requires representation. On our about page, we say that virtual worlds are computer-generated, persistent, immersive, and representational social platforms. (Our original page included all "realms of emergent collective reality" as I think we phrased it) :-) I think we mostly use it here because it seemed to be the most settled term that we were *all* using - and Richard's book kind of cinched it. I don't think there's much consensus on the term beyond that. Mark Poster, Marie-Laure Ryan and others have played with defining the word "virtual," by you can't get too far by just looking at the two words in the case of VWs - the term reflects the phenomenon, not vice-versa. It's a good question, and a threshold question to thinking about VWs as a discret field. Is Diablo (Blizzard) on Battlenet a virtual world of 40K players? And what about City of Heroes, what if you logged on one day and everyone was on an (instanced) mission? Would you still believe? ![]() If you believe in the "MM" (as in MMORPG) requirement - what about instancing? Take it to an extreme.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |