Virtual Laguna Beach
How’d I miss this one? Yet another of the attempts to tie in media to a chat platform, Virtual Laguna Beach is apparently MTV using There.com’s platform. Based on a cursory glance, it replicates quite a lot of Laguna Beach detail, to a level beyond most of the environments that you usually see in There itself.
There always had some of the best social interaction design of any of the virtual worlds. Most people, alas, didn’t log in to check it out, but the way in which simple conversation was handled, among other things, was just very elegant.
At the time it launched, its tech requirements were a bit high, but as computers have advanced, it’s probably more accessible now. Though I note that the cool dogs, which were based on some insanely expensive neural net, are absent from the video on this page.
Looks like this Laguna Beach edition is now in alpha. Future starlets not included.
18 Responses to “Virtual Laguna Beach”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
There are dogs in VLB. You can pet them, etc.
It’s disturbing how significant that actually is. (Unless… it’s not? I sincerely don’t know; if it’s first time, then it’s significant. Annoyingly so.)
Oh good. Those crazy expensive dogs were actually one of the best parts of There.
[…] Comments […]
VLB is a start of a mass-market focused parallel virtualilities (um, a new word): the TV show, a high detailed virtual space VLB, the actual LB, the annotated google map version, etc.
Once effect is that kids will grow up with greater ability to differentiate parallel realities.
As for the neural net dogs, are we looking at a possible Silent(hill) Battlefield Virtual Laguna Beach featuring neural net dogs?
Frank
VLB is a start of a mass-market focused parallel virtualilities
On the heels of the discussion at Terra Nova, I am worried about terminology. I think those of us who enjoy the head-in-the-clouds academic gambit should discuss what an acceptable term would be.
I know that Richard Bartle’s book explicitly defines “virtual world” as “places where the imaginary meets the real”, on page 1.
Michael,
As for defining terminology and definitions, I agree. Many articles and legal documents start or ends with a section about terminology. It would be good to develop a generally accepted lexicon like GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).
Dr. Bartle’s definition for “virtual world” is a good start, but I think the key constraint in definition is “what constitutes a world?”
Therefore, I’m dropping the world constraint and just used the term “virtual” and begin using the term “parallel” more as many more elements are being linked to the real world, so much that they become more parallel than perpendicular, more alternative then different.
I don’t presume to define definitively the terminology, but I am pointing to the trend that we have virtual offices, virtual teams, and other virtual constructs like virtual communities, which in all three prior examples points to physicality.
So for Laguna Beach (LB), you get the actual physical location (which I will call Prime), and then other parallel LBs that have some or many facets (shards) of Prime and also have additional facets that are not based on Prime, such that when all facets are added the whole is greater than the sum of parts.
Now coming back to the basics, There.com appears to be moving towards being a mass-market middleware platform for the eventual spatial rendering of the internet or other commerical usage. On the otherhand, SL is moving towards and end-user platform.
With kids growing up with high level of relationships not linked to physicality, they will have a better ability to navigate and differentiate parallel elements. It’s smiliar to the idea that kids growing up with video games could be expected to improve hand-and-eye coordination.
So with that perspective, I like the development.
Frank
“what constitutes a world?”
He has an answer to that, too. =P
For some reason my mind doesn’t seem to be working, else I think I would have an answer to my next question: how do we determine who an inhabitant is and who isn’t? I feel like I’m missing the obvious when I ask this. Second, and better, question: if the inhabitants disagree on its self-containment, is it a world? I conceive of this intellectually, but note that the magic circle is a choice in the mind of the participants, and thus a world to some is not a world to others.
Also, I think the word “regard” needs to be pointed out. It has nothing to do with the actuality of the situation.
Quick Questions:
1. Is the There.com platform available for distrobution or do you have to pay a lic. for it? (I couldnt find anything related to distrobution on the site)
2. Besides Panda 3D and multiverse what other open platforms can one use to get thier “feet wet” in messing around with VW “design”.
Im asking because I wanted to try some testing on usability and barriers to entry for in using these platforms. The impetus being that AGC panel audio.
Michael,
As you pointed out in the use of the word “regard”, I find Dr. Bartle’s world definition too loose as it requires the inhabitants to qualify whether what they inhabits is a “world” or not. It’s like asking myspace users whether myspace is a “world” or not.
Allen,
I think There.com is on a “hosted” basis, which means you can discuss with them to host your development. The “Internet gone 3D” is the concept that’s hitting the rounds with venture capitalists.
Frank
Hmm, the links in My Space to places that are not My Space means it’s not self containted.
>whisper Rik Hey, check out this cool website I found. https://www.raphkoster.com/
It’s like asking myspace users whether myspace is a “world” or not.
But they’re decidedly qualified to answer. A world is a word because its inhabitants choose to regard it as one. If I go off into my own little world, it’s not relevant what Rik thinks of it. It’s self-contained for me, and Rik’s opinion is irrelevant.
Likewise, Norrath is a world because its inhabitants don’t care that it stole elves from Tolkien, the difference between mages and clerics from D&D, the fact that dragons are straight out of a Norse myth. These similarities do not bother its inhabitants, because they think that it works fine (immersion) and thus the boundary of the magic circle exists and the world is self-contained.
Think of it another way: if everyone but the players said that their world was not self-contained, it wouldn’t matter if the players felt it was.
But in the case of MySpace the inhabitants do not regard as being self-contained as indicated by the fact that they add doors. In this case the World Wide Web might be a world, but MySpace would only be a place.
If they need doors, wouldn’t that suggest there are walls?
It’s not up to you to decide whether or not MySpace can be a world. A world is a mental construct of its inhabitants. It cannot be decided objectively, since it is entirely a subjective concept.
If I made a couple level 60 characters (a reasonable argument for being an inhabitant) in WoW (since Richard Bartle’s proven that can be done in a couple weeks, assuming you don’t die of boredom), and then went around telling people about this cool new website, would WoW suddenly stop being a world? And let’s not restrict this to WoW; any MMORPG today. Yes, they might ban me… but then I’d make a level 60 on another account and continue. I could get a couple friends in on it. What are they going to do, disable chat? Is there no such thing as a world?
I can’t bring a Utube video into Ironforge, but I could add it to a MySpace webpage. Worlds actually do not have walls per the definition given; They are self-contained.
We don’t judge based on self-reported statements that which we can instead view.
My point was that there is no such thing as statements which are not self-reported.
If you start with self reported statements, your data is useless. Don’t ask people if they would be more likely to buy your magazine if it had a picture of a guy with a gun on the cover, sell it in one state with a guy and another state with a girl and her pet (a shark with a laser), then try to adjust the data for known factors and see which group say higher sales. Self-reported all people are above average. “Regard” here means “treat is as”, not “report it as”.
I wasn’t aware we were planning on doing a statistical analysis? You don’t plot a distribution and say, “Well, at the 60% threshold, it’s a world.” Unless you want to do it that way?
To me, self-reported meant that the respondent is delivering their opinion. You seem to view it as identical to self-selection. Come now: you say “start with”, as if you have some kind of process laid out for determining whether or not something is a virtual world. Don’t hold out on me; spill it.