# Template Theories

LLMS index: [llms.txt](/dvw/en/llms.txt)

---

It’s easier to create something new by beginning with something old than it is to start from nothing. In developing a critical aesthetic for virtual worlds, it makes sense to look at existing theories for related art forms and see what light they can shed. It’s unlikely that they’ll fit very closely, but nevertheless they could provide a framework on which to build. Perhaps the symbolism used in virtual worlds is gifted to us already through that of its nearest relatives?

I assert that the two closest art forms to virtual worlds are computer games and film [^14]. Computer games don’t yet have a theoretical underpinning. Everything is still too transient because technology is always ahead. The reason your mobile phone has more computational power than the 1970s mainframe on which MUD1 was written is entirely due to

computer games. Business users didn’t push for faster CPUs, better sound, better graphics, higher-capacity portable media; computer gamers did. I bought my first CD-ROM drive after installing a game that came on nine floppies; because enough people like me did the same thing, the price of CD-ROM drives fell and new PCs started appearing with them fitted as standard. I didn’t buy a 19-inch monitor so I could keep more spreadsheet windows open at once; I bought it because it allowed me to see more of the Civilization II map. Early adopters—who will pay a premium for the latest technology if it means they can play the latest games—play games. Unfortunately, this implies the level of innovation is currently too high for a critical aesthetic to be viable.

The alternative view is that innovation is actually low because publishers too often play it safe, and a critical aesthetic doesn’t exist because no self-respecting academic would sacrifice their career to develop one.

Computer games do have critics, in the form of reviewers who describe the latest games in professional magazines. In comparing the various merits of games, clearly some aesthetic is in action (even if it’s moderated by the fact that many magazines are heavily reliant on income from advertising taken out by the publishers of the very games reviewed). Reviewers will in general comment on a game’s genre, its graphics and sound quality, its gameplay, any special features, any technical issues, and its relationship to similar games; mainly, though, they’re interested in whether it is fun to play. If it doesn’t engage them, they will criticize it; if it does, they’ll give it a high rating. Some magazines attempt to break down ratings into their contributing parts (graphics, sound, gameplay, and so on), but that’s as far as it goes.

Given that the form of reviews has now stabilized (you could take a review from five years ago, bring its references up to

date, and it would read like a review from today), there may well be the makings of a Theory of Computer Games here. Unfortunately, we don’t have one yet. Thus, although I can draw parallels between virtual worlds and computer games, clearly I can’t use any Theory of Computer Games as a foundation for looking at virtual worlds because there isn’t one.

For film, on the other hand, there does exist a mature critical aesthetic [^15]. Because of this, movies can entertain and have meaning beyond entertainment. Although there’s nothing to stop computer games from having meaning beyond entertainment, their lack of a critical aesthetic makes this a rare occurrence; this is why when something entertaining does arrive that gives players cause to introspect, it’s regarded as something special [^16].

I shall therefore base my analysis of virtual world aesthetics primarily on that of film theory. Those readers about to panic in fear that I’m justifying subjecting them to yet another dose of reference-heavy academic prose will doubtless be pleased to learn that no knowledge of film studies is assumed. You may need to know where I’m coming from, but you don’t need to know what I’m coming from….


[^14]: Sorry, theatre fans, but virtual worlds aren’t performance. Sorry, literature fans, but virtual worlds aren’t story. Sorry, urban planning fans, but virtual worlds aren’t community.
[^15]: Rooted, incidentally, in those of film’s closest relatives, photography and theatre.
[^16]: Example: the Ultima series.