… see also this nice travel article

No matter what the folks at Terra Nova think, there is no dividing line. Some multiplayer environments are more worldy. Some are more gamey (and some players are very gamy, but that’s a matter for another day). But it’s just as valid a topic of discussion when it’s about Barbie Online as it is about Second Life.

I prefer the Game vs. Toy breakdown myself. I think that’s more informative, and more useful in the long run, than Game vs. World.

If I ever give Jack Thompson a call, I’ll probably be arrested for what I say to him.

I refuse to follow the politically correct school of thought that says all possible decisions, all possible actions, all possible lifestyles, are equally worthwhile. Call me old-fashioned, but I see differences in social worth between the choices, and the outcomes of those choices, we make in life. I see what Scott, our fine host, does for a living as a much higher calling than, say, what Jack Thompson does. Political correctness has made a mockery of equality. All people are entitled to equal rights, but that does not mean that all the things people do are of equal value. Devoting your life to finding a cure for cancer and devoting your life to bumming quarters off random passers-by are not equal in my eyes, and only someone blinded by political correctness could say that they are. And, yes, I believe that a life as an animated decoration is on the less positive end of the scale.

It’s a Barbie game. That’s what Barbie is about. Dressing up and shopping. In other news, water is wet.

Your complaints strike me as similar to other complaints about video games – Doom makes people killers, GTA makes people criminals, etc.

“…the game’s core concept, that all the things that my generation and those before us fought to achieve are meaningless, and girls should aspire to be nothing more than shallow, trivial playthings?”

Maybe you could give Jack Thompson a call and get a class action suit going?

TANSTAAFL. Or TANSTAAFG, in this case.

But I imagine that Barbie Incorporated probably agrees with Female Gamer more than you might think. At least for the last few decades, Barbie has been pushed as the girl who can do *anything,* and look good doing it, darnit! The message is that you can do anything any guy could do, but not have to give up being girly to do it.

With that official dogma in mind, Barbie Girl does seem sparse, and could use a lot more activities to hold interest. There is only so many times you can try on a virtual dress without boring even the most fashion obsessed. But it is still listed as being in Beta, so I would be very surprised if there weren’t some big changes coming.

Also, no mention has been made that to get to the “really” good stuff, you need to buy the MP3 player and dock it into your computer.

But my first thought was, where’s TonkaBoys Online? And next logical question, can the boys in their bulldozers crossover into Barbieland and do some major mayhem?

BvB!!

Woot!

At the end of your previous post you said you thought you would go PvP some. That’s when I lost all interest in your opinions on raising kids.

Just how, exactly, does my liking for competing against other players instead of against a highly predictable computer program relate to the validity of my opinions on raising kids? Or do you only accept opinions from women who fit your stereotypes, and it’s a common stereotype that female gamers don’t like PvP? Sorry to bust up your stereotypes there, JuJutsu, but I do prefer competing against real opponents, with all their variety and intelligence and unpredictability, instead of computer programs. My reference to PvP was meant as “I need to go do something stereotypically ‘un-girly’” after seeing and discussing all that pinkness … what did you read into it?

I didn’t get my PvP, though. Got interrupted and had to log before my battleground slot came up.

Where do I blame men? For all I know, the developers of Barbie World are 100% female. I never said a word about who was at fault. I just criticized the product, and the mindset it enforces.

You sure didn’t. I’m very sorry.

I do disagree with you in that I don’t see girls as being limited to playing Barbie. If anything, they have more choices than boys. They can play Barbie or Kart Rider or anything else without any (much?) social stigma for their choice: Boys playing Barbie better keep keep quiet about it.

As for how shallow – or superficial – it is, that seems common to all games. Most take kind of one thing and make their game about that.

On the one hand, it’s impossible to make a single game with everything in it. They made the Barbie game about playing dress-up. But that’s what Barbies are about; presumably what those interested in playing Barbie are interested in doing (between sessions of Kart Rider). It doesn’t prohibit girls from playing other games or prevent other games being made.

I’m sorry your parents tried to make you into something you weren’t. Isn’t it kind of the same thing to forbid playing dress-up if that’s what a girl wants to do? I mean, if it’s not all the girl ever wants to do…

Reminds me of criticism about Danica McKellar’s book; really just for it acknowledging that lots of girls do care about girly stuff (and not allowing that to exclude an interest in math).

It just sounds like you’re saying, “Girls must NEVER play dress-up.”

But I don’t want to put words in your mouth again. The game you describe, though? Why limit that to a female audience by tying it to Barbie? Lots of guys would dig that too.