[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Chris Gray]

[JC:]

:<<I strongly agree, and for the same reasons.	I have an annual budget of
:near zero for games, yet my annual software budget is many $hundred.  The
:last game I actually went out and bought was a second hand copy of SimCit=
:y
:over two years ago.  That was the first game I'd bought in almost 5 years=
:.=20
:Of course this places me outside of the game manufacturer's target
:market/demographics -- but I find it more interesting that I'm being
:joined.  I must wonder (hope?) if that motion will become general.>>

I'm sort-of in the same boat. Not owning a DOS/Windows machine shuts me out
of most of the new games, but even when the Amiga was "active", I never
bought many, and played even fewer. My fondest memories of computer game
player are of times when a group of us would wander around in the early
"Wizardry" games on a friend's Apple-II.

There is another interest in new games for some of us, however, and that
is simply viewing the results of other's work, and seeing what the state
of the art can produce. For this kind of please, you are unlikely to
actually finish or "win" the game - you are only viewing the technology,
so little immersion is ocurring.

: This may sound obvious, but there are endless examples of
: games available today, some of which are highly regarded,
: which are loaded with pointless interactive moments.
: Working an ATM machine is certainly an interactive
: experience, but it is neither fun enough nor interesting
: enough to deserve to be called participatory, and does not
: belong in a game.
:
:<<Echoes of the "eat food" debate for MUDs>>

Yep. Some players have apparantly come to expect such things, however -
I was asked the other day why there is no food to eat in my game. Shrug.

I think I would not be bothered by such things as long as they didn't
bother me! There needn't be a point - it can all be "atmosphere". However,
if I have to spend a minute or two every time my character needs to eat,
then I *will* become bothered.

: A game should offer the fastest and easiest possible way to do
: everything unless there is some entertaining or informative
: reason to prevent it.
:
:<<Which says a lot about the current state of MUD parsers and much of what
:has been debated here in regard to what could be done>>

Agreed. If we can't successfully bring off a parser that really does handle
99% of what it looks like it handles, we should step back and go to a
simpler system, that *can* handle 99% of what *it* looks like it handles.
Of course, we could likely end up endlessly arguing whether or not a given
system really does handle given situations!

: Never take over control of the player's character.
:
:<<This would seem to argue against the RP-common point of automating
:certain player reactions, such as becoming angry and attacking when
:another character spills his beer on you.>>

I suggest that it is OK to give the player the ability to specify (or
choose) their character's reactions. No need to get as complex as JC's
combat scripts, but such things as choosing whether or not the character
has a bad temper. This can allow many aspects of RP, while still allowing
a more realistically implemented world, where the computer has to take
some control, because the various humans cannot react quickly enough to
the situation.

: Less Is More

I think I agree with this basic concept. However, having not played many
of the newer games, I may simply be less jaded than most.

--
Chris Gray   cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA