[MUD-Dev] A flamewar startingpoint.

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

coder at ibm.net wrote:
>Which reads as below.  I've inserted brief comments surrounded by double
>square brackets]]:

(I guess you changed your mind .-)

> Arcade, Puzzle, Strategy, and Story Game Design
>
> I see four principal types of games out there right now: arcade,
> puzzle, strategy, and story.
>
><<Obvious parallels to Bartle's 4 point system>>

Except he doesn't cover the same cathegories and doesn't squeeze them
into a stupid axsis system.  I admit I get suspicious about anything
that ends up in magic numbers or magic geometric representations.
They are, in my experience, usually flawed. Here, Glassner missed one
major game type: simulations.

> So why do I (and, I believe, many others) play them? Novelty.
> There is something exciting about the potential of today's
> games, enfeebled as they are. But novelty is transient. I have
> already begun to bore of most genres of computer games, and I
> predict that as time goes one, other players will come to share
> my apathy. Sales and interest will drop as novelty wears off if
> we don't create something enduring to take its place. That's
> why it's important to try to figure out how to build better
> games now.
>
><<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 SimCity
>over two years ago.  That was the first game I'd bought in almost 5 years. 
>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.>>

If this motion is becoming general then we are up for a very
interesting situation!  However, I've always been this way when it
comes to games, I almost always looked at ideas and technology and
only occasionally been caught by the actual gameplay (in my teens I of
course got all my games for free from friends, unlimited access,
sometimes before they hit the market).  I don't think what designers
look for in games is neccessarily what the general public looks for.
I only buy novelty (old Infocom,Myst,Creatures being the only ones),
and as most companies now provide enjoyable demos, I never really feel
like buying the real thing. (Don't worry, I don't get them from
friends anymore) I think I would have bought both "chaos engine" and
"worms" if it hadn't been for the fact that their demo versions were
enough for me.  I probably wouldn't have bought Creatures if they had
provided a demo. This is an area where single user game productions
are having a real problem.  I think demo promotions is more likely to
work in a multiuser setting.  I believe it will work best if you
provide free access, but limited freedom. This way the user will log
on, hear about all the fun the others (his new friends) have access to
and hopefully he will eventually pay...

> 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.>>

Is this beer thing actually used in muds? (of course, if you have a
gamemaster he will try to make sure that the less skilled players stay
in character) Some automating is making adrenaline-pumping action
possible in a lag situation.

Ola.