[MUD-Dev] The impact of the web on muds

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  3 Jan 98 at 4:59, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Fri 02 Jan, Mike Sellers wrote:
> > At 01:59 AM 12/26/97 PST8PDT, Matt Chatterley wrote:
> > >On Thu, 25 Dec 1997, ##Make Nylander wrote:
> 
> [lots of original postings snipped, sorry]
> 
> > The analogy of graphical muds == video while text muds == books is both
> > mistaken and more than a little odiously self-congratulatory.  Also, I read
> > in your above comments the all-too common and self-defensive insinuation
> > that people who do not prefer text muds do not have the same highly
> > developed imagination that confirmed text mudders do and/or have too short
> > an attention span to really appreciate the subtleties of text games (having
> > grown up on Nintendos).  If such narrow-minded and patronizing implications
> > were not your intent, I apologize.
> 
> I did not read this in the original post. However, because there are less
> clues in a bit of text, a text-only game *requires* more imagination from
> the player. This actually is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  It is
> harder for the players to immerse themselves in the game, if that is what
> they want.  On the other side,  it also allows the players to fill in the
> missing details.  This means that the image 'works' better  than watching
> an image generated by somebody else where there is less room for imagina-
> tion.
> Images would work better for games  where you need to see a lot of things
> at a glance. Fast paced combat games would be suitable candidates. On the
> other hand  games with a introspective atmosphere,  or where images would
> not work as well (e.g. horror themes), would be better suited for a text-
> only design.  A picture of a monster is not half as scary at the gruesome
> monster from your imagination.
>

I do prefer text to graphics, reading to movies.  Yet I do question one 
thing though.  I don't follow the *imagination* arguments.  I don't believe 
it is true that reading "forces" or "requires" one to exercise their 
imagination any more than watching a movie does.  I don't find people who 
don't read any less *imaginative* than those who do (more knowledgeable, 
yes, but that's something else).  Frequent movie goers may likely have
more intense dreams (Freddy Kreuger has been known to spark a lot of 
imaginative dreams in many non-readers I know :> ).
I think it would be a bad novel indeed which imposed or forced this task 
upon the reader.  As it is many muds are really bad novels, if that at all. 
I think the effort and responsibilty of exercising the imagination lies 
with the author.  A good author will draw the reader into the mood and 
images he/she wants to imprint on the readers mind.  Resistance to the 
author's image becomes futile for the reader.  

I think it has more to do with difficulty.  The activity of reading itself 
is an "unnatural" activity for humans.  A communications contrivance we 
have developed over the centuries, which is as alien to our physiological 
perception senses as seeing neutrinos are to our eyes.  That is smelling, 
touching, listening, and visual examination are far more "natural" to us 
and easier than reading.  I think it is quite natural for most people to 
prefer a graphical game than a textual game and not really an indicator of 
intelligence nor imagination.

Historical Aside: Silent reading to oneself was largely unheard of as 
late at the 4th century AD and quite likely much later.  A monk, Father 
Ambrose, in the south of France (not the famous St. Ambrose) was one of
the first to be observed to have a rather strange and unusual habit of 
reading without speaking. 

Not sure where I'm going with that aside, but perhaps it is more natural
and easier to listen to someone read than to read silently.  Of course
the style of our prose has changed so much that the oral nature of reading
has been a largely lost art.  There is the significant exception of poetry! 
If anyone were to make good use of audio, I think a writing conventions 
and styles would change quite a bit.

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato