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

[Adam Wiggins]

[Jon A. Lambert:]
> On  3 Jan 98 at 4:59, Marian Griffith wrote:
> > 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 

No, it's not quite like this.  It's funny, I had this exact same
conversation with my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago.  She abhors
reading fiction of any sort, yet she loves to watch movies.  I like
movies, but I far prefer books.  There's a few reasons for this, the
main one of which being that I like extremely twisted and complex stories
whereas she likes simple and straightforward ones, but one thing we
hit upon was imagination.  It first came up when we were talking about
some of the vistas in Braveheart (which I forced her to watch just
recently, and she ended up liking much more than she thought she would).
Her words were basically, "How could you imagine something as breathtaking
as that?"  To which my response was, "That's nothing like what I can
imagine."
We finally arrived at the conclusion that she simply has great difficulty
conjuring visual images.  Whereas for me being presented an image puts a
cap on how beautiful or stunning it can be, whereas I can imagine an
infinitely beautiful scene.

Thus, it's not that reading forcers or requires exercise of the imagination.
It's that those with more vivid imaginations will enjoy it more.

> 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.  

Another point is that there's a huge difference between the writing
in a book and a mud.  The stuff on a mud can be thought of as snipits
from a book, true, but IMO a good zone only describes the area, and
leaves mood to the reader, since it actually varies from character to
character.  Darkness and shadow could indicate that the area is spooky
and potentitaly hiding enemies for one character, whereas it could be
quiet, solace, and protection for another character.

> 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.

I agree.  Text is a very handy format for packing tons of information,
but is not natural for humans to use as an interface.  Society has
only bred us to be good with it; some are much better than others, and
some even have grown to prefer it.  The later are still in the minority,
I believe.

> 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.

Well, one might assume that writing styles changed quite a bit as
silent reading became popular.  Certainly phrasing for a conversation
is very different from phrasing for 'silent' text.  Sometimes this is good;
I think this list benefits quite a bit from being in the format it is
in, rather than either recorded audio clips or a live audio conference.