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

[Mike Sellers]

At 10:12 PM 1/20/98 PST8PDT, Brandon J. Rickman wrote:
>I like to think that although there is a vocal share of the gaming
>audience that demands the fanciest graphics requiring the fastest
>machines, this visually oriented/impaired group is only a very small
>part of the potential audience for VR and virtual environments.

True.  But those people are the capstone of the customer base, and to a
large degree drive it.  Those who do not demand the fanciest graphics
nevertheless *do* demand what were the fanciest graphics of no more than
4-5 years ago.  IOW, the demand is not static for the bulk of the
population, and it is the early-adopter/neophiles who drive this demand.  

>People who demand the best (the most sophisticated) graphics are pretty
>much stating that they don't want visual ambiguity or abstraction to be 
>part of the game.  

I'm not sure that's the case.  That's sort of like saying that those who
demand the greatest audio fidelity in their speakers want to hear only
precisely performed Mozart, and not jazz or hip hop.  There is a difference
between a desire for better visual resolution, color usage, frame rate,
lighting effects, and overall immersiveness, and not wanting visual
abstraction or ambiguity.  Actually, a game that involved Dali-esque or
Escher-esque visual ambiguities has never been possible before, but it
might be now, or soon (there are a couple of scenes from "The Labyrinth"
movie that might be very interesting to reproduce in a game).   

>But ambiguity seems to be one of the potential
>merits of text, so maybe it's not possible to please the people that
>want cool graphics at the same time as the people who want compelling
>environments.

To me this is just a variant of calling people who like graphics
functionally illiterate.  I don't think that's the case at all.  Look, for
example, at the evolution of graphically and intellectually simple comic
books into graphically and intellectually sophisticated "graphic novels."
There is definitely still a lot of schlock out there in the comics world,
but there are other stories, from "When the Wind Blows" to "Maus" to "Moby
Dick" that make unique use of the graphical medium in a way that satisfies
both eye and mind.  In other words, I think the perceived split between
those who want cool graphics and those who want compelling environments is
a false and misleading dichotomy.  

>The point isn't to argue against graphic-based muds but rather to figure
>out how to introduce the good qualities of text muds to a 2- or 3-D
>mud.  Often 3D designers use level of detail (LOD) to "simplify"
>objects that may be far away from the user.  It is a practical concern:
>too many polygons will slow down the graphics, and since things in the
>distance are so small, no one will notice or care if they have less 
>detail.  But why "things in the distance" and not "things of no
>current interest"?

New, dynamic-LOD/progressive-mesh engines will to some degree do away with
this arbitrary simplification.  

>So maybe the dragon you are fighting has a really low polygon count.
>You can see that is it green, and you've fought hundreds of green dragons
>before, so you don't really care to examine it any closer.  

The difference is that a brief text description is not equivalent with a
low-poly-count monster.  You could, I suppose, present a nicely rendered
model using basic textures rather than special ones, if the basic ones
rendered faster -- but who's to say that this is the right thing to do?
You've fought a hundred green dragons before, but always marvelled at the
way their scales sparkled in the sunlight as the last of the life shuddered
out of them.  You don't get that with low-poly count/basic texture/brief
description monsters.

>
>What this seems to be leading to: "looking" is an action.  For the most
>part, you can look for free in text muds, and you can hardly avoid it in
>2/3D muds.  Looking in detail is sometimes not a free action, but the
>current 2/3D philosophy is that looking is always free.

Not necessarily.  The equivalent of an "examine" command is a good idea, I
think: it takes time and focus, but might show you something you'd
otherwise miss.  The nifty thing about a graphical world is that you can
show the user the more detailed version of the object, but you don't have
to actually *tell* them about it.  So are those parts of the design on the
chest really teeth, or am I imagining things?  Is that a pin with a glob of
poison on it, or just a trick of the light?  Sometimes such ambiguities are
easier to bring off with graphics than with plain text.  


--

Mike Sellers   Chief Alchemist -- Online Alchemy   mike at online-alchemy.com

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung