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

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 20 Jan, Brandon J. Rickman wrote:

Please,

We are all taking these arguments badly out of the context they are made
in. Originally I made my comments about how text and graphics seem to be
different to me somewhat  (or very much) exagerrated.  I did that so the
difference between the two  was more clear.  Text is better at conveying
moods with little effort. To do the same in graphics requires a lot more
work and skilled artist. On the other hand graphics will give a lot more
information than is possible in text, unless done by an exceptional wri-
ter.  There is no point in trying to decide which is better, or how good
writing should not be compared to poor graphics or vice versa.
Games with a lot of action (like the majority of muds) are better suited
for graphics, unless they are written very well. Some of the things that
have been talked about in this thread  suggest that it is possible for a
text mud to exist,  but in general I would belief this is better handled
by graphics. On the other hand by moving over entirely to graphics there
are things you will loose  that make a mud unique.  Exactly those things
that make a book different from a movie.

> I couldn't let this go unchallenged:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:03:15, Nathan Yospe <yospe at hawaii.edu> wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Richard Woolcock wrote:

> >:[lost attribution said:]

> >:> But who says you have to?  Just as your text description doesn't try
> >:> to give all the details of the dragon's color, size, texture, etc.
> >:> that it could, there's no reason that a graphical representation has to
> >:> be highly detailed.  The dragon could be shown in a cartoon/comic-book

> >Ruins the flow...

> The flow of what?  Photo-realism?  Maybe cartoon/comic-book doesn't
> fit the mood of Severed Head Graphical Mud, but it all depends on the
> mood/style/theme of the mud in question.

No. What is lost is any chance of immersion in the game. You may still have
a interesting or fun game to play, but it won't be able to draw you in like
a real good story can achieve.  A believable gameworld  requires believable
images.  That is in my opinion the main difference between text and images.
If the the text lacks detail  you somehow make it up in your mind,  without
being aware of it.  If the image lacks detail it just lacks detail  and the
result does not look convincing  to the same degree as the text does. It is
of course possible to omit too much detail from the text  and then you lose
the suspension of disbelief in a text also,  but with graphics this happens
much faster.

> >:> fashion, could be represented by a semi-abstract icon, or could be shown

> >Likewise, unless very subtly done.

> Photo-realism seems to be the most unsubtle type of representation.
> Maybe you aren't advocating that, but I sense some criticism
> of abstration in the comment.

Indeed, however there may be a difference in expectation of the game.

> >:> like a charcoal sketch.  Such representation leave more room for the

> >This is better. Still hard to do well, though.

I think this is a very good way to approach. The basic loss of immersion
problem still applies, but the game may be visually much more attractive
than an attempt at extreme realism.

> Are you saying people wouldn't play these games, or just that they would
> be hard to design?  Photoshop has all sorts of cool filters these days.
> We need to start evaluating stylized muds against cool graphical
> muds, both in the same category, otherwise they'll start giving out
> awards like "Best Realistic Mud" and ghettoize everything else.

Oh no.  The previous discussion was about the difference between text and
graphics in representing game worlds and how these have different effects
on the players. Somehow the discussion has begun to slip towards a 'why a
graphical image doesn't work (as well)' kind of discussion.

> (Am I becoming paranoid?)

> >:Seeing "A large green dragon claws you" wouldn't scare me.
> >:Seeing a cartoon dragon hitting me would make me laugh - it would also
> >:spoil the atmosphere, unless the mud was supposed to be funny.

> >Agreed. The text that most muds use is a lot like said cartoon.

It takes at least a moderately competent writer to capture enough of an
atmosphere in text so players will be drawn in by it.  Most muds do not
seem to have the luxury of employing competent writers.

> This is the true test:
> A big cartoon dragon claws you.
> A big cartoon dragon rips off your head.
> ** You have died. **
> % page Wiz "Totally unfair! I can't be killed by a cartoon dragon!!!"

> If this happened in a _silly_ mud the player wouldn't react the same
> way.  Probably in the above universe cartoon monsters are a lot
> meaner than normal monsters.  Pretty easy to justify, I imagine.

I am afraid this is putting the arguments even more out of context than
they already where.  The infamous green dragon  appeared in this thread
when  I needed an example  to explain how text can evoke emotions  more
easily than graphics.  It is easier to say that a dragon is terrifying,
and be believable,  than it is to show a terrifying dragon.  Other than
that perhaps the poor abused creature should be returned to its lair.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey