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

[Brandon J. Rickman]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:57:29, Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
>On Tue 20 Jan, Brandon J. Rickman wrote:
>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 will admit I have hijacked the subject and moved it to dark territory.
"The impact of the web on muds" is pretty broad, someone should probably
propose a better subject.  I am interested in the topic as a way to 
debunk the claims that X can only be done well with text and not
graphics and vice-versa.  Neither text nor graphics are particularly
easy to do well, but the quality of the end result depends on the
specific design and implementation, not some absolute "low polygon
graphics always suck" kind of criteria.  The amount of effort required
to do something depends on where you apply that effort, and creating
a mood with text can be very difficult if done the wrong way ("Text
is better at conveying moods with little effort." above).  Okay,
we aren't going to compare text to graphics anymore.  So how can we
make text more like graphics - more active or lifelike - and graphics
more like text - more moody or whatever?

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

I don't believe there is a simple and obvious correllation between the
amount of detail in an image and how convincing is it.  Images are
far from fragile.  Computer graphics in special effects are usually more
overdone than anything else.  A story that tries too hard to be believable
quickly becomes tiresome (e.g. every meal a character eats is carefully
described).

>> 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.

I would like to challenge people's expectations, especially that very
large group of people who are currently uninterested in games because
of the purely visual emphasis of current popular games.

>> 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.

I would prefer 'why throwing more computing power at graphics doesn't
work', but that will just get me into trouble.

>> >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.

The origin of muds was and still is of a grass roots nature - people
without expert skills creating typo-filled vistas of text that are 
rather memorable.  Some people state they cannot play a game filled with
typos and grammatical errors, but since the same people that create muds
also tend to play muds you can't go anywhere without someone sending you
a poorly spelled chat message.  Mudding is low-brow entertainment, and
homemade graphic muds will be ugly and malformed, but the players
will still enjoy themselves.  

The current theory is that people will only pay for commercial muds if
they are well done - free from typos, highest quality graphics.
But now the players don't have the luxury of adding to the world, or
can only build from some toolbox of approved graphics.  I'll leave the
question open as to why contributing to the world is part of what
makes muds compelling.

>> This is the true test:
>> A big cartoon dragon claws you.
>> [...]

>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.

Dragons are pretty powerful mythological figures, so let's pick a less
symbolically burdened creature.  How about a duck?

A terrifying text duck:

The duck sits tensely, seemingly ready to pounce at any moment.  Its razor
sharp beak is open just enough to emit an evil hissing sound.  The talons
are stained dark with the blood of its victims.

A terrifying graphical duck:

Okay, I'm not going to create a terrifying 3D duck right now, but which
would be more terrifying?  Perhaps a terrifying 3D duck _wouldn't even 
look like a duck_.  But the combination of the words "terrifying" and
"duck" is probably more absurd than any image would be.  This is an
incomplete example, but hopefully it says something about when and how
graphics work better than text.

- Brandon Rickman - ashes at zennet.com -
While I have never previously found a need for a .sig, this
may be considered one for the purposes of this list