[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mike Sellers [SMTP:mike at bignetwork.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 01, 1998 11:07 AM
> To:	mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject:	[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun
> 
> At 08:42 PM 6/29/98 +0100, Marian Griffith wrote:
> >In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Mon 29 Jun, Koster, Raph wrote:
> 
> No, freedom is not a myth!  In fact, I would say that the single
> biggest
> reason why people are dissatisfied with UO today (or M59 last year) is
> because these games unexpectedly constrain their freedom at every
> turn.
> More pointedly, these games *advertise* freedom and then don't provide
> it
> -- many players *can't* do the things they really want because either
> the
> game or other players constrain them from doing so.  
> 
In fact, a question I'd ask is whether the increased freedoms that have
come over time in certain mud designs have increased the
dissatisfaction... in other words, seeing a line of evolution from MUDI
to Aber to Diku to M59 and UO, all gaming-oriented environments in many
ways, we do see an increased freedom in the feature set, more ability
for players to act freely. Does the fact that they have more freedom
make players more sensitive when a particular freedom turns out not to
be supported by the code base?

> So here's my hypothesis: the more persistence a game/world tries to
> have;
> the longer it is set up to last; the greater number (and broader
> variety)
> of people it tries to attract; and in general the more immersive a
> game/world sets out to be -- then the more breadth and depth of human
> experience it needs to support to be successful for more than, say,
> 12-24
> months. 
> 
No question. And "human experience" doesn't mean implementing "eating"
either--it's a matter of finding experiences which can be adequately
represented by the medium, and which carry some sort of useful
significance. Something which has play value, strategic value,
educational value, societal value, emotional value, SOMETHING.

>  If you try to create a deeply immersive, broadly appealing,
> long-lasting world that does not adequtely provide for human
> tendencies
> such as violence, acquisition, justice, family, community,
> exploration,
> etc. (and I would contend we are nowhere close to doing this), you
> will see
> two results: first, individuals in the population will begin to
> display a
> wide range of fairly predictable socially pathological behaviors
> (including
> general malaise, complaining, excessive bullying and/or PKing,
> harassment,
> territoriality, inappropriate aggression, and open rebellion against
> those
> who run the game), and second, people will eventually vote with their
> feet
> -- but only after having passionately cast "a pox on both your
> houses."  
> 
That's my belief too.

[snip lots more stuff where Mike explains/supports/expands my points far
better than I did]

-Raph