[MUD-Dev] Re: Fun vs Realism [ Was: OT: Sid Meier ]

[Nathan F Yospe]

On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

:On 02:47 PM 7/25/98 +1000, I personally witnessed Leach, Brad BA jumping up
:to say:

:>It seems most of us are striving for increased realism with our designs - 
:>Is this at the cost of fun? 

:Yes. I keep saying this. Realistic is fun to watch. Realistic is not fun to
:play. If I wanted realistic, I would stay in the real world instead of
:playing a game.

There is a difference between realism and reality. Hell... reality would be
a nine to five programming job where I get payed a passable salery, like my
coworkers, but never feel very inspired by what I'm doing... it wouldn't be
something I would want to play... but realism... thinking on wits and toes,
knowing the world was too complex to reduce to pat solutions, with all that
that might have been fun when I was a kid... no, I want to live the game.

:>Are we putting too much into muds, at the cost of gameplay itself?

:Yes. I keep saying this, too. Most of the new servers I hear about would be
:fun to hang out and go "Oooh" at, but would absolutely suck to try and play. 

I think the first batch of players in Galaxy Wars will get obliterated. I'm
resigned to it... the world is already too big, and that's just test areas.
The enemies are getting too damned smart, and they've only been going after
each other so far... the client isn't even remotely close to usable. But it
will come under control as I adjust for players, seed communities...

:>Where do we draw the line of what is neccessary versus un-necessary?

:If it isn't fun, take it out. If lots of people ask you for it, put it in.
:Ironically, this very simple method of deciding what to put into the game
:actually works pretty well once you toss this realism thing out the window.

The realism I added was originally entirely at request. The things they had
asked for, though. Should have known better than to invite my P&P group. If
they had a base to infiltrate, with underground sections... Jon tried depth
charges... in the old room-based post-diku. And *expected them to work*!! I
suppose it's my fault. I'd already coded walls and damage for them. Linking
two rooms made it possible to create a hole between them... and Jon already
knew this. He'd discovered blowing a hole in the wall next to the door took
you past the guards triggered to attack the first guy through. Then he went
right through the lot of them by tossing a grenade and hightailing back out
the hole. So... I got to thinking about supporting it all... now I can. For
all that, I've got a long way to go... parsing this world is *hard*.

:>I have recently envisioned the "ultimate" mud as something that allows
:>you to interact with everything... every brick in that wall, every grain
:>of dirt in that mound, etc. If that complexity is indeed added in the 
:>future (as I dont think the average Joe/Mary has that sort of 
:>storage/computing power now), will it actually detract from the game 
:>itself?

:Severely. Stop and think. How much fun is it to interact with a grain of
:dirt or a brick?

That brick from the wall comes out, breaks in half, drops into your sock. A
patented Rincewind weapon... Of course I had to make sure it was possible.

:>This leads to another point - if you dont have more and more detail, how
:>do you make the world challenging (assuming challenging = fun) to the 
:>seasoned mud'er?

:Challenging is not always fun. The Zork games were loads of fun, even when
:you knew where everything was and what everything did and how everything
:interacted. (In fact, the Zork games were rather crappy before you got a
:good deal of that under your belt.)

The real point of my approach is to provide a military mind the tools. When
I throw the stuff I throw at these people, they are going to need the edge.
Wits are all they will have, and they had better be able to get results for
their ideas. Besides... I'm trying to teach them physics. Better have those
physics work well enough to pass...

:Fun can come from several things. Some people find challenges fun, but next
:to no one thinks challenges are the ONLY fun. Most people, in my
:experience, find one thing fun over all others: acquisition. People want
:money, skills, levels, titles, points, and STUFF. It is worthwhile to
:provide 'build-your-own' sorts of interfaces, so your stuff can be
:completely unique and you can either tell someone else how to make it or
:not, at your discretion. It is also worthwhile to create multiple levels of
:acquisition, so there are goals of increasing difficulty as you go up in
:ability. And, our views of competition being what they are, there needs to
:be some way to perceive yourself as having "won". 

People want attention, possessions are just another way of getting it. This
is one Dr. Cat got right on the money. In my realm, the currency is heroism
and rank... but that's not the only option. Wealth... is only good for what
it earns you in attention, respect.

:Pretty tall order, really. 

Yes.

:I've been looking at AI recently, and thinking "If I do a really BAD AI,
:and admit up front through my backstory that 'the enemy is not too smart'
:or something like that, and work under the assumption that every player
:will be able to outwit and outsmart the AI... wouldn't that still be fun?"

Erm. To some, maybe.

:I mean, old games had really crappy AI. Think of the Might and Magic series
:through MM3. The enemy sees you, closes to melee range, and attacks.
:Period. It doesn't know how to go around anything. It doesn't know how to
:look in any direction except straight ahead. And if you put a low obstacle
:between you, you can merrily fire missile weapons into the enemy until it
:dies. Probably two or three enemies think to fire missiles back at you. And
:you know what? That was still pretty fun.

I never cared for M&M. I got bored with Contra after the first time. There,
I think I've figured it out... I prefer to think. And when there is nothing
hiding the AI's guts from me, I feel cheated...

:Some games have raised the bar for us. Like UOL, which has drastically
:changed what people expect from an online RPG, or Quake, which has
:drastically altered what people expect from an action game. (I've already
:seen several damn good games crucified in the press for not being
:multiplayer-capable and internet-ready.) 

I recently (a few months ago) played a video game for the first time in the
last few years. I saw it, and couldn't resist. Me and a buddy had an hour's
carnage on Sega's Virtual On. I figured out the AI in only three minutes. I
had tactics and strategy down quickly... thrashed my bud's tailside. And if
he hadn't learned almost as fast, I would have hated it. His reflexes are a
good order of magnitude better than mine, but I think fast, and reflexes in
the end are just reactions. I think five seconds ahead, and make up for the
fact that I react a half second behind.

:But really, what matters is... was it fun? Isn't that what counts? After
:all, up to Ultima 5, Ultima was seriously raising the bar for RPGs... but
:no one ever lived up to it. And other RPGs still sold just fine. Compare
:the capabilities of MM3 to U5. Ultima was head and shoulders above it! It
:had a better backstory, cooler interface, spells were fancier, and
:challenge was a lot higher... but MM3 had STUFF! Things like the "Flaming
:Sapphire Dagger of Moon Portal" and crap like that! It rocked!

:You know what? I miss Might & Magic, so I'm going to go buy MM6 right now
:over at Chumbo. I seem to recall they had a "Deluxe" MM6 which included the
:whole series.

Have fun... I think I'll put in an advance order for Myth II. Bungie does a
good job... they let humans be the AI.
--

Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
(Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/