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

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On 11:07 PM 7/24/98 -1000, I personally witnessed Nathan F Yospe jumping up
to say:
>
>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... 

Sounds disturbingly like a World of Darkness MUSH. ;)

>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...

I'm pretty resigned to the fact that the first batch of players in my
current recoding effort are going to be divided between people that have
never seen the game before, and people like me who have played it for seven
years. As a result, I expect a certain group of about twenty or thirty
players (max; it may be as few as five or six) are going to take the game
over and kick everyone else in the nads until they either toughen up or run
away. Sort of like starting a PK MUD where your first two dozen players get
artificially experienced to fifteenth level -- the rest of the players will
have a hell of a time catching up. 

>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.

Now, honestly, how often is someone going to need a brick in a sock? I
mean, yes, there are people who like being able to simulate everything all
the way down to the atomic level, but those people are... well, let's not
even get into what those people are. There are too many of you on the list,
and you frighten me.


>Besides... I'm trying to teach them physics. Better have those
>physics work well enough to pass...

Never trust a physicist. As soon as a physicist worms his way in, all hell
breaks loose.

Proof? You want proof? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE -- no wait, wrong line. Guess
who's a nuclear physicist? Jimmy Carter. I rest my case.

>:People want
>:money, skills, levels, titles, points, and STUFF. 
>
>People want attention, possessions are just another way of getting it. 

Yes, but getting someone to look at you isn't enough. People want to have
what the other guy doesn't, because that doesn't just make the other guy
look at you, it makes him ENVY you. And that makes you feel a little more
enviable, obviously, so you must be a pretty okay person. 

>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.

I don't like gaming against other humans, because they're always either too
stupid to keep up or too pathetically obsessed with games to compete with.
Especially over the internet, where you run up against vast numbers of
college students with free high-speed net access and tremendous amounts of
free time -- as opposed to those of us with jobs who live in an area where
the 56K modem is lucky to connect at 24K. I suppose I could game against
people like this on a LAN, but I really don't meet very many people I like
or want to game with. 

My idea of the perfect game is one where I don't HAVE to interact with
other humans, but where I can if I *decide* to. I want a nice private space
where I can slip away and not be bothered, and where I can invite other
people if I think they're worth hanging around with. That's why I prefer
MUDs to smaller two and three and four player online games. You have other
players, and lots of them, so if you ignore someone (or everyone) they
don't feel personally slighted. You have a computer opponent, so you can go
around doing things without being forced to deal with some other player.
And generally there are some places in the online world that other people
just plain don't go, so you can wander off and hang out there without being
annoyed by people.

Attention isn't always the coin of the realm. Sometimes a LACK of attention
is important, too. Maybe I do think like a two year old, and just want what
I want when I want it, but underneath all the societal veneer that's really
what we all are underneath. We want what we want when we want it. We can't
prevent that. The definition of the sentence itself is circular and
self-referential, and as human beings we're all at least partially
convinced that while the world doesn't necessarily revolve around us... it
would be a much better place if it did.