[MUD-Dev] Re: Ugh, IS Diablo a mud?

[Kylotan]

I don't think there is much point trying to argue 'Game X isn't a
mud, whereas Game Y is, because...'.  With the variety in 'accepted'
muds, we have enough criteria to call just about anything a mud, if
we wanted, or vice versa.

So maybe it is a question of 'How 'mudlike' is game X?'  Now, not
many muds will fit -all- the criteria, but most will fit a large
proportion of them.  I propose the following, but I am sure you
could add to this.

-- Multiplayer capability, and usually capability for hundreds of
players, if the demand is there.

-- Persistence of game world, and the changes made to it, in the
absence of player characters.

-- Customisable/extendable game world/database.

-- Character persistence across games, including character
'advancement'.

-- Character success at in-game tasks is determined more by
character statistics than player reflexes.

-- Game world based on Science Fiction/Fantasy background and tenets.

-- Text-based output, often though Telnet.

-- Client/Server style model.

-- One-to-one relationship between players and characters. (Ok, so
people can multiplay, that usually requires multiple logins, and
thus may as well be 2 players, technically. The point is, people
tend not to control a group, as in Command & Conquer etc.)

By these criteria, a Diku would be very mudlike, whereas Quake would
be less mudlike. Diablo is still fairly mudlike by this scale, make
of that what you will :)

Kylotan.