[MUD-Dev] Re: State of the art?

[Mik Clarke]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> >I think part of what you are saying depends on whether you wish to talk of
> >a MUD-in-whole, or about aspects of a MUD.
> 
> A MUD, as I perceive it, has two parts: a server, which is judged on
> technological merit; and a game, which is judged on entertainment value. It
> is entirely possible that a MUD may have great merit in one area, but not in
> the other -- as the examples Andy Cink quotes show. His MUD A is a
> state-of-the-art server, while MUD B is a state-of-the-art game. Either has
> merit as a state-of-the-art MUD, but to have one and not the other is to
> miss the point. If you advance one area to the detriment of the other, you
> destroy the MUD.

The server is the enabling technology that makes the various aspects of
the game possible.  The game is created by the builders and the players
and should use the available technology to enhance the gaming
experience.  The extent to which this happens depends upon the ingenuity
of the builders and players.  Cleaver folks can get even the standard
bases to do amazing things.  Give them a clever code base and they'll
get up to even more inventive activities.

While it is possible to have a 'state of the art' in the code base, the
entire concept just doesn't fit to the games.  The games are emergent
and closer to organic systems (plants) than to mechanical systems
(engines).  Games grow and evolve and learn and expand.  Each game is
it's own state of the art, because each one is unique, reflecting the
goals and desires of the various builders and long term players.  

Mik
--
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/2260


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev