[MUD-Dev] Re: META: list "peerage"

[Brandon A Downey]

Laurel Fan wrote:

> Well, theoretically, the truly stock muds would not be able to attract
> any players.  However, in reality, the stock muds outnumber the "good"
> muds by a great deal so that the good ones are _very_ hard to find;
> mudlist entries, newsgroup ads etc. all promise originality, whether or
> not they deliver.  An estalblished mud can attract players by
> reputation, but a "good" mud just getting started doesn't usually have
> this resource, leading to a vicious circle (which, if i hadn't lost my
> copy of the mud-dev laws of mud design, i would probably find there).
> Perhaps there should be some way of showcasing new, original muds, like
> a mudlist in which an imp would submit her mud, and a volunteer would
> evaluate the mud for uniqueness and non-stock-ness, and write a short
> review containing his first impressions.

The most interesting place for this sort of thing I've seen is a site known as
'gamecommandos'.
Their site compiles reviews for muds, and sorts the reviews according to
players, admins, and reviews from the people who run the site. This gives you a
good cross section of potential reviews -- so that even if you happen to
disagree with the tastes of the people who run the site (and imho they do a
pretty good job of impartial reviews), you can read what players have to say.
Or, if you're into propaganda, you can also read what immortals have written.

Admittedly, there's no explicit filtering between stock and non-stock muds, but
the information they've gathered tends to be accurate, and the administrator
reviews are always worth reading.

<http://www.gamecommandos.com> is the site.


Brandon