[MUD-Dev] Storytelling vs simulation, AGAIN! was Re: Influent ial muds

[J C Lawrence]

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:07:22 -0800 (PST) 
Matthew Mihaly <diablo at best.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, J C Lawrence wrote:

>> In the final analysis, mechanical games are boring and people,
>> and their machinations are endlessly fascinating (cf soap
>> operas).  The scale between the Talkers (or IRC) and pure gamist
>> MUDs is that of the extent to which the venue (MUD) provides a
>> defined backdrop and toolset to those human machinations.
>> Expressive fertility.

> Boring is a subjective word. I can't remember if it was you or
> Raph that pointed out that despite (or maybe even because of) the
> ridiculous, mechanical simplicity of Shades, it was a lot of fun.

I did, and which you are right, is a very curious anomaly.  Some
classes of simulations (eg SimEarth, SimCity, Civilisation, Empires,
etc) also break this pattern.  Shades does it very curiously, by
providing a very very simple obvious mechanical pattern that some
remains "fun" despite its very apparent roteness.  Sim* get it thru
complexity depth.

> By way of another, even more extreme example, I present you with
> Pachinko.  

Touche.  It would seem that mechanility is not the corret term.

--
J C Lawrence                              Internet: claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                        Internet: claw at varesearch.com
...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...


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