[MUD-Dev] Historical perspective (was: dealing with foul language)

[Brian Green]

Raph wrote:

> [...] I was responding more to the
> point made by Ola that *because* they appeal to a broad audience, they =
are
> therefore less important, less innovative, or "matter" less.=20

Unfortunately, in general, mass-market products are held in less esteem
than more venerable forms of art.  If you ask people for examples of
great literature, many would talk about Dickens or Shakespeare.  More
cultured people might talk about artists in other languages, such as
Lorca or B=E9cquer.  The person that mentions "Walker, Texas Ranger" woul=
d
be laughed out of the conversation.

And, people will point out that Dickens wrote many of his stories as
serials for mass consumption, and that Shakespeare wrote for theater,
the TV for his time period.  As I will point out below, there is a
difference between a good work and a work that stands the test of time.=20
Not all commercial works are instantly "bad".

> Habitat, to pick an example, is as
> important, innovative, and significant as ANY mud ever made.

My point wasn't that individual graphical MUDs were all inferior to
text.  Certainly, we can appreciate the great contributions to the state
of the art that Habitat graced us with.  I'm also sure many people would
rather play any graphical game rather than a text MUD filled with
grammar and spelling errors.  Neither of these statements, however,
prove that graphical games, as a whole, "matter" as much as text games
do.
=20
> > As far as innovation goes, the game industry itself is a joke
> > concerning innovation
>=20
> Quite agreed there.
>=20
> Then again, the mud community is also widely viewed in exactly the same=
 way.
> Especially on this list. :)

Touch=E9. :)
=20
> > the only real innovation we've done is to
> > bring an existing type of game in a different format to a wider
> > audience.
>=20
> First off, I don't think that's true--or rather, it belittles the many
> innovations that can be done within the genre be it in text OR graphica=
l
> media.=20
>
> Second point, that's a rather big leap. "All we've done is bring an
> existing type of storytelling in a different format to a wider audience=
" -
> presto, TV. :P=20

>From my own experiences, and from the volume of "Game X from Big Company
is just a Z codebase game with graphics" critiques out there, I
personally chose not to defend that graphical, commercial games as so
innovative.  Do you believe that on merits of design, a graphical game
gives a user that much of a different experience as TV does compared to
theater?

> It's a popular snobbish activity to bash TV.

If we didn't, people would watch TV instead of play our games, eh? :)

> > ...the recent restructuring of a high-profile studio....=20
>=20
> Heh, well, actually, it had nothing to do with innovation per se, but t=
hat's
> miles off-topic and I'm not going to talk about it. :)

In hindsight, it was rather rude of me to bring that up.  I would like
to appologize.

> > To say that graphical games are as significant and innovative as text
> > games requires a large amount of hubris, in my opinion.
>=20
> Remember, I am not speaking of the etablished corpus of work and how it
> compares to the established work done in text muds. I was speaking of
> whether or not the commercial nature of the muds in question means they
> cannot be innovative or significant. And I DO think that history dispro=
ves
> that.

My point was that we really don't have that many samples to tell if the
significant and innovative ones we do hold up are the rule or the
exceptions; our games simply have not had to last for as long as text
MUDs have.  I am certainly not saying that commercial graphical MUDs can
never be significant or innovative, I'm just saying it's a bit early to
give a definite affirmative.  And, as someone who is currently
unemployed, looking for work in the field, I would like to think I have
a good glimpse of some of what's waiting in the wings for the market.

> By no means am I claiming that the commercial games are the be-all-end-=
all
> of mud evolution. The exact quote by Ola was=20
>
> > > You
> > > cannot aim for a wide scope in the commercial sense and still make
> > > things that matters.
>=20
> and I think that's just flat incorrect. I think that many examples can =
be
> pulled from many areas of artistic endeavor to disprove it.

Ola's sin is making it so absolute.  I think it might have been said
that "When you aim for a wide scope in the commercial sense, it is
significantly harder to make things that matter."  Bold artistic
statements are much easier to make when I don't have to worry about
funding drying up because of a prudish investor or parent company or
offending sections of your needed audience.

Anyone who disagrees with this restatement either has creative freedom I
envy (and, did I mention I'm currently looking for work?), or delusions
so deep they scare even me. :)

--=20
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...."  -"Defender", Manowar
     Brian Green, brian at psychochild.org  aka  Psychochild
       |\      _,,,---,,_      *=3D* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=3D=
*
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ =20
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'  "Ritalin Cures Next Picasso"=20
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)               -The_Onion_, August 4th, 1999



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