[MUD-Dev] Forks or Frameworks?

[Kwon Ekstrom]

Matthew Mihaly wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Koster, Raph wrote:
> 
> 
>> Well, I think (based on your original statement) that what you
>> actually oppose in the non-original CONTENT, moreso than the
>> codebase, correct?
> 
> Absolutely. The only reason I object to stock codebases is that the
> most prominent one (DIKU) encourages non-original content (I want to
> puke everytime I see Midgaard). Areas aside, they seem to encourage
> group-think, though this may be an incidental rather than causal.

<snip... rest of message cut...>

I'll admit that I think most circlemuds are rather poor excuses for an
RP environ, but they are a good start.  The commands are easy, and
although they aren't the most in-depth worlds, they display the basic
functions needed to MUD.  A baby needs to crawl before they can walk,
and a pre-schooler needs curious george before he can read shakespear.
I think part of your problem with stock code-bases has to do with the
internet... The internet is a wonderful thing, it allows otherwise
computer illiterate people to do things like make web pages, post
opinions, write mail, run crappy games.

Now, I bet if you ran a survey of mudders most of the mudders out
there are playing games that are more complex than what they
originally learned on.  I'd wager to bet that a fair amount of your
test group who stated they would have stopped mudding if it weren't
for your mud had played those crappy muds for quite a while before
growing bored of them.

The fact is, they knew that the muds they played weren't what they
wanted, they searched for something more their style.  I know of
several mudders who just want a glorified chatter, somewhere they can
talk with their friends, and play something on the side.  Other
mudders have a superiority complex, they want a game that they can
master, which tends to mean simple hack and slash.  Other people
prefer in-depth accurate games that come close to a text-based
simulation, or as an RP mud.

Those muds that can't find enough players that like what they have to
offer die, it's an everyday affair.  Those muds that survive probably
spawn new players, sometimes ignorant players, but the growth of muds
is mostly dependant on word of mouth.  The players tell their friends
who play the game.  If they like the mud, but think it's not quite
what they want, they go looking for one that is.

It's my opinion that if there weren't a few hundred mediocre muds to
draw players into the playing field, there wouldn't be as many players
looking around for the relatively few "good" muds.

Not everyone can just up and create a whole new world, with backstory
in a single sitting, so they have to start with what comes with the
codebase they have.  With DIKU that's midgaard.  Generally by the time
the administration has the resources to change that, they've got a
playerbase that might not feel too happy about losing several familiar
areas.  A few admins have the guts to change major things like the
hometown and other standard systems, they often have to put up with
complaints over losing familiar areas, or crash bugs associated with
major code updates.  Alot of less experienced admins simply want to
have players and try not to lose anyone at any cost, which causes the
game to stagnate (and lose those players anyway imho).

I wouldn't blame the codebase for the poor quality of the games, it's
kindof like blaming the gun for killing someone.  I mean, look at the
number of DOOM and QUAKE clones in the commercial market.  The basic
game design is good, but after 30 or so copies of the same game with
minor changes, it loses it's finesse.  And those developers are paid
to develop games.  Most MUD developers only have experience on those
games, and knowing what they like and dislike to guide them.

Anyway, I guess I'm starting to ramble so I'm off for now.

--Justice

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