[MUD-Dev] Games vs. simulations

[Matthew Mihaly]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Brian Green wrote:

> I was considering computer gaming in general, including MUDs.  I was
> (only temporarily!) ignoring the community end of the triangle and
> focusing on sim vs. game continuum.  My assertion was that games have
> been much too interested in the simulation aspects as opposed to the
> gameplay aspects.

I agree completely.

=20
> Classic games (console, computer and arcade) have quite a different
> flavor than modern games.  Most of the older games had to deal with
> resource limitations, and thus had to do more with less.  Games lived
> and died on design.

Definitely.

=20
> Today, however, most people feel that games are "style over substance".=
=20
> I think this is because of a focus on making a simulation instead of a
> game.  Pac-Man is almost entirely a game; it simulates absolutely
> nothing comprehensible to the sober mind.  Half-Life is more of a
> simulation; admittedly, it's a simulation of pretty outlandish
> circumstances, but it attempts to be a simulation of that environment
> more than an abstract game.

I'll cautiously agree, though there are some very very tightly designed
games out there. I'm a huge fan of Chu Chu Rocket for the Dreamcast. I've
handed Daniel James many an embarassing thrashing as I rescue Chu Chu
after Chu Chu, and feed him Kapu Kapu after Kapu Kapu!


> So, to relate this to MUDs. :)  I think that we've suffered from a bit
> of this, too.  I remember the raging debates on some of the Usenet MUD
> groups about "realism", about how you should hide the stats from players
> and how room systems are pass=E9.  Yet, we're still struggling with basic
> issues unique to our medium, such as the recent thread on "what is a
> multiplayer game" here on MUD-Dev (IE, exploring the community end of of
> the triangle).

I cringe whenever I hear a player give me a suggestion for player vs.
player combat that includes anything like "It'd be more realistic if....".=
=20


> I get particularly worked up over the whole "room system" debate.  One
> of the most notable and impressive periods of computer gaming history,
> the Infocom days, used systems even more crude than the room systems
> found on current text MUDs.  How many games can truly aspire to the
> levels of the classic Infocom games, yet how many people have worked
> furiously to replace the room-based systems?

Yeah, I don't understand text muds who get obsessed with realistic room
systems. That's what graphics are good at.

I think some things, like "realistic" room systems are built mainly just
out of the (laudable) goal of just wanting to see if it can be done. I,
personally, LIKE traditional room systems. They don't bother me a bit.
They are like the walls of the ravine that you can't climb in a video
game. They are just there and you accept the limitations, and move on.=20

--matt

=20




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