[MUD-Dev] Games vs. simulations

[adam at treyarch.com]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Dmitri Zagidulin wrote:
> -- matt writes: --
> > 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.
> 
> Not to spark a holy war, but can anyone explain to a newcomer why non-room
> systems (read some kind of coordinate systems) are a bad idea?
> They seem like a good holy grail to me...

As you'll frequently discover in this business, being a 'holy grail' usually
means "unattainable with current technology."  That doesn't necessarily
stop people from trying, however.  A perfect example is realtime 3D: games
went from looking extremely nice (high res, 2D art) to extremely terrible
(super low-poly 3D with little filtering) when 3D became the 'holy grail'
of gaming.  Eight years later, realtime 3D games are *barely* starting to look
reasonably good, although for pure freeze-frame beuty they cannot approach
what a good 2D artist can create with DPaint or even the Gimp (or Photoshop).

I think I've discussed my own experiences with room based systems here
before.  In a nutshell, I spent a while on them, and decided that although
they worked great from a designer's and prorgammer's perspective, the
implementation was inferior from the gameplayers POV.  I ended up merging
my coordinate systems back into my original room system, such that players
always felt like they were in a "room", and it was possible to create
custom rooms just like a typical mud, but you could also move out into
coordinate-generated terrain "rooms" which didn't exist unless a player
was present.  Unlike some implementations of this kind of system (mostly
on LPs from what I've seen), there was no limit to how far you could go in one
direction, and objects and NPCs persisted on the game map even after you left
the room.

Do an archive search for "grid & room & wiggins" for more...

> Which turns the question around for matt & other avid room-based
> proponents -- how _do_ you handle things like flight, sailing, and, most
> importantly, the question of world scope discussed in that excellent
> article on Gamasutra (don't remember the name).

All this was covered in my system, without loosing any of the pluses
associated with rooms.

> That is, do you agree that having a large, wide-scope world has many
> in-game benefits and is desirable?
> If so, do you think it's really possible to do expansive terrain (lakes,
> fields, wilderness in general, seas, planets) using the myopic room-based
> system?

As I said, having already done it, I would certainly say so.  FWIW my
terrain was not generated by an algorithm, I painted it with DPaint.
(Two seperate maps - one for elevation, one for terrain type.)

However, I think this issue highlights for me one of the failings of
speding too much time in the highly theoretical designer/programmer
perspective; something that is quite abundant on this list.  I spent a fair
amount of time implementing the unbounded world system (or "grid" as I called
it) in college; I chose to leave it out of my current mud.  Simply put, it
added little value to the game as a player.  My intention was to give a feeling
of a large and rich gameworld; instead, players just feel like they are on a
huge, empty mud where all the rooms look the same.

Now I might note that they DIDN'T look the same, having dynamic room
descriptions - but one had to wander for quite a while to find the likes of
a looming black tower of sorcery, twisting caverns inhabbited by a dragon, or a
massive elven city perched high in the trees.  THAT'S the stuff that players
care about - the content.  Everything else is just there to support it.
The fact that some of the terrain rooms were high forest with pine trees,
and others were low forest with sandalwood and birch, and others still were
open plains was not terribly exciting to anyone but me, the creator.

I certain like to put my time into things that interest me as a designer
and as a programmer, but more and more I find myself putting myself back
into the role of a player and seeing what my efforts really achieve.  I
realize that most folks (at least the vocal ones) on this list don't feel
that way; in fact, that's why I have my own mini CC list (consisting entirely
of non-listmembers) for the purposes of exploring the more concrete gameplay
ideas that I am currently pondering or preparing to implement.  (Memories
of Wout's list, in fact...)

Again, though, as a hobbiest mud creator, that's all your choice.  Having the
freedom say, "Players?  Who gives a damn!" is definitely a boon.  Even
as a hobbiest, though, I do find myself giving a damn here and there.  (Just
don't tell any of my players I said that, it'll spoil my reputation...)

Adam





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