[MUD-Dev] Games vs. simulations

[Matthew Mihaly]

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...

They already exist. They are called Ultima Online, Everquest, and
Asheron's Call. I don't think that coordinate systems in text muds are a
bad thing, but I do think that without graphics, they are not very good.
Aside from being worlds, remember that these are games, and realism is not
the goal. Fun is.


> 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?

Oh, absolutely. Now, having said that, for big areas of boring wilderness,
I don't have much a problem with coordinate systems. We are planning a
ships and ocean system that will likely involve a coordinate-based ocean.
The ocean will, however, be boring, as coordinate room systems in text
muds tend not to be very interesting in my experience.

--matt




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