[MUD-Dev] Are eBay sales more than just a fad?

[John Buehler]

> Matthew Mihaly
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:51 PM

> Surely though the whole point of having a castle is whatever the players
> decide the point of having a castle is, and inevitably, some are going to
> decide that they want a castle for reason X, but don't want the bother of
> having to defend it.

The game decides what castles are for, and the players choose to obtain a
castle based on the experience that they get.  If owning a castle means that
you spend all your time administering the lands, maintaining the building's
structure, and managing the stocks and such, then the sort of people that
enjoy such things will buy castles.  If owning a castle means that you have to
build the thing first, then a different sort of person will be attracted.  If
owning a castle means defending it, yet another sort of person will be
attracted.

I know we all know that, but I mention it for the sake of having it said.

Create entertainment using the tools available.  There's nothing saying that
all three of those experiences couldn't be dropped into a world - but using
geographical separation to permit the three different types of castles to
coexist in one game world.  If you want a castle in the combat-contested area,
you may be able to just click a button and plop a castle onto a hilltop with
all subsequent play involving the castle's defense.  In a peaceful part of the
world, the castle may have to be constructed first, and then managed.  The
players who construct it may not be the players that manage it, and so on.

> Yes, I should have said the big games companies. Personally, I like my
> players to play to their heart's content. I love 12-hour-a-day players.
> They make me feel good about having designed such a compelling world. But
> then, my bandwidth is basically free, so I don't worry about such things.

I dislike games that don't actually DISCOURAGE 12-hour-a-day players.  I'd set
the game up to encourage 2 hours a day, with diminishing returns for more time
than that.  I want my game experience to be compelling, but not addictive.  I
want my players to have a life, and to consider my game some small
embellishment to that life.

> But you know, I was talking to someone today about muds, and stated that I
> purposely make methods of getting gold, for example, tedious and boring,
> because I want there to be a cost involved. If it's really fun to earn
> gold, then gold becomes less valuable because more people will do
> <whatever> to earn gold, not for the sake of the gold alone, but for the
> sake of the activity involved with gaining gold.

Game experiences that players are involved with should be entertaining,
regardless of what the activities are.  I don't believe in the rule of making
things tedious and/or boring in order to inhibit effects.  If you want to
limit the amount of gold in players' hands, make the experience enjoyable to
someone interested in the activity, but make the amount of gold obtained
marginal.  If players are singleminded in their pursuit of gold, there's
something wrong with the design of the game.  Experiencing the game should be
the fun of the game, not accumulating piles of gold through tedious and boring
processes.  Especially if obtaining piles of gold enhances the character's
ability to gain access to new experiences.  That predicates enjoyment in the
game world on tedious and boring processes.

> I guess my point is that while every moment in a _game_ should, ideally,
> be fun, I'm not interested in designing mere games (not that I don't have
> tons of respect for pure game designers, mind you). I want a virtual world
> with game-like aspects to it, and in a virtual world, I don't think that
> attempting to entertain someone constantly is going to work, nor is it
> particularly desireable. No one can be on an emotional high for 7000 hours
> of playing time (and if you are, let me in on the secret please).

I agree with much of this - perhaps obviously, based on the above comments.
However, entertainment doesn't necessarily involve 'an emotional high'.  Those
who play chess, checkers, The Sims, Caesar, SimCity, RollerCoaster Tycoon and
a plethora of other games are not doing it for the thrill.  They're doing it
for some relaxing and perhaps challenging entertainment.  These are the very
players that I'd love to bring into the fold of virtual worlds.  Bring in
castle builders that would normally play RollerCoaster Tycoon.  Bring in the
politicians and townsfolk that would normally play The Sims.  Bring in the
explorers that would normally be out in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

I'm an advocate of virtual worlds as well, but perhaps not to the extent that
many pursue.  As I've said, I don't want players in the world for 12 hours a
day.  I want them to drop in for a couple hours, enjoy some kind of experience
and then move on.  As a result, that two hour period has to involve some
experience that the player is looking for.  That experience might be as simple
as walking for two hours along a well-travelled road, just to see what's
happening today.

JB





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