[MUD-Dev] travel times (commercial/graphical vs grassroots/text)

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Fredfish (E. Harper) wrote:

> I don't really think the distinction between 'graphical muds' and
> 'text muds' which you are talking about has much to do with
> graphics. Lest you think I am consuming mind-altering drugs, let me
> explain.
 
>   - Graphical muds are (as far as I know) exclusively commercial
>   undertakings, with the explicit aim (at least among the people in
>   charge) of making money. Text muds are (mostly) grassroots hobby
>   efforts, with aims such as - as Jeremy Elson put it re writing
>   Circlemud, 'adding to the coolness inherent in the universe, if
>   only by a small amount'.

That's true, if you ignore the fact that all the biggest text muds are
commercial.
 
>   - If you want to make money you need a lot of players. Like, a
>   LOT. If you want to add to the universe's coolness, 30 players at
>   a time is plenty.

No you don't. 100 online at a time is enough.

>   - Getting a lot of players requires you to cater to the whims of
>   the masses.  Getting 30 players requires you to have something a
>   few like-minded individuals can share and appreciate.

Everquest has been called Diku with graphics. I'd have to agree with
that. However, it's Diku with a _lot_ more features than most Dikus
and WAY more production value than any Diku has ever had. That's no
slur on the Diku creators. They were hobbyists. Verant had millions.

>   - The masses are stupid.*

> Ergo,
 
> To make a succsesful graphical mud you must cater to the whims of
> the stupid.

Yes. Clearly an argument based on the first generation of real
commercial products is how one should judge an entire
genre. Similarly, one would, of course, want to judge all movies by
the first silent movies.

Graphical muds are niche products. They do not appeal to the
masses. 300k subscribers is _not_ the masses. It is, in fact, the
techno-elite of the planet. 50% of the planet's population has not
even made a phone call.

Movies come closer to appealing to the masses, and they manage to
occasionally appeal to the masses as well as possess a certain level
of subtlety.
 
> Now, I'm not suggesting projects like EQ, UO, et al are crap. They
> aren't, it's just that I feel, and I think most of the people on
> this list will agree with me, that you compromise quality to some
> degree when you make something designed to appeal to the masses. An
> example - (at risk of drawing a meta-argument into this) - the first
> Star Wars kicked ass. It wasn't supposed to be a mega-hit. By
> comparison, The Phantom Menace was a tepid monstrosity of mega-CG
> and pup-cultural kitch. (Meesa Jar-Jar Binks! Meesa help George
> Lucassa shovel money into coffers!) Whether or not you feel SW1 was
> crap, you have to admit it would have been a lot better without the
> cutesy elements. (I remember someone saying 'It kicked ass! The only
> parts I didn't like were the end and all the parts with Anakin.)

You compromise quality? It depends on how you define quality. The
average Circle or Diku has a level of quality that is simply
abominable. UO/EQ/AC beat the pants off any text mud in terms of
quality of execution. I think to argue otherwise is to overlook the
ridiculously poor production quality of most text muds.

--matt

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