[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #271 - 30 msgs

[Kevin Littlejohn]

"Richard A. Bartle" wrote

> So it is with characters in most graphical MUDs. The players are
> told that the higher levels are an achievement, but there's nothing
> to back that up. Any dolt can get one just by spending enough
> money. Players who get to the top levels first are happy to go along
> with the charade, but once the population of maxed out characters
> gets too big they won't be.

Disagree - I get a sense of achievement from almost having all the
NetRunner cards - any dolt could have done that (and some dolts did
;), but it's still an achievement, because the amount of time and
effort spent is high.

I'd say the same thing for muds - reaching high levels is an
achievement, even if I know anyone with time and/or money can get
there, because it _takes_ time and/or money.

You don't need PD to give value to that investment.

I'm playing EQ at the moment, I'm up to level 15 - I have no idea
whether my interest will hold out to get me to the high levels.  The
vast majority of people, I'm guessing, don't make it there.  Maybe
you'd count lack of interest as another form of PD?  It certainly
gives value to the rest of the people who _do_ make it.

Let's face it: Finishing uni is hardly a life-or-death thing (for most
of us) - yet I'm guessing most people who graduate feel some sense of
achievement.  No risk, any dolt with time and/or money could have done
it (and many dolts do ;), but there's still an achievement in there
somewhere.

> Persistent worlds are sold as games, and people who start to play
> them expect a game component. Maybe not 10 years hence, but
> certainly now.  Being a game is the foundation of the whole
> enterprise. Magic:the Gathering lasted as long as it did because the
> game was good. Pokemon was basically the same game, but had a much
> younger audience so the cards were worthless as game components. To
> them, the "game" was collecting a set, which isn't much of a game
> once your friends have got one before you.

Then there's NetRunner, which is (according to everyone I've talked to
who played it) a better game than Magic - but died horribly on the
spike of "lack of marketing".  I don't think M:tG lasted as long as it
did because it was inherently better than anything - any more than I
think AD&D lasted longer because it was better.  Magic won out because
it became the baseline for CCG's.

I know people who spent large sums of money buying cards they could
never use (Black Lotus, way after they went out of play).  That
doesn't jibe with your above explanations - they got a sense of
achievement from being able to build a "killer deck" they could never
play.  To them, the game component aspect wasn't so important, it was
having the cards that counted.  I think "being a game" being the
foundation of the CCG's is a very brave call :)

KevinL

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