[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Brian Hook wrote:

> At 09:38 PM 3/10/01 +0000, matt wrote:
 
> While "thinking outside the box" (a phrase that is practically
> meaningless now) is laudable, people do happen to like things
> they're familiar with, be it class names, archetypes or just "being
> like that guy in that book".  People know and understand elves.  Now
> move on to a universe that is far more alien -- Jorune comes to mind
> -- and people balk because they don't necessarily want to relearn
> all their fundamental assumptions.  While part of this can be
> attributed to their unwillingness to think outside the box, part of
> it is just a desire to play the game without subjecting yourself to
> a huge "unlearning" process followed by a massive reeducation
> period, only to lose interest in the new universe after about 2
> hours.

The masses balk, yes. The masses also balk at most good movies. While
I certainly wouldn't object to getting the money from Armageddon, it
doesn't change the fact that it's just a bunch of cliches and
formulas.

I remember having lunch with Lee Sheldon, Brian Green, and David
Kennerly at a Marin GDC roadtrip about 16 months ago. One of the
discussions we had was why the gaming community has yet to produce its
Birth of a Nation. Maybe online gamers have a more limited artistic
sensibility than movie-goers and will always want formulaic
entertainment. I certainly hope not though, as I would be unhappy not
to have products that will rise above the formulas and give me
something interesting and new to have fun with.

> I read a post on a message board once where the poster was proud of
> the fact that his "elves" were nothing at all like "normal elves".
> Specifically, he was particularly proud of the fact that by using a
> term that had prior connotations his own particular usage would be
> very jarring.  Efforts like that reek of heavy-handed,
> self-congratulatory pretentiousness.  I guess I fundamentally have
> an objection to "being different for differences' sake", which I
> find annoying, as opposed to "being different because I have a way I
> think would be cool".

Oh yes, I agree totally with this.

> Or, as a friend of mine likes to say, "try not to conform too much
> to being a non-conformist".

Nod, like the supposed non-conformist punk culture (funny how
identical many of them look).
 
>> A mage and an archer are the same because you've made them the
>> same. Achaea's mages are nothing like archers, for instance.
 
> I had hoped that my posting made it clear I was talking about
> archetypical spell-sling fireball-vomiting mages in archetypical
> combat oriented games.  As such, my statement holds true.

Well then, we have no argument. If your argument is that "In games
where the mages are spell-slinging fireball-vomiting mages, the mages
are spell-slinging fireball-vomiting mages." I certainly can't
disagree. I was not disputing this. I was attacking making all mages
so similar in games.
 
>> Listen, my major objection is the same objection I have to most
>> mainstream movies. They are too formulaic.
 
> That's vehemently stating the obvious.  And the same thing applies
> to games.  When games like Homeworld, Half-life (!), and Deus Ex are
> praised as being original, you know there are problems.

I'd be curious to see who is praising those games as original.

> But my point -- and I think you see this -- is that often things are
> formulaic because those formulae are successful, popular and fun.
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Depends on what your goals are. If your goals are to appeal to as many
people as possible and be the McDonalds of online games (Verant's
apparent strategy), then sure, I agree 100%. I don't think there's
anything wrong with it. I and presumably many others find McDonalds to
be a lot less interesting and attractive than restaurants that are not
cookie-cutters.

Using movies as an example again, I went to a film festival last night
to watch a movie directed by an acquaintance, called "Maryam." (And
just to plug it for the director, Ebert gave it a great review!) It
was about an Iranian immigrant right after the Shah was overthrown who
moves to America to live with his uncle's family (who fled before the
revolution). Clearly it was partly derivative. As you point out,
without something familiar, it'd be a damn hard thing to experience
meaningfully. But was there much in it that would have appealed to the
masses? No. There weren't any explosions. There wasn't any maudlin
sentimentality. No sex at all. Naturally, no studio wants to release
the movie as they understand most people don't want to watch it.

I tell you though, I'd choose to watch that again over a movie like
Armaggedon. I'm not claiming to be someone you'd want to target mass
market product to. But given how many great indie movies ARE widely
released each year (most of which are utterly ignored by most
people. How many of you have seen Yi Yi?) there's certainly an
audience for them. I like to think all gamers are not of the
Armaggedon variety.

> As a matter of fact, I think it's completely reasonable to pursue
> designing a game that aims at player's preconceived notions and
> desires.

Right, though of course no game like this will ever achieve art
status. I realize most designers aren't aiming for this, and I don't
know if I am or not, but it's certainly what I admire most.

> I would hazard a guess that far more people want to be a variation
> of Conan, Legolas, Gandalf or Drizzt than Phlorgo-th'tad the
> Emulibite of Terro'dha.  This isn't necessarily because people are
> small minded, unoriginal, creatively limited or sheep
> (unfortunately, those that fancy themselves original, creative and
> outside the herd often tend to think like this).

Oh really? I would say that most people are unoriginal and creatively
limited. I'm a cynic though.

> It's because sometimes people want to play a game that they can
> relate to instead of first learning what an Emulibite is, where
> Terro'dha is, why "elves" are tall, stupid, gangly creatures that
> live in the mountains, and "orkhs" are timid, erudite social animals
> with a fear of anything larger than a mosquito.  And why "fighting"
> consists of oral debates in the nearest Pradallion, which is a
> clearing inside a grove of "trees", but trees are really made out of
> a hardened mineral substance.

Yes, I understand. I'd like to see games climb up out of the artistic
pit they are in, however, and at least make some attempt at art. I
want to see games treated like movies. I want to see great game
designs get respect by a class of gaming connoisseurs that I hope will
arise, similarly to the process by which it happened with film. The
masses will always have their Armaggedons. Economics dictate that. But
don't assume that everyone wants to make Armaggedon. (Myself, if I
were handed either Everquest or Achaea, I'd take Everquest, sell it,
and then fund Achaea.)

--matt

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