[MUD-Dev] The importance of graphics

[Ted L. Chen]

Zach Collins (Siege) Writes:

>   How important is it to have graphics?

Ask a man to describe a tree.  

  The first tells of the fullness leaves, swaying in the wind.  The
  trunk, of deep earth-brown, a stout monolith, supporting the crown
  of green.

  Ask a second, and he describes an obstacle, one that is easily
  circumvented.

  Ask a third, and you get the response that it is a mere sapling in
  a forest of grand trees.  One that spans into the distant haze.
  The tree, sheltered in the broken light of its older siblings,
  sways gently in the breeze that runs through the passageways of
  this forest.

To each of these people, the same representation has different
meanings.  The first man sees a tree in detail.  This description is
equally suited to either a verbose MUD text, or a graphical MUD.

To the second man, the tree is just an object in the world.  The
text "A tree stands in your way" is just as effective than a picture
of a tree.  Graphically, it could be represented by a box for all he
cares.

The third, while doable on a text mud using look and examine
keywords, is much better suited to graphics.  With graphics, there
is no need to second-guess what level of detail the MUD supports as
the information can be intuitively gathered at a glance.  The
interaction between this tree and other objects in the world also
convey in a much easier form graphically.

So, in answer to the question of whether graphics are important, ask
yourself what would be important to your players.  Are they the type
to care about the pattern of light that falls on the leaves?  Or do
they just view the tree as some annoying navigation problem.  Or are
they a budding botanist?

>   What level of visual quality (slickness, flashiness) is
>   acceptable versus bandwidth or rendering considerations (assume
>   that the graphics card has no effect)?

Tied somewhat strongly to the question above, I would say that if
your target players fit type 1, then a rather detailed polygon
should be used.  Some people are very attentive to the fine detail.
If type 2, then something akin to a box is all that is
need... although I'd hazard that pure type 2's are rare - so it
should be at least aesthetically pleasing.  Type 3's will likely
forgo detail in exchange for a more holistic experience.  Day-night
cycles (even approximated) might be worth more in terms of bandwidth
than higher textures on the tree bark.

>   How is visual consistency important, how do you create it, and
>   how do you maintain it throughout the life of a project (MMOGs
>   being continuously expanded)?

The ins and outs of 'how', I'll defer to more esteemed persons on
this list who have had hands-on experience creating MMOGs.  However,
I'd hazard a guess that visual consistency ranks highest in type 3's
compared to the other two.


TLC

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