[MUD-Dev] Expected value and standard deviation.

[Katie Lukas]

Fidelio Gwaihir wrote:

> The way I look at it is to describe it as stress over time.  An
> appropriate amount of stress over an appropriate amount of time,
> but the longer times making for more compelling and addictive
> gameplay.  Especially if the stress levels can rise over time
> approprately without causing undue frustration to the player (too
> often).  Complexity of the moves needed to negotiate an encounter
> is also a factor, but in reality this is more of a function of the
> 'stress' but I felt worthwhile mentioning because repetitive tasks
> that yield sparsely awarded advancements that are appropriate
> enough to make the player want to continue in order to get the
> next advancement, is not good gameplay design.

> I don't know, maybe its me.  But then again I'm one of those folks
> that consider himself to be a 'real gamer' and not some d00d.
> d00d's are about power and image, gamers are about the challenge
> and the skill.  I'm old school arcade, and having to be 'twitchy'
> also constitutes a good game in my opinion.

I admit I'm not 100% sure which direction you're going in with what
you wrote, but I think that some of what you illustrate here is, to
me at least, fairly symbolically useful.

I am personally not what I would consider either a "real gamer" or a
"d00d," in that my goals in the games I play tend not to be the
goals - generally speaking - that have been designed in.  That is,
while I have had and continue to have various high-level characters,
I don't care that much that they are high-level, nor do I tend to
partake in the sorts of activities frequently designated for
high-level characters.  And I'm about as good at twitch games as a
quadriplegic (accessibility, of course, is another issue with
'twitchy' MOGs).

That said, what I think the holy grail of MUD/MOG design is
complexity and variability.  Providing a means for the twitch gamer
(or any specific, single "type" of gamer) to get his (or her) fix is
actually among the simpler methods of providing gameplay, and the
technological concerns are often more minimal and concerned with
latency issues.  Providing multiple avenues of advancement, multiple
means of accomplishment, and multiple representations of the game
itself in some respects is highly complicated, labor-intensive, and
requires extremely rigorous development methodology.  That said, I
don't see any other direction.  Either games will become narrower
and more specialized - which is not where I see the genre going - or
the number of games will become smaller, and the breadth of the
available games will have to become larger if the genre is to
support anyone other than existing gamers - a very finite market and
one with limited growth potential.

As far as I'm concerned, the antidote to boredom, work, or any other
negative to current games is *choice.* And choice is what I am
striving to provide in every possible (meaningful) way in my own
work.

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