[MUD-Dev] PVP and perma-death

[HRose]

Ola wrote:

>> I don't give a damn of what a player wants to do before knowing
>> and trying a game because he cannot know what the game has to
>> offer before seeing it.

> Well, you will at least need to understand what players are
> capable of doing, if you want your game to be playable. That
> includes their game playing competence and motivation...

I follow your thoughts but I still don't agree here. Competence and
motivations come directly from the game. In fact I think that one of
the most important and always underestimated parts of a MMOGs is the
newbie experience. Are the game and the design to provide competence
and motivations. The accessibility is the most important problem of
the genre but you don't solve it by offering them something they
expect. You solve it by designing and paying attention to the
learning process of the game. With this aim not only experienced
players will be able to learn (and enjoy) something different. But
you'll also have a lot more hopes about dragging players completely
new to the genre.

Part of this is written in Lum's presentation about MMOGs and mass
market:

  http://www.brokentoys.org/meltdown2004/

> Old movies are slow, because the audience weren't used to the
> medium. If a movie diverge too much from what the audience already
> know, then the audience will will fall out, loose the plot and
> simply end up being bored and confused. That's why Hollywood
> movies are rather dull in their expression, yet entertaining.

> It seems like you are arguing for More Art, not a game with broad
> appeal. That is good too, but it is not the same thing.

Yes, I know this and I also want "more art". I simply don't
understand why the art must be distant from a broad appeal. I feel
both goals complementary. I don't want a game that revolutions the
play styles, I think that the design should consider them. But not
design after them.

What I mean is that I'm not erasing an element in this process. I'm
simply giving it its correct position.

> I never really understand why designers who primarily care about
> the game want to design MUDs. MUDs are worlds with games as a
> replacement for physics and cultural context, i.e. the game gives
> action meaning.

> Why design a MUD if you want a game? You have much more control in
> stand-alone games. (single player or two player) .

Personally I like MMOGs because they evolve. I like the fact that
you always work on top of something else, adding elements, making
the gameplay richer and so on. The idea is building a game world
that can grow up the more resources you have, both in time and
technology. I like the fact that there's no "end" in the work,
because a game world never becomes old. This is also where I
criticized Raph in the other long message I wrote a few days ago. I
love what is unique in MUDs or MMOGs. But I still think it must
happen below the game layer because the "game" is the shape, the
scenery. It represents the third wall that you cannot pass.

The game world is the true interest but it looses its value if you
don't also offer a good game. The point is that I don't see a
difference here. They are two aspects of the same thing.

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