[MUD-Dev] PVP and perma-death

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

HRose <hrose at tiscali.it> writes:

> 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.

This is not really true. It takes time to master movement in a 3D
environment for instance. Some players can't deal with it at all,
others master it. The UI of MUDs tends to be horrible, some still
manage because they have the required competencies. Some players
have never played a RPG before, players who are better at picking
the optimal choices for their character right from the start and so
on. The best thing would of course be to have better designs, but I
am not holding my breath. I think developers try to do their
best... Besides there will always be tradeoffs. The ideal design
would adapt, but adaptive user interfaces don't really work well as
they tend to misjudge the context of the user. You can dumb down the
gameplay at the newbie level even further than what you see in
existing MMOs, but then you might make it boring for those who have
competencies. You can spend money on developing a MUD-school and UI
that scales with the proficiency of the user, which I think might me
worthwhile, but it obviously is non-trivial to develop and requires
lots of skilled testing to get right. I.e. it costs time, money and
knowledge. The sad thing is that most software projects are delayed,
usability and interesting features tend to be sacrificed to get the
product out the door.

However, motiviation does not sit in the game. Motivation sits with
the user. You can provide rewards, enjoyable actions and systems
which supports social comparison, but you can never provide
motivation. You can however play on common motivation
mechanisms. This is why we have genres like MMO-RPGs and Hollywood
movies...

> 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.

Yes... However, few are able to construct new paradigms or even take
the chance that they will work... And you still have to play on
existing competencies the user possesses. This is UI design 101.

You won't be able to enjoy contemporary music untill you have heard
enough of it to understand the basic structure and esthetics, you
simply won't be able to understand what to listen for. You won't be
able to enjoy the art in trance music unless you realize the art is
not in melodies or big changes but the in the buildup and
minimalistic changes in timbre. All chinese people look similar to
Europeans, we haven't acquired the competenties to distinguish
between their facial features. All dance music sound the same to
older people, same reason. You need to be familiar with something to
see the beauty of the details.

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

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

Which foil? It doesn't work well with my setup.

> 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.

It doesn't have to be. Depends on what kind of art you are going
for. Carl Barks' Donald Duck comics have broad appeal and a good
UI. The stories always demand quite a bit of competencies from the
reader though... fortunately we all have them (in the west).

> 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.

Well, you have to design after them when they come in conflict. If
your game affords Quake like play, but you want the player to treat
it like a stage, then you need to make sure that the influence of
the Quake approach is reduced.

> technology. I like the fact that there's no "end" in the work,
> because a game world never becomes old.

Hm... I think it does get old. That's why you have big
expansions. More user influence could help... but for now MMOs seems
to either be games or constructive, not both. Unfortunately
designers are afraid that players will express themselves. I don't
really see the problem with someone writing "Fuck" on a wall, but I
am not american...

> 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.

They could be, I suppose. I don't think they are in existing
worlds. Maybe The Sims Online, but I don't know that game first
hand.

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev