Amusement park gaming (was: Re: [MUD-Dev2] [REPOST] Value)

[Zach Collins Siege]

On 9/5/06, Paolo Piselli <ppiselli at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brian Ayavaron Ross wrote:
> >
> > A topic that always came to mind to me when I played games was
> > value.  I don't like it when I pay $50 for a game only to find that
> > I couldn't get more than an hour into it due to insurmountable
> > difficulty. When I pay full price for a game, I expect to be allowed
> > to see all of the game regardless of my skill. It seems unfair that
> > when I pay $50 for a game, I am only privy to 10% of the game.
[snip]

> It occured to me that this is in many ways a return to the "world" vs.
> "amusement park" argument.  If a MMO/MUD follows a world model, then
> it makes logical sense that you are limited by your abilities and
> resources in where you may go.  Not everyone can climb to the top of
> Mt. Everest.  If a MMO/MUD follows an amusement park model, well then
> you have paid the admission fee and you may go on any ride that suits
> you so long as you have the time to do so during your stay.  You can't
> go on all the rides in a day and don't expects to, but you do expect
> to have the option of going on any of them.

Actually, the game design I'm (slowly) working on follows the
amusement park model. Because it's not as well-explored as the world
model, I believe that it's ripe for use as a game methodology. Limit
advancement and reduce barriers in favor of fun, allow anyone to
participate in quests provided their characters have the necessary
skillset, instance anything and everything that might cause problems
if passers-by can freely interact with it, and so on. Amusement parks
don't have to be just social playgrounds like Second Life or Sims
Online, and the open ground beyond them is the territory I want to
fall into.

-- 
Zach Collins (Siege)