[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants

[John Buehler]

Richard A. Bartle writes:

> On 27 February 2007, John Buehler wrote:

[some snipped stuff]

> 	Well one of the main things that I notice is a lack of attention to
> detail. So many things don't behave as you'd expect that the level of
> persuasiveness is much lower than it should be. Furthermore, there are
> interesting gameplay consequences that are missed because of this
> shallowness.

[much-appreciated examples snipped]

> 	Even given that visual interactivity is expensive to show, it
> could still be more consistent. I can walk through other players but I
> can't walk through a mop standing upright in a bucket propped up against
> nothing? I can walk through a mushroom half my height but not one that
> only comes up to my knees? What gives?

[and again]

> 	Sooner or later, graphical virtual worlds will have to become
> more detailed: breadth is good, but longer-term players appreciate
> depth. When we get these details, we can either look at how the old
> textual worlds did it (and adapt them to account for advances made
> since then) or we can design everything from scratch and make the
> same mistakes as were made before (with selective depth being the
> most likely firt-timer's error - making the world deeper in some
> places but not in other, equivalent places).

> >Right, the "nuanced complexity".  What are some key elements of that?
> 	The key element is that you simulate the world at one conceptual
> level below that at which you present it.

[examples again snipped]

I completely agree with you.  The two major points that I've heard are:

1. Professionalism

This is kindergarden stuff.  Everyone should be learning of the need to work
hard, work smart, produce quality and take pride in what was produced.  It
carries from any field of endeavor, from coaching to basketweaving.  To
continue would be to debate points of sociology.

2. Fidelty of the fiction

I was going to rant about this recently, but decided against it.  Like most
people who can carry a conversation on a number of topics, I find that depth
becomes mandatory after the first impressions are taken in.  The absence of
that depth is a glaring void, like sitting down to a meal only to find that
the food is plastic.

I assume that the reason behind the lack of depth is that it's more
difficult to do, and that products can be sold and be financially very
successful without it.

Text MUDs are really the province of true zealots.  They're people who are
not only patient (and literate) enough to read the text, but are sated by
that experience.  It's a small, but enthusiastic demographic.  They won't
tolerate shallow experiences because there are plenty of other text MUDs
that have depth.  That precedent was set by the first crop of MUD developers
who were working on their own dime, trying to do a good job so that others
would enjoy the experience of their software.  They did take pride in their
work.

Graphical games lack the precedent of quality and depth because the first
ones stood on the novelty of their graphics.  And that trend is continuing
to this day.  They exist by their eye candy.  The voices of those demanding
depth of experience are drowned out by those who want loot, levels and
power.  There are millions in the latter camp.  Precious few in the former.

Next, look at the want ads for game developers.  You don't see them calling
out to people talented in depth of experience, simulation and such.  They
want people who are passionate about gaming.  What gaming?  The current
games, of course.  The industry reinforces itself by hiring people who like
the games that are out there now.

To break out of this pattern, it's going to take things like inexpensive
graphics engines that will let every Tom, Dick and Harry Developer take a
shot at the graphical genre the same way that printf permitted the parents
of those developers to take a shot at the textual genre.  That's when the
zealots for depth will be able to step up to the plate and build something
that will put World of Warcraft to shame.

The attempts are being made already, but none has caught on just yet.  It is
my hope that there's a slow-motion explosion already taking place,
surrounding a game that is predicated on having some depth of experience,
etc.  In a few years, we may all hear about it and be delighted that what
will probably become known as "a new genre" has come into being.

> >Is there an existing writeup on the skipped lessons of text MUDs that
> anyone
> >can point me to?
> 	Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean we can't put something
> together at the end of this thread.

Anything, to get us away from the graphics crutch.

JB