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

[Sean Howard]

"John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
> 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.

Man, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I disagree. I don't think
those are particularly desirable traits for all employees, much less
everyone. Certainly, some people should have that, but in my opinion,
working hard and working smart are not always the best way to work, and
sometimes, aiming for quality means taking effort away from other things
which may be more important.

Professionalism is overrated. Sometimes you need an Edison, but something
the world needs a Tesla.

> 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.

Depth is also overrated. Seriously. Depth is more important when you have
less things to do. In something like GTA: San Andreas, having a thousand
things to do would make depth counter-intuitive and unwieldly. Also, depth
is good when you want to think. But sometimes you just want to be carried,
or to have a good time. I've got many games which are dumb friends that
are just fun to hang out with.

The reason that games sell without depth is because depth isn't actually
important. The pursuit of depth is the game designer's favorite charging
at windmills philosophy, and the sooner we move past it and realize depth
as an optional part of gaming, the sooner we can start recognizing and
understanding all that other cool stuff that people ignore.

> They're people who are not only patient (and literate) enough to read
> the text, but are sated by that experience.

I don't know. I was hanging out over at the Dragon Ball Z MUSH, and the
players there weren't exactly patient or literate. I think you are
confusing the circles you ran in as the whole demographic.

> Graphical games lack the precedent of quality and depth because the first
> ones stood on the novelty of their graphics.

What? That's just crazy talk.

> 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.

I disagree. It's the lack of decent graphics engine which is going to
force them to rely on other factors to be noticed - like depth, for one.
When you don't look like Gears of War, you can't get away playing like it.

-- 
Sean Howard