[MUD-Dev2] Specialization

[Sean Howard]

"cruise" <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>  >> of the game's content. I don't care for that approach at all. Perhaps
>  >> people who sweat more should earn more, but I also believe that it's a
>  >> game and that sweat, when it stops being fun, should not be rewarded.
>
> It depends, it seems, on why you are making games, and who for.

I think Skinner Boxes are a special type of cruelty reserved only for the
monumentally stupid. If you are suggesting that some greater good may come
out of purposely designing one, then I salute you sir. You accept the
failings of mankind like I never could.

> I see nothing wrong with designing a game that says, right on the front,
> "This game is only fun if you group with other people".

There is no good reason for ANY game to only be fun if you play with other
people. At that point, it's a terrible game and quality comes from the
social aspects. The gameplay is little more than a catalyst for social
contact. That's fine, I guess, but don't go around pretending you are a
game designer. Social behaviors happens around throwing playing cards into
a hat. It's not difficult. It's not design. If your game has the
complexity of design, then it will still be fun solo. Maybe more fun in a
group, but it will still stand up alone. If that's the case, and it rarely
is, then why limit yourself only to something which will never be able to
compete with a keg of beer and a record player?

> It might not be as popular or successful as
> other games, perhaps, but that's the choice I make as any designer:
> focused, so successful only in a niche, or broad, and mildly interesting
> to many.

That sounds to me like a defeatist attitude. Why don't you design
something that can be successful and very interesting to a great many
people? Why limit yourself? Either because you don't think you can or
because you are an egotist who designs only to his own limited world view.

> That's, surely, the game designers perogative - to design the game to
> focus on a certain type of gameplay.

Game designers have entirely too many prerogatives. Eventually you have to
just stand up and say, hey buddy, you aren't choosing to do that. You just
don't know how not to.

> Again, so? Different players like different things - what's wrong with
> choosing a particular audience and focusing on that one?

The same reason it would be wrong for a government to do the same. You
aren't running a game. You are running a community. If you only have 10
players, using gameplay to enforce xenophobia is fine. But when you have
10,000, it is morally reprehensible. If you have 10 million, it is down
right criminal. If you have 100 million, then you are larger than many
countries and should have your morals and actions judged appropriately.

-- 
Sean Howard