[MUD-Dev2] Specialization

[Sean Howard]

"cruise" <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:

> This is pretty much the question I was trying to ask with my "How much
> is too much" thread from earlier - how much player choice is necessary -
> or put the other way around, how much control should a game designer
> exercise?

In a sandbox environment, a game designer should exercise his control upon
the world, not the players. That's why it is called a sandbox (though more
accurately described as a playground, really), and unless it is heavily
instanced, online worlds (by virtue of simultaneously needing to meet the
needs of dozens and thousands of other players) are sandbox games.

> To get very generalised for a moment: Head or heart.

First of all, I disagree with that generalization completely. I don't
think heart is that separate (all people poop and all people cry...
emotion is something all players can benefit from) and I think it combines
too many disparate elements in the head aspect. I think the Meyers-Briggs
temperaments make a strong argument for four core areas of problem
solving: the concrete (logistics and tactics) and the abstract (diplomacy
and strategy).

> Obviously, if my categorisation above is anywhere near true, the
> ultimate gameplay will manage strong hooks both mentally and emotionally
> - currently, it's considered too difficult to automate telling an
> engaging story while the player has free reign to wander off and
> generally mess up the story at will.

Emotion, when it comes to gaming, is a spice. A good story won't make a
bad game great, and the lack of a story won't make a great game bad. I
think one only needs look back on the history of gaming to see that the
games most well remembered and loved have lacked stories completely. I
would, for example, consider games like PacMan, Donkey Kong, and Tetris to
be ultimate games. I also consider Mario 64 and Zelda:Ocarina of Time to
be perfect games. Ultimate gameplay is something which achieves a harmony
of design such that no one element is extraneous, no one element too
superior or inferior, and no one element more important or less important
than any other. A perfect sphere of design.

> That problem is only compunded when you have hundreds or thousands of
> players interacting and messing up the story. More so when they fall at
> different places along the spectrum: "Motivated"/"Head"/"Min-maxers" -->
> "Unmotivated"/"Heart"/Role-players"

No. Stop. Do not follow this line or reasoning. Besides being absurd, it
is incredibly insulting to the players. The whole motivated, unmotivated
thing is just mean. And I would consider min-maxers to be the least
motivated of game players, seeing as they want the quickest solution with
the least amount of trouble, their ultimate goal is to break the game in
their favor. They are motivated by the possibility of lazy success in the
future. Compare that to role players who have to bring their own gameplay
with them and make simple things complex for the sake of their illusion.
Just drop the whole head/heart motivated/unmotivated thing. It's just
plain insulting to categorize players by behavior they, themselves, don't
exhibit or would find offensive.

-- 
Sean Howard