Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 02-20-2003, 07:47 AM

Keahi, please get a grip on yourself. Even if you are unable or unwilling to contribute anything to the discussion, that doesn't mean you should try and ruin it for those of us who are. I realise you're just a newbie, but that's still no excuse for poor manners.

JilesDM: Some very valid points, and similar to those I've been trying to point out for a while now. Here are some of my thoughts on a possible solution - it's just a rough idea, but hopefully it'll provide a starting point to discuss:

I don't think a review necessarily has to be too intensive to be of value, but it should at least go into some details which already aren't covered in the TMS description. While a thorough in-depth review would always be nice, not many people are able to devote that much time to playing each mud.

However one possibility would be to do the "5 minute" test. It's been my experience that you need capture the player's interest within their first few minutes in order for them to stay. Thus a reviewer could log on, and see what their impression is after the first 5 minutes.

Obviously that is nowhere near long enough to give most muds justice, but it would still be useful to get a newcomers first impression - and not just for potential players, but also for the muds themselves.

The review could also point out how helpful the players and staff were - an important factor for many players, and once which is very difficult to work out from the description of a mud (because obviously no mud is going to tell you if their staff are rude to newbies).

It would also be nice to have a brief run-down of what the mud would have to offer later on, as sometimes the mud descriptions don't really cover the features in any detail. For example, while a description might say "we've got a wilderness system", many players would also be interested to know whether the wilderness system used ascii maps, generated descriptions (and what type), or both. Some wilderness systems are just static landscapes, while others can be modified and interacted with by the players (for example, chopping down trees and using them to build your own house). This run-down shouldn't cover things which are already mention in the TMS listing, but should instead focus on the details which the description missed.

Finally, rather than having the review posted by a single person, I think it would beneficial to give the overall impressions of two or three different reviews, each of whom has different tastes in muds. Obviously someone who only likes pure RP muds is unlikely to get a good first impression from even the most well original and well thought-out Pure PK/HnS mud - and vice versa.

While I realise that Brody is probably not interested in this, I still think it could be a beneficial undertaking that would not only help promote some of the lesser known muds, but would also allow players to see some (reasonably) unbiased opinions from the point of view of a new player.

02-20-2003, 07:47 AM	#147
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Keahi, please get a grip on yourself. Even if you are unable or unwilling to contribute anything to the discussion, that doesn't mean you should try and ruin it for those of us who are. I realise you're just a newbie, but that's still no excuse for poor manners. JilesDM: Some very valid points, and similar to those I've been trying to point out for a while now. Here are some of my thoughts on a possible solution - it's just a rough idea, but hopefully it'll provide a starting point to discuss: I don't think a review necessarily has to be too intensive to be of value, but it should at least go into some details which already aren't covered in the TMS description. While a thorough in-depth review would always be nice, not many people are able to devote that much time to playing each mud. However one possibility would be to do the "5 minute" test. It's been my experience that you need capture the player's interest within their first few minutes in order for them to stay. Thus a reviewer could log on, and see what their impression is after the first 5 minutes. Obviously that is nowhere near long enough to give most muds justice, but it would still be useful to get a newcomers first impression - and not just for potential players, but also for the muds themselves. The review could also point out how helpful the players and staff were - an important factor for many players, and once which is very difficult to work out from the description of a mud (because obviously no mud is going to tell you if their staff are rude to newbies). It would also be nice to have a brief run-down of what the mud would have to offer later on, as sometimes the mud descriptions don't really cover the features in any detail. For example, while a description might say "we've got a wilderness system", many players would also be interested to know whether the wilderness system used ascii maps, generated descriptions (and what type), or both. Some wilderness systems are just static landscapes, while others can be modified and interacted with by the players (for example, chopping down trees and using them to build your own house). This run-down shouldn't cover things which are already mention in the TMS listing, but should instead focus on the details which the description missed. Finally, rather than having the review posted by a single person, I think it would beneficial to give the overall impressions of two or three different reviews, each of whom has different tastes in muds. Obviously someone who only likes pure RP muds is unlikely to get a good first impression from even the most well original and well thought-out Pure PK/HnS mud - and vice versa. While I realise that Brody is probably not interested in this, I still think it could be a beneficial undertaking that would not only help promote some of the lesser known muds, but would also allow players to see some (reasonably) unbiased opinions from the point of view of a new player.