Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Zhiroc · 02-11-2009, 10:21 AM

That's a great quote. However, I do believe there is one clear line that can be drawn, whether a game can be played via any telnet client, or not. While in my mind that is a necessary condition to be called a MUD, it isn't sufficient as you can have other kinds of games that just use telnet that I wouldn't call a MUD.

I cannot make the argument that you are wrong. However, I will make the argument that it isn't useful to classify the MMOGs as MUDs. Look at what you had to do above. You had to say "graphical MUD" and "text-based mud".

My point is that in any discussion (not just this one), you would have to continue to use the "graphical" or "text-based" qualifier. If I say "MMOG" or "MMORPG", millions of people out there would know what to expect. Likewise, if I said "MUD", thousands (anyone think a million?) would pretty much know what to expect. If I talked to an MMOG player, introduced them to a MUD and called it an MMOG; or to a MUD player, introduced them to an MMOG, and called it a MUD, the majority would probably blink their eyes at me in disbelief.

In science, engineering, and other technical fields, exact definitions matter. But even then, like I asked before, "Is Pluto a planet?" I guess the ink blob analogy holds.

But in popular speech, definitions don't matter so much, "image" does.

As I was writing this, another thought came to mind. I think that most here would say that MUDs offer a unique gaming experience that has been lost in the "translation" to MMOGs. So, what is the point of trying to claim similarity? It's not like sites like this want to include MMOGs--to do so would be to make it harder to advertise the uniqueness that MUDs offer. And while it's unlikely that MMOGs would acknowledge MUDs and/or accept the naming, we certainly don't want them to use the classification themselves, do we? It won't "legitimize" or "promote" MUDs, in my mind--they would simply usurp the term for themselves.

I agree with your last sentence, but that seems to be in contradiction with your earlier ones. There are plenty of social "worlds" (?) based on MUSH, etc. that have none of the qualities you said in the first paragraph. And there are people who RP using IRC and talkers that have a world and a character. In fact, many MUSHes have no character sheets (or minimal ones), and no conflict or task resolution system, so what they are in essence are just IM with rooms. There is a distinction though, and I would agree with you (though for different reasons) that IRC (and IM) are not MUDs as they are not telnet-based. But a talker may be (on the other hand, being a MUSHer, I personally split MUSHes/etc. off from MUDs, and generally speaking, the distinction for me is whether or not they have MOBs (computer controlled opponents).

In my mind, neither the derivation nor the exact implementation matter, as long as it allows play via telnet (though a custom client may be used that enhances the experience).

I could see an MMOG-like game being played in Flash. I thought Kingdom of Loathing might have been an example, but it seems more single-player oriented, with chat. But I don't think that a browser is fundamentally limited, given the ability to embed applications.

So in the end, I maintain that I see no reason to try to use the term "MUD" in relation to "MMO(RP)G", except perhaps in some geneology of gaming.

02-11-2009, 10:21 AM	#12
Zhiroc Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 92	Re: What happened to Materiamagica??? That's a great quote. However, I do believe there is one clear line that can be drawn, whether a game can be played via any telnet client, or not. While in my mind that is a necessary condition to be called a MUD, it isn't sufficient as you can have other kinds of games that just use telnet that I wouldn't call a MUD. I cannot make the argument that you are wrong. However, I will make the argument that it isn't useful to classify the MMOGs as MUDs. Look at what you had to do above. You had to say "graphical MUD" and "text-based mud". My point is that in any discussion (not just this one), you would have to continue to use the "graphical" or "text-based" qualifier. If I say "MMOG" or "MMORPG", millions of people out there would know what to expect. Likewise, if I said "MUD", thousands (anyone think a million?) would pretty much know what to expect. If I talked to an MMOG player, introduced them to a MUD and called it an MMOG; or to a MUD player, introduced them to an MMOG, and called it a MUD, the majority would probably blink their eyes at me in disbelief. In science, engineering, and other technical fields, exact definitions matter. But even then, like I asked before, "Is Pluto a planet?" I guess the ink blob analogy holds. But in popular speech, definitions don't matter so much, "image" does. As I was writing this, another thought came to mind. I think that most here would say that MUDs offer a unique gaming experience that has been lost in the "translation" to MMOGs. So, what is the point of trying to claim similarity? It's not like sites like this want to include MMOGs--to do so would be to make it harder to advertise the uniqueness that MUDs offer. And while it's unlikely that MMOGs would acknowledge MUDs and/or accept the naming, we certainly don't want them to use the classification themselves, do we? It won't "legitimize" or "promote" MUDs, in my mind--they would simply usurp the term for themselves. I agree with your last sentence, but that seems to be in contradiction with your earlier ones. There are plenty of social "worlds" (?) based on MUSH, etc. that have none of the qualities you said in the first paragraph. And there are people who RP using IRC and talkers that have a world and a character. In fact, many MUSHes have no character sheets (or minimal ones), and no conflict or task resolution system, so what they are in essence are just IM with rooms. There is a distinction though, and I would agree with you (though for different reasons) that IRC (and IM) are not MUDs as they are not telnet-based. But a talker may be (on the other hand, being a MUSHer, I personally split MUSHes/etc. off from MUDs, and generally speaking, the distinction for me is whether or not they have MOBs (computer controlled opponents). In my mind, neither the derivation nor the exact implementation matter, as long as it allows play via telnet (though a custom client may be used that enhances the experience). I could see an MMOG-like game being played in Flash. I thought Kingdom of Loathing might have been an example, but it seems more single-player oriented, with chat. But I don't think that a browser is fundamentally limited, given the ability to embed applications. So in the end, I maintain that I see no reason to try to use the term "MUD" in relation to "MMO(RP)G", except perhaps in some geneology of gaming.