Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Slanted · 07-14-2005, 11:01 AM

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

Strengths of a graphical MMORG
-Graphics (obviously) – This adds a whole new dimension of possibilities. Battle tactics especially benefit from this. There is simply no non-graphical comparison to freeform movement in battle.
-Major development studios backing them. This generally provides faster turnover for fixes and enhancements. It also means that things will (probably) be done more professionally.
-Massive playerbase, so you are often able to find friends to play with

Weaknesses of a graphical MMORG
-To date, vast majority focus primarily on fighting and less on RP
-Enhancements are a lot more involved with new art/very complex code to fix. This often makes games seem buggy when very small bugs appear in massive updates.
-Very little policing of in game policies to create environment. Even in supposed ‘RP’ servers in these games people pretty much say and do whatever they want and get away with it. Botting is also common in many of these games and is rarely caught.
-To date games have been designed with simplicity in their systems to appeal to a broader audience. This makes them a bit watered down by most MUD standards.

Now, looking at these, the primary cause of most of the weaknesses has to do with the scale of the project. MUDs strengths lie in their specificity. They can be designed for a much smaller audience with very defined tastes without losing money. Also, they require far less, resource wise, to develop and change. Remove wide audience appeal and complexity from development from a graphical MMORG and you essentially have a MUD as it stands today.

I think there is hope for MUD-Like MMORGs if a few enterprising folks build a set of free architecture and development tool that allows for non-professional coders to develop a MMORG without knowing the advanced technical items that go along with it. The largest drawback to this would be a lot of commonality between the art of various smaller MMORGs, but we see that in the MUD universe as well with stock areas etc.

However, the base question remains, how do I like MMORGs today compared to MUDs. Well I like them both just fine. It is very nice to have a huge and professional design studio pumping out content and beautiful graphics for a game that I play. It is also nice to be part of a large community that is very vocal about it’s hobby and to always find people to play with. However, conversely it is also nice to be part of a small community playing a game with very specific and complex systems that change more slowly but with more care. I do not ascribe to the ‘one-game-at-a-time’ theory in gaming, so I play and enjoy both for what the offer and when I get sick of what they do not, I play something else.

07-14-2005, 11:01 AM	#9
Slanted New Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 29	Here are my thoughts on the matter: Strengths of a graphical MMORG -Graphics (obviously) – This adds a whole new dimension of possibilities. Battle tactics especially benefit from this. There is simply no non-graphical comparison to freeform movement in battle. -Major development studios backing them. This generally provides faster turnover for fixes and enhancements. It also means that things will (probably) be done more professionally. -Massive playerbase, so you are often able to find friends to play with Weaknesses of a graphical MMORG -To date, vast majority focus primarily on fighting and less on RP -Enhancements are a lot more involved with new art/very complex code to fix. This often makes games seem buggy when very small bugs appear in massive updates. -Very little policing of in game policies to create environment. Even in supposed ‘RP’ servers in these games people pretty much say and do whatever they want and get away with it. Botting is also common in many of these games and is rarely caught. -To date games have been designed with simplicity in their systems to appeal to a broader audience. This makes them a bit watered down by most MUD standards. Now, looking at these, the primary cause of most of the weaknesses has to do with the scale of the project. MUDs strengths lie in their specificity. They can be designed for a much smaller audience with very defined tastes without losing money. Also, they require far less, resource wise, to develop and change. Remove wide audience appeal and complexity from development from a graphical MMORG and you essentially have a MUD as it stands today. I think there is hope for MUD-Like MMORGs if a few enterprising folks build a set of free architecture and development tool that allows for non-professional coders to develop a MMORG without knowing the advanced technical items that go along with it. The largest drawback to this would be a lot of commonality between the art of various smaller MMORGs, but we see that in the MUD universe as well with stock areas etc. However, the base question remains, how do I like MMORGs today compared to MUDs. Well I like them both just fine. It is very nice to have a huge and professional design studio pumping out content and beautiful graphics for a game that I play. It is also nice to be part of a large community that is very vocal about it’s hobby and to always find people to play with. However, conversely it is also nice to be part of a small community playing a game with very specific and complex systems that change more slowly but with more care. I do not ascribe to the ‘one-game-at-a-time’ theory in gaming, so I play and enjoy both for what the offer and when I get sick of what they do not, I play something else.