Small, perhaps, but not insignificant. The protocol in many of these cases,
HTTP, TELNET, FTP, SMTP, IMAP, etc, etc, IS the very minimal definition of how
the software needs to behave in order to be considered compliant with that
particular version of the standard. It defines the server (and often clients)
basic functionality.
While you might be able to coerce an HTTP server into implementing
bidirectional TELNET-like functionality or vice versa, this does not change the
essential fact that they (by definition) are not the same, nor are they likely
to be implemented the same.
You might say there are conventionally fewer restrictions on how an MMORPG
implements its protocol, otherwise you risk blurring the lines between MUD and
MMORPG, which could lead to some rather foolish arguments.
It is however these "different approaches" regardless of whether they are MUDs
or MMORPGs, which leads us back to the original point. Different approaches can
lead to different outcomes, and it would be an mistake to assume otherwise.
I contend that the choice of protocols could significantly alter both client
and server design, in addition to the potentially vast dissimilarity created by
the game logic itself.
Generalizing a simple observation often produces an assumption.
How could two separate games have "near-identical" game logic? That makes
little sense. What would motivate people to spend their money on such similar
products? I know for certain if I purchased Diablo 3, and it sucked as much as
Diablo 2, I would demand a full refund!
I don't doubt that. Now, will KaVir's server maintain some geometrical scene
representation (shared with the client), and detect collisions with arbitrary
3D planes? Or would both client and server need to be upgraded before we get
to experience these features?
Okay
... It's late, I'll get back to ya on that one.