|
A circular argument is a fallacy, related to 'petitio principii' ().
No, it just has to be "good enough". Because the definition of "good" is in the eye of the beholder, no mud is going to appeal to everyone. In order to be as popular as possible, a mud would therefore need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
As most mud creators will tell you, when designing and developing a mud, many features will force you to choose between "improving the overall game" and "being popular with the majority of the playerbase".
From time to time you'll see muds claiming that their every design decision is based entirely on the wishes of the playerbase (a pure 'popularity'-based approach), and such muds usually end up unplayable rarely last long - much like those which completely ignore the views of the playerbase.
Thus most muds will draw a middle ground between the two - even commercial muds which rely on large playerbases tend to have a strong vision of the direction they want their mud to go. For example, at least three of the commercial mud companies have taken the approach of offering multiple muds to appeal to a wider audience rather than trying to create a single mud that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
In summary, the point I am trying to make is that "good" is subjective and no feature is universally popular. The more people you try to appeal to, the more features you'll need to avoid, and this can impact the overall quality and individuality of your game.
|