Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Jenred · 08-05-2003, 06:35 PM

Hi Author of the article here.
I dont, and never will, consider Everquest, DAoC, or any other MMORPG a MUD. I've actually played Everquest, and despite contrary beliefs, it is a 'role-playing game'. Not in the base terms where: Your playing a role, so its a role-playing game. But by the definitive precedents set by other games that can be called 'role-playing games' of the video-game variety.

Like its hard to compare a MUD and say... Final Fantasy X, or Everquest, etc. These are pretty different. MUDs are text-based, with a lot of limitations based on this. Now to address your claim...

My view:

Your statement:

Interactiveness on Everquest isn't minimal because of its setting and all sorts of things. There is a vast world to explore, kill, and collect treasure in. Lots of peopel to interact with, and all other things. And then its also visually appealing.

A text-based game can't really thrive on the killing and collecting of treasure and exploring a world, because it lacks many of the visual elements, and they hardly expand as fast as a game with 450,000 people. You eventually see everything, have collected everything, and basically done everything.

These MUDs might -survive- yes, I'm sure many of them do. Some maybe even with 100 people. But its a superficial pbase. I consider a player-base actual players, regulars, contributers. Anyways... yeah.

And my final defense, it was taken out of context.
The statement was in reference to MUDs that are neither no role-play, and the encouraged/enforced people. They merely allow it. The full statement that you butchered:
And I'll fully stand behind my statement. If a game lacks a developed world, any type of story-line, intrigue, unique code, etc, it -WILL- fail.

Everquest probably won't fail because it was both original for its time, had a developed world, lots to see and do, a semblance of a game-world concept, unique features, etc.

Enjoy!

08-05-2003, 06:35 PM	#3
Jenred Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 55	Hi Author of the article here. I dont, and never will, consider Everquest, DAoC, or any other MMORPG a MUD. I've actually played Everquest, and despite contrary beliefs, it is a 'role-playing game'. Not in the base terms where: Your playing a role, so its a role-playing game. But by the definitive precedents set by other games that can be called 'role-playing games' of the video-game variety. Like its hard to compare a MUD and say... Final Fantasy X, or Everquest, etc. These are pretty different. MUDs are text-based, with a lot of limitations based on this. Now to address your claim... My view: Your statement: Interactiveness on Everquest isn't minimal because of its setting and all sorts of things. There is a vast world to explore, kill, and collect treasure in. Lots of peopel to interact with, and all other things. And then its also visually appealing. A text-based game can't really thrive on the killing and collecting of treasure and exploring a world, because it lacks many of the visual elements, and they hardly expand as fast as a game with 450,000 people. You eventually see everything, have collected everything, and basically done everything. These MUDs might -survive- yes, I'm sure many of them do. Some maybe even with 100 people. But its a superficial pbase. I consider a player-base actual players, regulars, contributers. Anyways... yeah. And my final defense, it was taken out of context. The statement was in reference to MUDs that are neither no role-play, and the encouraged/enforced people. They merely allow it. The full statement that you butchered: And I'll fully stand behind my statement. If a game lacks a developed world, any type of story-line, intrigue, unique code, etc, it -WILL- fail. Everquest probably won't fail because it was both original for its time, had a developed world, lots to see and do, a semblance of a game-world concept, unique features, etc. Enjoy!