Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 04-21-2011, 05:20 AM

Aardwolf (which doesn't allow multiplaying) has nearly the same population as the four listed IRE muds combined, while Tapestries and Shangrila each have nearly twice the population of Aardwolf. So as I said, "big" is a relative term. Actually it's similar to Raph Koster's observations about .

You disregard muds that have fewer than 30-50 players. You also play IRE muds, the smallest of which has an average of around 50 players.

Likewise an Aardwolf player might disregard muds that have fewer than 200-300 players, while a Tapestries or Shangrila player might disregard any game with fewer than 500, and a RuneScape player would view even those two games as tiny.

But to go back to Raph Koster's article, there's an interesting comment he made at the end: "This all suggests that the real promise of user-created worlds may be less in the popularity or quality of individual worlds, and more in the fact that they unlock the variety that market pressures often work to prevent. We may need user content simply because it’ll be different from what we old-school folks would make — and the mere presence of difference means that our titles will also be more popular."

04-21-2011, 05:20 AM	#10
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Re: LFM Aardwolf (which doesn't allow multiplaying) has nearly the same population as the four listed IRE muds combined, while Tapestries and Shangrila each have nearly twice the population of Aardwolf. So as I said, "big" is a relative term. Actually it's similar to Raph Koster's observations about . You disregard muds that have fewer than 30-50 players. You also play IRE muds, the smallest of which has an average of around 50 players. Likewise an Aardwolf player might disregard muds that have fewer than 200-300 players, while a Tapestries or Shangrila player might disregard any game with fewer than 500, and a RuneScape player would view even those two games as tiny. But to go back to Raph Koster's article, there's an interesting comment he made at the end: "This all suggests that the real promise of user-created worlds may be less in the popularity or quality of individual worlds, and more in the fact that they unlock the variety that market pressures often work to prevent. We may need user content simply because it’ll be different from what we old-school folks would make — and the mere presence of difference means that our titles will also be more popular."