|
Sure, of course. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost any feature.
Well, I don't entirely agree here. Insofar as MUDs are both products and services, I don't believe one can judge a MUD purely on a product basis (the code and the content). Other players and the player community are part of the service side and are always taken into account by potential and existing players in their judgements of a MUD.
As for objective 'bad' or 'good', well, I don't care. It's in the eye of the beholder. My personal opinion (and it doesn't matter to me if other people share it or not) is that a large MUD is, ipso facto, good insofar as it's managed to attract a lot of players that view it as good, while a small MUD is more nebulous. One can't really say it's bad, but, again, for me, small MUDs are simply indeterminate. They haven't, as you say, lived up to their potential, and it's far from certain the potential is there at all. Again, that's for me, and it's probably because my main interests in MUDs require larger player populations to work. No doubt others disagree, demonstrating the subjective nature of quality assessment.
No, I wouldn't, though I would say that the larger ones are more successful, given that I define success as achieving ones goals, and our goals are to create MUDs that will attract as many players as possible.
--matt
|