[MUD-Dev] Graphic MUDS.

[Adam Wiggins]

[Mk:]
> On 30 Jun, Adam Wiggins wrought:
> > > >scars to your character's birthday.
> > > 
> > > This would imply that simplistic level based MUDs with no character
> > > customisation outside of name, level, inventory, and possibly current
> > > HP value are not MUDs.  (cf MUD2, Shades, most Abers, etc).
> > 
> > Maybe in today's world they do barely qualify, but that's still enough
> 
> Oh - so some classic MUDs now barely qualify as compared with today's
> stock offerings?

Actually, classic muds are often one and the same with today's stock
offerings.  However, when speaking about any community or collection
of works, I rarely speak in terms of the lowest common denominator.
Those muds may have been fun, original, and cutting edge at the time,
but yes, they pale in comparisson to the field's best offerings.
That's advancement, and it's not a bad reflection on those muds, since
everything that exists today was built on their shoulders, so to speak.

To make a long story short, if you put a stock Aber online today, I would
not be impressed.

> Yes - persistance is important, and is what sets muds apart from Doom. The
> definition I used for my JOMR paper classifying muds was
> 
> "computerised multi user persistent real-time virtual world"
> 
> The system has to be on a computer; it has to be capable of supporting
> multiple users simultaneously; it has to have a persistent world that
> remains affected by changes made even after users have left; it has to be
> real time - not play by email or something; and it has to model a world
> ... so IRC doesn't count. 

'model a world' is probably the most nebulous of those points, all of
which I agree with.  I'd further say that the world modeled needs to
be somewhat self-consistant and self-sustaining, as well as having
enough interactiveness to make a good part (if not all) of the environment
manipulatable.  Ie you could easily have 'rooms' with detailed
descriptions of what's going on there, but if you try to greet one
of the passerbys mentioned in the description and no such thing actually
exists, the illusion crumbles like a bad matte painting.

> This definition includes some talkers ... the distinction between muds and
> sophisticated talkers is subjective anyway. What the definition does NOT

Well, it's certainly not a well-defined line, but I'd drop back to my
previous statement about interactivity of the world on this topic.
IRC is not an interactive world even though there are many 'rooms'.
Ditto for Quake and many of the MUXes I've been on.  In most cases
they aren't *trying* to be interactive worlds, but rather a place where
people can get together to place Magic: The Gathering over the internet
or other such things.

> include is bollocks about goal-orientation, point scoring, internal
> modifiabilility etc ... these are server-specific issues

Tell it like it is, brother! :)

> BTW - there's an Australian talker (called Forest or something) which is
> better than most of the muds out there.

Well - again, define 'better'.  I find Quake much better for being able
to blow people away than most muds.  Secondly, being better than most
of the muds out there is not all that impressive, IMO.
Anyhow, do you mean better as far as creating an interactive world or
otherwise meeting the criteria you describe above?  If so I'd like to
check it out...