[MUD-Dev] Persistent Worlds

[the_logos at www.achaea.com]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Marian Griffith wrote:

> In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Wed 21 Feb, the_logos at www.achaea.com wrote:
 
>> Shrug. Then there's no meaning to the word. Anything could exist in
>> theory. The physical laws of the universe could undergo a radical
>> change tomorrow. As we're not aware of the complete laws of the
>> universe (if there is such a thing at all), there is no way to know
>> this won't happen. If the mere possibility of something means it is
>> 'real' then I do not find myself capable of thinking of anything
>> that isn't real, in which case the word has no meaning and this
>> argument is over.
 
> The problem is that you define 'realistic' as: 'just as in reality'
> while most all -players- use it to refer to a set of qualities to
> the game world. Mainly they expect the gameworld to be predictable,
> coherent (with itself and with established literary icons) and con-
> sistent.  If the gameworld mostly agrees with those qualifications
> they consider it realistic, even if it violates each and every law
> of nature as we know it.

Right. Well, they're wrong. In any case, I'm addressing myself to
designers here, and the point I was trying to make wasn't a merely
semantic one.

This discussion started when I took issue with somebody (I can't
remember who now) said something along the lines of, "It'd be more
realistic if you did X." He said that in such a way as to imply that
realism = entertainment, and I was really merely trying to demonstrate
that realism != entertainment. It can contribute to entertainment, but
if realism was the end all be all of entertainment, we'd not need
games.

I just think that if you put yourself in the mindset that realism is
the goal instead of entertainment, you've taken your eyes off the
ball.

--matt

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev