[MUD-Dev] Re: (fwd) Re: POLL: Games ruined by bad players (Player killers, tank rushers etc)
adam at angel.com
Mon May 4 12:51:32 New Zealand Standard Time 1998
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Chris Gray wrote:
> [JC Lawrence:]
> :I would note that any competitive game which involves the concept of
> :"beating" another player is actually a variation on the "killing"
> :games, just with a prettier face drawn over the gore via poker chips
> :or property cards etc. This suggests that the deliniation among games
> :on this point is specious, or at best artificial.
> OK, I'll bite. A difference you are paving over here is that of what is
> left after the different kinds of competition. In a game where the goal
> is to defeat (avoiding the perhaps loaded term 'beat') other players at
> some task such as property management, risk management, economic fore-
> casting, etc., both players are still around at the end of the game. In
> fact, both players may well be improved by the game in that they now are
> better at whatever the game involved. In a game where the goal is to kill
> the other player, one of the player's (in the game context) is gone after
> the game is done. Hence, there is likely to be a significant net loss in
> available resources after the game is over. So, I think painting all
> competitive games with the same brush is unwarrented.
Hrm - this would seem to draw the line between perma-kill games and
non-perma kill games, which would still leave poker, hearts, Quake, and
your average diku mud all in the same category, no?
The second category would be games where you actually eliminate the other
player from competition by beating them. This includes perma-kill muds,
chess, Tron mud, and checkers.
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.
More information about the MUD-Dev