[MUD-Dev] Re: PK and my "Mobless MUD" idea

s001gmu at nova.wright.edu s001gmu at nova.wright.edu
Fri May 8 13:31:05 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Thu, 7 May 1998, John Bertoglio wrote:

> 
> From: Dr. Cat <cat at bga.com>
 
[... Dr. Cat states Game industry is clonesville ...]
 
> You are absolutely correct. The commercial game market (and by extension,
> the entire entertaiment industry) is RUN by people who by in large seem to
> have born without the capacity for original thought. The computer game
> industry had avoided the worst of this mindlessness until the last few
> years when huge budgets coupled with a corporate mentality makes it look
> more and more like Hollywood.

I think it reaches further back than that... how many side scroller games
are there?  As far as I can tell, they are all pretty much the same.
Minor variations on a theme.  I don't think the late '90's bring any new
lack of creativity to the industry, it just wraps it in a flashier
package.
 
> >Here on the list, I see things even more narrowly focused, with maybe one
> >or two types of "ideal games" that people are clustered around and trying
> >to figure out how to make.  It's frustrating to me to see so little
> >diversity of opinion and artistic style.

Personanly, I think this is a Good Thing (tm), and, in fact, the entire
PURPOSE of this list.  To focus on one aspect of internet, multiplayer
games.  This is the _MUD-DEV_ list for a reason.

> I think this is something of an overstatement. I have almost finished
> reading the "back issues" of the list (and accepted the general personal
> productivity hit because of it)and find about the only common thread is a
> preference for object-oriented models (something my design does not use,
> BTW). Some of the projects described are so flexible in their design, they
> look like they could model any world including Furcadia. Lacking their
> talents and skills, I am building a far less ambitious project.

I have to agree with Dr. Cat a bit here.  There is some variation in the
topics of games (SF vs Fantasy vs Fantasy-historical, etc), and some
variation on whether the design is a game or a game server, but the over
all focus is still fairly narrow.  That being said, I do thuroughly enjoy
the threads that wander off of the specific topic of the list... fresh air
is good.  It can shake things up, and possibly cause us to redefine the
purpose of the list, to grow as the mud community grows.

> A lot of the examples used seem to relate to traditional mud thinking but
> when you look carefully they relate to very sophisticated design issues. I
> see this a courtesy to others who think in more traditional terms. The
> Bubba stuff has helped me to see many issues and angles which would
> otherwise be obscured by C++ coding and atomic threads...whatever they are?

An Atomic event is an event that is executed as if it were one machine
instruction.  While it is being executed nothing else is being executed.
A simple Atomic event on a single processor machine is an assignment:

   x = 5;

While that assignment is being executed, nothing else can be executed.
The discussion pertaining to threads and events is a discussion about how
to extend that model to apply to more than one instruction in a
multi-threaded/multi-process[ing|or] environment...

Essentially, how do I get something like:

  function foo() {
    x += 5;
    y += x;
  }

to execute as if it were one statement to the machine, when I have
potentially dozens of things going on at once (or as close to it as makes 
no difference)?

I personnaly have taken a traditional locking model approach, which is why
I've stayed out of the conversation on C&C vs. S&S.  You can read up on my
approach (among others) in the archives under the 'Event Handling' and
'DBs and Events' threads from earlier this year, if you haven't already.

[...]

> I would like to see far more discussion of commercial issues on this list.
> Commercial acceptance of a product is a major test of the quality of the
> design (admittedly not the only test). Opting out of the commercial arena
> allows one a degree of freedom which is often counterproductive.

It's not the freedom that is counterprodutive, merely the lack of the
same amount of discipline in the approach that is counter productive.
Granted, the lack of $-in-hand customers and [angry] investors is
condusive to a more lax developement environment, but it is not the cause
of the problem.  :)

> Our
> current commercial internet applications have been improved, dramatically,
> by customer feedback. As clever as we were (and we are quite clever), the
> market is smarter. Balancing the interests of our clients, their clients
> and system users has improved the product beyond our original expecations
> of what was possible. I am sure that will be the case with my virtual
> world.

Again, I don't see any reason the same approach can't be taken with a
hobby product... I don't know of any where it HAS been taken, but that
doesn't mean it CAN'T be done.  ;)
 
[...]

> One fact of life on the internet (I have learned from my wife's single
> women friends in the 30-50 age range) is they now let "anybody" in. When a
> lot of these people started using the net is was a somewhat exclusive club
> due to technical complexity and economic issues. This made it an attractive
> place to meet people. (I know of at least 3 marriages and several more
> long-term relationship which were spawned on the internet.) Is it possible
> to recreate that original spirit and sense of a "special place"?

I'd say this list succeeds, at least IMHO.  *kudos* to JC and all who have
worked _very_ hard over the years.
 
> If you go advertising supported, you run the risks of network television.
> Advertising means two things, numbers (of households) and demographics. Can
> you maintain creative control when advertisers demand greater numbers of
> households or more penetration into specific demographic groups. A world
> with a million players will be an attractive market for advertisers...but
> will your product devolve to level of WB sitcoms to reach it?

About all I have to say here (my major reason for not even considering
such a move): least common denominator.  I don't think I could tolerate
working on a project that had that as a goal.  I abhor the level that TV
[far too] often stoops to, and don't miss having a TV around at all.

I can picture it...

TAA - TV Addicts Anonymous...
  "Hi, my name is Greg, and I've been w/o TV in my life for 6 months!"

  <from the crowd>
  "Hi Greg!"

*snicker*

[... Dr. Cat's Sig ...] 

> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.


Sig?  I've noticed several ppl w/o them of late...


-Greg 


--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list