[MUD-Dev] Re: Analysis and specification - the dirty words of mud development?

Mike Sellers mike at bignetwork.com
Tue Jun 9 21:56:19 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


At 06:17 PM 6/9/98 +0100, Greg Munt wrote:
>I've been on this list for over a year.
>
>Throughout that period, the list's discussions have been biased towards
>design. The logical conclusion of this, is that one or more of the
>following is true:
>
>	List members (read: mud developers) find analysis and requirements
>specification so easy that they do not feel discussion of 	related issues
>is warranted, or indeed relevant.
>
>	List members do not carry out any requirements analysis, or none of
>merit/worthy of discussion.
>
>	List members are not interested in discussing these stages of development.
>
>Many (I'd say 'all', but I can't allow myself to be that pessimistic) mud
>developers that I know are not that at all, but, instead, are mud
>implementors. Design is little more than an afterthought, so hopes of any
>analysis being done are comedic, at best.

I think you've put this extremely well.  It's unfortunate, but as you say,
the amount of analysis and design done is often comedic at best.  Of
course, this is hardly peculiar to hobbyist muds -- commercial muds (I'm
not casting aspersions, Raph :-) ) and indeed, most professional games are
developed with an astonishing lack of analysis, and with only a passing
glimpse at what in other parts of the software world would be recognized as
actual design. =20

>As a firm believer in the neccessity for QA procedures in *any* software
>development, I am keen to discuss these previously untouched areas of
>requirements analysis. My early forays into them are self-condemned as too
>low-level, and having no commercial experience, I'd be interested in how
>others have progressed with it (particularly on commercial projects).
>
>My requirements thus far seem to be based around the tools which users will
>use to satisfy their requirements, rather than specifying the requirements
>themselves. The fact that there is no physical 'customer' is not helpful,
>either.

Surely the player is the customer?  Also, depending on your game, the
developer or area writer could be seen as a customer.  Is that what you
meant by tools the users use? =20

I'd love to see more discussion of actual requirements or analysis here
too, but I'm just too dang tired to launch into it now...

Maybe someone else will pick this up?

--

Mike Sellers=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Chief Creative Officer=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The=
 Big Network
mike at bignetwork.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
<http://www.bignetwork.com/>http://www.bignetwork.com

             =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fun=A0=A0 Is=A0=A0 Good =20




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list