[Meta] RE: [MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #163 - 25 msgs
rkoster at austin.rr.com
Mon Jul 17 19:35:31 New Zealand Standard Time 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Matthew Mihaly
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:35 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [Meta] RE: [MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #163 - 25
> We all deeply deceive ourselves. The tools aren't the problem. All the
> tools that need exist already exist for writing fiction, for instance, yet
> I know a lot of people who call themselves writers that never really get
> around to writing.
Actually, remarkably few tools exist for writing fiction. There's a
wonderful set of tools available for typing in words. See the distinction?
Raph (me) said earlier (attribution got lost):
> > > What will make it a success? When the tools are so easy that they
> > > make anyone look good. Then we'll see the population come into its
> > > own.
> Unless you can stick AI in to actually do all of the work, the
> average level of quality will be crud, no matter how good the tools are.
> You could give me the most expensive, best artists paintbrush in the
> world, the widest variety best quality paints, the finest canvas that
> exists, and I'd still paint you a bunch of ugly crap, because
> I suck at painting.
The vast majority of people can't use Photoshop to make real art. They are
however perfectly comfortable with a few Photoshop filters and FrontPage to
make decent websites. Ones that even win awards.
You can indeed give people tools to make things that are "good enough." Good
enough to make them happy, and a few others, at any rate. And that is plenty
enough for a sense of satisfaction.
Now, this will not make the aesthetes like you (or me) happy. We'll just
redefine "crud" to include those capabilities.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev