FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)
the_logos at www.achaea.com
Sun Apr 1 18:41:17 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, John Buehler wrote:
> Matt Mihaly writes:
>> I don't really see the relevance of claiming that in an ideal game
>> there'd be no metagame methods. I am all for metagame methods as
>> I'm interested in entertaining players, not characters. Characters
>> are datasets and have no money to give us. Without a metagame,
>> you've just got a simulation with no player input.
> That's called a movie, and many people find them very entertaining
Indeedy, but we're in the games business, not the movie
business. There are parallels, but it is interactivity that defines
games (there's no such thing as playing a game where you don't make
> It's simply a question of degree. Limiting metagaming has nothing
> to do with attempting to 'entertain characters'. It has to do with
> entertaining players in a specific way, of setting specific
> expectations among the player base. An extreme form of metagaming
> is Quake, where even my real world dexterity skills have an impact
> on gameplay. Typically, graphical genre-specific games assign
> manual skills to the characters. It denies players the
> entertainment of using those metagame skills, but affords them the
> opportunity of developing their character skills. The player is
> entertained, just in a different way.
Well, similarly, an extreme form of metagaming is every
non-completely-chance-based game I've ever played online, as my "real"
world intelligence/skill/amount-of-time-available/money are the
determining factors. In fact, I've never seen an entertaining game
that wasn't entirely chance-based in which success wasn't almost
entirely related to meta things like attributes of the player
(intelligence, free time, money, etc).
>> No doubt Achaea would make many people cringe. But like you say, so
>> what. It's fun to discuss our preferences here, because we can
>> speak as both players and designers. As a player, for example, my
>> preferences are much different from those of the designer side of
>> me, and Achaea suffers to this day from decisions I made at the
>> beginning when I was designing as a player, rather than designing
>> as a designer.
> Well, this was my point in another post where I was jumped on for
> making the statement that game designers need to be able to think as
> players - but not be restricted to that mindset.
I would say, instead, that a designer needs to be able to incorporate
elements of player-think into his worldview, but that thinking
strictly as a player is rarely useful from a designer's
standpoint. Just my opinion of course.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev