bwh at wksoftware.com
Sat Aug 11 16:06:53 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
At 11:49 AM 8/7/01 +0200, Ola wrote:
> Ack... No romantic spots, eh?
In theory the "romantic spots" naturally evolve from what is created
algorithmically. While some designers cry about the inability to
make terrain that fits their designs/stories, humanity has a history
of being able to invent stories and myths for the terrain that
exists. I don't consider this a huge hardship =)
> You could say that. Although that won't make your games more
> interesting than the physical world.
Fair enough, but I don't believe I've argued for this. Getting back
to my original post, I was basically stating that what I wanted to
do, not that it was necessarily the best thing to do in all cases.
> all surface and no meaning. So basically you need a very very
> complex model which covers both perception and experience in order
> to generate interesting content. IMO, this is a field for
> research, not a field for development :-).
I guess I disagree. I've seen generated worlds based off a couple
random seeds that were very interesting to walk around and explore.
I think this is a completely viable model because the human mind is
so good at creating rationales for the existence of the mundane.
> You want the virtual world to be MORE REAL (intense) than the real
> world if you go for modelling. As in art. Experience should be
> more intense than walking in the mountains. If it isn't
> compelling, why would I play?
Once again, I disagree. It doesn't have to be more compelling, it
just has to be compelling, convenient and interesting. The fact
that you're the first person to explore the Doomish Mountains of
Phobos 4 is a thrill for many people.
> I'm not convinced of this. There are extremely simple game
> concepts with no content to speak of that keep hundreds of
> thousands of players busy for months.
Sure, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But given
the emphasis on consumption of content and exploration in general in
computer games, I don't think the idea of "easily making a bunch of
content that is interesting" is particularly ludicrous.
I don't like vast sweeping expanses of nothing -- that's boring.
But I also don't like four highly detailed rooms and that's it. I
kind of like both -- areas of interest, and large expanses of
"fairly interesting" wilderness.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev