[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted
the_logos at achaea.com
Tue Apr 30 02:13:45 New Zealand Standard Time 2002
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 Daniel.Harman at barclayscapital.com wrote:
> From: Matt Mihaly [mailto:the_logos at achaea.com]
>> "The game then becomes more and more unplayable for those who
>> either cannot or will not spend 16 hours a day playing it."
> Ah, but when you have a combination of someone with 16 hours to
> play, and money, then you have people leagues ahead if its an item
> centric game. Of course, if we go back to first principles, then
> if a game allows advancement, someone has to be at the bottom of
> the ladder. Its just that no one wants to be at the bottom, and a
> lot of gamers don't have high incomes so resent the application of
> money to advancement.
So is it the time or the money? If it's a combination, which is at
fault, and why? A lot of gamers have high incomes and resent the
application of time to advancement.
> Personally, I'm just not interested in spending money on a
> database entry. At least I'm not willing to spend as much as
> other people seem to be. I'd probably purchase the odd Everquest
> item if they cost 100 USD, not 400 USD.
Supply and demand.
>> "Buying items with time also does very little if anything to
>> foster any sort of community in the game."
> Now thats a real stretch. If people are in game for longer, there
> a greater likelyhood that they will interacting with other players
> and creating community.
That assumes all sorts of other things about the games' design. In
the simplest case, where time is directly tied to advancement, a
character simply being in the game, doing nothing, does nothing to
create community. In Everquest, where time is indirectly tied to
advancement, simply being in the game also does not advance
community. Time provides the opportunity for more interaction, but I
don't believe that simply equating time spent interacting with
strength of community is valid.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev