|
Yes, browser-based games have typically larger audiences than muds. However, this is not only caused by the interface. Other factors that contribute to the popularity of browser-based games:
-- You can play them at work, and keep the appearance of being occupied (same goes for MUDs, at more lenient offices).
-- You can play them from behind a firewall (at the less lenient offices).
-- They don't require large chunks of time - you can spread your time into smaller sessions and still be efficient.
-- They don't require as much involvement - this is a result of less direct contact with other players.
It is a design issue as much as an interface issue. You sacrifice a lot of direct involvement and real-time interaction, also due to the limitations of your interface. It's a personal choice. To me the sacrifice would seem too huge, so I'd be leaning towards a hybrid approach, such as letting players access one or more of the mud's subgames through web interface.
Example: Player-run shops
You could manage the stock from a web browser, buy goods from other shops or from trading posts (where players who do play the game but are not interested in running their own shop could place them for sale). What you couldn't do, however, would be acquire special items (since you are not logged into the game and cannot fight for them) and perhaps deliver items from other areas (you could only buy from shops in the same area as you are). For these tasks, however, you would be able to hire players who are logged on, by posting an ad through the web interface, thus giving the players additional content. The web players form ties with in-game players, although at a slower rate than if they were logged on, and who knows, might be tempted to log into the game when they come back from work - to spend their riches, to chat, or even to play. You have a fetch-and-deliver system similar to what many MUDs call quests. In-game players have more activities to choose from. Both sides win.
|