Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

The_Disciple · 08-01-2006, 11:09 PM

It's playerbase size in part. It's large-ish for a text game.

Again, there was no WoW, UO, EQ, etc. etc. etc. in the early-mid 90's. The character/style/direction of Med was well established long before graphical MUDs came onto the scene.

Basically, like other populist/mainstream choices such as McDonalds, vanilla ice cream, or pop music, it is designed to be preferred by (or at least, tolerable by) the widest variety of player tastes.

For example, a MUD can be (basically, yes there are shades of gray) RP or not RP. Which of those two choices appeals to a larger number of people? Not RP. A lot of people won't care a lot either way, but I'm willing to bet there are more people who are unwilling to play an enforced-RP game than are unwilling to play a no-RP game -- after all, even people who enjoy RP probably play other kinds of games, even if they're not MUDs, that don't involve it.

How about keeping the same character forever vs. some form of permadeath? Again, people have preferences, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot more people who won't play a permadeath MUD than there are people who won't play a non-permadeath MUD. Uncoincidentally, Med is a non-permadeath game.

It's harder to balance a game with many genuinely different character customization choices than one in which the basic character builds are few in number. We've all seen players quit games in a huff over the perception that their particular character build was in some way not viable. There, Med has few choices and the two most different heroes are probably more alike than the two closest builds on many other games. No player alienation there.

What about PK? If we took a poll, I'm guessing the most popular choice would either be no PK, or only opt-in PK with no real loss to your character. That's pretty much what Med offers. (Yes, I understand you can choose to expose your character to the possibility of losing a level and some equipment, but ask, say, an Armageddon player if that's real risk.) Or, if not most popular, let's say the choice that would be a deal-breaker for the smallest number of potential players.

There, basically, is the "mass" (yes, I know, text mud = small) appeal of a game like Med. It tries to offer its players as many features as it can without introducing any that would turn a player off the game. And therein the social X factor can happen; you might play a game to play with your friends, but not if you totally hate the game. The craft of Med is to produce nothing a player will totally hate.

08-01-2006, 11:09 PM	#52
The_Disciple Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 113	It's playerbase size in part. It's large-ish for a text game. Again, there was no WoW, UO, EQ, etc. etc. etc. in the early-mid 90's. The character/style/direction of Med was well established long before graphical MUDs came onto the scene. Basically, like other populist/mainstream choices such as McDonalds, vanilla ice cream, or pop music, it is designed to be preferred by (or at least, tolerable by) the widest variety of player tastes. For example, a MUD can be (basically, yes there are shades of gray) RP or not RP. Which of those two choices appeals to a larger number of people? Not RP. A lot of people won't care a lot either way, but I'm willing to bet there are more people who are unwilling to play an enforced-RP game than are unwilling to play a no-RP game -- after all, even people who enjoy RP probably play other kinds of games, even if they're not MUDs, that don't involve it. How about keeping the same character forever vs. some form of permadeath? Again, people have preferences, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot more people who won't play a permadeath MUD than there are people who won't play a non-permadeath MUD. Uncoincidentally, Med is a non-permadeath game. It's harder to balance a game with many genuinely different character customization choices than one in which the basic character builds are few in number. We've all seen players quit games in a huff over the perception that their particular character build was in some way not viable. There, Med has few choices and the two most different heroes are probably more alike than the two closest builds on many other games. No player alienation there. What about PK? If we took a poll, I'm guessing the most popular choice would either be no PK, or only opt-in PK with no real loss to your character. That's pretty much what Med offers. (Yes, I understand you can choose to expose your character to the possibility of losing a level and some equipment, but ask, say, an Armageddon player if that's real risk.) Or, if not most popular, let's say the choice that would be a deal-breaker for the smallest number of potential players. There, basically, is the "mass" (yes, I know, text mud = small) appeal of a game like Med. It tries to offer its players as many features as it can without introducing any that would turn a player off the game. And therein the social X factor can happen; you might play a game to play with your friends, but not if you totally hate the game. The craft of Med is to produce nothing a player will totally hate.