Article on Skotos at IF/About.Com

[ChristopherA]

The Interactive Fiction section of About.Com just published an excellent
article on us called "Skotos Bets on Next-Generation MUDs" (http://interactfiction.about.com/games/interactfiction/library/weekly/aa010801a.htm) by by Stephen Granade.

There is also a discussion topic (http://forums.about.com/ab-interactfict/messages/?msg=1346) where you can show your appreciation for us by joining in and making comments, as well as 'vote' (http://interactfiction.about.com/games/interactfiction/library/weekly/aa010801b.htm) on the second page of the article.

-- Christopher Allen

[Santlar]

I’m the character who “leeched the life out of static fiction!" I am so proud. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/tongue.gif

Though, I have to admit, reading that log I agree with him. It was just after the binding and I guess I was thinking: “must convey the poor health and cost of Magic!! Must!!” One thing you don’t get from that log is the passing of time. Just reading it, it looks even more repetitive than it was.

However, I shall try to watch my adverbs from now on! Sorry guys!

[skitten]

Well, the article wasn't that bad but I am more than a little ticked off that I had -no- warning that this guy was going to directly link to one of the logs on my website. Especially when pointing out something "Bad" about Skotos?! A polite warning would have been nice. What ever happened to common curtesy? I have to admit, I am definitely fighting my urges to both take down that log and to write a scathing email to Author.

Jenn
(The UNhappy camper)

[stealthkat]

My impressions of the article are:

1. Quoted from page two of the article: "Skotos employees began work on developing entire worlds for players to play in. The first two were to be Altavia, a fantasy world, and Golden Gate: 1849, a historical game based in San Francisco."

I don't mean to be nit picky, but shouldn't it be ALVATIA? Maybe it doesn't matter as much as if Castle Marrach was spelled wrong, but...*shrug*


2. I read Jenn's comment prior to reading the article, so I paid particular attention to that paragraph when I came upon it. At first, I didn't finish reading the sentence, and assumed that the author was criticizing the parser output. However, then read the entire sentence, and re-read it. Finally it dawned on me...I think the author is suggesting that it would be tiresome to read static fiction in this manner. I myself don't care for reading transcripts of the game much. But while in the game, the adverbs are a necessity that brings life to the game. Rasp away, and curtsy weakly all you like guys!

3. Overall, a good article. It covered a lot, and I felt it to be a good summary that didn't get too technical, and didn't tout Skotos as the next bext thing since sliced bread. Hopefully that will make the entire article readable for all types of people, and will generate even more interest in Skotos' games!

http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif Kathy

[ShannonA]

Originally posted by stealthkat:
My impressions of the article are:

2. I read Jenn's comment prior to reading the article, so I paid particular attention to that paragraph when I came upon it. At first, I didn't finish reading the sentence, and assumed that the author was criticizing the parser output. However, then read the entire sentence, and re-read it. Finally it dawned on me...I think the author is suggesting that it would be tiresome to read static fiction in this manner. I myself don't care for reading transcripts of the game much. But while in the game, the adverbs are a necessity that brings life to the game. Rasp away, and curtsy weakly all you like guys!



I think that's absolutely correct. I had some trouble reading the sentence the first time too, but eventually came up with the same reading as you -- the transcript was used as an example of how well the adverbs work in the game. Indeed, when I reread the transcript, I found it very evocative.

Shannon

[ChristopherA]

The article is apparently raising some heated discussions on the LumTheMad (http://www.lumthemad.net) site.

Savant wrote a very scathing rant (http://www.lumthemad.net/news/1640.php) against yesterdays IF/About.Com article. In it he says:
This is a painful subject for me, as MUDs are my roots. From your average free stock mud, to paying up to nine dollars an hour for Simutronics games through GEnie, to beta testing Darkness Falls, Dragon's Gate, and Terris on AOL - I love and have loved MUDs for quite some time now. Indeed, they were often bastions of great RolePlay - but only because they were moderately (read: barely) successful. Once the numbers grew (as was evident on the AOL MUDs when they went flat rate), the quality of people deteriorated.

The term "next generation" or "second generation" MUDs is in itself insulting. A mud is a mud is a mud. There's nothing "innovative" that can be done with a MUD that can't be done better through a graphical MMORPG. Perhaps I've been spoiled, perhaps I've grown up, perhaps I've just moved on - but, for me, my expectations have now risen. I expect quality graphics as well as quality gameplay. There's a reason we don't own black and white televisions anymore.

I'm going to miss the MUD, I really am. Someone please notify Skotos of the funeral.

His words have generated some heated commentary, but also some quite thoughtful commentary on their message boards (http://boards.xrgaming.net/forums/read.php?f=95&i=25957&t=25957).

Here are some interesting quotes from their ongoing discussion:

Damiano wrote: It's interesting: I think I disagree more with your theatric embellishments than your general point. MUDs won't replace GMUDs, I agree. So far, GMUDs won't replace MUDs, either: they may in the future, however. I guess I simply think it's a bit premature to declare the death of the MUD. When GMUD/PSW/MMORPG/etc. start catering to the various styles of gameplay the MUDs currently accommodate, then, perhaps, I would agree.

Also, as more and more players get burned out on kill/loot/repeat (if traditional RPG players are any indication, it _will_ happen), they will start looking for games which provide deeper levels of interaction. And for some, flashy graphics will be a secondary consideration.

In my opinion, as long as the genre continues to revolve around the "one size fits all", lowest common denominator model, they ensure the continuing propogation of their predecessors. There's more gameplay in some of the better (and yet still free) MUDs than in all three of the "Big 3" combined. And, as a bonus, you rarely have to decipher dude-speak to figure out what the player nearby is saying. Swedish and Chinese, Elvish and Klingon, on occasion, but not dude-speak.

Does Skotos have a world-altering gameplan? Will they shake the foundations of the MMORPG genre with their "return to the roots" strategy? I highly doubt it. On the other hand, if they were just looking to run a series of small venues, and be moderately, quietly successful while the "big boys" at EA, Sony, Microsoft, etc. slug it out with multi-million dollar productions accompanied by multi-million dollar marketing campaigns... I suppose they've got as good a chance as anyone.

halfrobo wrote: But you know, I might actually pony up some cash for a decently run "mini-mud" that housed between 10 and 60 concurrent players. More than that and it gets unwieldy. If someone were to commercialize the basic experience you find in RP muds (like the classic MUSH worlds based on Zelazny's Amber, Herbert's Dune, the World of Darkness RPGs) and provide staff to act as GMs and run plots, the gameplay and RP experience could put everything else you've seen to shame. Everyone is always complaining about how no online games have recaptured the magic of pen-and-paper roleplaying; the MUSH model can, for up to a few dozen players at a time.

The problem is whether it's possible to staff such a thing, charge a reasonable fee, and still make money. And the answer is probably no. Which dooms small-scale worlds with staff presence to the netherland of volunteer projects, which, with some notable exceptions, tend to be poorly maintained and fall apart after a while. Or you can go the route of Neverwinter Nights and just provide the mini-worlds without any staff -- let players be the GM themselves. That's identical to pen-and-paper in many ways, but it lacks the world-feeling that you get from having 80 people crowded into a sci-fi palace in Dune MUSH for the coronation of Paul Muad'dib, everyone playing their own role and orchestrating plots that are overseen by a staff of multiple GMs working together.

Somewhere between Neverwinter and UO lies this territory of forced (consensual) RP, heavy staff involvement, and constant plot development, which in my experience and quite a few others made for the most satisfying online games ever. Has anyone tried to fit this kind of thing into a business model, besides the occasional talk about smaller servers with higher standards?

then in a later post...

The more I look at the original article and the skotos site, the more I think Savant missed an essential point:

These are not combat-oriented muds.

In other words, they're not really on the evolutionary path that includes Dikus, LPs, Simutronics games, Legend of Kesmai, the original NwN, EQ, and Asheron's Call. Those are all based on the original AberMud/LPmud idea of leveling, monster killing, treasure amassing that we're all so familiar with.

From what I can tell, only one of Skotos' games is of this variety (the "big mud") and the others are all roleplay/storytelling oriented, towards small groups. Sort of like the new Neverwinter Nights, sort of like what I describe above with MUSHes. It's a pretty different audience, one that overlaps with the still-thriving-in-obscurity interactive fiction fanbase (who play advanced versions of games like Zork). People who are more into storytelling, RP, etc. and less into powergaming and resource management, because there isn't really any way to powergame in these games.

some text deleted

If nothing else, they can provide hosting and server maintenance for the best of the text mud breed -- which may just be worth paying for. If a subscription gets me access to any of their games, and they really are selecting among the best that the text mud community has to offer, I'm there. The graphical pleasures of the big three are nice but not quite advanced enough to compete with Oni, for instance -- and they sorely lack in some other areas where Skotos could excel.

That's it -- I should probably disclaim that I have no affiliation with Skotos and had never even heard of it before I read Savant's story. But Savant -- don't act like you know everything about MUDs when you've only played one kind! I totally agree that that variety of text MUD is going nowhere, because it's evolved into the graphical MMORPGs. But there are other varieties of MUD that are still waiting to be tapped -- just go read Raph Koster's GDC slides, he runs it down. And it's worth noting that quite a few developers in the MMORPG field have dabbled in multiple kinds of MUDs -- Wolfpack, for instance, have background in both ChaosMUD (combat) and AmberMUSH (rp), which shows in their feature character plans.


Raph (the lead designer of Ultima Online, and now lead designer for StarWars Galaxies) wrote: Now, this is just plain false. As examples of types of mud that can't be done as easily in a graphical setting:

- non-Euclidean spaces
- player-built environments
- evolving environments
- impositional narrative environments (where the output of the game is literally tailored to your current characteristics: descriptions change, etc. This is one of the most fascinating areas of exploration for online worlds, and one that has barely been tapped, though Nathan Yospe is doing some interesting work--on a mud)
- easy prototyping of systems

Text muds are and will remain the Petri dish of online game design. It's where the ideas will breed, first be tried, and succeed or fail.

and then in another post wrote...

Frankly, it means that text muds will always be more innovative, as a group, than graphical muds will be.

Ubiq wrote: A lot of people have dismissed the lack of graphics as not being worth it. One thing to keep in mind (on top of the things that Raph mentioned) is that your development costs go waaaaay down. No artists necessary, no engine programmers necessary, no UI programmers necessary, lots of problems become grossly simplified, reducing the number of systems programmers, too.

Sure, you may never get 200k+ people, but you don't NEED 200K people in order to be successful in this genre. You just need to be sure to keep your team size and costs in line with the population that you can actually reach (and given that many MUDs have a functional dev team of 5 or fewer people, that's not entirely impossible).

Sarra wrote: I think the difference between text muds and graphical muds is similar to the difference between books and movies. A book depends alot on your imagination to get you where the author is trying to take you. You have the story, the setting, the plot... and then you have what your mind makes of it, as well. A good writer can make you see the story in your mind, as well as what's written on the paper. Viewpoint, context, evolution of plot - all those are conveyed with simple words. One of my favorite books is Heinlein's I Will Fear No Evil. You know the main character is lovely by the way everyone reacts to her, but you never have a single clearcut description of her. Her beauty is in your mind's eye.

In a movie, she'd be Gwenyth Paltrow or Salma Hayek or maybe Nicole Kidman, but no matter who you choose it would be wrong to someone. The beauty now comes in a set package, and is bound to the face of the actress. The story is less powerful, in my opinion, because it conforms to the ideal of one person. What you see is still individualized, of course, perception being reality and what not. But your imagination's ability to wrap itself around the idea, to give it depth and life beyond what's physically in front of you, is greatly diminished, if not gone altogether - destroyed by replacing a deliberate lack of description with something so simple as an image of a woman's face.

Good text muds, like good books, can stimulate the imagination in a way graphic muds cannot. In text, the outline is there, but the actuality of the world is in the eye of the beholder. Graphic muds can give you more static forms and ideas for you to work around in a way even the best text mud cannot, really. You can turn off your mind and just immerse yourself in someone else's idea of fantasy without ever having to try your own view on for size. It's easy. I think that's why graphic muds are doomed to get more d00ds than ever a text mud would. Lack of necessary brain power. :P

David Whately, the founder of Simutronics (publishers of largest text-based games, Gemstone and Dragon Realms) wrote:
If you intend to enter the market of text based games to make money, then all I can say is that there is no money here. Save yourself! Be afraid, be very afraid!

On the other hand, if you are not going to compete with me, then I'll tell ya the truth: There is plenty of money here. And, as has been pointed out, the costs are SUBSTANTIALLY lower than GMUDS. Both fixed and variable costs are much lower. My profit margin is... um... envious. And my NSX is sweet. (smile)

But to make money here you need much more than a good game design. If you get in this for money, then you must be a business guy first, second and third. Because there is no limit to the number of great designs that have failed as a business. Conversely, there are many great money-machines out there disguised as lack-luster game titles. If you can hit on both of those cylinders at once, you will rock.

some text deleted

So my advice to anyone getting into this field: forget about super-duper AI for orcs and +100 vorpal blade innovations. Think about how you will capture market share and service your customers. Think about how your costs can be contained and avoid limiting your upside with inflexible pricing models. And, after heeding these words, if you find success in your endeavor, don’t say I never did you any favors. (grin)

Solomon, the producer of Simutronic's DragonRealms wrote: Text-based games utilize the best graphics engine ever deveolped: the user's imagination! ::grin::

Anyway, in regards to Skotos, I welcome them and wish them the best!

-- Christopher Allen

[skitten]

Well folks, being the imperfect human that I am, it seems that I jumped the gun and screwed the pooch once more. I gave Stephen Granade the apology he deserved and now (with permission http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif) am posting our emails back and forth.

*****
My email:

Dear Stephen Granade,

I am the webmistress of the link to the log in the Skotos article where you wrote:

"The most obvious change is the addition of adverbs to communication. You can "brusquely question" someone, or "bow deeply." While overuse of adverbs can leech the life out of static fiction (as witness a transcript from the game), in online games they can convey shades of emotion which would otherwise be lost."

Unfortunately, I cannot tell if you are using my log as an example of a good use or a bad use of adverbs in a text-based game. My first thought was that you were using it in a negative manner. However, when I spoke to Shannon Appelcline, he assured me that while he, too, had difficulty upon his first reading of that paragraph, he thought you were showcasing my log as a good example of the evocative use of the adverbs in the game.

Could you please, for my edification, explain to me what you meant by that paragraph and what kind of example you were trying to portray with my logfile? Thank you.

Jennifer

*****
His email:

Sure. Clearly, I hate Skotos and want to tear them down using your log.

Okay, not really. Shannon is absolutely right: I was trying to demonstrate that, while adverbs are to be avoided when writing stories, they fulfill a useful role in online games such as Skotos's. In fact, there have been a lot of discussions about using adverbs in text adventures, and most people agreed that it wouldn't add anything to the single-player text adventure experience to be able to "pick up the book quickly." In fact, if such adverbs were required to solve a puzzle -- say, you had to pick up the book quickly or you'd catch your hand in a steel trap -- they'd mean you'd have to play "guess the adverb," which is in general to be avoided. Many of my readers are coming from that background, and would probably be skeptical about the use of adverbs. I was attempting to say that adverbs in a game like Castle Marrach add to the experience, instead of detracting as you might think judging from books or from text adventures.

Why didn't I contact you before linking? (Yes, I do read the Skotos forums. I wish you'd written me earlier with your concerns instead of stewing all day.) To be honest, I didn't expect it would be a problem. In general things which are freely accessible on Internet sites are considered fair game for linking. In addition, I thought I was using your log to praise Skotos.

I've worked some on that sentence today; with any luck it's clearer now what I meant. The updated version of my article should appear on About's servers in about thirty minutes or so.

Stephan

*****
My email:

Thank you for writing me back. The reason I was upset was that it seemed to be using my log to point out something back about Skotos. Being extremely loyal, it made me upset. I know I'm not the only one who thought it. (Yes, it's hypocritical to not be upset if it had been obvious that it was a good thing - what can I say? I'm only human. I would have still been surprised - just a good surprised instead of bad surprised.)

Also, not completely sure that I was in the right, I let it sit and let the more rational part of me look at the situation. Thus, you received a polite, inquisitive email, rather than an emotional, accusatory email. I know I make mistakes.

In any case, I do owe you an apology and wonder if you would allow me to post my original email and your response on the Forum as a closing of the issue. Thank you.

Jennifer

*****
There you have it.
Jennifer

[Santlar]

I guess I jumped the gun as well. The sentence does seem clearer now.

But, I still think I was too repetitive in that log, and I will try to watch that. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/tongue.gif http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif