Armageddon MUD General Discussion Board

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: gobbledygookie on January 26, 2009, 05:08:34 PM

Title: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 26, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
Well - here's a suggestion to entertain :) ,

I'm a gameworld builder in Neverwinter Nights and I'm designing a low-magic, low-levels, social-community based gameworld where players can build their own citadel essentially by collecting resources. Heavily plot-driven, and all that. All of course in an enforced role-play realm.

So far, we've been unable to draw players to our design, so I figured - hey, Armaggedum has a pretty nice community, having played here - why don't we join forces and we'll make Armaggedum into a graphical engine using Neverwinter Nights 1?

This may sound like a bit of a crazy idea, revolutionary even ;) I just happen to think that the essential idea behind Armaggedum is something that I love, I personally can't go without permadeath and a social-based heavy role-play design, and I'd like to see it in a graphical engine that does it justice (and NWN does justice to anything - it's pretty neat, and it's better than NWN2 - but I won't get to the "why" now).

What do you say, shall we make the epic move? I really mean it, and I will prove it by discussing all the details with you here, even if it takes 100 pages.

If you guys are MUD-sticklers - I understand, but if you ever want to see how your concept will look and play-out like grahpically, I say this is a very unique opportunity. It's up to you, the team, the players.

If you're interested, we can start debating the details more thoroughly and see how far can we truly go.

My current project link, purely for reference, is here - http://www.nwvisuals.com/tum/
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: AJM on January 26, 2009, 05:27:56 PM
I hope you are joking.

I am having a hard time imagining coloured text in Arm.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Jingo on January 26, 2009, 05:39:00 PM
It could probably be done. Though, nobody is going to be in favor of the switch.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Is Friday on January 26, 2009, 05:43:20 PM
Negatron.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Wolfsong on January 26, 2009, 06:02:00 PM
Quote
i...uh... *blushes slightly* ...pleasue meeting you....

Screw going there, let's bring those guys over here.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: LoD on January 26, 2009, 06:12:14 PM
Graphical engines are the wheels of death to the happy opossum that is a text-based MUD.

Thus, we bare our collective teeth and snarl.

-LoD

Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 26, 2009, 06:19:08 PM
Screw going there, let's bring those guys over here.
Agreed!  Someone go over to their forum and invite them to come try out Armageddon.   :)

EDIT: don't do this, BTW.  It is a lapse in judgment on my part for suggesting so, even in jest.  It looks like they've actually got a good concept going, and just as we enjoy it when other MUDs further the cause of MUD-dom, we should wish these folks well in furthering the cause of RPI-dom.

EDIT2: but that doesn't mean I'm not a little miffed that they've come here trying to recruit from our playerbase.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Gagula on January 26, 2009, 06:24:18 PM
Personally, I think it'd be kinda cool....the major downside I see (besides not improving my reading skills, lol) is that everybody and their brother would come, and it'd just be another World of WarCrack.....er WarCraft, yeah, that's it.  But in all seriousness, I'd have to vote no.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: staggerlee on January 26, 2009, 06:25:57 PM
Lets humor the discussion instead of blowing it off, shall we? That doesn't prove anything, and it could be interesting.

Text allows for broader diversity. You can do far more with language than you can with graphics, it allows for artistic depiction and creativity, writing skill,
and interpretation and imagination on the part of the reader.  

I would argue that an RPI mud is more than a text game... but that's a matter of opinion, so we'll drop the artsy fartsy angle and move on to the real problem:

Even in a basic H&S with terrible writing, no rp, and no community, the text medium allows for a broader range of game content. The time it takes to write a unique description for an item is negligible compared to the time it would take to get the same effect in a GUI.  The only way I can see to add unique items with ease in a graphical environment is to use a placeholder graphic and add a text dialogue to describe the item. I for one don't feel that has the same effect or is at all satisfactory.

In your opinion, what are the advantages to a graphical environment?
In your opinion, what are the disadvantages to a graphical environment?
How do those weigh against what's offered by text?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Cowboy on January 26, 2009, 06:38:04 PM
Sorry...but no...let's just blow it off.  Aramgeddon needs to be what it is or is going be(arm.2)...without graphics.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: staggerlee on January 26, 2009, 06:41:12 PM
Sorry...but no...let's just blow it off.  Aramgeddon needs to be what it is or is going be(arm.2)...without graphics.

That's sort of silly, dull and rude. I don't have any anxiety that the staff are going to decide to put Arm into a graphical engine for Arm2.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Clearsighted on January 26, 2009, 06:44:18 PM
They should try making a dark sun NWN module.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: AJM on January 26, 2009, 06:58:05 PM
Lets do it, then the more we log on and chat, the more sid we get. Then with the sid we can decorate our avatars.  then we can make our avatars talk to each other tehehe
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: SMuz on January 26, 2009, 07:07:15 PM
Heh, I wouldn't want Arm with visuals. Honestly, do you really want to see "the pockmarked, scarred dwarf" and hundreds like him in full 3D? Do you want to spend a few hours each day pre-animating your emotes before you use them? Actually, animated emotes would be quite awesome if done right, but yeah, too much work for too little reward.

But a Dark Sun NWN module would be awesome. A Dark Sun NWN module that's even a badly crippled copy of Arm would be fun too. Social-based and permadeath could go beyond MUDs, and it would be great with a simple D&D character generation thing, instead of the 12-hour approval system we have. Also, a graphical Armageddon would be easier for newbies to pick up, especially those who don't have A+ English writing skills.

But if you plan on recreating Arm into 3D, I think NWN isn't the right tool. NWN has a very... artificial feel. If MUDs were made of obsidian, then NWN is made of cheap polymers. Unless you're a much, much better modder than the Bioware people themselves, it won't be anywhere near capturing the feel of Armageddon. If you want to build it into a customized MMORPG, then I'd be happy to contribute - but unfortunately, I've got a few other projects to finish first.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Shalooonsh on January 26, 2009, 07:51:22 PM
You lost me at Armaggeddum.  I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I have a bad taste in my mouth for this idea.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Jingo on January 26, 2009, 07:56:55 PM
You lost me at Armaggeddum.  I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I have a bad taste in my mouth for this idea.

Armageddon + Yum

How could it go wrong?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 26, 2009, 07:59:02 PM
Shalooonsh is the holy patron of discreet spelling mistakes. Grovel!
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Janna on January 26, 2009, 08:06:58 PM
Graphical engines are the wheels of death to the happy opossum that is a text-based MUD.

Thus, we bare our collective teeth and snarl.

-LoD


Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: musashi on January 26, 2009, 08:18:44 PM
Graphical engines are the wheels of death to the happy opossum that is a text-based MUD.

Thus, we bare our collective teeth and snarl.

-LoD


Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: AmandaGreathouse on January 26, 2009, 08:25:12 PM
I'm really against the crippling limitation that this would bring. Shit, I already get a little pissed with myself if I use the word 'faintly' too often in emotes. I can't imagine having to use the same poses over and over. Not to mention, it would just be very, very unappealing to me due to the fact that I kinda thought NWN sucked beside Morrowind.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 26, 2009, 08:51:50 PM
I kinda thought NWN sucked beside Morrowind.
Absolutely true. Morrowind was god's gift to non-linear RPGs.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Medena on January 26, 2009, 09:05:09 PM
You lost me at Armaggeddum.  I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I have a bad taste in my mouth for this idea.

Yeah. I stopped reading at that point too.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 26, 2009, 09:13:05 PM
It's not that we're not flattered by your offer, but what you are suggesting is something that we as embracers of the text and followers of the Ginka could never accept. Armageddon is a beautiful gem of literature and adventure. It uses the most powerful GPU in the world: our minds. By attempting to port it into a 3D medium that is made for DnD is like taking trying to turn a fruit into a steak. You just can't do it, and even if you did, it wouldn't taste as sweet as it first did and it would lose the appeal that drew us to it in the first place. I suggest you take time and really sink into our atmosphere and rethink your proposal. There are many ways you can contribute to this fine community and lifestyle we have built here, you just have to find your calling.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: AJM on January 26, 2009, 10:07:06 PM
A quote from the man who showed me Armageddon.

"Games with images are like condoms with seamen already in them".
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Tisiphone on January 26, 2009, 10:13:42 PM
I'm pretty sure this was a hit and run.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 26, 2009, 10:18:57 PM
I'm pretty sure this was a hit and run.
I would only wonder why he's been registered for so long. It would make more sense if he registered right before his post.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Gunnerblaster on January 26, 2009, 11:40:31 PM
I would only wonder why he's been registered for so long. It would make more sense if he registered right before his post.
He's been watching, from the shadows...

Waiting for the opportune moment to strike...

 >:(
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: musashi on January 26, 2009, 11:52:45 PM
I prefer to believe that he was just a nice person who was trying to offer up an idea he thought was cool and wanted to share with other people ... we just don't like it.

Don't feel discouraged though, we're just a bit possessive of our beloved, bloodthristy ginka.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Angela Christine on January 27, 2009, 12:14:17 AM
The people in NWN scare me.  :(  If you zoom way in, you see their mask-like faces bobbing, expressionless, staring into your soul.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 27, 2009, 12:17:28 AM
The people in NWN scare me.  :(  If you zoom way in, you see their mask-like faces bobbing, expressionless, staring into your soul.
And their eyes are like two demon crotches on the face: disturbing and something you wish never existed or was even brought up in a casual GDB conversation.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: jhunter on January 27, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
I would never want to see Arm turn into a graphical game. I wouldn't mind if someone created a graphical RPI though. Definitely not using NWN, which personally I thought was pretty lame.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 06:25:53 AM
1) I was registered for so long because as I said - I played here. I also had another account back in the days (Spango or Spazmo), couldn't relog with it from some reason, so my registration date should even be minus a year. I've always liked this concept.

2) To suggest it would be like World of Warcraft is misreading my suggestion, it would simply be Armageddon with graphics, same ruleset applies. And with text triggers, we can still throw in all the details you like.

3) To suggest it's a "hit and run" with this topic only being on for a day is also ridiculous, are you familiar with sleeping?

-----

Well, I love it NWN, and I love graphics, this suggestion was made thinking you guys have simply never thought about the "what if", trying to take Arm a step further. But clearly you don't see it as step further. Then, I'm sorry if I offended you by suggesting that non-graphics is "lesser" gameplay.

staggerlee - you can add as much text as you want on top of the graphics, it's not a problem.

SMuz - There's no better medium for RPG building. Unless you're thinking of the moving oil picture known as NWN2, but I won't get into the "why" unless that is what you're thinking. You could be thinking of "HeroEngine" - Sadly, I don't have the 1 million $ it takes to buy it.

Anyway, I clear see you guys are well into MUD's and love it, so I apologize, if I knew how much you love it I wouldn't have bothered. My main issue is with "RP intensity", and visuals help my intensity feel. I guess we just see it differently huh? ;) That's okay, I just love visuals myself.

Well, I'm not here to convince you NWN is better, or that RP with visuals is, or downplay the idea of MUD's, again, sorry if it seemed offensive in any way, may your MUD and MUDs live on! At least you guys are educating me as to your nature which I've always wondered about really. I'll try to see how I can mould my project to be more appealing, anyway.

Thank you,

-Lester
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: spicemustflow on January 27, 2009, 08:02:09 AM
Hey, you're Spazmo from RPGcodex?

Anyway, if we forget that NWN allows for small, bland maps, HUGE swords, non existent variety in character models and so on, your idea would still be shitty. Imagine how stifling it would be if we had to choose between predefined heads and torsos etc. In this case a picture doesn't speak anything compared to words.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: DustMight on January 27, 2009, 08:04:05 AM
I would be interested to play a graphical "Arm based" game just for the fun of it, but it would never take priority over nice gray text with black background that I now enjoy.

I would more seriously consider it if the entire staff (or the big wigs at least) were behind it because after years (too many to mention) I trust their world-ken.

Interesting idea though.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: zanthalandreams on January 27, 2009, 08:55:00 AM
Rar!  Someone likes this game concept in a way not standard to our enjoyment!  Rend and gnash and snarl mightily!

I say go for it.  If it is good and awesome and fun, then you have made the world happier.  I can't stand NWN, though, so probably won't be one for it.   (Though, if they ever birthed out a DarkSun-themed NWN, I would have been after that like a dog on a dropped biscuit.)
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
spicemustflow - first off there are many headsets with custom content. Secondly, you can write "character description", so the headset is simply the closest visual represetation of what your char looks like. And no - I'm not that Spazmo but I know him from way before RPGCodex, when he was still posting like a maniac on worldofwar.net, funny guy. I've stole his nickname on occasion...small cyberworld after all, eh?

Anyway, many of you are plain wrong that visuals supercedes text, it in no way does, rather it adds to text, you can write just as much text as you want to describe characters, areas, items, etc.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: musashi on January 27, 2009, 10:07:05 AM
I would be worried that trying to blend text and graphics together in such a way would create a rather akward interface, moreso than having simply one or the other.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Nyr on January 27, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
We're in the process of building a new iteration of Armageddon called Armageddon Reborn.  I'd rather not be distracted by the prospect of any sort of graphical addition to Armageddon as it is presently or as it will be at this point, as it would require tremendous amounts of additional work as well as even more staff.   It's possible it would require a new machine to manage this, if not more than one.  The idea of a world like Armageddon with graphics is thought-provoking, but with present technology, it would fall miles short of the creativity possible with textual descriptions and the power of the imagination.  In addition, there are limitations imposed by having a completely volunteer staff.  Latency creates another problem, even though broadband and wireless access has increased exponentially since the inception of MUDs.  While my story is likely different from most others, I skipped most MMORPGs due to lack of a reliable and fast internet connection, and I have grown to appreciate the medium of text even after the convenience of a high speed connection.

These are just a few reasons why this probably would not work with the way that Armageddon is set up, staffed, and played.  Even without going into the realm of graphical advancement of the game's genre, we still have unexplored avenues and directions that can be sought out while using text.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: LoD on January 27, 2009, 10:26:32 AM
Anyway, many of you are plain wrong that visuals supercedes text, it in no way does, rather it adds to text, you can write just as much text as you want to describe characters, areas, items, etc.

The issue is that, for many, the visuals would detract from the experience because they would never quite match up with the vision they have of their character in their mind.  If they emote sauntering over toward a table, and breathing a heavy sigh as they slump into a chair -- the visual is never going to recreate that movement correctly.  Even if you can emote that in a some text cell while your CGI character is woodenly walking over toward the bar to stand closer to it, the image on the screen is going to be in conflict with the action of the text.

The visuals on the screen will be in constant disagreement with the movement, freedoms, and images that are possible through our imagination, and that is a huge deterrent and put-off from playing in that medium.  If you say that the visuals help get you excited about the game, then my opinion is that you never really had a good opportunity to truly experience Armageddon, because I have never felt the same levels of adrenaline rushing through my body, anxiety over being in a given situation, satisfaction at achieving something rewarding, or taken away the same depth of stories from any graphical video game.

It isn't just about preferences -- "I like graphics vs. text."  It's about the entire environment and what you can achieve without graphics versus with them.  The text environment allows you freedoms that will never be possible in a graphical universe.  Never.  The subtleties and the ability to marry together complex movement, emotion, and interaction through a hugely diverse and complex language are simply out of graphic's league -- they cannot compete.  The equivalent live graphics allow about as much subtlety and complexity as cardboard cutout does to a live human being.

That isn't to say you shouldn't pursue whatever you enjoy, and try to make a game for other people who enjoy the graphics (or NWN) as much as you do -- but it's just important to realize what you're asking so that you can also understand where people are coming from when they react strongly.

-LoD
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 27, 2009, 10:31:25 AM
We have to take this as a starting point for any such idea: the text interface is never going away. 

I'm very much in favor of experimentation with nontraditional clients that are isomorphic to the current interface.  Plenty of things, in my opinion, aren't really optimal about a plain text interface, starting with the fact that I have no textual sense of direction. ;) But alternative clients mustn't provide a special advantage or disadvantage, and players should be able to switch easily from ArmGUI to text and back without major confusion.

A much simpler idea that NWNing Armageddon would be to build a web-based client that automatically loaded area-appropriate flavorful images: a pencil-sketch of a busy night at the Gaj behind your terminal area, for instance.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
Quote
If they emote sauntering over toward a table, and breathing a heavy sigh as they slump into a chair -- the visual is never going to recreate that movement correctly.

Of course, no game will do that, that's why you textually emote it same way you would in a MUD. No problem.

Role-players always consider the text first, visuals second, even if the graphics is in constant disagreement, because we realize there are visual limitations, but that doesn't mean we need to take visuals out of the equation altogether!

You can easily have both without one taking away from the other, if you think otherwise then I don't know what to say, I've role-played in MUD's and NWN, I haven't noticed that MUD's details or role-players are any better *shrugs* - it depends on the gameworld, I can write a page-length text to an area if I don't feel the visuals represent it correctly, and same with characters and items. (though NWN1 has so much community-contributed costume content, it's hardly a problem, but I often do it anyway)

Well, anyway, I'm not here trying to make you feel that visuals are better, but claiming that it takes away is plain silly - maybe it's something with your psyche? It never took anything away from me or my role-play. I've also seen the sentiment that you're waiting for the right game, and that some of you will entertain the idea of graphics+Armageddon - well, you might have to wait for a while, because NWN is the king of RPG-building at the moment, though the best RPGbuilder or MMORPG-builder technically is HeroEngine which costs 1 million $... *shrugs* I've no idea what would be "good enough" for you, will you even be alive to see it?  :P

I'll be revamping my concept, but I thank you all for your feedback and seeing how you think.

-Lester
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: mansa on January 27, 2009, 03:11:43 PM
Here's a concept I was working with:

(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7240/ideaxe8.jpg)

It would require a specific java mud client - which I'm sure someone could whip up in 4 years.
(i've stolen ideas from BatMUD)
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: mansa on January 27, 2009, 03:22:42 PM
Latency creates another problem, even though broadband and wireless access has increased exponentially since the inception of MUDs.  While my story is likely different from most others, I skipped most MMORPGs due to lack of a reliable and fast internet connection, and I have grown to appreciate the medium of text even after the convenience of a high speed connection.

Side Point:
People still play WoW & NWN on dial up.  It's not an issue.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 27, 2009, 03:27:14 PM
Text allows for broader diversity. You can do far more with language than you can with graphics, it allows for artistic depiction and creativity, writing skill,
and interpretation and imagination on the part of the reader.

That's so true.  That's why my friend got me into Armageddon!  That's is the main point of all MUD's; they let you to use your imagination.  I have played WoW and I haven't gotten into my main character (who was a Troll hunter) because almost all of the others looked the same.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 27, 2009, 03:42:43 PM
Here's a concept I was working with:
...
It would require a specific java mud client - which I'm sure someone could whip up in 4 years.

Java or AJAX.  But I like it.

Another (mostly unrelated) thing worth considering in a client development would be to go to an http or https tunnel rather than using straight telnet.  'Twould pretty nearly eliminate firewall/snoopage problems for folks.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: staggerlee on January 27, 2009, 03:48:16 PM
Here's a concept I was working with:
...
It would require a specific java mud client - which I'm sure someone could whip up in 4 years.

Java or AJAX.  But I like it.

Another (mostly unrelated) thing worth considering in a client development would be to go to an http or https tunnel rather than using straight telnet.  'Twould pretty nearly eliminate firewall/snoopage problems for folks.

Assuming it was cross platform and well implemented, I'd be fine with something like that. But I find adding a GUI usually just makes for an uglier, buggier, platform specific interface.  If that's what we're getting, I'd be vehemently against it.

As it stands I'm really not sure your proposal adds enough to be worth the time for coding.  Other concerns include that it might be a move in the wrong direction, or if not, that it may give new players the idea that the MUD is more of an adventure game than a roleplaying environment.

It also dramatically decreases screen space, and that would adversely affect formatting and spam. Unless you want me to set up dual monitors to play Arm on, which is uh, well, a nice idea in theory I guess.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Nyr on January 27, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
I think I might have implied it in my last post, but yes--I think that we will be waiting a long time if we want a good graphical interface with an RPI like Armageddon.  Until then, we have text options that haven't been explored yet.

You can easily have both without one taking away from the other, if you think otherwise then I don't know what to say, I've role-played in MUD's and NWN, I haven't noticed that MUD's details or role-players are any better *shrugs* it depends on the gameworld, I can write a page-length text to an area if I don't feel the visuals represent it correctly, and same with characters and items.

The chief problem I have with this concept is that it can't be easily had.  It would require a lot of staff work that we could be using for something else, like Armageddon Reborn. In addition, I don't think that there is a graphical game out there that can even halfway compare to the role-play within an RPI.  Not all MUDs have the same caliber of role-play; role-playing in one MUD does not equal an experience in another MUD.


Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 27, 2009, 03:52:01 PM
It's hard to be immersed in something when your inputs regarding it are telling you two different things.  The text may say "emote lazily leans against the wall, watching the tavern patrons with an slight smirk" but the NWN engine shows my character standing rigidly kind of near the wall and staring ahead blankly.  I would much rather spend more of my mental energy imagining something to fill in the blanks than trying to ignore what my eyes see plainly.

That's how graphics detract from text.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: manonfire on January 27, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
I play Armageddon to create my -own- visuals, not look at someone else's.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: LoD on January 27, 2009, 04:01:57 PM
Of course, no game will do that, that's why you textually emote it same way you would in a MUD. No problem.

Why should I struggle through a muddled visual-text hybrid environment when the text environment is superior in almost every single way?  The point is that visual mediums will never be good enough to replace the experience we're describing that can  be found in a purely textual environment.

Visuals don't allow for interpretation.  What one person sees, everyone sees.  Text environments allow for interpretation, and people's perception of how a given area, person, weapon, animal, movement, or expression can differ from player to player.  These people are looking for an experience that you cannot get out of a movie or video game; an experience that is made possible by your mind individually interpreting and visualizing every word according to your personal perceptions of shapes, textures, colors, smells, sounds, and other sensory information developed over your entire lifetime.  That isn't possible with the visual medium that you describe, and it's one of the primary reasons why books and textual environments will always exist, and always attract a certain type of person.

My question is if....

Role-players always consider the text first, visuals second, even if the graphics is in constant disagreement...

I can write a page-length text to an area if I don't feel the visuals represent it correctly, and same with characters and items.

...then why would you want to introduce visuals into the equation?  If they are always inferior and needing to be further refined, overridden with descriptions, or if people are always going to consider text first -- what do you glean from the wooden and lifeless world of the visual medium when considering a home for the best RP experience possible?

I realize that you enjoy NVN and that you're impressed by what they've accomplished, but I could sit here and ramble off hundreds or thousands of images NVN could never convey without text.  And I feel that visuals only serve as noise to the message pure textual environments can carry, and, for that reason, I wouldn't ever want to play a game that tried to combine the two.  It would lose all of the things that make the text game special and unique without adding anything of value.

I enjoy visual games, and I enjoy text-oriented games.  I also enjoy largely virtual games like tabletop role-playing games.  Each of them provide a different type of environment, different set of advantages/disadvantages, and different range of experiences.  None of them is superior to the other, they're just different.

And I appreciate the differences of Armageddon MUD.

-LoD
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Gimfalisette on January 27, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
To be honest, I don't want crappy, generic, wooden fantasy graphics on top of the infinitely-technicolor, gritty-realistic text world of ARM. Until we can get a fully CGI world that's capable of rendering ARM with the kind of beauty we already put into it through our words...then, no. I don't want to see EQ2-ARM, or WoW-ARM, or NWN-ARM, or SWG-ARM, or LoTR-ARM, or Warhammer-ARM...none of those graphical environments is up to the task, pretty though they may be in and of themselves.

The only advantage I can see graphics having, really, is that they allow methods of visually estimating distance and navigating. That would be helpful to me, because I have no sense of direction inside a text medium. But oh well, I cope.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: manonfire on January 27, 2009, 04:23:57 PM
Crysis-Arm
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 27, 2009, 05:07:27 PM
Just cope with it, you will do fine.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: The7DeadlyVenomz on January 27, 2009, 05:38:31 PM
I always wanted to make a Steampunk mod for NWN. NWN really does have a nice, easy to use interface for world-building, and it can do a LOT of things.

It can't do Armageddon.

Loving the idea behind your work, though.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 06:21:29 PM
It's hard to be immersed in something when your inputs regarding it are telling you two different things.  The text may say "emote lazily leans against the wall, watching the tavern patrons with an slight smirk" but the NWN engine shows my character standing rigidly kind of near the wall and staring ahead blankly.  I would much rather spend more of my mental energy imagining something to fill in the blanks than trying to ignore what my eyes see plainly.

That's how graphics detract from text.

Oh please, it's called suspense of belief. If you can do it with text you can do with graphics, let's not get silly here. If it bothers you, that's your problem, because it doesn't bother/detract me and the people I role-play with.

Quote
...then why would you want to introduce visuals into the equation?  If they are always inferior and needing to be further refined, overridden with descriptions, or if people are always going to consider text first -- what do you glean from the wooden and lifeless world of the visual medium when considering a home for the best RP experience possible?


Because to me, and I'm speaking only for myself, it makes the experience much more intense, real and immersive. It makes me lose myself in the fantasy even more, and I love seeing visuals as I role-play. Fact is, the visuals are about 95-99% the reality (even 100% at times). It's GOOD ENOUGH, even if they are "always inferior to text", it's not worth ditching it altogether just because they're not 100% - they'll never be a game where there are 100%, and if there will be, it won't be in our decade or the next. Hence we use text to supplement the little details and stuff like that.

Also, LoD, you quoted me saying "I don't see visuals providing me with any benefit over my imagination." - I never said it.


Well, anyway, I hope you'll find a better RPG-builder than NWN, even though obviously some members of your community won't appreciate visuals regardless of whatever engine you're using, evidently. If you ever do find, I'll probably already be using it, but for now NWN is the best we got, and personally, I love its graphics.

-Lester
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 27, 2009, 06:29:14 PM
I'm sensing bitterness now.

Don't mind us if we're overly aggressive, but to be fair, you did come strolling into a two-decade old RPI MUD and just laid this down on us. If we snarl and spit, it's because your approach isn't working. You can't convince us of the things you're attempting to because your points are flimsy at best.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: staggerlee on January 27, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
I'm sensing bitterness now.

Don't mind us if we're overly aggressive, but to be fair, you did come strolling into a two-decade old RPI MUD and just laid this down on us. If we snarl and spit, it's because your approach isn't working. You can't convince us of the things you're attempting to because your points are flimsy at best.

The attitude on both sides has been a bit childish and dismissive.

I would've been interested in an actual discussion of the merits of text versus graphics, it's something I've put a lot of thought into, especially as mmorpgs become more advanced and common.

I think analogies can be drawn compellingly to the case of television versus books.  Accessibility is the largest issue, and the next is likely that the visual display forces a static interpretation on you, where as text is more subjective.   

In the case of most muds, especially H&S environments, I suspect that it's the accessibility that's an issue more than the subjectivity of text. It's just too difficult, time consuming and expensive to render this kind of diversity and scope graphically with current technology.

However. Even if we had full virtual reality world building tools I'd be wary of changing mediums. I think the issue of subjectivity versus static imagery would still argue in favor of text, at least in certain applications. As long as Armageddon is less of a game than a tool for collective storytelling and roleplaying the choice of medium is excruciatingly important.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 27, 2009, 06:43:43 PM
I think analogies can be drawn compellingly to the case of television versus books.  Accessibility is the largest issue, and the next is likely that the visual display forces a static interpretation on you, where as text is more subjective.

True again. Managa is still subjective because you still can make stories about the characters.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Gimfalisette on January 27, 2009, 06:46:33 PM
As long as Armageddon is less of a game than a tool for collective storytelling and roleplaying the choice of medium is excruciatingly important.

Exactly. ARM is not an "RPG."
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 27, 2009, 06:52:00 PM
I think MUD's differ from MMORPG in many ways, not just with graphics.  In MUD's you can create your own character and play as him/her, in MMORPG's you cannot.  If the staff change the game into a graphical engine, then it would be MMOPRG.  Because most of the characters will look the same and that is BORING!  I would just let my mind create the characters from text.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 27, 2009, 06:59:15 PM
It's hard to be immersed in something when your inputs regarding it are telling you two different things.  The text may say "emote lazily leans against the wall, watching the tavern patrons with an slight smirk" but the NWN engine shows my character standing rigidly kind of near the wall and staring ahead blankly.  I would much rather spend more of my mental energy imagining something to fill in the blanks than trying to ignore what my eyes see plainly.

That's how graphics detract from text.

Oh please, it's called suspense of belief. If you can do it with text you can do with graphics, let's not get silly here. If it bothers you, that's your problem, because it doesn't bother/detract me and the people I role-play with.
Dude... you're on our board.  WTF?!

You come here trying to recruit our players, which is a big faux pas in the MUD community.

YOU SPELL THE NAME OF OUR GAME WRONG.

You act as though we're all too dumb to have ever considered "what if Armageddon had graphics", and we need a brilliant genius like you to show us the light.

You question whether or not something is wrong with us because we're not bowled over by your revolutionary graphics concept.

And now you basically tell me to shut up after I explained why I feel graphics would detract from our game.

In my opinion, you're in troll territory now.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 07:08:45 PM
Archbaron - My "approach" isn't working? - I simply laid out the offer as it is, there is no "approach". It's factual talk.

With respect to "bitterness" or "aggressiveness", or even "childish" and "dismissive" someone suggested - that doesn't matter to me, I just want to see what comes out at the end of this discussion - I'm certainly learning new things about the Armaggedon community which I've had keen interest in - I thought you'll love the idea, guess you didn't. *shrugs* kind of a drag, but let's not blow it out porportions. Many of the things you're saying show me how misinformed you are. For instance, judging by Mechafish's latest post who is way off btw, I am led to believe many of you know very little of what is NWN and what you can do with it, or otherwise you jump to conclusions.

Let me clear it. Mechafish - You can write character description in NWN on top of your chosen headset, you simply pick what closest to your character and then supplement it with description.

And yes, I did think you'll love it, it being revolutionary, putting your awesome concept of heavy role-play and permadeath with graphics, and thinking you'd like to give it a shot.  ;) Again, guess I was wrong

Marauder Moe - I didn't tell you to "shut up", but explained there is "suspense of belief" in graphics, and that if you can do it with text you can do it with graphics.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Qzzrbl on January 27, 2009, 07:22:20 PM
Can't we all just get along?

 :(
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 27, 2009, 07:23:08 PM
Archbaron - My "approach" isn't working? - I simply laid out the offer as it is, there is no "approach". It's factual talk.

With respect to "bitterness" or "aggressiveness", or even "childish" and "dismissive" someone suggested - that doesn't matter to me, I just want to see what comes out at the end of this discussion - I'm certainly learning new things about the Armaggedon community which I've had keen interest in - I thought you'll love the idea, guess you didn't. *shrugs* kind of a drag, but let's not blow it out porportions. Many of the things you're saying show me how misinformed you are. For instance, judging by Mechafish's latest post who is way off btw, I am led to believe many of you know very little of what is NWN and what you can do with it, or otherwise you jump to conclusions.

Let me clear it. Mechafish - You can write character description in NWN on top of your chosen headset, you simply pick what closest to your character and then supplement it with description.

And yes, I did think you'll love it, it being revolutionary, putting your awesome concept of heavy role-play and permadeath with graphics, and thinking you'd like to give it a shot.  ;) Again, guess I was wrong

Marauder Moe - I didn't tell you to "shut up", but explained there is "suspense of belief" in graphics, and that if you can do it with text you can do it with graphics.


Yes, your "approach" to convince us that Armageddon could benefit from graphics. Quite frankly, I'm sick of you dissecting our posts and pulling things out of context in an attempt get an upper hand in the situation.

Marauder Moe has a point: you've basically rolled into our stomping grounds and broke the unwritten rules of internet etiquette in an attempt to convince us that some RPG cut-and-paste-look-what-I-made-mom game editor is a our future to people who like to perfect prose and create thick plots that are as possible as the depths of our imaginations thanks to TEXT, not GRAPHICS.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 27, 2009, 07:25:08 PM
Can't we all just get along?

 :(
I'm all for getting along, but once the attempted rebuttals of myself and my friends here on the GDB are swept under the rug, I try to defend what we're saying.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 27, 2009, 07:25:45 PM
I take offense to your attitude, not your ideas.

Oh please,
Snarky.
Quote
it's called suspense of belief.
Both condescending and idiotic at the same time.  The term you're groping for is "suspension of disbelief".
Quote
If you can do it with text you can do with graphics, let's not get silly here.
Yes, explain to me more about how silly I am.  That'll win me over.
Quote
If it bothers you, that's your problem,
It doesn't bother me and there is no problem because Armageddon does not have graphics!
Quote
because it doesn't bother/detract me and the people I role-play with.
Go build your game for them then.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Qzzrbl on January 27, 2009, 07:27:40 PM
Rule 14.

Come on people.

 :-\
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Thunkkin on January 27, 2009, 07:29:26 PM
And yes, I did think you'll love it, it being revolutionary, putting your awesome concept of heavy role-play and permadeath with graphics, and thinking you'd like to give it a shot.  ;) Again, guess I was wrong

I haven't been here very long.  Around six months.

That's been long enough, however, to notice that about once per month someone new pops up and posts something along the lines of "Hey guys, I've got this great idea for completely changing and overhauling your entire game.  It will require way more work than your volunteer staff can handle and it completely changes the game that you've loved and played since the mid-90s.  Isn't that great?"

For good or ill, most people here (including myself) respond "not really."

New people can often bring fresh ideas to the table.  However, consider that you are stepping into a project that has been 15 years in the making and you are suggesting that it be scratched and overhauled.  Don't be surprised if some of the people working on the project don't embrace your idea with open arms.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on January 27, 2009, 07:32:27 PM
Rule 14.

Come on people.

 :-\
I don't consider him a troll.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 07:56:08 PM
Actually, Thunkkin, it's not that much work, we know NWN in and out and can do pretty much everything easily. I just wondered if the community ever thought of it, not knowing - I decided to make a pitch and see what'll come out of it. I love the concept of heavy role-playing and realistic-design, I wonder how my love emotion created this messy thread!

Archbaron - I'm not trying to convince you, the initial replies made it quite clear to me, I didn't need to read more than page one to say "gotcha" ;) but when some you go into details you're saying things that I feel urged to reply to. And I'm not sure what I've pulled out of context.

And as I've said, it's not text VS graphics, it's text with graphics as opposed to text alone. Admittedly, many role-players in NWN normally don't detail themselves half as good as those role-playing MUD's, but the very good ones do. I think a lot of the best role-players in NWN may have a MUD background, because they always impress me. I believe it does make you geared to have more to dedication to text and details.

Whatever will come out of it I will certainly go back to playing NWN and watch closely how much we let graphics fly by, and how much text we're using the supplement. Actually it's one of the things that's always interested me, but I still can't help to love visuals with it! I figured we can have both, but I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye - I honestly don't think any one is better than the other anymore - I used to, but I see it clearly now :) And if I could understand your community mindset before it I wouldn't have made that suggestion. Visuals just work for me better though, and maybe because you guys dedicate yourselves more to text you're able to get out of it more somehow, and that's great, there's probably something to it, and maybe we're a bit lax at times. *shrugs* We do roll with the punches a lot. :) Though, we can only try our best to live up to MUD's detailing/descriptive standards.

Marauder Moe - I think you get my point though, regardless of whether you think it sounded snarky.

Well, anyway, this is very enlightening.

-gobbledygookie
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 27, 2009, 08:17:38 PM
Maybe if you all focused on the ideas and thoughts, instead of the presentation, you could get over the petty bickering?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Nyr on January 27, 2009, 08:56:33 PM
Actually, Thunkkin, it's not that much work, we know NWN in and out and can do pretty much everything easily. I just wondered if the community ever thought of it, not knowing - I decided to make a pitch and see what'll come out of it.

If you want this idea to be taken seriously, you should probably ask the staff (or even just listen to the staff here) rather than throwing the idea out on the table and trying to convince players to come to your side (either figuratively or literally).  Otherwise, it's going to be looked on rather poorly at best (and completely disregarded at worst).  So far, the reaction you've gotten has been somewhere between "poor" and "completely disregarded." 

Can you quantify the amount of work that it will or won't be?  I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you will not be doing the work, and may not realize what you are proposing:  the game's staff would be doing the work.  You have a long way to go to convince anyone that this is worth doing, especially Armageddon's staff.

If you are more interested in building this yourself separate from Armageddon, more power to you, good luck, and go right ahead:  just don't use any Zalanthan intellectual property without permission.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Gimfalisette on January 27, 2009, 08:57:22 PM
I think what you're not hearing here is that there are many of us who do have experience with both text and graphics together, and attempts to roleplay in graphical environments; and that based on this experience, we are saying that a text-only environment is preferable. I believe pretty strongly that is the text-only environment which makes the kind of detailed RP that we've got in ARM possible; and that graphics and the RPG environment actually dumb down RP. Prior to playing ARM, I had done RP for several years in graphical environments, and quality-wise, the RP never cut it. So I'm not basing my thoughts on imagining what it would be like to struggle with immersion in a graphical interface, I've actually done it. And I don't prefer it, period.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Moofassa on January 27, 2009, 09:31:59 PM
I think the length this thread has lasted is a hint to which side of the rope the staff sit on.

SRSLY never seen a thread with this much hate go for so long

LOLZ
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 27, 2009, 10:57:05 PM
Well, if there is "hate" it's certainly not coming from my side. Although in retrospect the reactions are understandable, I just hope the Armaggedon community realizes that this idea is out of love for the gamestyle not for "graphical elitism" - okay? ;) Gamestyle to me far supercedes medium, visuals or not. Gamestyle = 99% , visuals 1%. I did say I was a player here, didn't I? :)

Gimfalisette - Well, little wonder you'd feel that way, the role-playing avenues graphical gameworlds offer are not impressive at all. Armaggedon offers something none of them offers, it's a type of gamestyle that I enjoy and try to offer via graphical means too.

Nyr - I'm not trying to convince anyone, convincing is not something I do, I make pitches and see reactions. :) Results are pretty clear here, no point to pursue it.

Personally I hope to see you flourish and I hope this gamestyle flourishes, graphics or not.

-gobbledygookie
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: PerpetualPatriot on January 27, 2009, 11:37:54 PM
Sorry your pitch turned into more like an Armageddon mob with a bunch of pitch forks trying to burn down the witch. Good luck with your game, and don't let this embarrasing amount of hate discourage you from making other pitches to other groups in the future.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: SMuz on January 27, 2009, 11:45:58 PM
Heh, don't take any offense at it. I would personally like to see a RPI MMORPG. It's got a lot more simplicity to it, good for new players and you could even put a "Inspired by Armageddon" (with staff permission, of course) to encourage the more hardcore players to play Arm instead.

My brother really wanted to try out Arm, but because his English writing skills are only at a B- level, the game is waaay beyond him. Heck, my sister who's a part-time typist and a A+ student has trouble catching up with everyone else in the game. Something like a Dark Sun NWN mod with socialization and permadeath could get the 80% of people who are interested in the genre, but not skilled enough to roleplay properly.

So, honestly, it will be a good idea. It's just a step back from this game. I mean, honestly, every single Arm player uses a lot of emotes - NWN barely supports the basic socials. No matter how hard you try, it won't come close to reaching the depth of the legendary Armageddon, so no Arm player will touch it, but a lot of more casual RPG players will love it.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Delstro on January 27, 2009, 11:49:58 PM
I can't help but feel like you need to play Armageddon to truly understand why text is better than graphics.

In a Graphic game, you can have your character nod and say, in english, "That bitch right theere be hot."

Or you can live in a text game and...
Looking over the rounded woman's curves, the tall, muscular man says, in sirihish, "You see that Fale aide right there? I'd fuckin' take the crotchrot she has just to get apiece." And then get crotch rot.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: gobbledygookie on January 28, 2009, 12:07:38 AM
Delstro - I played Arm, I've said it. It's great ;)

SMuz - I think you'll be surprised by the level of depth that can be reached and by how dedicated we are to heavy social role-play, if we'll ever get enough players to develop a deep plot I'll send you the RP log, it's just as elaborated as the RP logs here and sometimes more. I'll also take some screenshots ;)

-Lester
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: FantasyWriter on January 28, 2009, 12:08:19 AM
If
muds = books of the game world 
and
graphicals = movies of the game world:

Most would agree that
books > movies made from books
therefore
mud > graphicals made from muds.


As Gimf says, "It's all in the data."


PS- I would love for someone to be able to make a graphical game that would do Armageddon justice.
I jsut don't see it happening mostly because muds attract a more "select" group of players than do graphicals.
The RPI playerbase would be dilited by people from WoW and others.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: mansa on January 28, 2009, 01:32:43 AM
Here's a concept I was working with:
...
It would require a specific java mud client - which I'm sure someone could whip up in 4 years.

Java or AJAX.  But I like it.

Another (mostly unrelated) thing worth considering in a client development would be to go to an http or https tunnel rather than using straight telnet.  'Twould pretty nearly eliminate firewall/snoopage problems for folks.

Assuming it was cross platform and well implemented, I'd be fine with something like that. But I find adding a GUI usually just makes for an uglier, buggier, platform specific interface.  If that's what we're getting, I'd be vehemently against it.

As it stands I'm really not sure your proposal adds enough to be worth the time for coding.  Other concerns include that it might be a move in the wrong direction, or if not, that it may give new players the idea that the MUD is more of an adventure game than a roleplaying environment.

It also dramatically decreases screen space, and that would adversely affect formatting and spam. Unless you want me to set up dual monitors to play Arm on, which is uh, well, a nice idea in theory I guess.


I doubt that it would dramatically decrease screen space, as it would still retain at least 80 characters of line space, which is supposed to be default to telnet clients.
A 800X600 default would cover 95% of the users of the game.  (since the default is that 95% of the population uses GREATER THAN 800x600 resolution)

I thikn there's a lot of space that is misused in the telnet, and could be used for greater things - like proximity , maps , equipment  , status, etc.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Tisiphone on January 28, 2009, 10:03:11 AM
Lester,
     Thank you for the proposition. However, we appreciate Armageddon in its current form, despite many of us having had experience with graphics, even the moldable kind. I myself prefer Nethack to Falconseye, for example, and spend most of my time in the terminal rather than the GUI. While I recognize that as an extreme case, I think in this case it still models the majority of feeling towards your proposition.
     Further, as you've witnessed, many of us are violently inclined towards this particular preference. While I am unsure as to the root cause, the evidence is incontrivertible.
     Thank you again for your proposition, and please do not take personal umbrage if we decide not to accept it.
Sincerely,         
Tisiphone         
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Thunkkin on January 28, 2009, 10:19:23 AM
Lester,
     Thank you for the proposition. However, we appreciate Armageddon in its current form, despite many of us having had experience with graphics, even the moldable kind. I myself prefer Nethack to Falconseye, for example, and spend most of my time in the terminal rather than the GUI. While I recognize that as an extreme case, I think in this case it still models the majority of feeling towards your proposition.
     Further, as you've witnessed, many of us are violently inclined towards this particular preference. While I am unsure as to the root cause, the evidence is incontrivertible.
     Thank you again for your proposition, and please do not take personal umbrage if we decide not to accept it.
Sincerely,         
Tisiphone         

I love it when Tisiphone says "umbrage."
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Krath on January 28, 2009, 01:14:04 PM
NO. Fuck No.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 28, 2009, 01:21:38 PM
Are we going back to the topic or what?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Vanth on January 28, 2009, 01:35:36 PM
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 28, 2009, 02:03:21 PM
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).

Who?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Moofassa on January 28, 2009, 02:05:29 PM
Please be civil, or this thread will be locked, and/or some posters' posting privileges revoked (so don't flame just to get the thread locked because you don't like the thread, in other words).

Who?

Mechafish is funneh.

I was trying to picture arm with a graphical engine just for arguments sake, and it was hard. In fact, if you guys go to TMS, and click on AArdwolfs webpage.. they seem to have some sort of ascii graphical map and a few other things beside their rolling text screen, I couldn't even picture playing with that sort of addition. Armageddon is all about the individiual interpretation of words. And pictures would slash that with a knife faster than a pregnant elf who wants some spiced ale.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Mechafish on January 28, 2009, 02:09:08 PM
A map of some sort might help than graphics.  I still get lost in the area and a map would help me.

And, thank you for that comment.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 28, 2009, 02:22:41 PM
There are some graphical features that I think might be neat for Armageddon to have (though they would likely need a custom client).

Some MUDs have a URL to a picture associated with a room, so when you went there you'd see an artists rendition of what it looks like.  (This could be done without a special client if people don't my copying and pasting URLs.)

Some (with wound systems) show where on your character's body they've been hurt and how badly.

A few even have your inventory and equipment lists displayed in a sidebar (though that's not really "graphics").

I would LOVE to see some sort of java client for Armageddon board games like Izdari.  For instance, when you start a game of Izdari with someone in the MUD, it gives both players a URL that loads a java client connected to a specific game instance and you play the game through that (meanwhile still chatting and emoting back in the MUD).  It might even echo in the game when someone makes a move.


As I said before, I'm not "violently opposed" to the idea of graphics in MUDs.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 28, 2009, 02:41:50 PM
Arm needs a pipboy3000 like system with wounds. That'd be... interesting.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: X-D on January 28, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
I've tried graphical RPI, it is horrid. And already mentioned, the reason being is because the types of people attracted more then anything.

Also, Arm opened I think in what, 1992, it is 2009 now...We are pushing 20 folks...Weeee...older then only 1 of my children though.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Salt Merchant on January 28, 2009, 02:57:18 PM
No. But:

It has to be admitted that there are some advantages to a graphical engine like NWN. Such as

1. Better line of sight implementation vs. the cumbersome room on a grid system in which NPCs can hide on a flat plane like the Salt Flats by being in a room in a diagonal direction.

2. Much better handling of ranged issues of all sorts.

3. Eyes see all the time, yet changes aren't noted in a text game unless you specifically look. That man that just walked in? He could be nude, or holding drawn weapons, and you don't know until you look. Graphics can give constant visual indications.

4. No combat scroll. You can actually see what's happening in a large battle; who is there, who is fighting who, and what in general is happening.

5. Everyone has the same picture. It's true that the limited graphics get repetitive and also curtail the imagination. On the other hand, everyone is on same page. Emotes can go awry when two people have two different mental images of a place. Can someone really block that north exit, for instance? Can the elf disappear into the crowd or is he a twink? Emotes can go awry by reason of 3 above too.

Someone mentioned a sort of hybrid graphics. What opinions do people have about this? If the display were abstract rather than graphically detailed, for example, and text emoting and conversations were supported by balloons and text descriptions by mouse-overs?
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: spicemustflow on January 28, 2009, 05:03:03 PM
Crowded streets? Slaves putting the finishing touches? Horde of beggars in front of the Arboretum? The Gaj? NWN enine would fail hard at representing crowds.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 28, 2009, 05:27:19 PM
Crowded streets? Slaves putting the finishing touches? Horde of beggars in front of the Arboretum? The Gaj? NWN enine would fail hard at representing crowds.

Suppose if it was a mud/mmo mash-up, VNPC's would still be viable... Dunno though...
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: WarriorPoet on January 28, 2009, 05:48:17 PM
Armaggedum

I think this is what set the mob off. Starting a thread by insulting the target audience is no way to get anywhere, especially not in such a rabidly outspoken community as ours.

There's a rap song I recall "Don't start no shit won't be no shit..."

-WP doesn't care for rap. Or graphics.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Sephiroto on January 30, 2009, 12:06:39 AM
Hey man.  If you get this thing working seriously, send me an email.  I'd like to give it a try for fun.

Also, if someone could make an Armageddon/Dark Sun game with the Final Fantasy Tactics engine (or one like it), complete with Arm/DS unique skills, magick, and summons....well....let's just say I'd be a happy guy.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: SMuz on January 31, 2009, 08:59:29 AM
Armaggedum

I think this is what set the mob off. Starting a thread by insulting the target audience is no way to get anywhere, especially not in such a rabidly outspoken community as ours.
Nah, I think it's the "instead of MUD" in the title that set everyone's minds off before they even read the OP. If it wrote "Armageddon clone for NWN - Interested?", I'm sure everyone would react more positively.

I don't think NWN would be good, though, primarily because it's not free. Also, it doesn't handle some of the flaws in Arm's code, like spam-running and mounted combat. And it feels well.. different. I'll miss things like haggling and even basic socials.

Still, this idea has intrigued me greatly. I'm going to look into developing something like this. Expect turn-based combat, though :P
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: FightClub on January 31, 2009, 09:15:37 AM
Well - here's a suggestion to entertain :) ,

I'm a gameworld builder in Neverwinter Nights and I'm designing a low-magic, low-levels, social-community based gameworld where players can build their own citadel essentially by collecting resources. Heavily plot-driven, and all that. All of course in an enforced role-play realm.

So far, we've been unable to draw players to our design, so I figured - hey, Armaggedum has a pretty nice community, having played here - why don't we join forces and we'll make Armaggedum into a graphical engine using Neverwinter Nights 1?

This may sound like a bit of a crazy idea, revolutionary even ;) I just happen to think that the essential idea behind Armaggedum is something that I love, I personally can't go without permadeath and a social-based heavy role-play design, and I'd like to see it in a graphical engine that does it justice (and NWN does justice to anything - it's pretty neat, and it's better than NWN2 - but I won't get to the "why" now).

What do you say, shall we make the epic move? I really mean it, and I will prove it by discussing all the details with you here, even if it takes 100 pages.

If you guys are MUD-sticklers - I understand, but if you ever want to see how your concept will look and play-out like grahpically, I say this is a very unique opportunity. It's up to you, the team, the players.

If you're interested, we can start debating the details more thoroughly and see how far can we truly go.

My current project link, purely for reference, is here - http://www.nwvisuals.com/tum/

My only 'rpi' experience playing neverwinter nights ended like this.  I was playing a barbarian on some rpi server, I spent all my time leveling with my crew of marry marauders.  I went to talk to some female character, she literally robbed me of my entire inventory while I was in the room talking to her.  Pissed off I contacted the administration citing it was unrealistic for her to steal chainmail off of my body while I'm looking at her.  They did nothing.  Always being a positive thinker I went to town, purchased one of the nifty bull helmets, a slew of throwing axes, and my ever trusty war axe.  I then proceeded to stalk the lands, in the near nude, killing every single player I could get my hands on.  Three hours later, and a load of pissed off players in my wake, I get helled, and later banned for my actions.  That was the last time I played rpi on NWN, and to this day I am still on their perma ban list for it.

Anyway...

I've played these "rpi" servers on NWN, so I can give a good comparison when it comes to this game.  Firstly, your idea of rp on NWN, and idea of rp here are two completely different worlds, containing two completely types of immersion.  While NWN might be more beautiful to look at, you can't hatch the details that armageddon can involving characters, simple things, like emotions, physical displays, or even actions are dumbed down on NWN, and you really never get a satisfying result.  When you "rpi" on NWN you're emoting just as much as you would on armageddon to convey actions, simply because, even with a graphical interface you can't convey a lot of stuff.

When it comes down to it, you're having to do shit like, have two people stand on a bed, and emote licking eachothers asses to gamesex, while their avatars are doing nothing, or more hilariously dancing or using some game social in an odd way.

So yeah, as far as rp goes, two different levels.  And NWN's engine could never satisfy the demanding needs of this pbase.

Now on a related note, we definitely could run Armageddon on Arena, hell yeah.  Elder Scrolls FTW!
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Dan on February 01, 2009, 07:49:43 PM
It'd be cool if you had a graphical engine that allowed each player to create their own emotes with movement, and load them into the game to be attached to a hotkey. An unlimited number.

Want to cross your legs at the bar? Go into the movement generator 3000 and path it out using the tool, load it in, and hit the hotkey.

After a few weeks of playing you'll have dozens to chose from for many different situations.



I guess that is just one thing I would do if I tried to make a graphical RPI.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: The7DeadlyVenomz on February 01, 2009, 11:44:18 PM
Crowded streets? Slaves putting the finishing touches? Horde of beggars in front of the Arboretum? The Gaj? NWN enine would fail hard at representing crowds.
Actually. this is something NWN's engine does very good. The more NPCs in the module, the more things lag and the better your comp has to be, but NPCs can be made to do anything in NWN. There are enough emotions scriptable that they can indeed be working on the wall, or begging, or crowding the streets, or drinking at the bar, etc, etc.

I know this - I spent a decent amount of time working with it.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: cyberpatrol_735 on February 04, 2009, 09:24:14 AM
I'm a dork and didn't read the whole thread before posting -- Ignore me.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Archbaron on February 05, 2009, 12:12:38 AM
It'd be cool if you had a graphical engine that allowed each player to create their own emotes with movement, and load them into the game to be attached to a hotkey. An unlimited number.

Want to cross your legs at the bar? Go into the movement generator 3000 and path it out using the tool, load it in, and hit the hotkey.

After a few weeks of playing you'll have dozens to chose from for many different situations.



I guess that is just one thing I would do if I tried to make a graphical RPI.
Yeah that would be really sweet, like mapping Spore's easy 3D dynamics into Arm.
Title: Re: Armageddon with a graphical engine instead of MUD - Interested?
Post by: Qzzrbl on February 07, 2009, 12:48:30 AM
I'm a dork and didn't read the whole thread before posting -- Ignore me.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j75/JCudney/VB___The_Grand_Inquisitor_by_Spooky.jpg)