> Doug Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding making "good" games. It is an interersting question as
> > > to what seduces people into games -- currently the paradigm would
> > > seem to suggest good graphics is a necessity -- in contrast the
> > > 1970's games had *no* graphics -- you had to map the game entirely
> > > in your head. I wonder if there are two types of people -- those
> > > who can create mental images reflecting a reality and those who
> > > require the images to be painted for them who would be enrolled
> > > into very different game presentations.
> >
> > Yeah- readers vs mouth breathers.
>
> Quite. And no Doug, you are not being cynical.
>
> As a kid, I loved military aircraft, ships, and battles. Problem was, mom
> refused to buy me any of those COOL GI Joe toys or other military models,
so
> being the only kid on the block who was reading whole books at age 4, I
would
> take bits of wood (we were not poor) and plastic, and make symbolic
weapons,
> vehicles, ships and soldiers, and stage my little battles in the dirtpile
behind
> the shed. Is it any wonder they other kids laughed at my little piles of
sticks
> when they asked what I was doing and I said I was running a war???
>
There is an idea floating around (very strong in the general community too I
think) that games need flashy graphics to be successful these days. Check
out Utopia, or any of the other net-based, html based games. No graphics.
Tens of thousands of players. Some of them are no brain surgeons. There is
indeed a market for something other than eye-candy.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:13 MDT