[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
28708: Re: [MUD-Dev] size
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Amanda Walker <amanda@alfar.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:33:56 -0400
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 11:07 PM, Bo Zimmerman wrote:
> From: Amanda Walker
>> Daniel.Harman@barclayscapital.com writes:
>>> From: Amanda Walker [mailto:amanda@alfar.com]
>> If you're not paying license fees for your back story or setting,
>> don't need to use absolutely every feature of the latest Video
>> Force Turbo 9000 video card, etc., why roll your own engine?
> Because you can do it better, faster, smarter. Because the legacy
> engine is flat and difficult to extend. Because you have new
> ideas that don't fit the legacy engine.
Sigh. If we go back to the *context* of this discussion, the claim
was being made that graphical MUDs take a lot of money and time to
develop, which is why they require a big bankroll. Sure, if we
assume they don't, that does solve the problem, but that wasn't
really the question at hand :-).
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev