Iron Realms?

[javasaurus]

Anyone here play Iron Realms games? There is a set of four text-style MUDs out there (see their homesite for the specifics) that are supposedly fully developed, professionally run MUDs with no graphics, very old-school in that sense, but well-matured, and very complex. They claim that WoW, EQ, and similar games have traded depth for eye-candy. Oh, I should mention that it's supposedly free to play.

Thoughts?

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

I was actually asking for info/opinions on the Iron Realms games, not a defense of graphics-based MMORPGs. I've played AC, EQ, DAoC, WoW, CoH/CoV, and just started a trial month of FFXI. Needless to say, you don't need to convince me that good graphics can be entertaining.

That being said, I will point out that the review didn't say depth <> eyecandy, only that certain popular games have focused on one over the other. A common attack against most MMORPGs is that the players have minimal if any impact on the game environment. In most, you cannot rise up to be king, and no matter how many times you kill the big boss at the end of a big dungeon, he doesn't stay dead. Also, many of them eventually devolve into kill, kill, kill, loot, loot, loot, level-up, repeat. Some of the better ones throw in crafting, or involve massive story-arcs, which certainly helps. Socialization is a strong aspect of such games, and getting connected to a solid group, or finding the occassional decent PUG is really nice, but many such groups get together for the sole purpose of doing the kill, kill, loot, loot faster.

"games have been dumbed down over time." Again, I disagree. There have always been dumb games, but most are long fogotten, while the few gems stand out in our minds. The key thing that keeps most people coming back to games over and over is the ability to see progress from one session to the next. Playing Pac-man loses its charm when you can play ad-nauseum using a pattern. But during the period when you have to work for it, and you see that you are getting better, a game can be enthralling, whether or not its deep.

One of the key aspects of the Iron Realms games is that it focuses much more on the social, and that the players control a lot of the social environment -- players can rise up to be mayors or kings, if I understand it correctly.

As for depth and what it is, I would say that a game (or book, or play, or musical opus) has depth if it holds more than what you perceive on the surface. If you gain insight into yourself, your surroundings, or the universe, there is depth. If you see more details, or see the same details differently when playing the same level for the tenth time, there is depth. If what you do has an influence on the game world, and the gameplay of the other players, there is depth. Having an amazing amount of content (which WoW in particular is good at doing) is not deep so much as it is broad.

As for WoW's success being evidence of good game play, I will point out that many bad movies are successful, as are many bad books, while oscar winner go unseen, and pulitzers go unread.

Finally, you commented, "Depth or no depth, it's got game-play, and that's what counts." Well, the comment on the Iron Realms site was about depth. They don't have graphics and musical scores, but they have social interaction and impact-able environment. They don't claim that other MMORPGs are not entertaining, just that they are not deep. They are trying to market themselves to an audience for whom depth is important. If you think it's not important, then maybe the game isn't for you.