Re: MOO vs. LPMUD, Pueblo, etc

• Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:00:10 PDT
• From:
  jmax@wimsey.com (John Maxwell)
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960613180315.006b5bfc@popd.netcruiser> from "Eric Mercer" at Jun 13, 96 02:03:15 pm

The niftiest and most significant feature of Pueblo, as I see it is
that it maintains the MUD real-time interactivity. You can run it
almost entirely by typing -- which is what you want if there's live stuff
happening in the room: people are talking, interacting with objects
and whatnot. And as you type, you get nice, formatted, HTML output
scrolling up your buffer. If there's a relevant graphic, there it is,
if not, you just keep mudding.

The trouble with the other approach, more in line with most of the
MOO/WWW integration things, is that if forces you to interact with the
MUD by clicking on things with your mouse, in a more-or-less static
WWW window -- which does not seem natural, and not nearly as
interactive, in the dialogical sense. Seems to kill the live feel of
MUDding.

Both systems give you formatted, graphic (etc) representations of the
environment, but the way in which you actually work with it is much
different.

Hats off to Chaco -- sure wish there were a Mac port.

 --

  -John Maxwell

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmax@wimsey.com                                         jwmaxwel@sfu.ca
Knossopolis Media Inc.              Can. Ctr. for Studies in Publishing
http://www.knosso.com/                  http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/ccsp/

• Re: MOO vs. LPMUD, Pueblo, etc
• From: "J.M." <gsswky@menudo.uh.edu>

• Prev: Re: MOO standard entry room?
• Next: Re: MOO vs. LPMUD, Pueblo, etc
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows