30 Mar, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
I prefer human-translated to Google-translated text.

That's an extremely bad analogy, so bad in fact that I can only assume you're not familiar with translation tools, or else you don't understand how generated descriptions work - or both.

Translation tools can work for short sentences, but they are rife with translation errors and grammatical mistakes. There's usually enough to get the gist, and it's faster than looking up the words individually, but you certainly can't rely on the results or use them for anything serious.

Generated descriptions can vary significantly depending on their implementation, but they are generally less prone to spelling mistakes and grammatical errors than hand-written descriptions, because corrections are made to shared sections of text rather than individual rooms. They also tend to have a more consistent writing style. In short, they excel in the areas that a translation tool does badly.

plamzi said:
I also want to point out

You would be better off reading the post I replied to instead. Rarva explicitly stated that he prefers bad descriptions to generated ones (and apparently you're "with Rarva on this one"). But at no point did I say I prefer bad descriptions.
30 Mar, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
plamzi said:
I prefer human-translated to Google-translated text.

That's an extremely bad analogy, so bad in fact that I can only assume…


I don't think it's such a bad analogy :) The point is that some of us are sensitive to text that was put together by a machine. Google-translated text doesn't have any spelling mistakes, either. And it also has "consistent writing style". That doesn't make it enjoyable to read.

Granted, if your automated descriptions are on the sentence level, they will never sound as awful as Google-translated text. But to me, they would still be about as enjoyable to read, because 2 seconds into reading the first one I will just be imagining a machine talking to me, one that is never going to surprise me.

KaVir said:
plamzi said:
I also want to point out

You would be better off reading the post I replied to instead. Rarva explicitly stated that he prefers bad descriptions to generated ones (and apparently you're "with Rarva on this one"). But at no point did I say I prefer bad descriptions.


I think you're having problems parsing the logic of my comment, and maybe reading it again will help, not sure. The gist of it is, when you say "and some even prefer badly written descriptions that can be quickly thrown together without much skill or effort, period" you make it sound like Rarva was arguing for badly written static descriptions even when pitted against well-written static ones. It's a straw-man argument. It is very possible you didn't mean to imply that, since you're having trouble understanding why I felt the need to defend Rarva's point.

Lyanic said:
I see people are falling into the thought trap I pointed out dozens of posts back.

I'll summarize it: It is not safe to assume that "room descriptions" are the primary content of the game, or that they constitute the bulk of the text. It's a really old mentality that needs to die.


+1
30 Mar, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
I don't think it's such a bad analogy :)

It's probably the worst I've seen in months :)

plamzi said:
The point is that some of us are sensitive to text that was put together by a machine.

I suspect it's more that you don't understand how generated descriptions work - you still seem to think that they work like online translation tools! If implemented well and with sufficient variety, some players won't even notice the descriptions are generated, unless you draw their attention to it. They might not be exciting descriptions, but they won't stand out as being any worse than most builders produce.

plamzi said:
Google-translated text doesn't have any spelling mistakes, either. And it also has "consistent writing style". That doesn't make it enjoyable to read.

I never said it made spelling mistakes, I said it's "rife with translation errors and grammatical mistakes". And no, it doesn't have a "consistent writing style", either - it's a translator, it works with whatever text you feed into it.

plamzi said:
you make it sound like Rarva was arguing for badly written static descriptions even when pitted against well-written static ones.

Nope, you're still not reading my post. Let me requote the relevant part for you:

"…we all have different goals and different priorities. While it's not generally feasible for most mud owners to create an entire world from high-quality hand-written descriptions, there are various compromises that at least make it possible to have a playable environment. Some of us…"

Creating an entire world from well-written descriptions is not generally feasible for most mud owners, because of the sheer amount of time and work involved. That means we have to prioritise and compromise. Generated descriptions are a compromise. Stock areas are a compromise. Poorly-written descriptions that can be quickly thrown together are a compromise.

Do you use stock areas on Bedlam because you think they're better than you can produce yourself? Or because they save you time, allowing you to focus on other things?
31 Mar, 2013, Ssolvarain wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
05 Feb, 2014, Orb wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
As sort of an aside and to go back on topic (maybe), I think a lot of MU*'s do descriptions, well… poorly. Most hacknslashers won't even read a description. Most RPI'n folks would probably freak out if you didn't have them.

Personally I'll skim over a wall of text to get the jist, I really don't need to know (or care) how this vine is different from the vine one room before. Seems like editors are the most non-existent in mu* writing.

To make a point, Hemingway was once asked what the shortest story he ever wrote was, he responded with: 'For Sale, baby shoes. Never owned.' Which is pretty fantastic. Six words that tell an entire story, and one that actually carries emotional content.

You must rip out every useless word from any writing. Though a mechanic to provide more detailed information would work nicer. In fact, if it were my system… but nah, I won't go there. Some description is necessary.
05 Feb, 2014, Tyche wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
05 Feb, 2014, plamzi wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0


If you're as talented as Edgar Allan Poe, and wasting your talent on MUD room descriptions, it would be a colossal pity.
05 Feb, 2014, Davenge wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:


If you're as talented as Edgar Allan Poe, and wasting your talent on MUD room descriptions, it would be a colossal pity.


Everyone needs a hobby.
06 Feb, 2014, Tyche wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:


If you're as talented as Edgar Allan Poe, and wasting your talent on MUD room descriptions, it would be a colossal pity.


Consider this view:
"Talent is the assumptions we make about other peoples abilities that keep us from developing our own." - Barbara Baig
07 Feb, 2014, Ssolvarain wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Ya'll can wax philosophical all you want. I'm writing them regardless. They're a drop in the bucket compared to the progs I usually do in my areas.
07 Feb, 2014, plamzi wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Consider this view:
"Talent is the assumptions we make about other peoples abilities that keep us from developing our own." - Barbara Baig


Upon considering this view, it seems to me the person is either insecure, or patronizing. It is possible to be both confident in one's own abilities, and appreciative of other people's.
07 Feb, 2014, Idealiad wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
The thing to understand is that Baig teaches writing.
07 Feb, 2014, plamzi wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
The thing to understand is that Baig teaches writing.


Patronizing then :)

I'm sure she meant it as motivational, and it's probably both.

No offense meant, to be sure. It sounds like something I would have said to my creative writing students back when I was teaching.
07 Feb, 2014, quixadhal wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Another Boring Room

You are in another boring room with no monsters to kill, and no loot to pick up.

Exits: North, South, East, West.

> n

Killing Room

You are in a room with a monster to kill! Yay!

Exits: North, South, East, West.

A generic monster is standing here, waiting to be slaughtered.

>
07 Feb, 2014, Ssolvarain wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, let's reduce text games down to a single digit where you hit enter and watch the number roll over.

Congratulations, you have saved muds.
07 Feb, 2014, quixadhal wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
You do realize that's how a great many mudders play, right? Once they learn your mud's layout (or are told it by a fellow player), they flip on brief and use speedwalk macros to zip between killing fields, returning to town to vendor loot and buy potions.

For many of them, you could have the rooms generated random insulting messages as the description and they wouldn't notice, or they'd chuckle and move on in search of the next thing to kill.
07 Feb, 2014, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Hehe so true. The mud environment always been for me just a tutorial to learn how to play to then compete againts players.
Good or bad, I will only read your room description once at max anyway…just to get a sense of direction the first time I enter an area I have not explored yet.

edit: I do not say a good description is useless, I jsut say it is the icing on the cake. But the icing on the cake is also what can drive players to your game first.
08 Feb, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
You do realize that's how a great many mudders play, right? Once they learn your mud's layout (or are told it by a fellow player), they flip on brief and use speedwalk macros to zip between killing fields, returning to town to vendor loot and buy potions.

For many of them, you could have the rooms generated random insulting messages as the description and they wouldn't notice, or they'd chuckle and move on in search of the next thing to kill.


At least in our game, those are also the players that will miss area quests, black market locations, hidden items, short cuts through areas etc. Which, that is fine by me, I have no problem rewarding the players who take the time to investigate the world rather than just zip through it.

It amazes me sometimes how adverse to actually having to read something some people are whose hobby is a text based game :p
09 Feb, 2014, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
quixadhal said:
You do realize that's how a great many mudders play, right? Once they learn your mud's layout (or are told it by a fellow player), they flip on brief and use speedwalk macros to zip between killing fields, returning to town to vendor loot and buy potions.

For many of them, you could have the rooms generated random insulting messages as the description and they wouldn't notice, or they'd chuckle and move on in search of the next thing to kill.


At least in our game, those are also the players that will miss area quests, black market locations, hidden items, short cuts through areas etc. Which, that is fine by me, I have no problem rewarding the players who take the time to investigate the world rather than just zip through it.

It amazes me sometimes how adverse to actually having to read something some people are whose hobby is a text based game :p


Only what is random is worth reading, the rest is just useless repetition once you read it once.
09 Feb, 2014, Tyche wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
It amazes me sometimes how adverse to actually having to read something some people are whose hobby is a text based game :p

It doesn't seem limited to some players. Some running games might be averse to writing.
60.0/128