Salon on M.U.L.E Creator Dani Bunten

douglips writes "If you're a hacker of a certain age, chances are you played M.U.L.E. Salon is running a story on M.U.L.E. creator Dan[i] Bunten. Ahead of her time, she insisted that games would be most enjoyable when they involved social interactions rather than just flashy single-player action and graphics."

Comments

Writer's Attitude

[Flamerule]

Was anyone else disturbed by a demeaning and negative tone from the article's writer toward modern games and gamers? I don't think he's ever played any computer games at all.

It begins at the end of the first page, with "But her predictions and passionate beliefs have been lost in the glitz, megahertz and adrenaline of modern gaming." This line makes me think the author just needed an "angle" to make the story interesting, and the one he chose was "Bunten battles the monolithic Orwellian forces of modern game publishing".

Here's some more, from the second page:

Most of the above genres are extinct today. Instead, the industry has narrowed its focus to just a few, mostly violent, niches, guaranteed to sell: the D&D franchise product, the first-person shooter, the real-time strategy game. Increasingly, Bunten found the gaming industry unreceptive to her ideas.

That's just total bullshit. The kind of mega-corp stagnation that companies like EA have brought to the games they produce does stifle innovation, but it's not a case of "we will only make these game genres". Saying there's a "D&D franchise product" niche is ludicrous; there have been maybe 5 of those in the past 5 years (Baldur's Gate, BGII, Planescape: Torment, Pool of Radiance, Neverwinter Nights, ... ?). Though there may be many first-person games, most of them aren't straight FPS. That doesn't encompass games like Half-Life, Counterstrike, Deus Ex, etc., that just happen to be played from the first person. And there are as many turn-based strategy games as there are RTS, and many of the turn-based ones are quite unique. Anyway, I'm not familiar with her history, but no game publisher would be unreceptive to a talented designer whose games had been fun, and sold sufficiently. No one cares what your ideas are, as long as they work.

More:

Unfortunately, a weird and wonderful multiplayer game about capitalistic robots was destined for trouble in the dawning mass market of late '80s solo games. With graphics-intensive games like Wing Commander, glitzy "bells and whistles" were becoming increasingly important in selling software.

Total bullshit. Wing Commander did well because it kicked ass. It was fun; that's all that mattered then, it's all that matters now. What the fuck is he talking about with "destined for trouble", anyway? The game was released; did it not sell well or something?

But now, formerly inconceivable amounts of computing power are splurged on the visceral thrill of the death match.

You've never played a deathmatch, so what would you know about it?

When was the last time a computer game felt like something other than a sequel or an incremental improvement? And how many young would-be Buntens are stuck coding yet another snowboarding game?

Jesus fucking christ. He wants recent great games? How about Deus Ex, Homeworld, Baldur's Gate, Half-Life? And if that snowboarding game is a good game, that's all that matters.