The Keyboard is Mightier Than The Sword

Wired has an article up which harkens back to the days of yore, when men played Zork and women congregated in MUDs and MOOs. The Keyboard is Mightier Than The Sword takes a look at the still extant realms of the text-based virtual space. From the article: "For me, asking why I play a MU (multi-user text game) when I could play EverQuest is like asking someone why they would read a book instead of watching the movie of the same story..."

Comments

Analogy

[MyLongNickName]

is like asking someone why they would read a book instead of watching the movie of the same story

Because you can check out the book for free from the library (MUD) while the movie costs money (EverQuest).

Duh!

Re:Analogy

[TeknoHog]

"books are the weakest form of storytelling"

I sort of agree, because it leaves more power for the reader. In other words, viewing a movie is a weaker experience, because so much has already been done for him/her.

Re:Analogy

[Meagermanx]

Well I would say that technically the movie would be much stronger than the book, for storytelling alone, because the movie shows exactly what is going on and conveys what happens better. Who steps where, who says what in what tone, etcetera. Nothing is left up to your imagination.
When you read a book however, you imagine what is going on, so it makes the story more real to you. Everyone imagines their own version of Gollum, and that version, which is a collection of your own fears, experiences, and thoughts, is a lot scarier than the Gollum from the movies, because the Gollum from the book is fine-tuned to your psyche.
That's why reading a scary book before can keep you up at night, but a scary movie, with all the bloody gore, jump-out-and-scare-you scenes, and atmosphere, barely holds your interest a few minutes after you finish it.
Also, books take longer to read, so you are more tuned to the story than an hour and a half of gunfighting, car chases, and sex scenes. In a book, you get to know the characters, and you think about a good book all throughout the day, until you get to read it again, so the danger and tragedy seems more real and risky to the characters you know and love.

Wasn't it really....

[AtariAmarok]

"men played Zork and women congregated in MUDs and MOOs. "

Wasn't it really: "Men played Zork and MUDs and MOOs. Some of the men playing MUDs and MOOs said they were women."

Snobbery

[sgant]

It's almost a universal snobbery that inhabits the world...where people will always say "the book was better than the movie". Why can't the two artforms exist on an even keel?

There exist movies that are better as a visual form than any book. Movies that convey emotion and character that no book, no matter how eloquent the author, could never approach. Stanley Kubrick once said "If it can be written or thought; it can be filmed". This is true.

Yes, there are many many examples of books turned into movies that were disasters. But there are some that transend mere words. I of course could give you a list of films that I feel truly reach these hights, but it can often be personal. So I ask that you think for yourself if you've found a movie that exceeds the printed word. If not, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, mearly that you haven't found it.

Re:Snobbery

[Bastian]

Movies that are made from books are never as good as the original.
Books that are made from movies are never as good as the original.
T.V. spinoffs are never as good as the movie.
Movie spinoffs of TV shows are never as good as the TV show.
Video games made from books, movies, or TV shows are LAME.
Movies, books, and TV shows made from video games pretty much always suck.

It's not that one medium is better than another, it's that the stuff that works well in one medium doesn't necessarily work out so well in others. Certain things just won't work in some media - imagine trying to turn The Matrix into a book. Those fight scenes would be B-O-R-I-N-G.

Re:Snobbery

[SirBruce]

>T.V. spinoffs are never as good as the movie.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer disproves this rule.

Bruce

How I started

[karn096]

I started playing back in '95, I was bored and at a friends house and doing random searches for games on webcrawler.com and I stumbled across a mud (what i dont remember anymore) I rushed to get home so I can try it out, and proceeded to play for hours every day for the next 7 or 8 years! Theres always something new to do, and Muds are never hampered by what you can do like their graphical counterparts.. Your only limited by your imagination.
My personal preference over the years was GodWars (http://www.mindcloud.com/) Does anyone know any good servers? and Realms of Despair (www.game.org)

Anyone interested in starting up to play, I would go check out Realms of Despair, and go download zmud over at www.zuggsoft.com..

Not that old one again

[Tofino]

"For me, asking why I play a MU (multi-user text game) when I could play EverQuest is like asking someone why they would read a book instead of watching the movie of the same story..."

Please. This is hardly a valid metaphor. Unless of course you really want to compare literature with hoary flavour text and:

The orc hits you for 9 damage!
You hit the orc for 4 damage!
The orc missed you!
You hit the orc for 14 damage!
The orc hits you for 3 damage!
You hit the orc for 8 damage!
You kill the orc!

What makes MUD's MMORPG...

[guaigean]

I think the reason the two are still unequal has to do with the amount of control players have. In MUD's, players can often obtain much more realm influencing roles than in MMORPG's. Not to mention, MMORPG's are a money maker, designed to be a time sink. More time = more money. MUD's on the other hand, are community driven, but simply lack the visual side. I also think that if anyone COULD pull off a free expansive world like an MMORPG they would have. Saying MUDs are better because they are like books though is ridiculous. MUD's have the added advantage of not being corporate controlled, and THAT is what makes them more enjoyable to players.