I just got TextMUD 2.0's reviews back. I might add that it took far too long for any staff size. It was rejected from all 3 channels that I submitted it to for the reason that it had no demo. Does it not matter that the latest version of TextMUD has a host population of over 80 and a sizable player base? Does it not matter that at this moment, TextMUD has over 15 users logged in? Neither seem to have any influence on its ability to be let into the hub. If you want a demo, just ask somebody else who is subscribed to allow you to GM, or play somebody else's game -- it's not hard.
In light of my new hatred for the BYOND hub, I am not going to broadcast TextMUD 2.5 to the hub, period. If this is already possible, I'll find out -- if it's not, that is a feature request that I will make.
-Lord of Water
ID:274655
 Jun 12 2002, 10:14 am
|
|
|
Jun 12 2002, 10:18 am
|
|
Nadrew
  |
It's clearly stated in a post by Deadron that your game must have some sort of free demo to be accepted to the HUB.
|
Lord of Water wrote:
It was rejected from all 3 channels that I submitted it to for the reason that it had no demo. It would be easy enough for you to create a demo, why don't you just do that? Alathon\\ | |
Lord of Water wrote:
Then it would appear that Lexiconomy should not be on the hub, aye?Lexiconomy is a game, it is a demo in it self, and requires no configraion to set up and play. TextMUD however is a game "engine" it requires you to set up to play. as such it should have a demo. | |
But to create a room in Lexiconomy, you have to pay. Same thing to create a game in TextMUD -- and it's event the same price! And, in both, you can play or watch for free -- I don't know what more you can ask for from either of them. That's why I say the hub is messed up.
| |
I believe the difference is that two people, neither of whom has a subscription can log in, at any time, and play a game of Lexiconomy on the main server. (I think I remember reading that was possible) Is their a permanently running game of yours that people can try out or watch for free? If not, maybe you could write up a little demo AI that people could log into and watch an 'imaginary' session.
| |
Flick wrote:
I believe the difference is that two people, neither of whom has a subscription can log in, at any time, and play a game of Lexiconomy on the main server. I think a more significant difference is that Lexiconomy requires no setup work -- though I suppose TextMUD might not either if you wanted to run a "freeform" game. My guess is that the demo is as much for the benefit of the Hub approver as for the potential users. Suppose I'm a reviewer, which I ain't, and I'm going to evaluate "Deconstruction Online" for the Hub, but I discover that before I can actually do that, I have to have a solid grounding in the academic works of Jacques Derrida, in whose books the game rules are made clear for those who have the skill to analyze the text. As a volunteer reviewer, what do I do? Do I take several hours learning the game's toolset, or do I say "Screw you guys, I'm going home"? Probably the latter. Perhaps it would make sense to have a new "Construction Sets" category or something like that, but there still needs to be something the evaluator can use to make an informed -- if still far from fully informed -- decision. Also, if a game is sent back due to the reviewer's personal prejudices, that's one thing. If a game is sent back because it doesn't conform to a clearly defined rubric, that's another thing altogether. It may very well be that the criteria need to be refined, but there's no reason to suppose that the reviewers aren't open to discussion on the matter -- in fact I bet they'd welcome an informed opinion that doesn't chew them out. :) | |
