Re: Viability of a Graphical CircleMUD

From: StormeRider (
Date: 07/30/00

At 11:35 AM 7/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>         The issue I get frustrated over is that people assume that telnet
>and a graphics pump/server idea coupled using _text_ tags is actually a
>_good_ idea.
>         Graphics and telnet just don't mix :)

I'd like to hear more on this thread. I've seen Daniel's objections to MXP,
but personally I still think that it (or something like it) has a lot going
for it.

The viability of most of us being able to take our MUDs and convert them
to something like AC or EQ is pretty much nil. However, I don't see how
we could stand to lose by implementing some basic sound and graphic
functionality. Icons for spells in a spellbook, images for the different
hyperlink-like clickability all seem like viable ways in which text-based
MUDs can progress. Ultimately, the HTML-like scenario does _not_ seem
like a bad way of doing things, IMHO. If someone can explain why they
believe it is, I'd be very interested in hearing it.

That said, I think that nothing should really be streamed from the server.
Regular updates and client downloads would be a must, to update the
graphics and sounds on the client computer. But that said, being able to
prompt the client to display or play those doesn't seem like a bad idea
in my opinion. Perhaps this should instead be done over a separate
socket channel. That might have its own benefits, but the concept of being
able to specify customizeable "HTML"-like frames would give us a lot of
control that can only be done with VT100 escape sequences, which aren't
the friendliest to code.


StormeRider             "Peace favor your code." 9000 ( 4008 (

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     |  |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT