what is an inventory?
Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy
Taken.
->GET HUGE MACE
Taken.
->GET WHEELBARROW
Taken.
->I
You are carrying a longsword, a huge mace and a wheelbarrow.
------------------------
Most IF games seem to treat the inventory as some kind of mysterious
container capable of accomodating an amazing amount of, often quite
sizeable, objects. Is this something one should accept as part of the genre,
or is it too unrealistic?
I've been thinking about a different, more 'realistic', approach where the
PC carries a number of containers (a bag over his shoulder, pockets inside
his clothing, a scabbard attached to a belt...) where things are
automatically put. Typing GET LONGSWORD will tell the game to find a
suitable container for the longsword and put it there. If no such container
can be found GET LONGSWORD fails (unless the PC can HOLD the object). If the
player is unhappy with the games decision he may specify exactly where he
wants the object to be put by typing PUT LONGSWORD INTO SCABBARD. Could this
work?
jpowe...@my-deja.com
or some such as an inventory holder, it is less harmful to a game then
only being able to hold, say, 10 items when there are 100 different items
needed and many rooms. The game then becomes a tedium of dragging
everything to every room and I usually go for the walkthrough.
Of course you can overcome this by good game design. Fewer takable items
and most of those should be single use, ex:
"You start the fire with the last remaining match and toss the empty box
in the flames"
-Jim
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Arcum Dagsson
<p_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It could, if done well.
Take a look at the way inventory is handled in Anchorhead...
--
--Arcum Dagsson
"You say there's a horse in your bathroom, and all you can do is stand
there naming Beatles songs?"
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> ->GET LONGSWORD
> Taken.
> ->GET HUGE MACE
> Taken.
> ->GET WHEELBARROW
> Taken.
> ->I
> You are carrying a longsword, a huge mace and a wheelbarrow.
>
> ------------------------
>
> Most IF games seem to treat the inventory as some kind of mysterious
> container capable of accomodating an amazing amount of, often quite
> sizeable, objects.
In the majority of interactive fiction, you could think of many
situations in which the inventory of the player is unrealistic even
when you are not dealing with particularly large objects. The
physics involved in juggling objects in IF is pretty negliigible
compared to real life. Like many containers, which the inventory
can be likened to, there will usually be some restrictive properties
such as "maximum bulk" or "maximum weight" and each object
can be given a realistic weight and bulk based on the overall
proportion of the inventory. For instance you'd give a feather a
small weight and small bulk, say the value 3 if the total weight and
bulk of the player was 100. (Yes, you may recognise the example
as coming from AGT Master's Edition.)
When thinking about holding your inventory, imagine what the
situation would really be like. You'd have your arms crossed and
your chin pressed onto valuables which threatened to fall from your
grasp in most games! A container like a basket is more realistic in
IF, though not entirely so. When things are put in your basket,
they stay there, and there are far fewer reasons for objects to fall
out. But what if the basket is toppled when it is dropped?
Finally, I would say that the manageability of seemingly very large
objects simultaneously is carelessness on the part of the game
designer. At least some common sense and a good system of
restricting container contents (a standard function of most IF
creation languages) should be strongly exercised.
> Is this something one should accept as part of the
> genre, or is it too unrealistic?
Without considering a major task of reprogramming the physics of
the universe (both spoiling the sense of standard in IF and making
the game less focussed on its purpose), I believe so. Ideally it
shouldn't happen, but apparently there are some situations where
the basic rules of object manipulation (those not taking universal
physics into consideration) will allow it.
> I've been thinking about a different, more 'realistic', approach where
> the PC carries a number of containers (a bag over his shoulder,
> pockets inside his clothing, a scabbard attached to a belt...) where
> things are automatically put. Typing GET LONGSWORD will tell the game
> to find a suitable container for the longsword and put it there. If no
> such container can be found GET LONGSWORD fails (unless the PC can
> HOLD the object). If the player is unhappy with the games decision he
> may specify exactly where he wants the object to be put by typing PUT
> LONGSWORD INTO SCABBARD. Could this work?
The principle is a good one. Yes, a little more coding would be in
order, but that might not be a problem if you manage to
standardise it. The problem will start arrising when you need to
classify each and every kind of object for each and every type of
possible wearable container. Things would possibly start to get a
bit overwhelming:
>I
You are carrying a bottle of pills in your left pocket, a torch battery
in your right pocket, a matchstick, a tube of glue in your shirt
pocket and a satchel. The satchel seems to contain a playscript,
a rolled up newspaper and a ball-point pen. You are wearing a
glove on your left hand and a glove on your right hand.
>take all from pocket
Which pocket do you mean, the left pocket, the right pocket or the
shirt pocket?
>shirt
Tube of glue: taken.
>take all from satchel
Ball-point pen: you put the ball-point pen in your shirt pocket.
Rolled up newspaper: taken.
Playscript: you put the playscript in your right pocket.
>put pen in left pocket
But there's no room.
>put pen in right pocket
Okay.
>remove left glove
You take off your left glove, putting it in your satchel.
>take pen
You are holding the pen already in your right pocket, but can't carry
it in your hands.
>put battery in satchel
But to do that I must hold it in my hands when I get it from my right
pocket, which I cannot do.
......
Theoretically a nice idea because it would make a somewhat more
realistic model of the inventory and would probably result in a better
set of restrictions on the player. Practically though it means more
time spent on your part and that of the player.
Kind regards,
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
-----
Thought for the day:
Advertising (n): the science of arresting the human
intelligence for long enough to get money from it.
-- Stephen Leacock.
-----
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
<Sabahattin...@redhotant.com>
or <gucu...@rnibncw.demon.co.uk>
(At least one of these will work; send to both if you're not getting a response in good time.)
dgr...@cs.csuabk.edu
[snip]
> But to do that I must hold it in my hands when I get it from my right
> pocket, which I cannot do.
> ......
> Theoretically a nice idea because it would make a somewhat more
> realistic model of the inventory and would probably result in a better
> set of restrictions on the player. Practically though it means more
> time spent on your part and that of the player.
A possible solution to this would to have a STOW verb which would put an
object into any random container on the PC where it would fit (depends on
bulk and how much bulk a container may hold) or a specific container (like
a gun into a holster). For example:
> GET PISTOL, MAGAZINES, AND SHOES
Walther P99, taken. P99 magazines, taken. Shoes, your hands are full.
> STOW MAGAZINES
You stick the magazines in your left pocket.
> WEAR SHOES
Putting on and tying your shoes will be difficult with that pistol in your
hand.
> STOW PISTOL
You slide the Walther P99 into your holster and fasten the snap.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csubak.edu
Carl Muckenhoupt
me that the notion of "inventory" in its simplest form simply
abstracts away the details of exactly how you're carrying everything,
which is fine if such details are ultimately irrelevant.
On the other hand, I can imagine building a game with a more detailed
inventory system in mind, in which case the location of items on you
would affect gameplay. For example, you might have to climb a cliff,
which you couldn't do with objects in your hands. At the top of a
cliff is a swordsman who pushes you off if you have to take the time
to fumble around in your backpack; to respond quickly, you'd need
either a sword at your belt or a sachet of blinding powder in your
pocket. But if the powder is in your pocket when you wade across the
stream, it becomes soggy and useless. And so on.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Adam Conover
"suspension of disbelief" -- after all, no one walks in cardinal
directions, and every puzzle would be easy if only the game world were
implemented like real life. but then, of course, we'd have real life,
and what's the fun in that?
also, inventory management is NEVER fun -- including most of the
alternatives dicussed here. why make a game less fun just because it's
more realistic? (or, alternately, why make a story less engaging?
unimportant details are left out for a REASON.)
- adam
(write e-mail address numerically to reply)
a9218202
dgr...@cs.csuabk.edu wrote in message <93bke1$ed37$1...@hades.csu.net>...
>A possible solution to this would to have a STOW verb which would put an
>object into any random container on the PC where it would fit (depends on
>bulk and how much bulk a container may hold) or a specific container (like
>a gun into a holster). For example:
>
>> GET PISTOL, MAGAZINES, AND SHOES
>
>Walther P99, taken. P99 magazines, taken. Shoes, your hands are full.
>
>> STOW MAGAZINES
>
>You stick the magazines in your left pocket.
>
>> WEAR SHOES
>
>Putting on and tying your shoes will be difficult with that pistol in your
>hand.
>
>> STOW PISTOL
>
>You slide the Walther P99 into your holster and fasten the snap.
IMO, this can get very annoying soon. I know how to put on shoes, and I know
I can't do that when my hands are full. I wouldn't make a puzzle out of
that, which is no puzzle, because you know what you are supposed to do, and
the only point is, you've got to do it.
I'd rather go for an Anchorhead-style inventory handling. It seems even more
realistic to me, because I don't have to think about what to do with the
things I hold when I want to put on my shoes in real life, I just do it.
-- Sophie
Andrew Plotkin
> I'd question the value of such a system for most games. It seems to
> me that the notion of "inventory" in its simplest form simply
> abstracts away the details of exactly how you're carrying everything,
> which is fine if such details are ultimately irrelevant.
> On the other hand, I can imagine building a game with a more detailed
> inventory system in mind, in which case the location of items on you
> would affect gameplay. For example, you might have to climb a cliff,
> which you couldn't do with objects in your hands. [...]
I agree, and I agree.
Note that in the cliff-climbing game, the inventory system becomes a
*major* part of the game -- at least of that part of the game. Object
storage will be, for a while, the -thing that the player is doing-.
Which means (1) you don't want the player to focus on inventory at the
same time as too many other major elements; (2) you need to keep each
little piece interesting and fresh.
If the player has to worry about inventory while something *else*
interesting is going on, and has to type repetitive and unenlightening
commands to manage it, the player will go watch TV instead.
Another approach is to invent a complicated inventory management
system *and then totally automate it*. (Just as the standard library
automates putting things in the sack-object when your hands are full.)
This isn't as nuts as it sounds. You get all the realism without
annoying the player at all. Sure, you're putting in three times the
work -- is that a surprise?
(Example: _Shade_. The movement system. I spent a lot of time dividing
the room up into areas, and then writing code to make that fact
totally irrelevant to the commands you have to type. If I had taken
the simple way out, and made the player type "ENTER KITCHEN. GET
GLASS" all the time, _Shade_ would have been laughed out of the
competition.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
John Colagioia
> Most IF games seem to treat the inventory as some kind of mysterious
> container capable of accomodating an amazing amount of, often quite
> sizeable, objects. Is this something one should accept as part of the genre,
> or is it too unrealistic?
It depends on your definition of the inventory. I'll get to mine in just a bit.
> I've been thinking about a different, more 'realistic', approach where the
> PC carries a number of containers (a bag over his shoulder, pockets inside
> his clothing, a scabbard attached to a belt...) where things are
> automatically put. Typing GET LONGSWORD will tell the game to find a
> suitable container for the longsword and put it there. If no such container
> can be found GET LONGSWORD fails (unless the PC can HOLD the object). If the
> player is unhappy with the games decision he may specify exactly where he
> wants the object to be put by typing PUT LONGSWORD INTO SCABBARD. Could this
> work?
It CAN work, yes. What you're describing doesn't sound intrusive or
complicated. I don't think it needs to be done, though. Since I first started
playing "IF," I've considered the inventory to be an abstracted system of the
type that you mention--so well abstracted, in fact, that I don't ever think
about where I left my pen or battleaxe. When I use something, I find it in my
hands, ready to be used.
Now, keep in mind, though, that even though I don't think it's necessary, this
does not mean that I think it is an unusable idea. Just like walking into a
room might tell me about a crack in the path or a musty smell (after walking has
been turned into abstract commands like GO EAST), the system you describe can
easily lend to the mood of a game, as well.
For example, consider a "mad scientist" type character. A good way to give the
player an idea of how convoluted the character's actions are might be to do
something like the following:
] TAKE REMOTE CONTROL
(putting the sack of flour in the laptop case to make room in the
shoulderbag.)
(putting the batteries, the Aztec calendar, and the peacock feather into the
shoulderbag to make room in your pocket jacket pocket.)
(putting your plane tickets and calculator into your shirt pocket to make
room in your left pocket (in your pants).)
(putting your wallet into your left pocket (in your pants).)
Taken.
This doesn't do anything special for the player, and I don't think it would
annoy many players, but I think it gives a nice "feel" for how convoluted the PC
does things.