Realistic or Over-detailed
Wes Modes
) Hello all,
)
) I have a question about basic approach in IFs with respect to the amount
) of object which are made available. Let me illustrate with the following
) example in which 3 approaches can be taken:
)
) a) Minimalist approach:
) b) Tantalising approach:
) c) Completist approach
)
) Comments ?
)
) Richard Develyn from Hastings, Sussex, England
Well, I think it is quite possible to take a middle road
between a Minimalist approach and a Tantalizing approach.
Consider the following transcript:
. . . . . .
> LOOK
Victorian Kitchen
You are in a large victorian kitchen. To the east, an
aga-style cooker in an inglenook holds a couple of large
iron saucepans full of sweet smelling broth. The oven door
of the cooker is closed, but you can also smell fresh baked
bread. Several other pots and pans hang from hooks on the
ceiling as do bundles of fresh herbs and even, to one
corner, a pheasant which has been left to bleed dry. A
large oak table in the middle of the room holds a
bread-board, rolling pin and large pot of flour at one end,
while at the other are a blood stained carving board.
Of the many items in this room, a long bread knife captures
you attention. It looks like you may be able to open the
oven door. There is a pot holder on the cutting board.
The dining room lies beyond a wide doorway. A closed door
leads to the back service porch.
> TAKE ROLLING PIN
You can leave that here.
> TAKE KNIFE AND OPEN THE OVEN WITH THE POT HOLDER
Bread Knife: Taken.
Pot Holder: Taken.
You open the oven with the pot holder. A gust a steam
rises to the ceiling. Sitting in the hot oven is a
fresh-baked loaf of dark bread.
. . . . . .
Here the formula is
ROOM DESCRIPTION
OBVIOUS OBJECTS
OBVIOUS EXITS
This sets the mood with a description, shows you the
objects that may be manipulated, and tells you how you can
leave the room. It does it without any tacky lists,
without forcing you to scour the description for clues, and
without forcing you to attempt manipulation of everything
in the room (or resorting to "all").
Also note that the programmer has used a class of objects
that may be referred to, but not taken (e.g., rolling pin,
pots, pans, cutting board).
Wes Modes
mo...@mport.com
Santa Cruz, California
Wes Modes
Wes Modes
Gerry Kevin Wilson
tantalizing. I mean that I refer to a lot of objects that are simply window
dressing. But then, they are all fairly obviously unimportant. Anything that
appears important usually is. Usually. I also attempt to cover as many
possibilities as possible with the items. I add anything the betatesters
suggest to me. [Let me take a brief moment to again expouse the need for
vast amounts of betatesting. They've found over 300 bugs in Avalon so far.
Thank God for betatesters.] I think that any game should be rich with things
to 'look' at. I get bugged by any game that has a bunch of objects mentioned
that I can't examine. On a related note, I recently replaced most of the
generic TADS messages with more personalized comments. The old "You can't
go that way." now appears in no room in Avalon. Instead there are more
specific messages like "The sea is in the way." and "The slope is too steep
in that direction."
'look through box' might yield "Unfortunately, you are not Superman, nor do
you possess x-ray vision." These messages are much more entertaining for the
player and flesh out the game in the same manner as scenery/uneccessary items.
Not essential, but nice to have.
--
<~~~~~E~~~G~~~~~~~~~~~HEINLEIN~~~~~~~~~~~DOYLE~~~~~~~~~~~~~SPAM~~|~~~~~~~>
< V R I O Software. We bring words to life! | ~~\ >
< T | /~\ | >
<_WATCH for Avalon in early MAY!____wh...@uclink.berkeley.edu_|_\__/__>
Steven McQuinn
whiz...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gerry Kevin Wilson) writes:
>These messages are much more entertaining for the
>player and flesh out the game in the same manner as scenery/uneccessary
>items.Not essential, but nice to have.
Have IF designers ever given players the _option_ of reading additional
"atmospheric material?"
Gerry Kevin Wilson
examine are REALLY obvious. Everything else is just icing. You've got to
watch where you draw your lines between _must_ and _optionally_. If
everything is _optionally_, then you aren't going to be able to develop a
central plot or theme for the game. Why not, you ask? Simple, there comes a
point when you HAVE to assume that certain things have happened in order to
get to some crux in the story. If you don't do this, you cannot assume that
the player has any items needed, you cannot assume that the player even knows
what's going on in the story. This is not good. Stories may have plot
branches all over the place, but in the end, we are a linear group of people,
and think in linear terms. The player should have done things to advance the
plot. The player should know things and at least have a vague idea of what he
is doing. I've heard talk about goal-less games, but they're not for me. I
won't write a game like that. I like to have a purpose and a goal in my
games. Anything else is a simulation, and anyone with enough technical
knowledge can write one of those. I prefer to tell a story. Now, having
been deluged by this argument that seems to have nothing to do with the topic
at hand, I'm sure you're wondering what it has to do with 'examine'. Me
too, give me a second...Ah, there, now I remember. The point is, game
designers have to draw a line somewhere between what they will and will not
allow the players to bypass. I will not allow the player to gut my story in
order to turn it into an exercise in puzzle-solving. I'm sorry, but there it
is. Setting and atmosphere are essential to my game. If I let them be ripped
out, that player is inevitably going to say to me or his friends, "Nice game,
but it didn't have much atmosphere." Whereupon I will have to pay for his
burial. I have made things as non-tedious as I can without sacrificing
dramatic impact. Avalon is about people that have become myths and legends
in our time, and it reminds us that everyone is still human. It allows you
to set things in the past right, and give the tragic Arthurian tales a less
melancholy ending through your efforts. You cannot do that in a satisfying
manner unless you understand the situation and the people around you. Here's
a fairly useful analogy. Instead of reading Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn,
read the cliff notes. How much enjoyment do you get out of them? Have you
really understood what Mark Twain wrote, or just what someone else thinks he
wrote? There are too many details left out, too many "Atmospheric messages"
that aren't there. I could understand the necessity of 'cliff notes' for
Avalon if it was required for school, so that people who did not wish to play
it would have to, but it's not. I'm not making people play Avalon, nor am
I writing a set of cliff notes. I like to think that, if I'm not writing a
Huckleberry Finn, at least I'm writing a Jurassic Park. I mean, hell, if you
don't want to go through the tedium of actually playing the game, just send
me your $25, and I'll send you the hintbook, among other things, and you can
just read it cover to cover, hear about all the puzzles and gags, and you'll
never have to read a single sentence of "Atmospheric messages." Or maybe I
should build in a 'puzzle mode' to Avalon, which turns off all the room
descriptions, includes an 'obvious exits' line at the bottom, allows 'all all'
and 'search box', and is otherwise devoid of the slightest shred of what I
like in a text adventure. I have always taken this approach to text
adventures: I don't just try a bunch of items unless that's the only way the
programmer has left me, first I attempt to use logic. I look at everything,
whether I need to or not, since that allows me to get a clearer grasp of the
author's worldview for his game. I sit around trying different things to see
what humorous responses the author has left for me to find. The example with
the kewpie doll and the ogre just isn't valid unless the programmer really
has left no way to figure out the puzzle. In certain cases, I admit, there
IS needless tedium, but that's NOT always the case. 'examine all' is NOT
always a valid option for the game author. 'search all', IMO, is NEVER a
valid option. (This is referring to the rock example awhile back, where
'search rock' would do everything connected to the rock. That takes no brains,
and has no merit.) A text adventure can be no more than you make it. If you
like simply entering 'use <object>' and having the character instantly deduce
exactly what to do with it, even if you yourself had no clue, let me recommend
LucasArts games to you. They are fun, but they have never been a challenge to
me. I like puzzles, and tricks, and bizarre twists. I like being able to
think of new ways to terrorize a text parser. And I like reading what an
author has written, that's why I go for "text" adventures. Granted, this
entire message is an excellent example of overreaction to a simple statement.
Granted, I am completely annoyed with something that shouldn't annoy me.
But I am sick to death of hearing about how I should turn my writing into a
graphic adventure without the graphics. Or into a MUD without the other
players. Your suggestions might work well in either of these two systems,
but in a text adventure, the writing is all you have. You can't dazzle them
with your graphics. You can't blow them out of their seat with mind-numbing,
eardrum-shattering sounds as they go down a darkened corridor blasting
everything that moves while caught up in an intense overdose of adrenaline and
testosterone. You _can't_. You can only make them think.
John West
>Have IF designers ever given players the _option_ of reading additional
>"atmospheric material?"
It seems that there are two types of players: the ones who see a game as a
series of puzzles to be solved, and those who prefer a real-seeming world
they can immerse themselves in. I suspect the majority of people here
belong to the second group. It is certainly much more challenging for the
implementor, and also more interesting for the player. Group one usually
have little patience with group two, and the latter feel much the same way
about the former.
Being a fully signed-up member of group two, my response to a question like
this is 'go and write your own pathetic little puzzle-solving games and
leave us alone'. But perhaps this is a touch harsh. Is there any hope of
a game that can make both sides happy? Most group two writers I know would
refuse outright to allow a 'remove atmosphere' option, arguing (quite
rightly) that the atmosphere is the most important part of the game.
I spent hours playing 'The Sound of One Hand Clapping'. Just wandering
around, simply enjoying it without getting anywhere. Without that terrific
atmosphere, I would have got bored and frustrated with my lack of progress.
But the game was relaxing. I just played and played until I finished it.
John West
Gerry Kevin Wilson
Jamieson Norrish <ja...@kauri.kauri> wrote:
>First off, I'll just say that I don't quite know what inspired Kevin
>to write this post, since I don't know what he is following up to.
>However, I assume that at least part of it is in response to my
>advocacy of "examine all". It is based on this assumption that I am
>writing this reply. If this assumption is wrong, please ignore the
>entire post. :)
Well, now that I've figured out how to quote with trn, (duh) I'll be able to
direct my responses more clearly. This was NOT a response to 'examine all'.
As you have noticed, it really has very little to do with 'examine all'. If
it has 'examine all' in the title, I'm sorry. It is more a response to the
incessant cries lately that want everything in the game, including atmosphere
and descriptions, to be optional for the player. They seem to want puzzles
that solve themselves without effort, and they don't want to wade through
any 'atmospheric text' to get to them. Needless to say this goes against
everything I've been advocating here, namely better writing and more detail
in IF. I was rather tired of the trend.
[My own quote deleted, we've seen plenty of it. It's just ranting anyways.]
[Your own rebuttal deleted. Good points, but all a misunderstanding.]
[More of my ranting deleted. I really wasn't having a good night, was I?]
>I completely fail to see any connection between *any* thread that has
>been on rgif, in the last few weeks at least, to this, so I don't know
>how to reply. It would help me in reading these posts if I knew who
>was being referred to in such phrases as "your suggestions". If they
>are mine, then I think we must be completely misunderstanding one
>another, for I have been trying to explain how "examine all" does not
>strip a game of atmosphere, it does not prevent "dramatic panning", it
>does not turn its user into a single-minded puzzle-solver interested
>in nothing else, and it does save on tedium. What graphics and MU*s
>have to with this I can't imagine.
Like I said, this was really just me exploding over some poor innocent who
happened to comment that 'atmospheric messages' should be optional at the
wrong time. One of those life crises I guess.
Ms. Pauline Benzies
> You can only make them think.
Sadly, I think this is the "divide-by-zero" in the whole theory. I am not sure
that its true.
Still, we live in hope.
Ms. Pauline Benzies
In article <2luhn5$q...@styx.uwa.edu.au> jo...@gu.uwa.edu.au (John West) writes:
>It seems that there are two types of players: the ones who see a game as a
>series of puzzles to be solved, and those who prefer a real-seeming world
At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself...
This misuse of the word players is what I object to the most as it seems to
muddle the whole conversation(s) going on here.
There are two classes of interested people here. The first seem to be those
who want what has historically been called "Adventure Games", where the
player wanders a fixed landscape, picks up every non-fixed object and attempts
to kill trolls with them.
The second seem to be those who want a 2-d version of virtual-reality, where
the system describes to them any/all information about a pocket-world where
any/all interactions with other components are possible.
The first group could be called "players". IMHO, the second can only be called
"readers" (or perhaps "actors")
I'm a player. Its all just a game.
>they can immerse themselves in. I suspect the majority of people here
>belong to the second group. It is certainly much more challenging for the
>implementor, and also more interesting for the player. Group one usually
>have little patience with group two, and the latter feel much the same way
>about the former.
I don't see why the virtual-reality system is any more challenging for the
implementor, just mind-numbingly more tedious. After all, in the "game"
world, I can just say "Thats not important" and the "player" handles it
(with some measurable amount of grumbling). In the "vr" world, however,
the "actor" becomes far more frustrated since the system doesn't understand
their favorite verb nor how to apply it to the "bowl containing three kinds
of jelly".
Now that I re-read that previous paragraph, I guess you may be correct. It
is heaps harder to make the "non-puzzle" oriented fiction interesting to the
reader. I mean, every child eventually gets bored with its roomful of color-
ful blocks and wants something more. The toys become more and more intricate
until either (a) the child grows up or (b) the child becomes a programmer ;-)
>Being a fully signed-up member of group two, my response to a question like
>this is 'go and write your own pathetic little puzzle-solving games and
>leave us alone'. But perhaps this is a touch harsh. Is there any hope of
>a game that can make both sides happy? Most group two writers I know would
>refuse outright to allow a 'remove atmosphere' option, arguing (quite
>rightly) that the atmosphere is the most important part of the game.
As a hopeful group-one writer who has not published anything nor is anywhere
near doing so, I find the "harsh" response more than slightly offensive. Just
out of interest, who has written the great-american-interactive-novel anyway
and where is it? The only thing I have actually seen as a real, touchable,
readable result has been the "pathetic little puzzle-solving games". I really
believe that the attitude of "put up or shut up" is apt, just not directed at
the right group.
>I spent hours playing 'The Sound of One Hand Clapping'. Just wandering
>around, simply enjoying it without getting anywhere. Without that terrific
>atmosphere, I would have got bored and frustrated with my lack of progress.
>But the game was relaxing. I just played and played until I finished it.
Just what does "I finished it" mean in a non-puzzle mode? I mean, get your
act together. Either its all atmosphere and "look at the colorful prose and
the bright descriptions of movement and sound" or its not.
I don't believe that this was a "game", just "explorable prose"
Look again, I don't believe you can apply the phrase "finished it" to non-
puzzle-oriented i-f, only "got bored with it so I hit quit" or "Rhett said '
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'. The End"
I think that the closest analogies I can come to all this is that basically,
group 1 writes "stories I can play a part in" and group 2 writes "hyper-text
coloring-books that allow the reader to change things". Both have something
to contribute but both have jarringly different priorities.
Actually, I think the "hyper-text" notion helps to explain the fairly radical
standpoints that people are taking over "examine all". Imagine what "follow
all links" must mean to the hypertext author.
Joel Finch
Instead of getting all steamed about which is the
best way to do things, why don't we all just do
it the way we like it, and let the people who like
it that way play/read/use it?
Most of this discussion has been like trying to
say that all cars should be Fords.
Personally I don't think there is a best way.
Whether "examine all" is a good command depends
on the type of game, the setting, and what the
author is trying to achieve.
Joel Finch
(jfi...@ozemail.com.au)
Steven McQuinn
whiz...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gerry Kevin Wilson) writes:
> Like I said, this was really just me exploding over some poor innocent who
> happened to comment that 'atmospheric messages' should be optional at the
> wrong time. One of those life crises I guess.
As the poor innocent in question, let me say that I now know what it
feels like to be hit by friendly fire. I didn't think it necessary or
tasteful to belabor personal disclosures already made in my previous
posts--
that I am a writer/producer, not a programmer;
that I care very much about story values and characterization;
that I am new to IF but not at all new to story creation;
that I am open to collaboration, considering it a necessity;
that my interest is motivated by next generation possibilities using
AI;
that I want to write for and make money with this genre in its future
forms.
I'm on both sides of this issue, and I don't see why new programming
methods can't make story and game aspects increasingly compatible.
Just to set the record straight, I put "atmospheric material" in quotes
not to show distain but to indicate that I don't know what the correct
IF jargon would be. And I underlined _optional_ assuming that you would
interpret my own preference for more of such material rather than less,
especially since I used the qualifier "additional" (as in, more than is
there initially).
The steam gauge in this group seemed to be trending a little high for
awhile there. Personally, I prefer the interactive brainstorming to the
venting. People in this group express themselves well, on the whole,
and I'm learning a lot every time I read the threads here.
What really bothers me is that this little friendly fire from Gerry
Kevin Wilson and John West (no offense taken, by the way) serves to
confirm my suspicion that nobody is reading my other posts. They hang
there forlornly, solitary threads, dead leaves desperately striving to
hold on through the winter, until they flitter away to join the cyber
mulch. Ah, well...
Jamieson Norrish
to write this post, since I don't know what he is following up to.
However, I assume that at least part of it is in response to my
advocacy of "examine all". It is based on this assumption that I am
writing this reply. If this assumption is wrong, please ignore the
entire post. :)
In article <2ltmij$c...@agate.berkeley.edu>
whiz...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gerry Kevin Wilson) writes:
The point is, game designers have to draw a line somewhere between
what they will and will not allow the players to bypass. I will
not allow the player to gut my story in order to turn it into an
exercise in puzzle-solving. I'm sorry, but there it is. Setting
and atmosphere are essential to my game. If I let them be ripped
out, that player is inevitably going to say to me or his friends,
"Nice game, but it didn't have much atmosphere." Whereupon I will
have to pay for his burial. I have made things as non-tedious as I
can without sacrificing dramatic impact. Avalon is about people
that have become myths and legends in our time, and it reminds us
that everyone is still human. It allows you to set things in the
past right, and give the tragic Arthurian tales a less melancholy
ending through your efforts. You cannot do that in a satisfying
manner unless you understand the situation and the people around
you.
[Sorry for the long quote; I didn't know where to chop it up. :)]
Would you please tell me how "setting and atmosphere" get "ripped out"
by the use of "examine all"? In what way is it different from the
repition of "examine" with different nouns, except in that it saves
the time and tedium of rereading the room description in order to find
which new noun to put in? From my view of things, that is all that
"examine all" does. It does not mean that the player will zoom
automatically in on the important stuff (how could they tell what was
important, for a start?), or that they won't read atmospheric writing.
Granted, I am completely annoyed with something that shouldn't
annoy me. But I am sick to death of hearing about how I should turn
my writing into a graphic adventure without the graphics. Or into
a MUD without the other players. Your suggestions might work well
in either of these two systems, but in a text adventure, the
writing is all you have. You can't dazzle them with your graphics.
You can't blow them out of their seat with mind-numbing,
eardrum-shattering sounds as they go down a darkened corridor blasting
everything that moves while caught up in an intense overdose of
adrenaline and testosterone. You _can't_. You can only make them
think.
I completely fail to see any connection between *any* thread that has
been on rgif, in the last few weeks at least, to this, so I don't know
how to reply. It would help me in reading these posts if I knew who
was being referred to in such phrases as "your suggestions". If they
are mine, then I think we must be completely misunderstanding one
another, for I have been trying to explain how "examine all" does not
strip a game of atmosphere, it does not prevent "dramatic panning", it
does not turn its user into a single-minded puzzle-solver interested
in nothing else, and it does save on tedium. What graphics and MU*s
have to with this I can't imagine.
Jamie
Gerry Kevin Wilson
Steven McQuinn <steven....@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>As the poor innocent in question, let me say that I now know what it
>feels like to be hit by friendly fire. I didn't think it necessary or
>tasteful to belabor personal disclosures already made in my previous
>posts--
[Steven's explanations that he's on 'our side' deleted. Sorry about that,
man. It was just a bad night, and I was tired of hearing about 'search
rock. I just misunderstood your post.]
>What really bothers me is that this little friendly fire from Gerry
>Kevin Wilson and John West (no offense taken, by the way) serves to
>confirm my suspicion that nobody is reading my other posts. They hang
>there forlornly, solitary threads, dead leaves desperately striving to
>hold on through the winter, until they flitter away to join the cyber
>mulch. Ah, well...
Well, no offense to anyone, but being a freshman, I've never taken any upper
division computer courses. I know pretty much squat about knowledge based
systems, so I don't really read the more technical posts around here. What
I have read seems like it could either be bad or good for game writers. On
the one hand, your NPCs would be more adaptable, but on the other, they'll
be less predictable and harder to debug. I have enough trouble doing that as
it is. Again, sorry for the blow-up. I'm not proud of it, but there it is.
Well, I think we should all [meaning those of us involved in the 'examine all'
debate] should take a moment to calm down. Steven's right, and things have
been a lot more argumentative and strained here lately. We're just not our
usual calm, thoughtful selves. So just take a deep breath, and count to 10
before posting. :) (I'm still waiting to see what comes of the sexuality
thread...:)
Jamieson Norrish
(Ms. Pauline Benzies) writes:
There are two classes of interested people here. The first seem to
be those who want what has historically been called "Adventure
Games", where the player wanders a fixed landscape, picks up every
non-fixed object and attempts to kill trolls with them.
The second seem to be those who want a 2-d version of
virtual-reality, where the system describes to them any/all
information about a pocket-world where any/all interactions with
other components are possible.
The first group could be called "players". IMHO, the second can
only be called "readers" (or perhaps "actors")
This is not the way I see this, at all. To start with, the two can be
combined - many people on this newsgroup want to change some of the
focus of the puzzles, and to introduce new elements, but that does not
constitute a radical departure from "adventure games".
It is entirely possible to "play" a game which is as basic as Colossal
Cave, or to "play" one with interactive NPCs, where no objects are
used in the puzzles, and which has a high literary standard of
writing.
Jamie
Ms. Pauline Benzies
>In article <2m0kcp$7...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> I wrote
>
> The first group could be called "players". IMHO, the second can
> only be called "readers" (or perhaps "actors")
>
>This is not the way I see this, at all. To start with, the two can be
>combined - many people on this newsgroup want to change some of the
>focus of the puzzles, and to introduce new elements, but that does not
>constitute a radical departure from "adventure games".
Of course the two groups can be combined. The point is that they are NOT. We
are talking about two groups of people WHO EXIST RIGHT NOW and seem to have
quite different opinions on "the right way" to do things and, like the
generation gap, its basically "There's me and my brilliance and there's them
and their stupid ideas". Well, thats a bit extreme but I hope I made it clear.
I do agree that far too much time has been wasted worrying about all this
stuff. I just hope that the loud voices being heard mean that we can expect to
see actual results from more people now.
>It is entirely possible to "play" a game which is as basic as Colossal
>Cave, or to "play" one with interactive NPCs, where no objects are
>used in the puzzles, and which has a high literary standard of
>writing.
I still disagree that you can "play" something which does not have "puzzles".
Remember that puzzles dont have to be "find key. open door with key. get
treasure.". It could be "ok, find the last page in this book somehow." - ala
Portal I guess - one of the weakest games I ever played/read.