[CONTENT] Puzzle fairness
Joao Mendes
I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric games
set in realistic modern-day settings.
It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution being
something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a normal person.
For example (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
In Achorhead, the PC starts out waiting for a real-estate agent that never
comes. In the solution, the PC breaks into the agent's office to get the
keys to her new house. Now, put yourself in that position. Would you really
break into the office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
track down the man some other way?
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
J.
JJK
playing an interactive fiction piece, it doesn't seem unnatural to break
into a building. In real life, when not playing an if piece, it would
be extremely unlikely. Maybe it comes from the original ADVENT: your
character was, basically, a glorified thief. But it set the tone for
the genre.
-Jim
Cryptonomic
news:Xns927E49EEAB383j...@194.65.14.158...
> Hi, :)
>
> I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric games
> set in realistic modern-day settings.
I guess even if the game is set in "realistic modern-day settings" then you
could tailor the puzzles around what someone might do in those realistic
modern-day settings. Thus, for example, someone may be unlikely to do
certain actions "in reality". Of course, if your story puts the person in a
bad situation, a person in "real life" might resort to desparate measures.
So I think if the context of the puzzle solution makes sense in the overall
context of the game and the situation that is presented as part of the
story, then perhaps you do not have a problem.
Part of it, of course, is that people realize they are playing a game,
regardless of how "real" the setting is. That dictates, to a certain extent,
the mentality they will bring to the game world even while consciously
recognizing that this might not be something they do in real-life. Consider
the initial puzzles in "Christminster" for example. I am not going to
mention them so no need for spoilers, but for anyone who has played the
game, it is obvious that while this a real-world setting, you are doing
things that you probably would not do - at least in that fashion. Personally
I think the puzzles initially seem a little far-fetched and throw you for a
loop in the sense that they do not seem very "real-world" even though the
setting, as you start out, is.
So, again, I think it depends on the tone of realism you want to set for the
game in relation to the puzzles and their solutions. (I think of games like
"Plundered Hearts" and "Border Zone", for example, that had real-world
settings and had to try to make the puzzles make sense within that. Contrast
that with "Trinity" that, even though it had some real-world settings, used
decidedly fantastical or "magical" solutions to some of the puzzles - even
when in those real-world elements. But those did seem to fit the context of
the game - at least to a certain extent.) Part of how your audience responds
to puzzles in the game will probaby be based on solving a few of the initial
ones and learning how your "world model" seems to be structured. I think it
is that structure that should help you, as an author, determine what sorts
of solutions make sense for which puzzles.
- Cryptonomic
Neil Cerutti
Joao Mendes wrote:
> Hi, :)
Hi. What does [Content] mean?
> I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to
> story-centric games set in realistic modern-day settings.
>
> It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only
> solution being something that the PC simply would never do if
> (s)he were a normal person.
>
> For example (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
OK.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Achorhead, the PC starts out waiting for a real-estate agent
> that never comes. In the solution, the PC breaks into the
> agent's office to get the keys to her new house. Now, put
> yourself in that position. Would you really break into the
> office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
> track down the man some other way?
You can try all those alternatives first. They just don't work.
What would you have done, in real life? I admit, I got stuck on
this problem, too, but because I never found the alley, not
because I didn't think of breaking in.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Matthew Russotto
I'd break in in real life. But then, I tend to reject any ethical rules which
lead to "You screw me, I'm stuck holding the bag".
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
J. D. Berry
Yep. I came back later. "Oh, OK, he's not here. I need to look elsewhere."
If you've ever dealt with real estate agents, you know they are on time only
when money is direcly involved (settlement.) So, no big deal.
I wandered around, ended up covering the entire area. I kept wondering
what I was missing. Only by exhausting everything else did I resort to
breaking in. After all, I wasn't a thief. Even then I had to think in
game terms and plot devices. Why would the back of the office be so
detailed? Unless...
When I played this game in '98, I'd just recently returned to IF and had
forgotten its conventions and assumptions. Such conventions that have since
been toyed with--9:05, Bliss. "If it furthers the plot, any action
is OK."
All part of the evolution of IF. Adam Cadre mentions it in
his review of "Lost New York." Some of the best works in the '90s still
had the need for old-skool "puzzles". Because that's what IF has. Right?
I think old-skool philosophy was
"Drama needs opposition. Obstacles oppose. Therefore obstacles equal
drama." Doesn't matter the context. Block the player with whatever
means necessary.
BTW, I think Anchorhead and Lost New York are excellent games. But they
do illustrate a thought process on the IF evolutionary chart.
Jim
Neil Cerutti
No, if the puzzle were truly old-skool, you would break into the
agent's office simply because it was there, and you would find a
golden ingot inside.
The trespassing in _Anchorhead_ may well be something you feel
personally uncomfortable with, but it *is* motivated.
In addition, you are not playing yourself in _Anchorhead_. You
learn imporant information about the protagonist when she climbs
on a garbage can and squeezes through an open window. If you
allow your own moral and ethical beliefs to stand in *her* way,
then you are not playing the character. In early IF, you were not
troubled with playing a character.
> All part of the evolution of IF. Adam Cadre mentions it in his
> review of "Lost New York." Some of the best works in the '90s
> still had the need for old-skool "puzzles". Because that's what
> IF has. Right?
>
> I think old-skool philosophy was "Drama needs opposition.
> Obstacles oppose. Therefore obstacles equal drama." Doesn't
> matter the context. Block the player with whatever means
> necessary.
There's nothing arbitrary about the opening puzzle of
_Anchorhead_, though. The puzzle has a lot of story value.
> BTW, I think Anchorhead and Lost New York are excellent games.
> But they do illustrate a thought process on the IF evolutionary
> chart.
I have not played _Lost New York_, but my understanding of
_Anchorhead_ is quite different.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Adrien Beau
>
>>> (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> No, if the puzzle were truly old-skool, you would break into
> the agent's office simply because it was there, and you would
> find a golden ingot inside.
>
> The trespassing in _Anchorhead_ may well be something you feel
> personally uncomfortable with, but it *is* motivated.
I think it is not motivated enough. Sure, if you decide to look
around before breaking in, you will not find anyone willing to
help you, so this is in effect the only thing you can do. I
would have preferred however that the importance of the key had
been justified.
Before breaking into someone else's property, you can more
legally break into yours. This actually happened to my parents,
who had to break a window to enter our house, due to a lost
keyring and other circumstances.
Michael Gentry could at least have let the protagonist go up to
the Verlac Mansion, to let her discover that the windows are
tightly shuttered and that the doors are to sturdy to break in.
Or when she goes to the library to tell him about the problem
she is encountering, have Michael really insist, as a first
sign of an alteration of his character, that she gets the keys.
All in all, I felt that the protagonist was slightly too bold
in her actions at the beginning of the story, as if she knew
she was part of a Lovecraftian story. :)
--
adrie...@yahoo.guess
Daryl McCullough
>Before breaking into someone else's property, you can more
>legally break into yours. This actually happened to my parents,
>who had to break a window to enter our house, due to a lost
>keyring and other circumstances.
I've had to break into my own house many times. That's why I
now leave the door unlocked---less property damage, that way.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>>
>>>> (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> No, if the puzzle were truly old-skool, you would break into
>> the agent's office simply because it was there, and you would
>> find a golden ingot inside.
>>
>> The trespassing in _Anchorhead_ may well be something you feel
>> personally uncomfortable with, but it *is* motivated.
>
> I think it is not motivated enough. Sure, if you decide to look
> around before breaking in, you will not find anyone willing to
> help you, so this is in effect the only thing you can do. I
> would have preferred however that the importance of the key had
> been justified.
I can't remember precisely how it all went now, but I believe the
following:
You're supposed to get the keys from the Real Estate Agent, but
the office is closed and she misses your appointment.
Michael will not leave the library until you get the keys.
Nobody in town will even talk to you, let alone help you.
Only Michael knows the way to the house. In fact, mysterious,
creepy fog prevents you from even going to where the house
might be.
The keys are presumably in the Real Estate Agents office. They
are legally yours -- it won't even be stealing if you take
them.
There is an *open* window in a back alley where nobody can see
you enter the office for a quick snoop.
> Before breaking into someone else's property, you can more
> legally break into yours.
She merely trespasses. She doesn't have to break anything.
> This actually happened to my parents, who had to break a window
> to enter our house, due to a lost keyring and other
> circumstances.
So the reason they broke in was because there was "no other
recourse". That same reasoning applies in _Anchorhead_.
> Michael Gentry could at least have let the protagonist go up to
> the Verlac Mansion, to let her discover that the windows are
> tightly shuttered and that the doors are to sturdy to break in.
The pacing of the discovery of the house would have suffered
though.
> Or when she goes to the library to tell him about the problem
> she is encountering, have Michael really insist, as a first
> sign of an alteration of his character, that she gets the keys.
Isn't that how it happens? I could be misremembering.
> All in all, I felt that the protagonist was slightly too bold
> in her actions at the beginning of the story, as if she knew
> she was part of a Lovecraftian story. :)
Of course. I think it works well as a story element, but it has
its problems from a gaming perspective. It takes a while to
figure out that the whole game is closed off until you take that
one action. I found that the time I spent wasn't wasted, though,
as any mapping you undertake at this point comes in handy later,
since _Anchorhead_ doesn't change maps -- it just slowly expands.
In addition, you find a few useful items, and learn a little
about the setting.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Alex Watson
> >Before breaking into someone else's property, you can more
> >legally break into yours. This actually happened to my parents,
> >who had to break a window to enter our house, due to a lost
> >keyring and other circumstances.
>
> I've had to break into my own house many times. That's why I
> now leave the door unlocked---less property damage, that way.
I tried to break into my (parents') house when I left the keys somewhere
else about 2 miles away, but even though I managed to get the keys
through the catflap with some creative vine-twiddling, my security-
conscious parents remembered to bolt the door at the top, so beh.
Joao Mendes
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net> wrote in news:al2ech$1meutt$1@ID-
60390.news.dfncis.de:
> In article <Xns927E49EEAB383j...@194.65.14.158>,
> Joao Mendes wrote:
>> Hi, :)
> Hi. What does [Content] mean?
It's just a label to distinguish messages about game content rather than
about TADS, Inform or Hugo technical stuff.
>> For example (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
> OK.
>> In Achorhead, the PC starts out waiting for a real-estate agent
>> that never comes. In the solution, the PC breaks into the
>> agent's office to get the keys to her new house. Now, put
>> yourself in that position. Would you really break into the
>> office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
>> track down the man some other way?
> You can try all those alternatives first. They just don't work.
Are you telling me that there is a way in Achorhead to spend the night
somewhere and come back the next day?
> What would you have done, in real life? I admit, I got stuck on
> this problem, too, but because I never found the alley, not
> because I didn't think of breaking in.
If push came to shove, I would go to the police.
Cheers,
J.
D. Jacob Wildstrom
Joao Mendes <public...@anywhere.invalid> wrote:
>Hi, :)
>
>I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric games
>set in realistic modern-day settings.
>
>It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution being
>something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a normal person.
>
>For example (warning: Spoilers for Anchorhead),
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>In Achorhead, the PC starts out waiting for a real-estate agent that never
>comes. In the solution, the PC breaks into the agent's office to get the
>keys to her new house. Now, put yourself in that position. Would you really
>break into the office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
>track down the man some other way?
Well, I think that's OK, but then, I've compromised doors belonging to
people I know when they haven't been around to let me in, so my
viewpoint is necessarily skewed. What I thikn was a lot less fair was
a similar puzzle at the beginning of "My Dinner With Andre" wherein,
while your date is in the bathroom, you have to steal money from him
to cover the tab (all your cards are expired, as I recall). Of course,
my straightforward solution to that is to wait until he returns and
explain the predicament. But that doesn't work, because he always
stays in the bathroom until almost exactly right after you steal the
cash. This seems, to me, a lot less fair than the Anchorhead one,
since it requires you to meddle with someone else's property instead
of follow a solution which _should_ be imminently possible (and the
fact that it isn't isforces you rather clumsily to beahve
unethically).
+------Archbishop, First Church of Mystical Agnosticism------+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Alfred Renyi |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
PTN
> It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution being
> something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a normal person.
I agree. There are ways around that, such as making the PC not a normal
person. The Anchorhead example is pretty borderline, I think many people
would not have trouble with that puzzle simply because of its setting --
i.e., in IF. And of course, one should also keep in mind that because it is
IF, the player will try to make the PC do things they would not normally do
in real life, just to see if they can, such as jumping off bridges and such.
Perhaps you can meet somewhere in the middle.
Here is a another example of what you're talking about, which I think proves
your point. Recently, I bought Gabriel Knight 3 for $7.99 at a computer
store and sat down to play. After a lot of boring hunt for the conversation
type puzzles, I finally got to the first real puzzle of the game, and it was
so ridiculous, so beyond the scope of what a normal person would do, that
when I finally gave up and read about it in a walkthrough after being stuck
for a while I just laughed. And uninstalled the game. Thank goodness I only
paid 7.99 for it. Here's the puzzle, in case you want to read it, but I warn
you, once you do, you'll have no inclination whatsoever to play the game:
<SPOILER SPACE>
</END SPOILER SPACE>
You need to rent a moped, though actually in the game I had no such pressing
need yet. But you can't get the cool bike. A friend of yours is on the list,
though. So I went back figuring I'd ask him to let me use his bike, after
all, you already know something about him he doesn't want spread around, so
it'd be easy enough. Nope. Instead you're supposed to steal his passport (by
buzzing him in his room, putting a candy down at the one clickable hotspot
that you can place a candy, wait for him to stop and eat it, and take it
from his back pocket), and sneak into his room and take his coat. But wait,
that's not all. You also need some facial hair. Which you get by sticking
masking tape above a small hole in a shed, and spraying a black cat with
water from a water bottle so it runs into the hole. Then, you simply take
the black hair collected on the masking tape, and stick it to your face
using a packet of maple syrup you got earlier. As if any human being would
ever attempt this, and as if it would even remotely work. As if I needed a
bike that badly. As if there were no other methods of transportation. I'm
shocked this is what passes for professional puzzle design.
-- Peter
Matthew Russotto
On one occasion, I took a ladder, climbed to a window, pushed out the
fan that was in that window, and climbed in that way. No property
damage, but while I was pushing the fan the ladder fell out from under
me. You can almost see the text:
> PUSH FAN
The fan resists your attempts to remove it, but eventually falls in.
However, in the process you have kicked the ladder out from under you.
You are now hanging by the window, 8 feet above uneven ground with a
ladder on it. What are you going to do know, smarty-pants?
Gregory W. Kulczycki
I'm exploring the game world - seeing how the game author responds to
certain commands I type; seeing what limits the game author allows for my
character. This is especially true at the beginning of the game when I
(as a player) don't really know my character that well yet.
But I think one of the issues here is time (real time, not game time).
Breaking into an office may not seem like an appropriate solution but it
only takes a few moves, so I try it anyway. The puzzle in Anchorhead that
I though was unfair came later in the game, where you had to press a button
that could only be reached with a broom (an umbrella would not work). If
you didn't remember to lug the broom around with you, you had to go
accross town to get it and there was no reason to believe the broom would
be long enough either. It didn't seem like an appropriate solution AND
it took up a lot of my playing time to attempt.
Greg K.
Michael Gentry
Actually, there's an alternate solution to this problem. But the
alternate solution might not be considered fair, either; I don't know
that many players figured it out.
(Actually, there's TWO alternate solutions, but the second alternate
solution is completely and deliberately unfair.)
Many of the puzzles in Anchorhead I consider somewhat cringeworthy,
nowadays.
For me, I don't think "unfairness" in adventure game puzzles maps
neatly onto "things you wouldn't try in real life". A puzzle is unfair
if it expects you to follow a train of logic that you can't reasonably
be assumed to stumble upon without the benefit of a telepathic link to
the author. Most gamers expect to try things in text adventure games
that they wouldn't actually do in real life. I'd consider the
breaking-and-entering puzzle to be fair, even though it's not very
realistic, because breaking in through the back window is a fairly
obvious thought that is going to occur to most players of text
adventure games, even the newbies.
-M.
Michael Gentry
>
> Michael Gentry could at least have let the protagonist go up to
> the Verlac Mansion, to let her discover that the windows are
> tightly shuttered and that the doors are to sturdy to break in.
> Or when she goes to the library to tell him about the problem
> she is encountering, have Michael really insist, as a first
> sign of an alteration of his character, that she gets the keys.
I'm a bit too biased to really get into whether this or that puzzle in
Anchorhead is fair or not (I actually think many of them are a bit
dated and forced -- although not, as it happens, the real estate
agent's office). But I can address this point. The protagonist begins
the game without a clear idea of where the house is, and furthermore
her access to it is blocked by a creeping mist that only Michael can
dispel. Thus the possibility of breaking into your own home is
explicitly eliminated. The first sign of Michael's alteration of
character is, in fact, his refusal to budge from the library until you
bring him the keys.
I mentioned on another branch of this thread (damn Google breaks them
up for some mysterious purpose) that I don't generally think of
"fairness" as equating to "what one would do in real life." A certain
amount of sociopathic behavior is considered de rigeur in most text
adventure games, rightly or wrongly, as a holdover from the old days
of Zork and so forth. Breaking in is something that, I think, would
immediately *occur* to most players, even it's something they'd rather
not do, and thus I'd consider it a "fair" solution.
Which isn't to say that the question of providing and/or enforcing an
ethical context to behavior in a text adventure game isn't a
fascinating discussion in its own right. I, er, toyed with that issue
a little bit in Little Blue Men.
-M.
Joao Mendes
mi...@edromia.com (Michael Gentry) wrote in
news:ce903a72.02090...@posting.google.com:
> up for some mysterious purpose) that I don't generally think of
> "fairness" as equating to "what one would do in real life." A certain
> amount of sociopathic behavior is considered de rigeur in most text
> adventure games, rightly or wrongly, as a holdover from the old days
> of Zork and so forth. Breaking in is something that, I think, would
> immediately *occur* to most players, even it's something they'd rather
> not do, and thus I'd consider it a "fair" solution.
I played Zork once, some fifteen years ago, and stayed away from IF until a
few months ago, when I found this newsgroup. It's hard for me to pick up
these sociopathic habits. I never even thought of breaking into the office
until I explored for some three hours then resorted to a walkthrough.
I'm tying this to a previous thread of mine about searching sofas. It seems
to me that there may be a general expectation that the PC should be able to
do any wacky thing that crosses the player's mind, i.e., the PC is not an
altogether sane person. Personally, I dislike this assumption.
Someone said in another thread that it is up to the author to define the
limits of the PC's behavior, and that if the player is not willing to act
according to those limits (wether staying too far behind them or trying to
go beyond them), the player is in effect breaking immersion voluntarily.
While I can certainly agree with this view, the early lines in Anchorhead
gave no indication that the PC would be readily willing to break into an
office. (And please don't argue that she didn't 'break' anything, that's
not the point.)
Btw, despite my bitching about this particular puzzle, I did love
Anchorhead. In fact, it is registered in my mind as my second favorite
piece of IF, right after Worlds Apart.
Cheers,
J.
Neil Cerutti
Joao Mendes wrote:
> Hi, :)
>
> mi...@edromia.com (Michael Gentry) wrote in
> news:ce903a72.02090...@posting.google.com:
>> up for some mysterious purpose) that I don't generally think
>> of "fairness" as equating to "what one would do in real life."
>> A certain amount of sociopathic behavior is considered de
>> rigeur in most text adventure games, rightly or wrongly, as a
>> holdover from the old days of Zork and so forth. Breaking in
>> is something that, I think, would immediately *occur* to most
>> players, even it's something they'd rather not do, and thus
>> I'd consider it a "fair" solution.
>
> sofas. It seems to me that there may be a general expectation
> that the PC should be able to do any wacky thing that crosses
> the player's mind, i.e., the PC is not an altogether sane
> person. Personally, I dislike this assumption.
I agree. As a player, you are often required to go beyond the
pale for a solution. I think it's fine it's handled well.
> Someone said in another thread that it is up to the author to
> define the limits of the PC's behavior, and that if the player
> is not willing to act according to those limits (wether staying
> too far behind them or trying to go beyond them), the player is
> in effect breaking immersion voluntarily. While I can certainly
> agree with this view, the early lines in Anchorhead gave no
> indication that the PC would be readily willing to break into
> an office. (And please don't argue that she didn't 'break'
> anything, that's not the point.)
It's not the point only in the context of a more general
discussion. If I accidentally left my keys in sombody's office,
whether or not I can get them back without breaking a door or
window makes a huge difference to me.
If we are going to criticize her actions as abhorent, we should
be clear what those actions are.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Adrien Beau
with the introductory part of the game, though.
Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> Adrien Beau <adrie...@yahoo.guess> wrote in message
> news:<3d74f708$0$239$626a...@news.free.fr>...
>>
>> Michael Gentry could at least have let the protagonist go up
>> to the Verlac Mansion, to let her discover that the windows
>> are tightly shuttered and that the doors are to sturdy to
>> break in. Or when she goes to the library to tell him about
>> the problem she is encountering, have Michael really insist,
>> as a first sign of an alteration of his character, that she
>> gets the keys.
>
> I'm a bit too biased to really get into whether this or that
> puzzle in Anchorhead is fair or not (I actually think many of
> them are a bit dated and forced -- although not, as it
> happens, the real estate agent's office).
Actually the puzzle was fair and for me, quite obvious. My
message was not about the fairness of the puzzle though, but
about the fact that the protagonist's action was not given
enough motivation. In a way, it didn't feel quite right. My
suggestions above would have made it completely natural for me.
> But I can address
> this point. The protagonist begins the game without a clear
> idea of where the house is, and furthermore her access to it
> is blocked by a creeping mist that only Michael can dispel.
> Thus the possibility of breaking into your own home is
> explicitly eliminated.
This I didn't like; I felt it was a very artificial barrier. I
would have preferred being able to reach the house by myself,
alone in the woods, eventually lighting my way with the lantern
found in the tavern, only to find a tightly shut and menacing
mansion.
> The first sign of Michael's alteration
> of character is, in fact, his refusal to budge from the
> library until you bring him the keys.
Actually, my problem with that is that Michael has an answer
when first asked about the keys (something like "The keys are
in the office.") and another one when told about the agent's
disappearance (around the lines of "This is odd"). The first
message doesn't change after he has been told of the problem.
It would be much better if he instead said something like "We
must get these keys! There's no other way to enter the house.
I'll be with you in a few minutes." Minutes which of course
never quite end.
> I mentioned on another branch of this thread (damn Google
> breaks them up for some mysterious purpose) that I don't
> generally think of "fairness" as equating to "what one would
> do in real life."
I completely agree.
> A certain amount of sociopathic behavior is
> considered de rigeur in most text adventure games, rightly or
> wrongly, as a holdover from the old days of Zork and so forth.
> Breaking in is something that, I think, would immediately
> *occur* to most players, even it's something they'd rather not
> do, and thus I'd consider it a "fair" solution.
There are several categories of things I do when playing IF.
Like a lot of people, I like to try to break things, to see the
boundaries of what the author has implemented, to try to find
all the various ways I can loose or win the game. But I also
like to play the character, to limit my acts to what I feel he
or she would do according to what I know about the character,
about the current situation, but also about the genre of the
game.
In most of Anchorhead, the protagonist is discovering and
facing a terrible plot, and in that context,
anything goes. However, I think the introduction of the game,
day one, is to still be somewhat realistic, with a character
that is facing a situation that is not yet completely horrible.
Basically, there's no reluctance on her part in entering the
office and I think there either should be, or she should be
more motivated.
--
adrie...@yahoo.guess
Sean T Barrett
D. Jacob Wildstrom <wil...@mit.edu> wrote:
>What I think was a lot less fair was
>a similar puzzle at the beginning of "My Dinner With Andre" wherein,
>while your date is in the bathroom, you have to steal money from him
>to cover the tab (all your cards are expired, as I recall). Of course,
>my straightforward solution to that is to wait until he returns and
>explain the predicament.
I think there are about five different things going on here:
* Is the action one that a player is at all likely to think of?
* Is the action something that seems reasonable for someone to do?
* Is the action (something that seems) reasonable for this PC to do?
* Is the action reasonable for the PC to do in this genre?
* Does a player lose immersion by performing the action?
Opening a window and trespassing on someone else's property
is certainly something many players will think of, although
whether they will pursue it may depend on their reaction to
the next few items in the list. If it's something the player
thinks of doing but seems out of character, though, immersion
may well be broken.
The fourth one is really redundant--the genre informs the character,
really--but I wanted to be explicit because that's what comes into
play in Dinner With Andre. If you accept that it's a farce (and I
don't remember if it was clear that it was a farce at that stage of
the game, then the solution isn't out of character at all. It may
still break immersion, though, if you as player are stopping and
thinking in a meta- way, "oh, it's a farce, hah ha" while figuring
it out.
SeanB
Michael Gentry
> There are plenty of Anchorhead spoilers ahead. They only deal
> with the introductory part of the game, though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> would have preferred being able to reach the house by myself,
> alone in the woods, eventually lighting my way with the lantern
> found in the tavern, only to find a tightly shut and menacing
> mansion.
See, that's interesting, because this, to me, commits the very crime
the game is accused of: in real life, I would *far* sooner try to get
in an open window in the office before I went hiking deep into the
woods, alone, in the dark, leaving my spouse far behind. I mean, I'm
right there, the window's open, and it's not like I'm going to steal
or vandalize anything. I just need my frikkin' *keys*.
But, well, you can't please everyone.
-M.
Adrien Beau
Quite true. Then after a few steps down the road, a message
like "There's no way you're going to enter these creepy woods
without Michael." could have replaced the fog? At the same
time, it was quite nice to read about the fog in Edward's
mother (the name is escaping me right now) journal.
> But, well, you can't please everyone.
Well, obviously. :)
Please don't take my answer as "I didn't like your game". It's
quite the contrary!
--
adrie...@yahoo.guess
John Colagioia
> Hi, :)
As usual, hi back!
> I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric games
> set in realistic modern-day settings.
Heh...Again...?
> It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution being
> something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a normal person.
You're going to have to define "never." It's going to mean different
things to different people.
[...semi-clever removal of spoiler...]
> Now, put yourself in that position. Would you really
> break into the office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
> track down the man some other way?
Given the situation in question (effectively stranded in a town that
seems to hate you at first sight, without help), yes, I'd probably do
exactly what was required in the game, assuming I found the means to
do so "cleanly."
> Any thoughts?
One major thought that I don't think has been mentioned to this
point. How is requiring that I find a solution compatible with
*your* ethical values any different than requiring that the solution
involve breaking some particular ethic?
I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very loudly is
a response to an action like, "you would never do that!" Err...
Obviously, I would.
In my opinion, you can get away with this maybe once in a game
without it being annoying. And, even then, the PC has to be fleshed
out well enough that it's a sensible reaction *and* the response has
to be more than just "no; that's wrong"--humor being a decent way to
ease this approach.
Mostly, though, I think the solution to such things is to disallow
actions by not putting the PC in that situation: If you hand me a
gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get frustrated or bored enough
that I'll try shooting everything and everyone. Telling me, "that's
naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
probability.
Now, as to the particular puzzle you mention:
[spoilers]
I actually suspect that the lapse in ethics (which progresses through
the entire game, you'll notice) is indicative that the PC was being
affected by the Verlac curse, as well. After all, without the PC,
there's all sorts of spots where Michael's progression into a "true
Verlac" would've been stunted.
(He wouldn't have gotten into the house, since he was "trapped" in
his reading, probably couldn't have gotten to the basement altar, and
very likely would never have located the doctor, among other things,
had the PC not been snooping throughout the town.)
D. Jacob Wildstrom
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
>that I'll try shooting everything and everyone. Telling me, "that's
>naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
>probability.
Well, to me it depends how well the protagonist's defined. For
instance, in "Plundered Hearts", there are a lot of things which, as a
well-bred lady, you are unable or unwilling to do. It is reasonable to
prevent even an everyman character from behaving abhorrently; we can
assume that the everyman has at least _some_ morality. I would
consider a mild rebuke in response to, say, "HIT OLD CRIPPLED BEGGAR"
or "STEAL MY FRIEND'S PRIZE-WINNING EGGPLANT" to be appropriate under
most circumstances.
Daryl McCullough
>If you hand me a gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get
>frustrated or bored enough that I'll try shooting everything
>and everyone. Telling me, "that's naughty," is just going to
>frustrate me enough to quit, in all probability.
Interesting point. However, I would say that if you at the point
of shooting everything in sight, then the game has already lost you
as a work of interactive fiction, even if it may still be possible
to enjoy it as a game.
There is a sort of behavior on the part of the player that is the
flip side of the breaking of mimesis on the part of the author. At
some point, the player stops exploring the fictional world as a
world, and starts exploring it as a program. The player does things
just to see how the program reacts, rather than because his/her
character would have any reason to do them. I don't think that there
is anything wrong with such an approach on the part of the player---it
*is* just a computer program. But it is different from my default
approach as a player, which is to try to take the fictional world
seriously. Of course, it is often (but not always) the author's
fault if the player can't take the fictional world seriously.
John Colagioia
> In article <3D7A1E03...@csi.com>,
> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
>>that I'll try shooting everything and everyone. Telling me, "that's
>>naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
>>probability.
> Well, to me it depends how well the protagonist's defined. For
> instance, in "Plundered Hearts", there are a lot of things which, as a
> well-bred lady, you are unable or unwilling to do.
I think I did say something, somewhere about the depth of the PC, but
since you brought it up, as I recall, I thought "Plundered Hearts"
worked well because there was always something *natural* to do, so
that the player didn't feel that frustration that might drive him to
act somewhat as a sociopath.
> It is reasonable to
> prevent even an everyman character from behaving abhorrently; we can
> assume that the everyman has at least _some_ morality. I would
> consider a mild rebuke in response to, say, "HIT OLD CRIPPLED BEGGAR"
> or "STEAL MY FRIEND'S PRIZE-WINNING EGGPLANT" to be appropriate under
> most circumstances.
I would *much* rather have consequences--even "The crippled beggar
grabs your friend's prize-winning eggplant and bashes you on the head
with it. Hey, the jerk's eggplant was made out of concrete, you
realize, as your skull splinters under the impact..."
From the author's standpoint, it's effectively the same thing
(slapping the player's wrist for being a cretin), but it no longer
comes off as an attempt to impose a moral code.
And, as I said, an even better solution is to disallow the action by
not providing the temptation. Guns are used to shoot things. If
you, the author, don't want me, the player, shooting things, then
don't provide a gun. Providing it but not letting me use it gives
the image of the author sitting back, waiting for me to jump through
his next hoop. At least, that's the impression it gives me.
John Colagioia
> John says...
>>If you hand me a gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get
>>frustrated or bored enough that I'll try shooting everything
>>and everyone. Telling me, "that's naughty," is just going to
>>frustrate me enough to quit, in all probability.
> Interesting point. However, I would say that if you at the point
> of shooting everything in sight, then the game has already lost you
> as a work of interactive fiction, even if it may still be possible
> to enjoy it as a game.
I dunno. Casting against type, here, consider the general feelings
on "Photopia." You're led to use the particular verb through
somewhat subtle clues. I can imagine a game which provokes the PC
into doing something unpleasant by fostering a sense of frustration.
In fact, when I feel that frustration, I usually give the game the
benefit of the doubt, and assume it's an intentional part of the
experience.
I don't think I've been *right*, yet (perhaps "Anchorhead," but more
on that, later), but hey, I'm an optomist, sometimes, all right?
> There is a sort of behavior on the part of the player that is the
> flip side of the breaking of mimesis on the part of the author. At
> some point, the player stops exploring the fictional world as a
> world, and starts exploring it as a program. The player does things
> just to see how the program reacts, rather than because his/her
> character would have any reason to do them.
Again, I'm not so sure about that. Let's take the original example
in "Anchorhead." You're stuck in a miserable New England storm (I
actually love walking in those, but I'm probably in the minority) in
a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
have no car, and of your only two known sources of help, one
mysteriously can't care less about your problems, and the other is
missing.
Now, let's layer it on. Even ignoring the storm, everything is
giving you the creeps, and, for various reasons (the mist and the
geography), you can't navigate to anyplace where you might be able
to dry out (home or a bed and breakfast, assuming one would even
exist in Anchorhead).
Putting myself in that situation, I suspect that the rules would
quickly go out the window, because we're actually on the verge of
worrying about survival (judging by Michael's condition on the walk
home, I suspect there was some more wandering the streets before the
game started). Personally, I'd very likely break in, and be quite
willing to live with the presumed consequences (payment for any
damage, potential legal conviction, whatever) afterward.
It'd have pissed me off much more to learn that I was *supposed* to
take apart the lantern in the bar with Michael's Swiss Army Knife
(which he'd give me, once I asked for it), and find the ancient key
hidden within that acts as a skeleton key for all the shops of
Anchorhead's downtown area. Oh, right, and I'd have to buy the
lantern from the barkeep, of course, using money I got by selling
seashells I found down by the lighthouse to one of the students on
campus...
[...]
Jon Ingold
> not providing the temptation. Guns are used to shoot things. If
> you, the author, don't want me, the player, shooting things, then
> don't provide a gun. Providing it but not letting me use it gives
> the image of the author sitting back, waiting for me to jump through
> his next hoop. At least, that's the impression it gives me.
Problem is, you've got to draw the line somewhere. In any game, there will
always be temptations which aren't covered - you put in a single window,
people want to smash it; a person, people want to kill it, a dog, people
want to feed it their entire inventory. Standing on tables, smashing up
chairs, unscrewing hinges from doors... any and all are there, tempting the
player into mucking up the game-state good and proper.
The thing is, in a limited simulation, you are *always* jumping through the
author's next hoop. * Any other sensation is just smoke and mirrors. A good
game will fool you very well. (It's called "suspension of disbelief",
essentially). And there are limits to what the author can do about it. They
can make a really good story you want to read, really interesting characters
you want to interview rather than assassinate, maybe provide really
humourous or insightful responses to why you can't unload your gun
everywhere you go. But if you're determined to, you can still be
dissatisfied.
Generally - IF is simulation with story. And story puts limit on simulation.
If you're going to tell a story you can't have the player throttling the
heroine in chapter 1. (Or, worse yet, have the player sitting still not
doing anything for the whole game..)
Jon
* [eg. 1. "Metamorphoses" - freedom of simulation? No - could you sail the
gondoliers boat anywhere you liked, by pushing him off and stealing his
pole? Of course not. Why not? "Not what the game was about".]
Kevin Forchione
news:3D7B4467...@csi.com...
> And, as I said, an even better solution is to disallow the action by
> not providing the temptation. Guns are used to shoot things. If
> you, the author, don't want me, the player, shooting things, then
> don't provide a gun. Providing it but not letting me use it gives
> the image of the author sitting back, waiting for me to jump through
> his next hoop. At least, that's the impression it gives me.
I agree with this. If you put a gun into a piece of fiction it should be an
integral part of the story, unless it's merely a decoration. In that case it
should make logical sense that it is serving as a decoration.
--Kevin
Daryl McCullough
There's some famous quote by Chekhov about playwriting:
"If there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act,
it must fire in the last."
Joao Mendes
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> Joao Mendes wrote:
>> I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric
>> games set in realistic modern-day settings.
>
> Heh...Again...?
What I meant is, I'm a lot more tolerant of weird solutions if the setting
is removed from reality. For instance, I have no qualms about having to
steal a wallet in a semi-fantasy puzzle fest.
>> It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution
>> being something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a
>> normal person.
>
> You're going to have to define "never." It's going to mean different
> things to different people.
<snip>
> One major thought that I don't think has been mentioned to this
> point. How is requiring that I find a solution compatible with
> *your* ethical values any different than requiring that the solution
> involve breaking some particular ethic?
This, of course, is the same point and is a very valid one. I don't have an
answer for it. But I'd rather the PC, in that particular instance, were
allowed to try other courses of action, even if only to meet with utter
doom, as long as everything were neatly clued, of course. (I hope that's
not asking too much... :)
> I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very loudly is
> a response to an action like, "you would never do that!" Err...
> Obviously, I would.
Would you, really? When was the last time you did? ;>
> Mostly, though, I think the solution to such things is to disallow
> actions by not putting the PC in that situation: If you hand me a
> gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get frustrated or bored enough
> that I'll try shooting everything and everyone. Telling me, "that's
> naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
> probability.
Does that mean that if I make a game where you play a cop, you're liable to
start shooting random store clerks?
> [spoilers]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And more spoliers added, for people with large screens...
> I actually suspect that the lapse in ethics (which progresses through
> the entire game, you'll notice) is indicative that the PC was being
> affected by the Verlac curse, as well. After all, without the PC,
> there's all sorts of spots where Michael's progression into a "true
> Verlac" would've been stunted.
>
> (He wouldn't have gotten into the house, since he was "trapped" in
> his reading, probably couldn't have gotten to the basement altar, and
> very likely would never have located the doctor, among other things,
> had the PC not been snooping throughout the town.)
This is a very good point. However, IMHO, the lack of ethics doesn't
progress. It starts at a very high level and proceeds more or less from
there. The only other infraction is stealing Michael's faculty card, and I
sort of ended up with it in my hands without really thinking about it, as
oposed to the trespassing, which had to be a very conscious decision on my
part. Everything else the PC does is either perfectly normal or acceptable
in the face of saving the world. (I only swiped the lantern from the bar
much later than I could have...)
"Jon Ingold" <jon.i...@virgin.net> wrote in
news:2XKe9.2841$Lp.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net:
> * [eg. 1. "Metamorphoses" - freedom of simulation? No - could you sail
> the gondoliers boat anywhere you liked, by pushing him off and
> stealing his pole? Of course not. Why not? "Not what the game was
> about".]
Wow! This never even ocurred to me to try. I'm thinking some of you guys
must have some really repressed criminal instincts if you're willing to go
this far in a game. ;)
And finally,
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in news:3D7B48F9...@csi.com:
> Again, I'm not so sure about that. Let's take the original example
> in "Anchorhead." You're stuck in a miserable New England storm (I
> actually love walking in those, but I'm probably in the minority) in
> a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
> have no car, and of your only two known sources of help, one
> mysteriously can't care less about your problems, and the other is
> missing.
Not 'mysteriously'. I have actually told my wife to go take care of stuff
while I do some other thing, and if she needs my help, I'll finish that
other thing before I go help her. It is not a very big stretch of the
imagination to say, look, wait till I'm done reading this, then we'll go
down there together and I'll see what I can do about it.
> Now, let's layer it on. Even ignoring the storm, everything is
> giving you the creeps, and, for various reasons (the mist and the
> geography), you can't navigate to anyplace where you might be able
> to dry out (home or a bed and breakfast, assuming one would even
> exist in Anchorhead).
>
> Putting myself in that situation,
I would sit in the library, possibly getting myself something to read,
until Michael finally decides to get off his butt. Which, by the way, is
what I would expect if I were Michael. I would also expect this to cost me
a few credits with the mrs., but I try to always have a few to spare, just
for situations like this... :)
> I suspect that the rules would
> quickly go out the window, because we're actually on the verge of
> worrying about survival
See, I never even noticed that until well into day 2.
> (judging by Michael's condition on the walk
> home, I suspect there was some more wandering the streets before the
> game started)
?!?
> It'd have pissed me off much more to learn that I was *supposed* to
> take apart the lantern in the bar with Michael's Swiss Army Knife
> (which he'd give me, once I asked for it), and find the ancient key
> hidden within that acts as a skeleton key for all the shops of
> Anchorhead's downtown area. Oh, right, and I'd have to buy the
> lantern from the barkeep, of course, using money I got by selling
> seashells I found down by the lighthouse to one of the students on
> campus...
Yuck! Actually, take away the New England setting and put the game
somewhere in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms (fantasy role-playing settings
for those who don't know), and that'd be quite alright. (Well, replace the
swiss army knife with a dagger of slashing +2, or something...)
Cheers,
J.
Mike Roberts
> I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very
> loudly is a response to an action like, "you would never do
> that!" Err... Obviously, I would.
What if the message were "Christabel would never do that!"? To me, that
wouldn't be at all troubling, as long as that claim isn't inconsistent with
Christabel's character as I understand it so far - and even if it is
inconsistent, it could be an illuminating inconsistency that further
develops the character.
If it's cast in the second person, and there's a defined player character,
it's not clear to me that "You would never do that!" is any different. What
you-the-player would do is not relevant to what you-the-PC would do.
All that said, more often than not, "you would never" probably does end up
being a weak and transparent device for limiting the player's range of
choices, and only serves to call attention to the limits. In this sense,
it's probably a good rule of thumb for authors to avoid using it. But I
don't think a blanket prohibition is called for, because I think it's a
perfectly good device in some cases.
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Mark J. Tilford
I've heard about this puzzle. IIRC, you need to get a mustache, even
though the person you are trying to impersonate doesn't have one.
> -- Peter
>
>
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Jonathan Penton
news:slrnans3bi....@ralph.earthlink.net...
Yes, that's correct. The theory being that you look enough unlike the person
that you need to alter both your face and his ID so that the two of you will
look similar.
I actually completed that game; after all, I paid good money for it and was
going to get all the enjoyment I could. For what it's worth, as illogical
and absurd as the puzzle was, it was well-clued.
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
John Colagioia
>>And, as I said, an even better solution is to disallow the action by
>>not providing the temptation. Guns are used to shoot things. If
>>you, the author, don't want me, the player, shooting things, then
>>don't provide a gun. Providing it but not letting me use it gives
>>the image of the author sitting back, waiting for me to jump through
>>his next hoop. At least, that's the impression it gives me.
> Problem is, you've got to draw the line somewhere. In any game, there will
> always be temptations which aren't covered - you put in a single window,
> people want to smash it; a person, people want to kill it, a dog, people
> want to feed it their entire inventory. Standing on tables, smashing up
> chairs, unscrewing hinges from doors... any and all are there, tempting the
> player into mucking up the game-state good and proper.
In itself, this is true. There has to be a balance between feeding
the player things to do (so he won't try all these frustration-
reflecting things) and covering the most common bases.
On top of this, though, I don't mind that things are disallowed. I
understand (and appreciate) that it's part of simulation. However,
I'd much rather see, "you step up onto the table, but jump away as
it begins to tip over," than, "you're too shy to do something like
that." The former says, "this won't work, because the world just
isn't structured that way. The latter says, "this won't work,
because I, the author, won't let you."
> The thing is, in a limited simulation, you are *always* jumping through the
> author's next hoop. * Any other sensation is just smoke and mirrors. A good
> game will fool you very well. (It's called "suspension of disbelief",
> essentially). And there are limits to what the author can do about it. They
> can make a really good story you want to read, really interesting characters
> you want to interview rather than assassinate, maybe provide really
> humourous or insightful responses to why you can't unload your gun
> everywhere you go. But if you're determined to, you can still be
> dissatisfied.
All true. However, that some weirdo player (which I'm not,
accidentally) will convince himself to be annoyed at any game should
not mean that the author should give up and state that "You would
never even consider such a thing."
> Generally - IF is simulation with story. And story puts limit on simulation.
> If you're going to tell a story you can't have the player throttling the
> heroine in chapter 1. (Or, worse yet, have the player sitting still not
> doing anything for the whole game..)
Why can't you? End the game with a failure message. It's the same
amount of work, but the player's ("idiotic," for lack of a better
word) approach still affects the game.
[...]
John Colagioia
>>One major thought that I don't think has been mentioned to this
>>point. How is requiring that I find a solution compatible with
>>*your* ethical values any different than requiring that the solution
>>involve breaking some particular ethic?
> This, of course, is the same point and is a very valid one. I don't have an
> answer for it. But I'd rather the PC, in that particular instance, were
> allowed to try other courses of action, even if only to meet with utter
> doom, as long as everything were neatly clued, of course. (I hope that's
> not asking too much... :)
Yeah, I think we're agreed, here. In the ideal case, anything is
possible, but few things are worth the resulting trouble (arrest,
death, etc.).
>>I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very loudly is
>>a response to an action like, "you would never do that!" Err...
>>Obviously, I would.
> Would you, really? When was the last time you did? ;>
My life, alas, is rarely as exciting as even the most mundane IF
game, so I rarely find myself in situations where I'd have to. I
have walked into untended shops where I was supposed to meet people,
however, when nobody was showing up.
I got yelled at when the clerk eventually wandered in, but that was
about the extent of my horrors.
>>Mostly, though, I think the solution to such things is to disallow
>>actions by not putting the PC in that situation: If you hand me a
>>gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get frustrated or bored enough
>>that I'll try shooting everything and everyone. Telling me, "that's
>>naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
>>probability.
> Does that mean that if I make a game where you play a cop, you're liable to
> start shooting random store clerks?
If the game doesn't land me at the *real* problem in the game, I
might. I'll expect the game to end, frankly, but at least I'll be
doing something other than walking around waiting to trip over the
plot...
>>[spoilers]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> And more spoliers added, for people with large screens...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I actually suspect that the lapse in ethics (which progresses through
>>the entire game, you'll notice) is indicative that the PC was being
>>affected by the Verlac curse, as well. After all, without the PC,
>>there's all sorts of spots where Michael's progression into a "true
>>Verlac" would've been stunted.
>>(He wouldn't have gotten into the house, since he was "trapped" in
>>his reading, probably couldn't have gotten to the basement altar, and
>>very likely would never have located the doctor, among other things,
>>had the PC not been snooping throughout the town.)
> This is a very good point. However, IMHO, the lack of ethics doesn't
> progress. It starts at a very high level and proceeds more or less from
> there.
Really? The circumstances change, slightly, but I'm not so sure I
agree.
> The only other infraction is stealing Michael's faculty card, and I
> sort of ended up with it in my hands without really thinking about it,
That's odd. I felt very guilty about looking through his pants and
wallet--moreso, in fact, than I felt for climbing through the open
window to get out of the rain.
> as
> oposed to the trespassing, which had to be a very conscious decision on my
> part. Everything else the PC does is either perfectly normal or acceptable
> in the face of saving the world. (I only swiped the lantern from the bar
> much later than I could have...)
Basically, I count the entry (which was as much to get out of the
rain as anything else), rummaging through the wallet, breaking into
the church, and--possibly, depending on the town--going through
official records. Arguably, you also tresspass in the factory and
a handful of other places, regardless of how much more motivated you
are at that point, and how many keys you've amassed...
[...]
>>Again, I'm not so sure about that. Let's take the original example
>>in "Anchorhead." You're stuck in a miserable New England storm (I
>>actually love walking in those, but I'm probably in the minority) in
>>a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
> 'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
I did get some things scrambled (like the Asylum guard), but there's
also the creepy librarian.
>>have no car, and of your only two known sources of help, one
>>mysteriously can't care less about your problems, and the other is
>>missing.
> Not 'mysteriously'. I have actually told my wife to go take care of stuff
> while I do some other thing, and if she needs my help, I'll finish that
> other thing before I go help her. It is not a very big stretch of the
> imagination to say, look, wait till I'm done reading this, then we'll go
> down there together and I'll see what I can do about it.
I'd call it "mysterious" that, in the middle of a nasty storm, he's
sitting in a quiet room reading a book (that he's offended if I look
at), sending me back out if I even try talking to him.
And, of course, the "we'll do it together" never comes. It's clear
that Michael thinks it's your problem, alone.
[...]
>>I suspect that the rules would
>>quickly go out the window, because we're actually on the verge of
>>worrying about survival
> See, I never even noticed that until well into day 2.
>
>>(judging by Michael's condition on the walk
>>home, I suspect there was some more wandering the streets before the
>>game started)
> ?!?
Once you have the key, walk around aimlessly for a while. Michael is
barely any help on the road (which is why I found this), but more
importantly, he starts coughing pretty badly, after a while. Since I
didn't know exactly where the game was going, I wasn't sure he was
intended to survive the trip.
>>It'd have pissed me off much more to learn that I was *supposed* to
>>take apart the lantern in the bar with Michael's Swiss Army Knife
>>(which he'd give me, once I asked for it), and find the ancient key
>>hidden within that acts as a skeleton key for all the shops of
>>Anchorhead's downtown area. Oh, right, and I'd have to buy the
>>lantern from the barkeep, of course, using money I got by selling
>>seashells I found down by the lighthouse to one of the students on
>>campus...
> Yuck! Actually, take away the New England setting and put the game
> somewhere in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms (fantasy role-playing settings
> for those who don't know), and that'd be quite alright. (Well, replace the
> swiss army knife with a dagger of slashing +2, or something...)
No, I'd never buy it, unless it was fairly heavy on the comedy (I got
the Babel Fish, for example).
John Colagioia
> "John Colagioia" <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
>>I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very
>>loudly is a response to an action like, "you would never do
>>that!" Err... Obviously, I would.
> What if the message were "Christabel would never do that!"? To me, that
> wouldn't be at all troubling, as long as that claim isn't inconsistent with
> Christabel's character as I understand it so far - and even if it is
> inconsistent, it could be an illuminating inconsistency that further
> develops the character.
> If it's cast in the second person, and there's a defined player character,
> it's not clear to me that "You would never do that!" is any different. What
> you-the-player would do is not relevant to what you-the-PC would do.
My concern about such things is that we have all these high-flying
ideas about how Interactive Fiction is about the author and player
"writing the story together." You wouldn't collaborate with someone
on a novel, and declare, "Bob would never do that, for reasons that
we've never laid out in the book, and which--honestly--I've never
bothered to tell you." Or, rather, you might, but that strains the
collaboration.
> All that said, more often than not, "you would never" probably does end up
> being a weak and transparent device for limiting the player's range of
> choices, and only serves to call attention to the limits. In this sense,
> it's probably a good rule of thumb for authors to avoid using it. But I
> don't think a blanket prohibition is called for, because I think it's a
> perfectly good device in some cases.
As I said, if you're good, you can get away with it for particular
situations. In fact, there are times where I've seen it, and I
didn't even notice it.
But, then, there are also perfectly good uses for blinking HTML text,
lime green housepaint, and glow-in-the-dark ties with hula dancers on
them...
Mike Roberts
> My concern about [depicting the PC with a will separate from the
> player's will] is that we have all these high-flying ideas about how
> Interactive Fiction is about the author and player "writing the story
> together."
Actually, it's not clear to me that this is *the* ideal of IF, at least not
in everyone's mind; it's perhaps one ideal, but I think IF can also be
approached as a medium with as sharp an author/reader asymmetry as in static
fiction. For the moment, I think the fully collaborative approach is still
highly theoretical. Nearly all of the most prominent games I can think of
are clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum, where the author is
unapologetically in charge of the story.
> You wouldn't collaborate with someone on a novel, and declare,
> "Bob would never do that, for reasons that we've never laid out in
> the book, and which--honestly--I've never bothered to tell you."
Well, you wouldn't put it that way, because "for reasons we've never laid
out in the book" is hardly an issue when you're in the process of laying out
the book. "For reasons we haven't laid out yet," perhaps, but more likely
would be something like "now, wait, my conception of Bob would never do
that; why don't we do it this way instead."
It seems like the focus of your displeasure is responses that reveal new
information - the point you seem to be making is that a response is bad when
it's not supported by some previous disclosure. IF being an interactive
medium, though, what exactly is wrong with revealing information through
interaction? Especially in the early parts of a game, why not fill in
details on a character interactively? I'd certainly agree with the
objection if we were talking about a glaring inconsistency, where the PC had
to kill another character in one scene but "would never do that" in a
subsequent scene; but the only inconsistency you're talking about is with
the player's preconceptions of what the PC ought to be like.
John Colagioia
[...]
> It seems like the focus of your displeasure is responses that reveal new
> information - the point you seem to be making is that a response is bad when
> it's not supported by some previous disclosure. IF being an interactive
> medium, though, what exactly is wrong with revealing information through
> interaction?
Partially, I suppose, because that falls back on the "why the ****
don't I know anything about the character I'm playing" issue that so
many other people (other than myself, usually) seem to have with
games.
Also, partially, because if there's only one thing I'm allowed to do,
then I (as a player) am not really part of the process. The game is
playing me, rather than vice versa.
> Especially in the early parts of a game, why not fill in
> details on a character interactively? I'd certainly agree with the
> objection if we were talking about a glaring inconsistency, where the PC had
> to kill another character in one scene but "would never do that" in a
> subsequent scene;
"Violence isn't the answer to this one? It was a minute ago..."
Yeah, I've seen quite a few like this, and it may be tinting my view.
> but the only inconsistency you're talking about is with
> the player's preconceptions of what the PC ought to be like.
Maybe. But, then, as I asked elsewhere, how is this somehow better
than the player being inconsistent with the author's views of how the
PC should be acting?
Joao Mendes
I'm gonna move the spoiler space to the top, here...
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> Joao Mendes wrote:
>> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>>>I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very loudly is
>>>a response to an action like, "you would never do that!" Err...
>>>Obviously, I would.
>> Would you, really? When was the last time you did? ;>
> My life, alas, is rarely as exciting as even the most mundane IF
> game, so I rarely find myself in situations where I'd have to. I
> have walked into untended shops where I was supposed to meet people,
> however, when nobody was showing up.
Ah, but it seemed to me that the main character in Anchorhead was precisely
a person with just that kind of normal life, who was then thrown into an
extraordinary situation, but this isn't revealed until a bit later.
> I got yelled at when the clerk eventually wandered in, but that was
> about the extent of my horrors.
Off the point, but clerks that yell at a customer because _they_ weren't
where they were supposed to be aggravate me...
>> Does that mean that if I make a game where you play a cop, you're
>> liable to start shooting random store clerks?
> If the game doesn't land me at the *real* problem in the game, I
> might. I'll expect the game to end, frankly, but at least I'll be
> doing something other than walking around waiting to trip over the
> plot...
The only thing that comes to mind is wow... I mean shooting a random store
clerk is so incredibly out of character for a cop. I am beginning to
understand why everyone was so adamant that 'search sofa' should always
work...
> That's odd. I felt very guilty about looking through his pants and
> wallet--moreso, in fact, than I felt for climbing through the open
> window to get out of the rain.
Had I thought about it, I would probably have felt guilty as well. I was so
thrown by the solution to the first puzzle, though, that I really just
ended up with the card in my hands before I realize how I'd done it...
Anyway, the fact that Michael doesn't want me to read what he was reading
might be considered motivation enough for a snoopy wife... ;)
> Basically, I count the entry (which was as much to get out of the
> rain as anything else),
Eh... no, it wasn't. Or rather, I can't think of a more obscure way of
getting out of the rain than climbing a trash can, especially when there is
an open pub nearby.
> rummaging through the wallet,
Like I said, I didn't even realize what I was doing...
> breaking into
> the church,
Eh... the whole town is out to kill me by then. Ethics is no longer an
issue.
> and--possibly, depending on the town--going through
> official records.
Funny, I assumed these were public...
> Arguably, you also tresspass in the factory and
> a handful of other places, regardless of how much more motivated you
> are at that point, and how many keys you've amassed...
There is one more. Walking around with a buried animal's skull is... well,
weird...
>>>a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
>> 'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
> also the creepy librarian.
Those actually exist. ;)
> I'd call it "mysterious" that, in the middle of a nasty storm, he's
> sitting in a quiet room reading a book (that he's offended if I look
> at), sending me back out if I even try talking to him.
No mystery there, as these are things that I might actually do. Except the
being offended part, but that's hardly enough motivation to break into an
office.
> And, of course, the "we'll do it together" never comes. It's clear
> that Michael thinks it's your problem, alone.
Well, 'wait until night' or 'wait until library closes' would seem like
suitable alternatives, but alas, 'I onlyl understood as far as you wanting
to wait'. Yes, it is clear that Michael thinks it's my problem alone, but
there should be a way to not go along with Michael's attitude. Or at least,
my wife seems to manage this... :)
Cheers,
J.
Magnus Olsson
Mike Roberts <mj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Colagioia" <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
>> My concern about [depicting the PC with a will separate from the
>> player's will] is that we have all these high-flying ideas about how
>> Interactive Fiction is about the author and player "writing the story
>> together."
Define "we". I don't have that kind of high-flying ideas at all. Being
the snotty elitist that I am, I have all kinds of high-flying ideas
:-), but I've never particularly felt that I'm co-authoring a work of
IF while playing it.
>Actually, it's not clear to me that this is *the* ideal of IF, at least not
>in everyone's mind; it's perhaps one ideal, but I think IF can also be
>approached as a medium with as sharp an author/reader asymmetry as in static
>fiction.
I think this is how most players and writers of "IF-as-we-know-it"
(meaning the kind of IF discussed here) approach the subject.
>For the moment, I think the fully collaborative approach is still
>highly theoretical. Nearly all of the most prominent games I can think of
>are clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum, where the author is
>unapologetically in charge of the story.
The way I feel about most IF is that I'm role-playing a character in
a "conventional" story - the interactive part is in playing the character,
not in writing the story.
Of course, that doesn't mean that IF-as-collaborative-authorship
can't exist, or shouldn't exist.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Christos Dimitrakakis
On 16 Sep 2002, Magnus Olsson wrote:
>
> Define "we". I don't have that kind of high-flying ideas at all. Being
> the snotty elitist that I am, I have all kinds of high-flying ideas
> :-), but I've never particularly felt that I'm co-authoring a work of
> IF while playing it.
>
> >Actually, it's not clear to me that this is *the* ideal of IF, at least not
> >in everyone's mind; it's perhaps one ideal, but I think IF can also be
> >approached as a medium with as sharp an author/reader asymmetry as in static
> >fiction.
>
> Of course, that doesn't mean that IF-as-collaborative-authorship
> can't exist, or shouldn't exist.
>
While it is theoretically possible to create a realistic/dynamic world
where one is free to do as one lies, there will be a problem when
attempting to describe the effects of one's actions textually to the
player.
Examples of free-form games, that are non-textual, would include:
Elite (and frontier), Midwinter (I & II) and one more game.. that I used
to have on the Amiga, where you played 4 droids in DM 1-st person
perspective style... the second version of that was free-form.. but I
cannot remember the name.
I also think Hunter had some freeform elements, but I could not be quite
sure.
In textual games, the problem with freeform interaction is that there is a
limited amount of descriptions that the author can produce. Dynamic text
creation does not always work very well. In 3D games, it is quite easy to
create new variations of 3D models by fiddling with continuously-varying
parameters.
Another problem with freeform is that you are usually forced to have a
large number of locations in the game and thus you cannot put a lot of
effort in individual room descriptions.
The only solution to this problem is to restrict the environment, say, by
having everything take place in an isolated location such as a small
space-station, a tiny island etc
Would someone like to play a game with these kinds of limitations if it
was free-form? What would be the point, especially if the player is let to
define his own goals?
Mike Roberts
[about the player's will vs. the player character's will]
>
> mjr:
> > but the only inconsistency you're talking about is with
> > the player's preconceptions of what the PC ought to
> > be like.
>
> Maybe. But, then, as I asked elsewhere, how is this
> somehow better than the player being inconsistent with
> the author's views of how the PC should be acting?
I guess it comes down to where one sees a game in the spectrum between pure
open simulation and pure story. In cases where the player is meant to be
completely in charge of writing the story, or is meant to be an equal
partner with the author in writing the story, then I'd have to agree with
your point of view that "you would never do that" is a jarring intrusion.
Maybe it's a matter of games properly classifying themselves on the spectrum
of authorial control, and perhaps of the author being clear in his or her
own mind on the subject. If players know going in that the game is going to
ask them to play a role, and the game is consistent in doing so, then it
shouldn't be jarring to be reminded to stay in character.
With respect to the broader question of the "ideal" form of IF, I think it's
often taken for granted that technology is the key obstacle to achieving the
player-in-control or equal collaboration ideals, the corollary being that
strict author control is a pathetic compromise we settle for while we await
the arrival of 23rd-century photonic computer technology. It occurs to me,
though, that my (admittedly limited) experiences with human-moderated
role-playing games would seem to suggest another possibility. In many
respects, human-moderated role-playing actually seems a lot like the
strict-author-control model, despite the availability of relatively powerful
computational resources in the moderator: a GM usually works from a
pre-designed scenario (of their own devising, or purchased), and when the
players go outside the bounds of the scenario, the GM shepherds them back in
by hinting that something isn't important, or imposing a physical obstacle,
or even pointing out that a proposed action is out of character. It's
easier for a human GM to be subtle about the boundaries, and human GM's tend
to understand more verbs and phrasings, but the overall effect is
nonetheless often similar to playing computer IF. My theory is that in both
kinds of games, one of the big goals for players is to participate in a
satisfying story, and that the demands of telling a good story might be
incompatible with completely open game play, even with the full resources of
a human brain available to synthesize a story from a series of events. If
that's true, then the strict author control model might just be a separate
ideal, not an inferior compromise.
LizM7
> Mike Roberts wrote:
> [...]
> > It seems like the focus of your displeasure is responses that reveal new
> > information - the point you seem to be making is that a response is bad when
> > it's not supported by some previous disclosure. IF being an interactive
> > medium, though, what exactly is wrong with revealing information through
> > interaction?
>
> Partially, I suppose, because that falls back on the "why the ****
> don't I know anything about the character I'm playing" issue that so
> many other people (other than myself, usually) seem to have with
> games.
They do? Funny, I've never heard anyone complain.
The point being, to create a character one has to set boundries. In
_Varicella_, for example, there are certain actions the player must
perform in order to "win" the game. Most of these actions are ones
which a sane human being with a modern sense of ethics would never
dream of doing. These actions reveal a lot about Varicella as a
person. Simularly, his *refusal* to commit certain acts also reveals
information about Varicella.
As for the "why the **** don't I know anything about the character I'm
playing" 'issue', it is AFAI am concerned, nonexistant -- since there
is no way of telling whether you honestly don't know whether or not
your character can do such things or whether you're simply feeling
like doing weird things. But one of the hallmarks of 'modern' IF, I
think, is the concept that the PC is neither you, nor is it some
faceless adventurer, but is a character defined by the author in the
same way as the author might define any NPC. This gives the work
personality, IMHO. If you don't like that, you're in the very small
minority.
Or, to put it bluntly, assuming you're a sane human being, nobody has
to *tell* you not to commit certain crimes. Nobody has to tell you
that you can't go and kill some random stranger, or that you can't go
around shoplifting things from stores. This is part of your
personality. To create a PC whose personality *will* allow for such
actions means that you will have to adjust the storyline to accomidate
for such things. And *that* means that you'd be restricting the
entire genre.
You're whining over nothing, is what I'm saying.
> Also, partially, because if there's only one thing I'm allowed to do,
> then I (as a player) am not really part of the process. The game is
> playing me, rather than vice versa.
But nobody's saying there's only one thing you're allowed to do.
Varicella, for example, is *very* open-ended -- you can wander around
doing all sorts of things. (Only a few of them will win the game for
you, however.) Thus, is the fact that you can't kill Charlotte
restrictive? Not really. Instead, it demonstrates the sort of person
the PC is - he has his limits, few as they might be.
You seem to be making the assumption that because you can't go around
shattering mimesis and ruining plots, the game is linear. Not so. It
merely means that the author is setting limits for where the game
should go -- and is doing so by demonstrating the PC's character,
rather than using some arbitrary, flippant response.
> > Especially in the early parts of a game, why not fill in
> > details on a character interactively? I'd certainly agree with the
> > objection if we were talking about a glaring inconsistency, where the PC had
> > to kill another character in one scene but "would never do that" in a
> > subsequent scene;
>
> "Violence isn't the answer to this one? It was a minute ago..."
>
> Yeah, I've seen quite a few like this, and it may be tinting my view.
This isn't a view you've got, it's a dogma -- and a tired one at that.
> > but the only inconsistency you're talking about is with
> > the player's preconceptions of what the PC ought to be like.
>
> Maybe. But, then, as I asked elsewhere, how is this somehow better
> than the player being inconsistent with the author's views of how the
> PC should be acting?
Because IF -- as I have said above -- demonstrates character by having
people do certain things -- and, just as significantly, having them
*not* do other things. You've claimed elsewhere that books won't say
"Bill won't do that, for reasons I've never bothered telling you" --
but you've ignored the fact that books don't have to do that. If Bill
the character isn't going to consider doing such things, the author
simply isn't going to mention that possibility. The fact that you,
the reader, might think of such an action is irrelevant.
In IF, you the reader may think of an action -- but the PC is going to
respond to that action according to his/her/its worldview.
(Beyond that, the problem becomes, the more out-of-character actions
you *do* allow, the more the storyline gets screwed up -- and when
you're attempting to write a storyline, that's a big problem.)
- Liz
Uli Kusterer
> You've claimed elsewhere that books won't say
> "Bill won't do that, for reasons I've never bothered telling you" --
> but you've ignored the fact that books don't have to do that. If Bill
> the character isn't going to consider doing such things, the author
> simply isn't going to mention that possibility. The fact that you,
> the reader, might think of such an action is irrelevant.
I'd actually go as far as contradicting the OP. I know a number of
books that show how a character feels abhorred at having to do certain
things, or at seeing someone do them. So, I beg to differ: Books
actually tell you that a person won't do that. It's just that you can't
be as subtle about this in a game (let me correct that -- it isn't as
easy to do it -- I suppose some of the avant garde here might have
achieved it nonetheless)
> In IF, you the reader may think of an action -- but the PC is going to
> respond to that action according to his/her/its worldview.
>
> (Beyond that, the problem becomes, the more out-of-character actions
> you *do* allow, the more the storyline gets screwed up -- and when
> you're attempting to write a storyline, that's a big problem.)
X-actly. While I find the more "bleeding edge" games pretty
interesting from a purely intellectual point of view, games that I
really enjoy typically are very strong in the story department, because
having a story usually means you're not wandering around aimlessly.
Just my 0.02e
-- Uli
Daryl McCullough
>It occurs to me, though, that my (admittedly limited) experiences
>with human-moderated role-playing games would seem to suggest
>another possibility. In many respects, human-moderated
>role-playing actually seems a lot like the strict-author-control
>model, despite the availability of relatively powerful
>computational resources in the moderator: a GM usually works
>from a pre-designed scenario (of their own devising, or purchased),
>and when the players go outside the bounds of the scenario, the
>GM shepherds them back in by hinting that something isn't important,
>or imposing a physical obstacle, or even pointing out that a proposed
>action is out of character.
I think that's mostly true, but a really good GM can expand
on his story-world to reflect the actions of players. For
example, the players might face some enemy (a troll, or giant,
or something) that the GM expects either to kill the players
or be killed by them. But if some player has particular
spells or skills, he might be able to befriend the creature
rather than fight it. At this point, the GM must concoct an
actual history of this new NPC, and future adventures might
involve a visit to his homeland, or whatever.
This mode of interaction requires a *lot* of work on the
part of the GM, and a lot of time between gaming sessions.
However, having played in a game of this sort I can say
that it is truly a memorable experience when done well.
There is absolutely no way (now, with currently technology)
that this sort of interactivity, in which the player
indirectly affects a rich story-world, can be carried out in a
computer game.
For this reason, I think that role-playing games are actually
more deserving of the label "interactive fiction" than any
computer adventure game. Real collaboration between the author
and the audience can only happen if the authoring process is
ongoing, rather than completed beforehand.
Daphne Brinkerhoff
hsel...@hotmail.com (LizM7) wrote in message news:<d89b4999.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
> > "Violence isn't the answer to this one? It was a minute ago..."
> >
> > Yeah, I've seen quite a few like this, and it may be tinting my view.
>
> This isn't a view you've got, it's a dogma -- and a tired one at that.
>
In that case, I share his tired dogma... I *hate* seeing "Violence
isn't the answer" in so many games where you have to kill/maim/damage
things or people to advance. It can become bizarre if you're, say,
being attacked by someone, and you have to kill them to escape, but
you try it a few turns too early, leading to something like:
The masked man holds his hand over your mouth!
>kick man
Violence isn't the answer to this one.
The masked man points a gun at your head!
>kick man
You kick the man, forcing him to drop the gun...
etc.
This is blatant, and I don't see it in the best (IMHO) games. But it
still happens.
Magnus Olsson
Mike Roberts <mjr-S...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>With respect to the broader question of the "ideal" form of IF, I think it's
>often taken for granted that technology is the key obstacle to achieving the
>player-in-control or equal collaboration ideals, the corollary being that
>strict author control is a pathetic compromise we settle for while we await
>the arrival of 23rd-century photonic computer technology.
I've also seen it blamed on authorial conservativism (IF authors are
stick-in-the-muds who can't think beyond the Infocom tradition) or even
authroial incompetence.
>My theory is that in both
>kinds of games, one of the big goals for players is to participate in a
>satisfying story, and that the demands of telling a good story might be
>incompatible with completely open game play, even with the full resources of
>a human brain available to synthesize a story from a series of events. If
>that's true, then the strict author control model might just be a separate
>ideal, not an inferior compromise.
I've never had any doubt that it's so. Many people play IF because
they *want* to be immersed in somebody else's story, and not because
it's some poor substitute for collaborative storytelling, interactive
mythos, or whatever you'd call it.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
John Colagioia
> Ahoy, :)
>
> I'm gonna move the spoiler space to the top, here...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> news:3D835632...@csi.com:
>>Joao Mendes wrote:
>>My life, alas, is rarely as exciting as even the most mundane IF
>>game, so I rarely find myself in situations where I'd have to. I
>>have walked into untended shops where I was supposed to meet people,
>>however, when nobody was showing up.
> Ah, but it seemed to me that the main character in Anchorhead was precisely
> a person with just that kind of normal life, who was then thrown into an
> extraordinary situation, but this isn't revealed until a bit later.
Actually, the response when you nab Michael's ID suggests that you're
not nearly so mundane as expected...
My point, though, was that, since my life tends toward the mundane,
answers as to "what would I do" are necessarily just guesses, made
without the stress of the actual event.
>>I got yelled at when the clerk eventually wandered in, but that was
>>about the extent of my horrors.
> Off the point, but clerks that yell at a customer because _they_ weren't
> where they were supposed to be aggravate me...
That was my argument. The clerk backed down.
>>>Does that mean that if I make a game where you play a cop, you're
>>>liable to start shooting random store clerks?
>>If the game doesn't land me at the *real* problem in the game, I
>>might. I'll expect the game to end, frankly, but at least I'll be
>>doing something other than walking around waiting to trip over the
>>plot...
> The only thing that comes to mind is wow... I mean shooting a random store
> clerk is so incredibly out of character for a cop. I am beginning to
> understand why everyone was so adamant that 'search sofa' should always
> work...
I suppose that, by this time, you might have lost me as a player, so
it's not really relevant what I might do. However, if the plot won't
come to me, I'll start looking for *some* plot...
>>That's odd. I felt very guilty about looking through his pants and
>>wallet--moreso, in fact, than I felt for climbing through the open
>>window to get out of the rain.
> Had I thought about it, I would probably have felt guilty as well. I was so
> thrown by the solution to the first puzzle, though, that I really just
> ended up with the card in my hands before I realize how I'd done it...
I actually find that interesting. I actually spent time agonizing
over whether to check out his pants and the contents of his wallet,
despite having illegally entered the office without giving it a
thought--even with the understanding that this was probably what I
"needed" to do.
> Anyway, the fact that Michael doesn't want me to read what he was reading
> might be considered motivation enough for a snoopy wife... ;)
Actually...yes.
>>Basically, I count the entry (which was as much to get out of the
>>rain as anything else),
> Eh... no, it wasn't. Or rather, I can't think of a more obscure way of
> getting out of the rain than climbing a trash can, especially when there is
> an open pub nearby.
Where they're really not happy to see you? Maybe it's because I've
been to a couple of towns with that atmosphere, but I'd rather take
my chances with the rain.
>>rummaging through the wallet,
> Like I said, I didn't even realize what I was doing...
>
>>breaking into
>>the church,
> Eh... the whole town is out to kill me by then. Ethics is no longer an
> issue.
But the church has very little to do with your survival. It'd be
like getting chased through Manhattan, but you stop off to take in a
Broadway show. Or, rather, you mug some random guy on the street and
take his ticket to the aforementioned show.
I mean, there are entire stretches of town where you never see
anyone, and would typically have pretty good hiding places and escape
routes (the docks come to mind). That it's a church established to
have been Cult Central seems even more of a reason be someplace else.
>>and--possibly, depending on the town--going through
>>official records.
> Funny, I assumed these were public...
It depends on the town ordinances. Most places I've been, they'll at
least fine you heavily (and possibly arrest you) if you're in the
records room without either a permit or an escort. Basically, you
don't want people stealing Social Security Numbers or destroying
records, and you can't trust the average person off the street to be
that nice...
>>Arguably, you also tresspass in the factory and
>>a handful of other places, regardless of how much more motivated you
>>are at that point, and how many keys you've amassed...
> There is one more. Walking around with a buried animal's skull is... well,
> weird...
This is true, as well. She's got a stronger stomach than I do, I'll
tell you that...
Oh, and it also occurred to me that, given the history of the
Verlacs, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that the PC had some
Verlac blood in here, as well. It'd certainly dovetail well with the
ambiguous ending.
>>>>a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
>>>'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
>>also the creepy librarian.
> Those actually exist. ;)
This is true. I even know some. However, it doesn't make the town
seem any friendlier.
>>I'd call it "mysterious" that, in the middle of a nasty storm, he's
>>sitting in a quiet room reading a book (that he's offended if I look
>>at), sending me back out if I even try talking to him.
> No mystery there, as these are things that I might actually do. Except the
> being offended part, but that's hardly enough motivation to break into an
> office.
>
>>And, of course, the "we'll do it together" never comes. It's clear
>>that Michael thinks it's your problem, alone.
> Well, 'wait until night' or 'wait until library closes' would seem like
> suitable alternatives, but alas, 'I onlyl understood as far as you wanting
> to wait'.Yes, it is clear that Michael thinks it's my problem alone, but
> there should be a way to not go along with Michael's attitude. Or at least,
> my wife seems to manage this... :)
Well, look at it this way: What happens when it's time for the
library to close (plotwise, you now have hours fewer to save the
world, though you don't know this), and Michael asks the librarian to
keep the place open until his research is done? He, being a Verlac,
and critical to the upcoming event, is granted his request.
Want to hang out until morning? The next evening? Wouldn't it be
nice to get some food? Too bad every restaurant completely ignores
you when you ask for a table...
Adrien Beau
spoiler space ... spoiler space ... spoiler space
spoiler space ... spoiler space ... spoiler space
> John Colagioia wrote:
>
> Joao Mendes wrote:
> >
> > John Colagioia wrote:
> > >
> > > breaking into the church,
> >
> > Eh... the whole town is out to kill me by then. Ethics is no
> > longer an issue.
>
> But the church has very little to do with your survival. It'd
> be like getting chased through Manhattan, but you stop off to
> take in a Broadway show. Or, rather, you mug some random guy
> on the street and take his ticket to the aforementioned show.
If I remember correctly, the church has a lot to do with your
survival. Coming back from your encounter will little William,
you get surrounded by an angry mob that tries to kill you. The
only path you can take to escape them leads to the church, from
where they know you can't escape. You surprise them a little
bit by being able to break the lock and getting into the church
basement, but they decide to take advantage of this by locking
you in. They probably know the church very well, and know
there's no way to escape it except by jumping to your death in
the shaft under the broken stairs.
I don't see what you mean with your comparison to a Broadway
show. It's not like you're going to attend to an office in this
church; you're going in for shelter. As for the same kind of
chasing in Manhattan, I wouldn't be surprised if someone fled
into a theatre and tried to hide in a crowd. I'm sure this has
been done in many movies.
> I mean, there are entire stretches of town where you never see
> anyone,
This doesn't mean that there's nobody to watch you.
> and would typically have pretty good hiding places and
> escape routes (the docks come to mind). That it's a church
> established to have been Cult Central seems even more of a
> reason be someplace else.
You seem to have forgotten that you had absolutely no choice in
the location.
--
adrie...@yahoo.guess
Uli Kusterer
>> store clerk is so incredibly out of character for a cop. I am
>> beginning to understand why everyone was so adamant that 'search sofa'
>> should always work...
>
> I suppose that, by this time, you might have lost me as a player, so
> it's not really relevant what I might do. However, if the plot won't
> come to me, I'll start looking for *some* plot...
Folks,
maybe there is merit in having responses for every possible weird
action: Imagine you are stuck in a game. You try to shoot someone, just
because the gun isn't there. Something weird happens. You ROTFL and
think: "Hey, let's try some other weird things". And before you know it,
you're back in the game.
It might actually be helpful, in an "easter-egg" kind of way, to hide
responses to some possible actions that don't really benefit gameplay
inside the game.
OK, it's a stretch
-- Uli
Joao Mendes
Cepoiler Cepace...
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> Actually, the response when you nab Michael's ID suggests that you're
> not nearly so mundane as expected...
Maybe. But then again, this is _after_ the breakin. My whole point centers
around the breakin. The rest of the game seems acceptable either by
comparison or by force of circumstance.
> My point, though, was that, since my life tends toward the mundane,
> answers as to "what would I do" are necessarily just guesses, made
> without the stress of the actual event.
Not only does your life tend towards the mundane, so does everyone else's,
unless you're part of the crew of Wild Things. Thusly, if the PC in a game
is a presumably normal person, and indeed _not_ 'In The Crew Of Wild
Things'(tm), I expect her life to tend towards the mundane as well. As
such, the breakin confused me...
> I actually find that interesting. I actually spent time agonizing
> over whether to check out his pants and the contents of his wallet,
> despite having illegally entered the office without giving it a
> thought--even with the understanding that this was probably what I
> "needed" to do.
For reference, here was my thought process at the time: hey, pants, what's
with them... hey, a wallet, what's with that... hey, a library card, cool,
now I can snoop on what Mikey didn't want me to read, hehe... let's swipe
that and put everything back... er... well, the game does that for me...
ok, I can live with that... :)
> Joao Mendes wrote:
>> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>> news:3D835632...@csi.com:
>>>Basically, I count the entry (which was as much to get out of the
>>>rain as anything else),
>> Eh... no, it wasn't. Or rather, I can't think of a more obscure way
>> of getting out of the rain than climbing a trash can, especially when
>> there is an open pub nearby.
> Where they're really not happy to see you? Maybe it's because I've
> been to a couple of towns with that atmosphere, but I'd rather take
> my chances with the rain.
Ok, but given the choice of three options, stay in the rain, go into an
unfriednly pub, break into an office with the aid of a trash can, which do
you think a (so far presumably mundane) person is likelier to do? :)
> But the church has very little to do with your survival. It'd be
Adrien Beau already addressed this. I subscribe his words.
> It depends on the town ordinances. Most places I've been, they'll at
> least fine you heavily (and possibly arrest you) if you're in the
> records room without either a permit or an escort. Basically, you
Heh... I assumed that those weren't the real 'records rooms', but rather, a
place where one could consult a number of assorted details at will...
Access to copies, so to speak. In retrospect, I realize this is far-
fetched, but it goes to show you how my mind is constantly striving for the
mundane, even in the midst of mayhem... :/
>>>>>a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
>>>>'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
>>>also the creepy librarian.
>> Those actually exist. ;)
> This is true. I even know some. However, it doesn't make the town
> seem any friendlier.
No, it doesn't. But the librarian doesn't hate me on sight, she's just
there... Or at least, we don't see any interaction between her and Michael,
so I just assumed that's how she treated everybody. As for the other guys,
pubs with closed off atmospheres are not that unusual, as you yourself
pointed out. Yes, the weather is lousy, but all in all, I just don't feel
there is enough motivation to climb a trash can amd break into an office.
> Well, look at it this way: What happens when it's time for the
> library to close (plotwise, you now have hours fewer to save the
> world, though you don't know this), and Michael asks the librarian to
> keep the place open until his research is done? He, being a Verlac,
> and critical to the upcoming event, is granted his request.
>
> Want to hang out until morning? The next evening? Wouldn't it be
> nice to get some food? Too bad every restaurant completely ignores
> you when you ask for a table...
If all this really happened, eventually, I'd make myself find a way into
the office. And then, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as I would
have felt the motivation was there. :)
Btw, I'd like to remind folks that 'Anchorhead' stands so far as my second
favorite game (after 'Worlds Apart'). But this conversation is being rather
interesting and it may prove useful for other folks considering puzzle
design for (presumably) mundane PCs. :)
Cheers,
J.
Michael Gentry
> Hey, :)
>
> Cepoiler Cepace...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well, look at it this way: What happens when it's time for the
> > library to close (plotwise, you now have hours fewer to save the
> > world, though you don't know this), and Michael asks the librarian to
> > keep the place open until his research is done? He, being a Verlac,
> > and critical to the upcoming event, is granted his request.
> >
> > Want to hang out until morning? The next evening? Wouldn't it be
> > nice to get some food? Too bad every restaurant completely ignores
> > you when you ask for a table...
>
> If all this really happened, eventually, I'd make myself find a way into
> the office. And then, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as I would
> have felt the motivation was there. :)
Out of curiosity, if all these details had actually been implemented
(i.e. and e.g., a clock that actually kept track of turns spent and
allowed you to waste time while the plot went on without you;
restaurants that you could enter but that refused to serve you [which
description, incidentally, the pub does fit]; a library with closing
hours and a Michael who remained there until the wee hours of the
morning; and hunger and exhaustion timers that gave you incentive to
do something other than hit 'z' until Michael finally passed out in
the library reading room at 5:00 AM...) -- if these additional
elements of mimesis had been present, would the break-in puzzle have
been more satisfying to you?
Joao Mendes
mi...@edromia.com (Michael Gentry) wrote in
news:ce903a72.02092...@posting.google.com:
> Out of curiosity, if all these details had actually been implemented
<details snipped>
> if these additional
> elements of mimesis had been present, would the <unspoil> puzzle have
> been more satisfying to you?
(Explanatory Anchorhead spoilers at end of post.)
Oooh. Excellent question. Being totally honest, I'd have to say that I
doubt it. And pondering the return-on-investment from the author's side,
I'm glad you didn't go that route. It would have been a tad neater, though,
if that door simply hadn't been locked...
Note to Michael: I'm not criticizing your design decisions. Rather, I was
just trying to get a feel from the group about puzzles that break PCness.
(I refuse to use the word 'mimesis' here, as I don't think that's what this
issue is about.) (Also note that this is _not_ about Political
Correctness!! :) I presented this particular puzzle as an example only, and
only because it is the one puzzle that stuck in my mind as out-of-character
PC actions.
As it turns out, most of the responses I got from the group were to the
point that the player's ability to interact with the game world objects is
generally more important than maintaing PCness.
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
To those who just dropped in, we're talking about the initial puzzle in
Achorhead, whereby the PC, under a heavy New England storm, must drag a
disgusting trash can under a window and break into an office to retrieve a
set of keys.
If the door to the office were unlocked, it would still be a (sort of)
breakin to go in and mess around with a bunch of stuff, including the
answering machine and all... But trespassing is one thing, fiddling with
nasty trash cans in the rain is another altogether.
Cheers,
J.
John Colagioia
> Hey, :)
>
> Cepoiler Cepace...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> news:3D8C6A06...@csi.com:
>>Actually, the response when you nab Michael's ID suggests that you're
>>not nearly so mundane as expected...
> Maybe. But then again, this is _after_ the breakin. My whole point centers
> around the breakin. The rest of the game seems acceptable either by
> comparison or by force of circumstance.
And, asking you the same question others have asked me, "why must you
know everything about the PC when the game starts? Why can't the
text reveal these things to you as you go...?"
This seems a much more pleasant (and reliable) way of doing things
than:
] OPEN DOOR
Bah! Why use the door when you can break in?
Show, rather than tell, as they say. In fact, arguably, that the PC
doesn't notice any other way in is rather suggestive of her
personality, isn't it?
>>My point, though, was that, since my life tends toward the mundane,
>>answers as to "what would I do" are necessarily just guesses, made
>>without the stress of the actual event.
> Not only does your life tend towards the mundane, so does everyone else's,
> unless you're part of the crew of Wild Things. Thusly, if the PC in a game
> is a presumably normal person, and indeed _not_ 'In The Crew Of Wild
> Things'(tm), I expect her life to tend towards the mundane as well. As
> such, the breakin confused me...
Ah, but that's my entire point. I don't have problems like this on a
regular basis. I would imagine that neither the PC nor you do,
either. That means that any hypothesis on what you (or I or the PC)
might do is simply that: a guess.
>>I actually find that interesting. I actually spent time agonizing
>>over whether to check out his pants and the contents of his wallet,
>>despite having illegally entered the office without giving it a
>>thought--even with the understanding that this was probably what I
>>"needed" to do.
> For reference, here was my thought process at the time: hey, pants, what's
> with them...
Heh. I figured I already knew about Michael's pants. Chances are,
the PC has been exposed to them, before.
> hey, a wallet, what's with that... hey, a library card, cool,
> now I can snoop on what Mikey didn't want me to read, hehe... let's swipe
> that and put everything back...
Damn sociopaths...
> er... well, the game does that for me...
> ok, I can live with that... :)
Especially since it pushed the story a lot harder (made it seem
creepy and an unconscious movement) than if the game had simply
waited for me to type ] PUT PANTS ON BED.
>>Joao Mendes wrote:
>>>John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>>>news:3D835632...@csi.com:
>>>>Basically, I count the entry (which was as much to get out of the
>>>>rain as anything else),
>>>Eh... no, it wasn't. Or rather, I can't think of a more obscure way
>>>of getting out of the rain than climbing a trash can, especially when
>>>there is an open pub nearby.
>>Where they're really not happy to see you? Maybe it's because I've
>>been to a couple of towns with that atmosphere, but I'd rather take
>>my chances with the rain.
> Ok, but given the choice of three options, stay in the rain, go into an
> unfriednly pub, break into an office with the aid of a trash can, which do
> you think a (so far presumably mundane) person is likelier to do? :)
As I mention above, the fact that the PC doesn't seem to notice that
the pub is dryer (and, in fact, the pub's description seems less
"friendly" than the storm's) indicates to me that she's not as
mundane as you want her to be.
Again, show, don't tell.
>>But the church has very little to do with your survival. It'd be
> Adrien Beau already addressed this. I subscribe his words.
While it may have been accurate in the story, I got no such
impression that it was a safe haven. Honestly, I saw it as the
*next* place I could go, rather than the *only* place I could go.
>>It depends on the town ordinances. Most places I've been, they'll at
>>least fine you heavily (and possibly arrest you) if you're in the
>>records room without either a permit or an escort. Basically, you
> Heh... I assumed that those weren't the real 'records rooms', but rather, a
> place where one could consult a number of assorted details at will...
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! No, that'd mean hiring someone to make extra copies,
and to maintain them and stuff...
> Access to copies, so to speak. In retrospect, I realize this is far-
> fetched, but it goes to show you how my mind is constantly striving for the
> mundane, even in the midst of mayhem... :/
Actually, these days (last five years, basically, which is when
Anchorhead is set, of course), it's even harder in some towns to get
at the records, because of the potential for identity theft. I
direct you to the nearest book or website on "underground counter-
culture" or somesuch for the details...
>>>>>>a strange town where everyone apparently hates you on sight. You
>>>>>'Everyone' here means a bunch of sorry dudes in a lousy pub.
>>>>also the creepy librarian.
>>>Those actually exist. ;)
>>This is true. I even know some. However, it doesn't make the town
>>seem any friendlier.
> No, it doesn't. But the librarian doesn't hate me on sight, she's just
> there... Or at least, we don't see any interaction between her and Michael,
> so I just assumed that's how she treated everybody. As for the other guys,
> pubs with closed off atmospheres are not that unusual, as you yourself
> pointed out. Yes, the weather is lousy, but all in all, I just don't feel
> there is enough motivation to climb a trash can amd break into an office.
Not for *you*. But, as you've told me, the player isn't the PC, and
the PC is under no mandate to act as the player would...
>>Well, look at it this way: What happens when it's time for the
>>library to close (plotwise, you now have hours fewer to save the
>>world, though you don't know this), and Michael asks the librarian to
>>keep the place open until his research is done? He, being a Verlac,
>>and critical to the upcoming event, is granted his request.
>>Want to hang out until morning? The next evening? Wouldn't it be
>>nice to get some food? Too bad every restaurant completely ignores
>>you when you ask for a table...
> If all this really happened, eventually, I'd make myself find a way into
> the office. And then, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as I would
> have felt the motivation was there. :)
The PC's motivation would've been well-established, but the player's
motivation would've been pretty much "nil" by that point...
> Btw, I'd like to remind folks that 'Anchorhead' stands so far as my second
> favorite game (after 'Worlds Apart'). But this conversation is being rather
> interesting and it may prove useful for other folks considering puzzle
> design for (presumably) mundane PCs. :)
Yes. I actually consider this discussion to have almost nothing to
do with "Anchorhead," as such. It just happens to be a very good
case study for the discussion.
Joao Mendes
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> Joao Mendes wrote:
>> Btw, I'd like to remind folks that 'Anchorhead' stands so far as my
>> second favorite game (after 'Worlds Apart'). But this conversation is
>> being rather interesting and it may prove useful for other folks
>> considering puzzle design for (presumably) mundane PCs. :)
> Yes. I actually consider this discussion to have almost nothing to
> do with "Anchorhead," as such. It just happens to be a very good
> case study for the discussion.
Glad we agree. :) Oh, and I took the liberty of moving this bit up top.
Also, I changed the subject header...
Again, Cepoiler Cepace...
> And, asking you the same question others have asked me, "why must you
> know everything about the PC when the game starts? Why can't the
> text reveal these things to you as you go...?"
This, of course, is an excellent point.
>] OPEN DOOR
> Bah! Why use the door when you can break in?
Yuck. :/
> Show, rather than tell, as they say. In fact, arguably, that the PC
> doesn't notice any other way in is rather suggestive of her
> personality, isn't it?
Eh. My capacity for analysis does not go as far as being able to read from
what isn't shown...
> As I mention above, the fact that the PC doesn't seem to notice that
> the pub is dryer (and, in fact, the pub's description seems less
> "friendly" than the storm's) indicates to me that she's not as
> mundane as you want her to be.
Ok, I'll bite that maybe I'm railroading the PC into a horror movie
character stereotype of a generally mundane goody housewife. I didn't glean
that from the text. If that is so, the whole thing would seem a lot more
justified...
>> No, it doesn't. But the librarian doesn't hate me on sight, she's
>> just there... Or at least, we don't see any interaction between her
>> and Michael, so I just assumed that's how she treated everybody. As
>> for the other guys, pubs with closed off atmospheres are not that
>> unusual, as you yourself pointed out. Yes, the weather is lousy, but
>> all in all, I just don't feel there is enough motivation to climb a
>> trash can amd break into an office.
> Not for *you*. But, as you've told me, the player isn't the PC, and
> the PC is under no mandate to act as the player would...
This ties in nicely with the above. As such, I am ready to concede the
whole point.
<other stuff snipped>
>>>Well, look at it this way: What happens when it's time for the
>>>library to close (plotwise, you now have hours fewer to save the
>>>world, though you don't know this), and Michael asks the librarian to
>>>keep the place open until his research is done? He, being a Verlac,
>>>and critical to the upcoming event, is granted his request.
>>>Want to hang out until morning? The next evening? Wouldn't it be
>>>nice to get some food? Too bad every restaurant completely ignores
>>>you when you ask for a table...
>> If all this really happened, eventually, I'd make myself find a way
>> into the office. And then, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as
>> I would have felt the motivation was there. :)
> The PC's motivation would've been well-established, but the player's
> motivation would've been pretty much "nil" by that point...
This is probably quite true. And like I told Michael, I'm glad he didn't
take that route.
Let me consider another angle: what if that puzzle didn't exist at all. For
instance, how would the game be different if, say, that door was unlocked
at the start?
Let me give my own answer, btw: if the door is not locked, there is no
sufficient motivation for the 'player' to go explore the whole of the town.
In my opinion, exploring the town in the beginning of the game adds greatly
to its enjoyment throughout. However, I feel that there is motivation for
the PC to explore the town as thoroughly as I did before I made my mind up
to try and break in (for which I had to resort to the hints provided, BTW).
The motivation is simply, if the agent doesn't come to me, I'll go to her.
Find her where ever she is. Of course, she's not. But hey.
Anyways, further thoughts?
Cheers,
J.
John Colagioia
> Yahoy, :)
>
> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
> news:3D95B15C...@csi.com:
No more spoilers!
[...]
> Let me give my own answer, btw: if the door is not locked, there is no
> sufficient motivation for the 'player' to go explore the whole of the town.
This is true. Except that the game then looks badly implemented.
"Why," I hear you ask. Because the PC is wandering into places with
unimplemented (the pub) and nonexistant (the office) PCs, and you end
up with a very...Zorkish feel, where you're the only active figure in
the game (for the first scene, at least).
> In my opinion, exploring the town in the beginning of the game adds greatly
> to its enjoyment throughout. However, I feel that there is motivation for
> the PC to explore the town as thoroughly as I did before I made my mind up
> to try and break in (for which I had to resort to the hints provided, BTW).
I think someone else mentioned something like this back at the
beginning of the thread, but it bears repeating: The nice thing
about having the town "open" at the beginning is that the exploration
is useful later. It's not the way that "Anchorhead: The Novel"
would have been written, but it's still not wasted exposition.
> The motivation is simply, if the agent doesn't come to me, I'll go to her.
> Find her where ever she is. Of course, she's not. But hey.
Heh...Well, she's around. Here and there, as Hamlet mentioned
regarding Polonius...
Uli Kusterer
> The motivation is simply, if the agent doesn't come to me, I'll go to her.
> Find her where ever she is. Of course, she's not. But hey.
I never played the game you're talking about (don't shoot me!), so maybe
I'm completely off on a wooden walkway here (I just love transferring
innocent German sayings into english :-). I'll try anyway:
My favorite solution for such "timing problems" where I want the player
to do something else before a certain thing happens, is to simply make
time a part of the game. I.e. have a clock in the status line that isn't
bound to the turn counter, but rather indicates something like the "score".
Then, instead of saying "the door is locked", simply have another NPC
that says "He'll be here at 10:30, please come back then. Then the PC
would know that they have a lot of time until this part of the story
unfolds.
Not sure whether this is really an elegant solution, but the advantage
is that it is natural, i.e. it just happens that someone is out of twon
for a while, and you have to wait. Of course it'd be nice if one of the
first locations somehow gave the player some sense of purpose what to do
in the meantime.
Just a thought,
-- Uli
Joao Mendes
John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>> John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>> news:3D95B15C...@csi.com:
> No more spoilers!
Aaaww... ;>
>> Let me give my own answer, btw: if the door is not locked, there is
>> no sufficient motivation for the 'player' to go explore the whole of
>> the town.
> This is true. Except that the game then looks badly implemented.
> "Why," I hear you ask.
No, you don't. ;) We agree on this point.
> It's not the way that "Anchorhead: The Novel"
> would have been written, but it's still not wasted exposition.
And on this one as well.
>> The motivation is simply, if the agent doesn't come to me, I'll go to
>> her. Find her where ever she is. Of course, she's not. But hey.
> Heh...Well, she's around. Here and there, as Hamlet mentioned
> regarding Polonius...
LOL! :)
Anyway, I think we may have reached a conclusion: in my mind, what it boils
down to is this:
Designing puzzles with solutions for which there is not enough PC
motivation is generally bad. However:
1) If done right, it can be made to work
2) Whether done right or not, it may be a worthy sacrifice for a greater
good (pacing, exposition, whatever)
Anyways, thanks all for a most enlightening discussion. Appologies to Mike
Gentry for overdissecting his excellent, excellent game. Of course, further
thoughts on this are not unwelcome.
Cheers,
J.