Borders of the game world
David Fisher
previous years'), and one thing that comes up quite frequently is having too
many locations in a game - many of which have no actual purpose except to
make the game world seem (1) bigger or (2) more realistic (eg. adding a
bathroom to a house, even though it is basically empty).
What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good ways of
telling the player that they have reached the edge of the game world ? There
are problems with most of the ways I can think of:
* A locked door can seem too much like a red herring
* Too many "impassable barriers" would seem a bit artificial
* Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
don't want to go that way")
* An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason why
not
* Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they find
themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
continues in all directions ...")
The best I can come up with is the last option above, with increasingly
heavy hints about going back the way they came ("there really doesn't seem
to be anything out here; it might be best to go back the way you came").
Are there any other options people can think of ?
David Fisher
David Whyld
David Fisher wrote:
> I have been looking through lots of IF Comp reviews (this year's and
> previous years'), and one thing that comes up quite frequently is having too
> many locations in a game - many of which have no actual purpose except to
> make the game world seem (1) bigger or (2) more realistic (eg. adding a
> bathroom to a house, even though it is basically empty).
I think I commented on that a few times in some of my reviews:
locations added onto games for no other reason than... well, just
because the author felt like adding them. The basic problem is that if
you have a game which is perfectly fine with 20 rooms but you decide,
for the sake of realism, to add another 15 rooms on, you end up with a
game big enough to fill 20 rooms actually taking up 35 rooms. So do you
leave it at 15 empty rooms that serve no purpose (other than realism)
or do you just go and add some extra parts to the story to make it so
there *is* something to do in those rooms?
>
> What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good ways of
> telling the player that they have reached the edge of the game world ? There
> are problems with most of the ways I can think of:
>
> * A locked door can seem too much like a red herring
Probably a bad idea. Whenever I see a locked door, I think "ah! There
must be a key around for that somewhere" and off I go key hunting. If I
subsequently find there isn't a key, I probably dislike the game more
because I've wasted time looking for one.
> * Too many "impassable barriers" would seem a bit artificial
Depends on the game and just what kind of 'impassable barriers' you
mean.
> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
> don't want to go that way")
That never fails to annoy me. If I type "east", that means I want to go
east, not be told I don't want to go that way.
> * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason why
> not
If that's used, the game needs so specify *why* "you can't go that
way", i.e. "you can't go that way because there's a huge fire" or "you
can't go that way because the road has collapsed".
> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they find
> themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
> continues in all directions ...")
That's probably the best way to do it. Although personally I favour
this kind of thing:
> east
You head east but a sudden feeling of dread overcomes you and you feel
you might be better off not going that way.
Corny if used too often but decent enough in small doses.
James Mitchelhill
> I have been looking through lots of IF Comp reviews (this year's and
> previous years'), and one thing that comes up quite frequently is having too
> many locations in a game - many of which have no actual purpose except to
> make the game world seem (1) bigger or (2) more realistic (eg. adding a
> bathroom to a house, even though it is basically empty).
>
> What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good ways of
> telling the player that they have reached the edge of the game world ? There
> are problems with most of the ways I can think of:
>
> * A locked door can seem too much like a red herring
It depends on the game. If the game is puzzle-oriented then this would
be a red-herring. If the game's more literary, then it's perfectly
acceptable (after all, the real world is full of locked doors you'll
never need to go through).
> * Too many "impassable barriers" would seem a bit artificial
Possibly. Although players are probably used to this.
> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
> don't want to go that way")
This is actually my preferred way of doing this. A good reason is
important here. If the PC is more than a nameless adventurer, then there
is a distinction between PC and player and the two may not always be in
agreement.
"You can't leave the mine yet. Maria's still lost somewhere down there,
alone with the spiders and the grues."
> * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason why
> not
Absolutely.
> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they find
> themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
> continues in all directions ...")
This would annoy me.
> The best I can come up with is the last option above, with increasingly
> heavy hints about going back the way they came ("there really doesn't seem
> to be anything out here; it might be best to go back the way you came").
My thoughts would run "So why implement the damn thing then?" I'd prefer
that the author had made clear the limits of the map in a way that
implies there is more of the world, just none that you're interested in
right now.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
James Mitchelhill
> David Fisher wrote:
<snip>
>> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they find
>> themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
>> continues in all directions ...")
>
> That's probably the best way to do it. Although personally I favour
> this kind of thing:
>
>> east
> You head east but a sudden feeling of dread overcomes you and you feel
> you might be better off not going that way.
>
> Corny if used too often but decent enough in small doses.
I disagree completely. Seeing that would completely break immersion for
me. Any kind of limits on the map are a case of fiat, but I don't want
this spelled out for me. As a player, I want the illusion that this is
*not* just a game to continue.
I don't want nameless feelings of dread (unless I'm playing a
Lovecraftian horror, of course). I want to know *why*.
Xentor
Well, in Xen: The Contest, which is more of a literary game than a
puzzle game, this fit in quite well. Many buildings were locked, enough
that it was pretty obvious that they weren't all hidden places. For
instance, the dorm buildings are largely identical, but only your own
building is accessible. The others are scenery, and give the impression
of a larger world.
> * Too many "impassable barriers" would seem a bit artificial
Agreed.
> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
> don't want to go that way")
I actually used this several times. For example, you couldn't visit the
Sports Complex (Again, college campus) because your character was afraid
he'd just get hazed by upperclassmen athletes. If you give a reason, it
doesn't look too artificial (At least I hope it doesn't).
> * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason why
> not
Agreed. Give a reason.
> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they find
> themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
> continues in all directions ...")
>
If this happened only a couple times, you might have the red herring
problem again. "Hmm, maybe if I had a compass, I could navigate the
desert"... That, and it'll annoy the player. *Someone* will always try
to just keep going west, and when they give up, either they're going to
walk ten feet and be home again, or they're going to have to go east for
a *long* time to return.
> The best I can come up with is the last option above, with increasingly
> heavy hints about going back the way they came ("there really doesn't seem
> to be anything out here; it might be best to go back the way you came").
In a story-based game, or one that accented the environment more than
the gameplay, this might be ideal. Personally, I prefer to limit the
playable area, perhaps leaving a few unused rooms to remove the
usefulness of "Hmm, well I haven't accomplished anything in *this* room
yet. Must be something here!"
Mike Roberts
> What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good ways of
> telling the player that they have reached the edge of the game world ?
I think the best approach, although in practice probably the hardest to
design, is to avoid having edges to begin with. A great example of this
sort of design is Disneyland: it's a relative small space with almost no
dead ends. In fact, the main obvious dead end - the front gate - is there
just because they have to give people a way to get in and out of the park,
which isn't a constraint in an IF setting.
They use a couple of tricks that translate well to IF:
- Whenever you get near an edge, have the path gently curve around until
it's running parallel to the edge, and then have it loop back on itself or
into another path. Disneyland makes this trick more effective by using
curvy paths ubiquitously throughout the park, so paths near the edges that
curve and loop seem perfectly ordinary.
- Rather than using a locked door to block an exit, just omit the exit
entirely. For example, if you have a house, and you don't want to implement
the back yard, just don't give the house a back door. Likewise, if there's
no purpose for a room, leave out the room. In general, people won't notice
things that aren't there, especially if there's enough that *is* there to
keep them occupied.
- The trick above can be used to make buildings and other enterable
locations into barriers in disguise. For example, if you have a street with
a house on each side, and you can enter each house, but neither house has a
back door, you've effectively created a barrier that keeps you from going
more than one room from the street.
> "the endless desert continues in all directions ..."
The tricks above don't work as well in big-open-space situations, but you
can often fix those situations by introducing some kind of path. Put the
character on an old camel path through the sand, and if they try to stray
off the path just tell them that chartless desert that way lies.
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Samwyse
Here's a few room descriptions from my WIP:
description "This is an alley behind a large block of apartments.
The river can be glimped behind a lot of brush and small trees.
The pavement turns to dirt here and you don't want to get your
shoes dirty, so the only way to go is back the way you came.",
description "It's starting to get dark and your feet are getting
tired. Perhaps you should go back the way you came.",
description "The corridor outside your room is pretty dark, but
the one you have just entered makes it look bright and sunny.
There may be doors, but you feel no need to find them.
You may as well return to the south.",
description "The streets continue in all directions, but you
are getting a bit far from where you started and so don't
feel like exploring any further.",
Jason Devlin
"David Fisher" <da...@hsa.com.au> wrote in message
news:438e2333$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason
> why not
Personally, this one is my favourite. Except in special cases, I like to
just stick with a bland "you can't go that way". As a player, I generally
only move where the game has given me an indication that it is possible to
move to. As long as all the exits are spelled out explicitly, I generally
don't find any reason to stray from the given path. It may not be realistic
to not be able to move in any direction imaginable in most places, but I try
to make the experience as smooth as possible for myself by only going where
the game tells me I can. I find this works as long as exits are pointed out
well.
Jason
David Fisher
"James Mitchelhill" <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote in message
news:j36gtqe10z9g.1lqqqkrgg2uqz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:12:02 +1100, David Fisher wrote:
>>
>> What are some good ways of telling the player that they
>> have reached the edge of the game world ?
>> There are problems with most of the ways I can think of:
[snip]
>> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
>> don't want to go that way")
>
> This is actually my preferred way of doing this. A good reason is
> important here. If the PC is more than a nameless adventurer, then there
> is a distinction between PC and player and the two may not always be in
> agreement.
>
> "You can't leave the mine yet. Maria's still lost somewhere down there,
> alone with the spiders and the grues."
Hmm, good point. Playing a role makes it seem more reasonable to say what
the PC thinks and feels. Samwyse gave an example of this which would feel OK
in a game to me:
"The pavement turns to dirt here and you don't want to get your shoes dirty,
so the only way to go is back the way you came."
>> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when they
>> find
>> themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the endless desert
>> continues in all directions ...")
>
> This would annoy me.
>
>> The best I can come up with is the last option above, with increasingly
>> heavy hints about going back the way they came ("there really doesn't
>> seem
>> to be anything out here; it might be best to go back the way you came").
>
> My thoughts would run "So why implement the damn thing then?"
> I'd prefer that the author had made clear the limits of the map
> in a way that implies there is more of the world, just none that
> you're interested in right now.
(I guess a lot of IF is "the craft of illusion" ...)
The reason for my preference is because it gives the world "softer" edges -
I like to be able to step a little way off the edge of what would normally
be the limit of implementation. This is similar to being able to examine
second or third level nouns (as Paul O'Brian calls them), or finding out
that the game understands you when you try and do something with an object
(even if it has no real effect). It makes the world more real to me, and
feels like a happy compromise with the game author.
David Fisher
David Fisher
news:Pjsjf.135316$S4.7249@edtnps84...
You're kind of lucky then, I suppose ... I get the impression that it grates
against most people when they are not given a satisfying enough reason why
they can't do something.
An example is "Distress" - Mike Snyder's review says:
Frequently I would try to venture off in one direction only to be
told that I had no reason to go that way yet. Yes, it's one of those
games where perfectly logical commands - i.e. exploring the general
layout of the land - is restricted until certain requirements have
been met. While this limits the player from wandering off completely
at random and ensures the games progresses in a nice, orderly manner,
it's also somewhat annoying to be told you can't do something without
a better rationale than "you've no reason to do that" being given.
If I want to wander away from the crash site, shouldn't I be given
the option to do so?
I know this is a slightly different situation (delaying exploration rather
than fencing off the edge of the game world), but I think it's a good
example of feeling like a limit is arbitrary rather than reasonable.
David Fisher
Kevin Venzke
> An example is "Distress" - Mike Snyder's review says:
>
> Frequently I would try to venture off in one direction only to be
> told that I had no reason to go that way yet.
It would be pretty funny if this were true.
I can't remember whose review actually said this.
Kevin Venzke
David Fisher
"Kevin Venzke" <step...@yahooo.frr> wrote in message
news:sTvjf.201247$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Erg, it wasn't Mike Snyder (he's the author) - it was David Whyld:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.int-fiction/msg/925e07417441fed4
Sorry about the mix up !
David Fisher
futab...@yahoo.com
1) Tie the map in a pretzel. The Portland map in _Grand Theft Auto
III_ and _Liberty City Stories_ is a masterpiece of this: streets
gradually bend around in knots, leaving the player with the ability to
keep driving for a long time through changing scenery, and giving the
impression that the area is much larger than it really is.
2) Trigger certain events, encounters, or scene advances to an attempt
by the player to wander too far in a particular direction. One of my
current projects takes this approach.
3) Give the player a plot-driven reason to stay in the area bounded by
the map, such that attempting to leave would be contrary to the PC's
motivations. _Curses_ and _Christminster_ both take this approach.
4) Write a picaresque game that happens in short, choppy vignettes that
either don't give the player enough time to wander too far or that end
when the player leaves.
5) Set the game aboard an airplane, boat, submarine, spaceship, or
other vehicle, inside a sealed building, or in some other obviously
bounded environment such that leaving simply doesn't make sense.
_Suspended_ and the bomber scene in _Jigsaw_ take this approach.
--
Susan Davis <futab...@yahoo.com>
Fredrik Ramsberg
It seems to me that # 1, 2 and 3 (and possibly 5) are used in
The Truman Show. Perhaps there are more ideas in this area
to collect from that movie?
/Fredrik
dave e
David Fisher wrote:
> I have been looking through lots of IF Comp reviews (this year's and
> previous years'), and one thing that comes up quite frequently is having too
> many locations in a game - many of which have no actual purpose except to
> make the game world seem (1) bigger or (2) more realistic (eg. adding a
> bathroom to a house, even though it is basically empty).
>
> What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good ways of
> telling the player that they have reached the edge of the game world ? There
> are problems with most of the ways I can think of:
>
Adding to what others have already said, I've seen a few examples of
games where moving off the designated map ends the game. (If I
remember correctly, 'A change in the weather' has this feature).
That certainly discourages the player from moving off the map on
replay...
Dave
Depresiv
for the huge labyrinth with different room descriptions?
Something like...
By the castle:
The entrance to the horrible, dark and menacing castle of the terrible,
awfully bad magician lies to the east.
Other (unimportant) exits lie to the north and south.
> s
Unimportant place:
Flowers bloom and small oak trees grow through the hills.
Exits lie to the north, south, west.
> w
Unimportant place:
Crops wave in the wind and small oak trees grow by a small river.
Exits lie to the east, south, west.
> w
Unimportant place:
Flowers bloom and huge rocks lie in this valley.
Exits lie to the east, north, south.
...
And so on :-P
Depresiv
Damien Neil
> "James Mitchelhill" <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
> >> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style ("you
> >> don't want to go that way")
> >
> > This is actually my preferred way of doing this. A good reason is
> > important here. If the PC is more than a nameless adventurer, then there
> > is a distinction between PC and player and the two may not always be in
> > agreement.
> >
> > "You can't leave the mine yet. Maria's still lost somewhere down there,
> > alone with the spiders and the grues."
I like this one. It gives a good reason for closing off that direction,
that both the PC and player can agree on. It also clearly explains
under what circumstances the exit might become available. (If you find
Maria.)
> Hmm, good point. Playing a role makes it seem more reasonable to say what
> the PC thinks and feels. Samwyse gave an example of this which would feel OK
> in a game to me:
>
> "The pavement turns to dirt here and you don't want to get your shoes dirty,
> so the only way to go is back the way you came."
This one, I don't like, although it'll depend on who the PC is and what
his goals are. If the PC's goals are at all significant, is he really
likely to balk at getting his shoes dirty?
I think I'd prefer something simple like:
"Nothing lies that way but miles of muddy road."
This avoids the possibly weak motivation of clean shoes, and explicitly
states that there isn't any point in going in that direction.
- Damien
Dan Shiovitz
Depresiv <pablo...@yahoo.es> wrote:
>And why not use a modified version of the "Hunter: in the dark" engine
>for the huge labyrinth with different room descriptions?
>
>Something like...
>Unimportant place:
>
>Flowers bloom and small oak trees grow through the hills.
>
>Exits lie to the north, south, west.
Hrm, this is cute, but I don't think I care for it. It seems like a
major part of designing unimportant exits is trying to signal to the
player that they're not important. While it's nice that generating
arbitrary rooms means you never have to tell the player they can't go
that way, I don't think it's usually clear enough that the rooms
aren't important and the direction was a mistake -- if I see a new
room, I generally expect it's got a purpose.
>Depresiv
--
Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
Samwyse
> "David Fisher" <da...@hsa.com.au> wrote:
>>Hmm, good point. Playing a role makes it seem more reasonable to say what
>>the PC thinks and feels. Samwyse gave an example of this which would feel OK
>>in a game to me:
>>
>>"The pavement turns to dirt here and you don't want to get your shoes dirty,
>>so the only way to go is back the way you came."
>
> This one, I don't like, although it'll depend on who the PC is and what
> his goals are. If the PC's goals are at all significant, is he really
> likely to balk at getting his shoes dirty?
>
> I think I'd prefer something simple like:
>
> "Nothing lies that way but miles of muddy road."
>
> This avoids the possibly weak motivation of clean shoes, and explicitly
> states that there isn't any point in going in that direction.
Well, there is a good reason for keeping your shoes clean, but I don't
mention it in-game because of how it relates to the player's quest. But
I think that "you don't want to get your shoes dirty before your
appointments tomorrow" may be acceptable.
The game, btw, is set in the business district of a large present-day
city, so "miles of muddy road" is a bit unlikely. In the game, you have
reached the end of a long and tiring day and are trying to get one last
thing done before you go to bed. There's a river on two sides of the
city (the above description is encountered when approaching the banks),
while going too far in the other directions triggers comments on how
tired you are and how sore your feet are. Based on this thread, I'm
thinking about possible changes to make around the edges.
Samwyse
> In article <1133451761.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Depresiv <pablo...@yahoo.es> wrote:
>
>>And why not use a modified version of the "Hunter: in the dark" engine
>>for the huge labyrinth with different room descriptions?
>>
>>Something like...
>
> [..]
>
>>Unimportant place:
>>
>>Flowers bloom and small oak trees grow through the hills.
>>
>>Exits lie to the north, south, west.
>
>
> Hrm, this is cute, but I don't think I care for it. It seems like a
> major part of designing unimportant exits is trying to signal to the
> player that they're not important. While it's nice that generating
> arbitrary rooms means you never have to tell the player they can't go
> that way, I don't think it's usually clear enough that the rooms
> aren't important and the direction was a mistake -- if I see a new
> room, I generally expect it's got a purpose.
I think that the point was that "unimportant place:" be a part of the
room descrition. If that doesn't signal that they're not important, I
don't know what would. As mentioned elsewhere, I have a game set in a
large city. Obviously, there are many streets that continue in all
directions. Right now, I stop the player at the edges, but I might
implement something like the the infinite coridor in Dreamscape:
GO NORTH
Despite the compaints of your tired feet, you press on another block to
find another intersection like the one you just left.
GO WEST
Despite the compaints of your tired feet, you press on another block to
find another intersection like the one you just left.
GO NORTH
Despite the compaints of your tired feet, you press on another block to
find another intersection like the one you just left.
GO SOUTH
Giving up, you retrace the three blocks to where you started.
Obviously, the 'three' would be the actual number of blocks traversed;
less obviously, the 'where you started' would be the place where you
left the map.
cjmcw...@aol.com
>important here. If the PC is more than a nameless adventurer, then there
>is a distinction between PC and player and the two may not always be in
>agreement.
>
>"You can't leave the mine yet. Maria's still lost somewhere down there,
>alone with the spiders and the grues."
A variant on this that I haven't seen mentioned is to say that the
player character did go off the map, but found nothing interesting and
came back.
In this particular instance, it wouldn't make much difference; the
message might be something like "You start to leave the mine, but you
begin to worry that you won't be able to get help in time. You'll have
to help Maria yourself".
In some other cases, I think it would make more of a difference. In my
case, I feel that immersion is broken when a location doesn't have all
the fixtures you'd expect. If a house has no bathroom, I start to
wonder where the occupants do their buisness.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a pain, for both player and author, to
have a bunch of useless locations in a game.
My theory is that you could do something like this:
">N
You go into the bathroom, and find nothing besides the usual fixtures
and a good deal of mildew. Since you don't have to go, you head back to
the hallway."
This saves the trouble of coding out a useless bathroom, while still
answering the question of whether the house's occupants have to go in
the garden.
If you wanted to, you could have multiple messages that make it very
clear that there's nothing there. The second time you went into the
bathroom it could say,
"Fearing you missed something, you take a thourough inventory of the
bathroom, even opening the toilet tank and peering down the drains.
Since you still find nothing but mildew, you head back to the hallway."
and the third time,
"You search the bathroom again, but nothing new has materialized in
your absence"
I think this might work better then a pre-emptive message telling me
that I don't want to go into the bathroom (Or down the road, or through
the woods), because after all, I tend to know what I want more then
some computer game. But if you accept the player's command, and then
tell them that they found nothing interesting to interact with in that
direction, it's a bit less annoying.
There are two flaws I can think of with this approach:
1. It doesn't necessarily work so well in settings that naturally have
a number of things to interact with. If your game takes place in a huge
city, for instance, the player might decide that he wants to go down a
random street and knock on a random door, and saying "You walk for a
few blocks but don't see any familiar buildings." probably doesn't have
any advantages over saying "There's nowhere you want to go down 5th
street."
2. It can be a little bit odd to have such obviously different levels
of detail in adjacent rooms. It might seem weird that the player
character doesn't care about the bathroom fixtures but is happy to
spend time looking at every last little thing in the bedroom. I think
this can be solved if you make it clear enough that the bathroom
fixtures don't have any distinguishing qualities, whereas the bedroom
has unique objects.
Stephen Granade
> Dan Shiovitz wrote:
> > In article <1133451761.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Depresiv <pablo...@yahoo.es> wrote:
> >
> >>And why not use a modified version of the "Hunter: in the dark" engine
> >>for the huge labyrinth with different room descriptions?
> >>
> >>Something like...
> > [..]
> >
> >>Unimportant place:
> >>
> >>Flowers bloom and small oak trees grow through the hills.
> >>
> >>Exits lie to the north, south, west.
> > Hrm, this is cute, but I don't think I care for it. It seems like a
> > major part of designing unimportant exits is trying to signal to the
> > player that they're not important. While it's nice that generating
> > arbitrary rooms means you never have to tell the player they can't go
> > that way, I don't think it's usually clear enough that the rooms
> > aren't important and the direction was a mistake -- if I see a new
> > room, I generally expect it's got a purpose.
>
> I think that the point was that "unimportant place:" be a part of the
> room descrition. If that doesn't signal that they're not important, I
> don't know what would.
Perhaps, but even if the rooms are explicitly labelled unimportant,
I'm still going to wander into the room and then have to walk right
back out. After I do that two or three times, I'm going to be annoyed
at the extra work. If you *want* to annoy the player, fine, but make
sure it's warranted. I am all for annoying the player to achieve a
certain effect.
Note that your city block example is an edge case of this.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
stephen...@granades.com
The Wanderer
> I have been looking through lots of IF Comp reviews (this year's and
> previous years'), and one thing that comes up quite frequently is
> having too many locations in a game - many of which have no actual
> purpose except to make the game world seem (1) bigger or (2) more
> realistic (eg. adding a bathroom to a house, even though it is
> basically empty).
>
> What this has left me wondering about is this: What are some good
> ways of telling the player that they have reached the edge of the
> game world ? There are problems with most of the ways I can think
> of:
>
> * A locked door can seem too much like a red herring
Agreed - most of the time, this will just aggravate me, as a puzzle
unsolved. Exceptions do arise - the thing someone else referred to of
"the only dorm room you can enter is your own" would certainly be one of
them - but by and large this is more annoying than it's worth.
> * Too many "impassable barriers" would seem a bit artificial
> * Telling the player what they think or feel isn't very good style
> ("you don't want to go that way")
As others have noted, in cases where the PC has a personality
sufficiently distinct from that of the player this can be viable - but
since, as it happens, I don't usually like that type of game very much,
I tend to find it somewhat annoying anyway.
> * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent
> reason why not
This is perhaps the worst of the alternatives. Responses like that
should be restricted to cases where there *is* no "that way" to go, not
used as answer to attempting to go in a direction where no obstruction
is indicated.
> * Allowing players the illusion of free travel might backfire when
> they find themselves wandering around with nothing to do ("the
> endless desert continues in all directions ...")
...this can be worthwhile in some cases, but most of the time, it will
indeed be a bad idea. It combines the "red herring" aspect of the locked
door with some of the artificiality of the impassable barrier, and
doesn't provide nearly as much "flavor" per unit time spent exploring it
as the other two do.
> The best I can come up with is the last option above, with
> increasingly heavy hints about going back the way they came ("there
> really doesn't seem to be anything out here; it might be best to go
> back the way you came").
>
> Are there any other options people can think of ?
One thing which came to my mind almost immediately which I haven't seen
anyone suggest yet is what you might call the "Moebius world" approach:
make it so that attempting to leave the map simply deposits you back in
it, whether at the far side (as with the "console-style RPG" toroidal
map) or somewhere in the middle (harder to justify, except via
teleportation, although I can imagine doing it via drunkenness or the
like). There are certainly games to which this would not be suited, but
in cases where it can be justified in the game's terms, it can
definitely make for a viable approach.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
James Mitchelhill
<snip>
> One thing which came to my mind almost immediately which I haven't seen
> anyone suggest yet is what you might call the "Moebius world" approach:
> make it so that attempting to leave the map simply deposits you back in
> it, whether at the far side (as with the "console-style RPG" toroidal
> map) or somewhere in the middle (harder to justify, except via
> teleportation, although I can imagine doing it via drunkenness or the
> like). There are certainly games to which this would not be suited, but
> in cases where it can be justified in the game's terms, it can
> definitely make for a viable approach.
I did this in The Granite Book. A couple of people were confused by it,
but it was one of the issues I asked my beta-testers to look out for and
they seemed happy with it. Of course, the game area this applied to was
a 3x3 grid. I suspect it would be *really* confusing in a larger play
area.
Christos Dimitrakakis
overlooked, even though in my opinion they represent an important part of
the problem.
Ultimately, the player is searching the game's space to find a solution,
within constraints provided, whether these are represented by lack of
doors, or by other actions.
An alternative method to imposing constraints is to suggest
useful and useless actions to the player (i.e. in the form of hints that
particular rooms/objects are unimportant). Suggestions, however, only work
for games in which the narrative has a narrowly defined objective.
I also noticed that in this thread people have been mentioning
the extreme case of 'too few constraints' - but the opposite and equal
important case of 'too many constraints' has not been alluded to - taken
to the limit, it becomes non-interactive fiction. And the question is: is
it wrong?
Ultimately, this interrelation between hints, constraints and goals makes
it impossible to answer the question 'what should a game's constraints
be?' in a general way. There is no 'right' answer. Less constraints will
invariably lead to more exploration. The question is whether the author is
prepared to make this exploration rewarding.
--
Christos Dimitrakakis
Homepage: http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/main.html
Music: http://olethros.dmusic.com
David Fisher
news:1133620567....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I feel that immersion is broken when a location doesn't have all
> the fixtures you'd expect. If a house has no bathroom, I start to
> wonder where the occupants do their buisness.
>
> On the other hand, it's a bit of a pain, for both player and author, to
> have a bunch of useless locations in a game.
There was an excellent "bathrooms in IF" thread last November (the actual
title is "How to write a great game"):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/browse_frm/thread/dbc75f8cd79a36eb
You probably knew that already, though ...
David Fisher
Personman
they haven't been mentioned yet:
* Have a clearly circular/spherical map (different from the "reappering
on the other side" concept because hopefully the map would have a
_reason_ to be circular)
* Let the player go anywhere, but have them die/fail/get lost/etc for
perfectly good reasons whenever they go "off the edge" of the defined
map. Perhaps combine this with "Are you sure you want to go that way?"
messages, so that they _can_ go whereever they want, but at the same
time they know it's probably not right. This can be high- or low-stakes
depending on the game. If it is a learn-by-dying type game, the player
will always say yes, even if they think they will die, so it's probably
better to just let them go. On the other hand, if it's the sort of game
a player really wants to beat _without_ dying, they will only answer
yes if they have a very good reason to believe they will be okay if
they do. This was used to great effect in The Gostak, where entering
the tophthed curple before you [spoiler deleted]ed something killed
you.
* Have the environment/npcs move the player, who can only interact with
things whereever they get taken. I have no idea if this would make for
a good game, but it seems like an interesting idea. Perhaps the player
is being abducted by aliens and dropped off in various locations for
brief periods of time before getting picked up again, and there is no
way for the player to venture further than the bounds of the map in the
time before the aliens come again. This can also make for
action-efficiency puzzles where the player has to do everything in one
less step in order to see one more location before the aliens grab
him/her.
Or maybe the player is somehow affixed to something moving, like a
conveyor belt or the side of a train. In the train example, the player
might be able to do something whenever it reaches a station, but not
too much before it leaves again.
* Make the player really want to go where you want them to go. Instead
of planting them in the middle of a city block where they will
inevitably try to go down alleys, hail cabs, and turn left, have them
run out into the street hot on the heels of somebody they need to
catch, or whatever, so that they automatically go where they need to go
before the "How can I break this game" mentality sets in. It is
probably very hard to do this and still leave the player interesting
choices, but I'm sure it can be done.
* Somewhat similar to the aliens example: Have a timed game in which
the player just can't get farther than the boundaries of the map before
the time runs out.
* Have the player *build* the map as they play. I'm really reaching
here, but I'm sure something interesting could come of it. Perhaps they
are tunneling underground, and they can go absolutely anywhere, the map
expands dynamically, but since everywhere is the same and they have
some goal (and/or limited tunneling resources) it will not be in their
interest to create miles of pointless tunneling. I actually rather like
this idea. Could be quite nifty.
* Have the game revolve around pushing the boundaries of the
(predefined) map. They start in the center, and each puzzle they solve
reveals more of the world outward from there, until they win. Of
course, the available area would expand quadratically with each
revealed layer, but the layers wouldn't have to be revealed all at
once. The trick here is not letting the player ever run into a true
dead end, while at the same time making them expand in multiple
directions.
* Have the game be mostly story and/or remove movement altogether.
Either the whole thing takes place in the player's head, or bedroom, or
the player moves about in the text and must make only
non-movement-related choices.
* Have different and funny/rewarding "you can't go that way" messages
for each way the player can't go. Of course, there it's still annoying
for the player if they try to go the same way several times, but at
least they don't run into the same standard error message everywhere.
* Make a huge, open ended game in which the player can go practically
anywhere they could reasonably go. Has some obvious flaws, but I'm
going for comprehensiveness here, and it does have potential. This sort
of game would have to be mostly description oriented rather than goal
oriented, but if the premise is just a "day in the life" kinda thing,
it could be really fun and have immense replay value.
* Have every true map edge be a locked door or other red herring, and
have other non-red-herring places that only seem like map edges.
I'm out for now, but that was fun. I hope it was also not completely
boring. And if anyone out there has some extra time on their hands, or
is looking to start an IF project, I'd like to see some of those get
made... :-)
-Personman
David Fisher
news:1133837288.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Not because I think these are necessarily better, but rather because
> they haven't been mentioned yet:
>
> * Have a clearly circular/spherical map (different from the "reappering
> on the other side" concept because hopefully the map would have a
> _reason_ to be circular)
Hmm ... latitude and longitude positions ... :-)
Presumably "north" wouldn't suddenly flip at the poles ?
> * Let the player go anywhere, but have them die/fail/get lost/etc for
> perfectly good reasons whenever they go "off the edge" of the defined
> map. Perhaps combine this with "Are you sure you want to go that way?"
> messages, so that they _can_ go whereever they want, but at the same
> time they know it's probably not right.
Something occurred to me the other day - when people play your game, they
are learning the conventions of your game (and if they haven't played much
IF before, they are figuring out the standard conventions as well). There
isn't all that much time to get used to a new author's way of doing things
by the time the game ends, so giving clear and consistent messages is pretty
important. (Just a thought).
> * Have the environment/npcs move the player, who can only interact with
> things whereever they get taken. I have no idea if this would make for
> a good game, but it seems like an interesting idea.
Another possibility might be the need to stick close to an NPC you can't
control - there is no point wandering away from them, because you will fail
in your mission if you do that.
> * Make the player really want to go where you want them to go.
> ...
> It is probably very hard to do this and still leave the player interesting
> choices, but I'm sure it can be done.
This is the ideal, I guess.
> * Somewhat similar to the aliens example: Have a timed game in which
> the player just can't get farther than the boundaries of the map before
> the time runs out.
Did you try out "Snatches" in this year's IF comp ?
> * Have the player *build* the map as they play.
I like this idea a lot, but there need to be lots of interesting things
happening too (more than just tunnel construction).
> * Have the game revolve around pushing the boundaries of the
> (predefined) map. They start in the center, and each puzzle they solve
> reveals more of the world outward from there, until they win.
Having places you can see but not yet enter seems like a nice reward in a
puzzle game, yes.
> * Have the game be mostly story and/or remove movement altogether.
Well, there is that ...
> * Have different and funny/rewarding "you can't go that way" messages
> for each way the player can't go. Of course, there it's still annoying
> for the player if they try to go the same way several times, but at
> least they don't run into the same standard error message everywhere.
Absolutely classic one from Sting of the Wasp (Jason Devlin):
"Oh dear," Cissy says as you bump into a low wall. "Julia, you really
should try some Ginkgo biloba. I've been taken it for months now and
I hardly ever crash into walls anymore."
(I know this isn't quite the same situation, but I couldn't resist).
> * Make a huge, open ended game in which the player can go practically
> anywhere they could reasonably go.
Needs a plot to stay fun, though, unless you just want to explore the world.
I am totally into the idea of simulating worlds and being able to "do
anything" (and "go anywhere"), but without direct authorial control, it
falls to the game itself to maintain an interesting plot ...
> -Personman
Is "Personman" a super hero of some kind ? :-)
Thanks for all your thoughts,
David Fisher
ems...@mindspring.com
Jason Devlin wrote:
> "David Fisher" <da...@hsa.com.au> wrote in message
> news:438e2333$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> > * An outright statement equivalent to "you can't go that way" is too
> > unsubtle for me, and would jar the player if there is no apparent reason
> > why not
>
> Personally, this one is my favourite. Except in special cases, I like to
> just stick with a bland "you can't go that way". As a player, I generally
> only move where the game has given me an indication that it is possible to
> move to. As long as all the exits are spelled out explicitly, I generally
> don't find any reason to stray from the given path.
Usually my favorite solution is the one provided by the Inform
extension SmartCantGo: if you try to go a direction that doesn't lead
anywhere, the game reminds you of the directions that *are* valid. This
quickly rescues the player from thrashing around looking for a way out,
while redirecting his attention away from the game's constraints and
towards its viable options.
ems...@mindspring.com
Personman wrote:
> Not because I think these are necessarily better, but rather because
> they haven't been mentioned yet:
> * Have the environment/npcs move the player,
A number of more story-oriented games (especially ones heavily divided
into scenes) do something like this, whisking the player from area to
area.
> * Have the player *build* the map as they play. I'm really reaching
> here, but I'm sure something interesting could come of it. Perhaps they
> are tunneling underground, and they can go absolutely anywhere, the map
> expands dynamically, but since everywhere is the same and they have
> some goal (and/or limited tunneling resources) it will not be in their
> interest to create miles of pointless tunneling. I actually rather like
> this idea. Could be quite nifty.
John Evans' "Hell: A Comedy of Errors" does this -- you can build rooms
onto the map yourself, in a shape of your choosing (more or less). I
thought this interesting and rather fun; unfortunately, the rest of the
gameplay is a bit rough.
> * Make a huge, open ended game in which the player can go practically
> anywhere they could reasonably go.
"Book and Volume" comes close -- the map *is* limited, but the number
of locations is quite large (especially measured in terms of the amount
of time you're allowed for exploring). I had mixed feelings about this,
but it did convey the impression of a very large space in which the
player has a considerable amount of freedom.
> * Have every true map edge be a locked door or other red herring, and
> have other non-red-herring places that only seem like map edges.
Wow, I can just see the hate mail now... There's a true-map-edge locked
door in "So Far", and it drove me crazy.
The Wanderer
An immediate problem with that, of course, is that in some cases it's
*not* supposed to be obvious which directions are valid; the first
example which springs to my mind is The Gostak. (Of course, that game
rewrote enough of the parser that this would probably have come in for a
few changes anyway.)
Personman
David Fisher wrote:
> Is "Personman" a super hero of some kind ? :-)
>
It comes from the They Might Be Giants song "Particle Man." In the song
he is more of an antihero:
Person man, person man
Hit on the head with a frying pan
Lives his life in a garbage can
Person man
Is he depressed or is he a mess?
Does he feel totally worthless?
Who came up with person man?
Degraded man, person man
You can see the rest of lyrics and find out more about TMBG at
http://www.tmbw.net/wiki/index.php/Lyrics:Particle_Man.
They are awesome.
Also, I'm glad some of the way too much I had to say was interesting.
Thanks for reading!
-Personman