WHICH OF THESE DO YOU PREFER IN IF?
Ashley Price
I am just completing the first section (of three) of my game and have
decided to ask everyone here about the following as I can easily implement
them now (as the first section is quite short) and continue to do so
throughout the rest of my IF, rather than later and have to add a lot of
extra info.
1. Infinite Hold or Limited
Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
similar to help carry extra items)?
2. Score
a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
"negative" action?
3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
in which case 2b above is not needed.
b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
the wrong thing to do.")?
I would be grateful for your suggestions or comments on these.
I personally think that a limited hold is better, but as for the score and
the required items, I am not sure. So I am asking you.
Ashley
Kodrik
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although
> here, infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable'
> item in the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a
> bag or similar to help carry extra items)?
If the limited hold is there for a purpose, that's fine. If it's just there
to have some limit, I'd rather it be infinite.
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed
> a required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
> would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
> "negative" action?
I would like to have some points for getting it, no decrease in score if I
drop it, and no new points for picking it up again.
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
> a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
> would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
> you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but
> then you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to
> it."), in which case 2b above is not needed.
> b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
> leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may
> be the wrong thing to do.")?
I should be able to drop it and get it back if I later realize I made a
mistke.
Ashley Price
"Kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
news:u74mf26...@corp.supernews.com...
> If the limited hold is there for a purpose, that's fine. If it's just
there
> to have some limit, I'd rather it be infinite.
No, there is no real purpose, but I want to try and please as many people as
possible. I know everyone says "write your own game as you want to write it"
but as a limited hold or infinite hold doesn't actually affect the game then
I am happy to do as people wish.
> I would like to have some points for getting it, no decrease in score if I
> drop it, and no new points for picking it up again.
Fine, that's great.
> I should be able to drop it and get it back if I later realize I made a
> mistke.
Do I take it from this that you do NOT want a warning hint about how
important it maybe as you drop it?
Ashley
Dana Clarke
<ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
>1. Infinite Hold or Limited
>Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
>infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
>the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
>similar to help carry extra items)?
Unless there is an especially necessary purpose to finite - go
infinite. However, if this were a game wherein it was intended that I
regularly get rid of "extra stuff" (selling for instance) then perhaps
a finite bag would be ok. In general though, I find a finite bag to
be more trouble than it is worth.
>
>2. Score
>a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
>required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
>b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
>would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
>"negative" action?
I don't like a score given until the end of the game. At the end it
lets me know how I fared (and perhaps gives me insentive to go back
through the game being a bit more observant). I feel that for
"required actions" there should be more "in game" indicators rather
than the totally "OOG" score.
>
>3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
>a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
>would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
>you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
>you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
>in which case 2b above is not needed.
>b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
>leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
>the wrong thing to do.")?
>
I always prefer to be allowed to do anything I want in a game, thus I
would vote for being allowed to drop the item. With that said, I feel
that instead of a warning, there should be a log of some sort that is
automatically maintained by the game that I can refer to later on to
remind me where the heck it was that I dropped that particular item
<g>. This last is particularly important in a large acreage game.
But then, there are problems if the place I dropped the item is
essentially (or totally) inaccessible to me later in the game for some
physical reason.
Personally, I prefer to go with real life whenever possible. Let me
explain. I am of the opinion that far too many games give the player
an item (a hammer) that is needed later in the game to solve a puzzle
(break a plaster vase) and then disallow other logical solutions by
game design. In this simple case, one can logically break a plaster
vase in a myriad of ways (not only with a hammer). If the puzzle
truly required a hammer, then why not add other means of acquiring
hammers later in the game (in real life there are millions of hammers
and one can buy one any time one wishes). Again, personally, I do not
enjoy this sort of game "puzzle" because I know (as a player) that I
could solve it in many, many ways if only the game designer had not
taken the "cheap" way out <g>.
Dana
Ashley Price
"Dana Clarke" <joey...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2dp47u8ialfpq2dl2...@4ax.com...
> Personally, I prefer to go with real life whenever possible. Let me
> explain. I am of the opinion that far too many games give the player
> an item (a hammer) that is needed later in the game to solve a puzzle
> (break a plaster vase) and then disallow other logical solutions by
> game design. In this simple case, one can logically break a plaster
> vase in a myriad of ways (not only with a hammer). If the puzzle
> truly required a hammer, then why not add other means of acquiring
> hammers later in the game (in real life there are millions of hammers
> and one can buy one any time one wishes). Again, personally, I do not
> enjoy this sort of game "puzzle" because I know (as a player) that I
> could solve it in many, many ways if only the game designer had not
> taken the "cheap" way out <g>.
>
> Dana
>
Hi Dana
Thanks for the info and I completely agree with the above. Wherever possible
in my game I am going to try and make it as real as possible, and if, for
instance, you can/need to smash a window, then any number of objects would
be allowed to smash it.
Of course, this shouldn't be too difficult with Hugo as you could set the
window to allow anything over a certain 'weight' to break it.
Ashley
Gary Shannon
"Ashley Price" <ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a4tkat$8mq$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Hi all
>
> I am just completing the first section (of three) of my game and have
> decided to ask everyone here about the following as I can easily implement
> them now (as the first section is quite short) and continue to do so
> throughout the rest of my IF, rather than later and have to add a lot of
> extra info.
>
> 1. Infinite Hold or Limited
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although
here,
> infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item
in
> the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
> similar to help carry extra items)?
>
I'm a newbie who has completed only one game and working on number two, but
here's what I decided to do:
In the sequel to my first game there is a certain object you need to get
which is very large and, in real life, would need to be carried, with some
difficulty, in both hands. Obvioulsy the player is not going to be able to
pick up anything else while carting this thing around. Nor will he be able
to fit through certain doors, or climb a ladder with no free hands, etc. So
in this case the limit on inventory is very necessary to keep the situation
from being totaly unrealistic. The rest of the time I treat all the
portable objects in the game as being very small and light so that you can
carry a lot of stuff, but not an infinite amount.
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed
a
> required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
> would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
> "negative" action?
>
In my first game you can win the game with something like 30 or 40 points
even though a total of 130 points is possible. I give exploration points
for discovering new locations, item discovery points for discovering new
items, item usage points for finding good uses for the items you've
discovered, and bonus points for optional treasures and quests completed.
The score at the end of the game is given as a total and as a breakdown by
these categories. Right now I have no in-game hints, but I'm still debating
this one. There's no need to have a big flashy banner tell you you've just
earned 1 point for discovering a new room, but perhaps it would be
appropriate for a big 4-point bonus treasure. I can't give points for
discovering the one item needed to solve a given puzzle because some puzzles
can be solved in different ways, and that item may not be necessary if you
figure out a better way to solve a puzzle.
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
> a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
> would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
> you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but
then
> you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to
it."),
> in which case 2b above is not needed.
> b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
> leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may
be
> the wrong thing to do.")?
>
If a game is very linear and you are lead by the nose to such an extent that
having once dropped the required item you can never go back and pick it up
then you should not be allowed to drop it. If the game is wide open and
allows you to visit any location at any time in the game then you can always
go back and get the item you need. In that case I don't think there should
be any warning because the warning becomes a spoiler.
(Just my humble 2 cents worth.)
--gary
Andrew Plotkin
already.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Matthew F Funke
>I am just completing the first section (of three) of my game and have
>decided to ask everyone here about the following as I can easily implement
>them now (as the first section is quite short) and continue to do so
>throughout the rest of my IF, rather than later and have to add a lot of
>extra info.
Thank you for taking the time to ask opinions. :) It's the writer's
prerogative to change things as she sees fit, of course, but it's also
nice to know that she'll be making a little effort to make her game
interesting and fun to play. :)
>1. Infinite Hold or Limited
>Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
>infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
>the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
>similar to help carry extra items)?
That seems to depend on the game's scope for me. If it's got a small
landscape, or there are plenty of places where things will stay put once I
drop them, then a maximum carry limit is fine. As the map deepens,
though, carry limits become progressively more obnoxious.
Perhaps, if designing a carry limit is important to you, there should
be something of a balance on what that limit is... it seems to be related
to how large the map is, how easy it is to lock oneself off from portions
of the map, how many individual items are needed to complete various
puzzles, and other things.
Honestly, though, if the writer has give me an infinite carry limit,
I generally don't notice enough to be grateful for it; it's only when a
carry limit becomes imposed that I start to worry about what I'm carrying
and how much I ought to drop and where.
>2. Score
>a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
>required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
Usually, yes. And *really good* scoring systems have a score for a
puzzle proportional to the difficulty and relevance of the puzzle. (A
side quest wouldn't merit many points unless it was really hard.)
I've played some games that, if you ask, will give you a run-down of
the things you've done to merit points and how many points each thing was
worth. One even told me, when I was finished, how many points I'd gotten
that I didn't need, and how many points it was possible to get *after* I'd
won the game (if I wanted to spend some extra time to weed them out).
I think there's room for a lot of ingenuity in the scorekeeping
department that goes beyond "do good, get points". :)
>b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
>would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
>"negative" action?
This, for example... I don't think I've played a game that does this,
and I find it quite an interesting idea. Of course, I'm used to a system
that tries to *imply* such things -- if I get points for picking up the
macfloozle, chances are that I'm going to need it in the game, and I'd
better not get rid of it.
I'm kind of undecided on this... I might need to see it implemented
to decide whether or not it had merits beyond granting points for picking
good stuff up.
>3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
>a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
>would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
>you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
>you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
>in which case 2b above is not needed.
I'd rather be able to drop it, if I was able to pick it up off the
floor/ground (unless we're talking about a magical item that affixes
itself to you or something). Of course, that too might depend on the size
of the map and the carry limits. :)
>b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
>leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
>the wrong thing to do.")?
Nah. Unless, again, the map was obnoxiously large or the carry limit
obnoxiously small. I could see myself figuring, "It tells me not to drop
the frozen fish, but I just *feel* like I need the flashlight... I wish
the game would let me carry both."
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
David C. Barnhart II
>
> "Dana Clarke" <joey...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:2dp47u8ialfpq2dl2...@4ax.com...
>
> > Personally, I prefer to go with real life whenever possible. Let me
> > explain. I am of the opinion that far too many games give the player
> > an item (a hammer) that is needed later in the game to solve a puzzle
> > (break a plaster vase) and then disallow other logical solutions by
> > game design. In this simple case, one can logically break a plaster
> > vase in a myriad of ways (not only with a hammer). If the puzzle
> > truly required a hammer, then why not add other means of acquiring
> > hammers later in the game (in real life there are millions of hammers
> > and one can buy one any time one wishes). Again, personally, I do not
> > enjoy this sort of game "puzzle" because I know (as a player) that I
> > could solve it in many, many ways if only the game designer had not
> > taken the "cheap" way out <g>.
>
possible
> in my game I am going to try and make it as real as possible, and if, for
> instance, you can/need to smash a window, then any number of objects would
> be allowed to smash it.
>
> Of course, this shouldn't be too difficult with Hugo as you could set the
> window to allow anything over a certain 'weight' to break it.
Personally, I find where this gets interesting for me in games,
is where you have say 3 items that can break the window, one of
which (say, the hammer) is a "throwaway" item. So if you go to
break the window, the game then responds with something like
"You manage to break the window of the observation tower, but
the <item> disappears from view, and you hear a small splash
at the bottom." Had you used the hammer, everything would be
just fine, but since you used the stone, you now don't have
everything for an optimal solution at the end. So you have a
"preferred" solution, but the designer doesn't stupidly disallow
you from using whatever will break the (in this case) window.
The above wasn't that great an example, but it fits the idea
I'm trying to get across.
--
David C. Barnhart II
Gregg V. Carroll
Price" <ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
> 1. Infinite Hold or Limited
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
> infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
> the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
> similar to help carry extra items)?
I'm used to having limited inventory implemented in Infocom games. Most of
the homebrew IF I've played so far haven't put too much emphasis on
inventory, there weren't a whole lot of carry-able objects in the games.
I rather like the idea of "bulk" in TADS in addition to (or instead of)
"weight." I just came across something to that effect in Ballyhoo, in which
you have a balancing pole that you need to walk a tightrope, but it won't
allow you to climb the ladder to the tightrope with anything else than the
pole, because it's cumbersome. If you try, you drop the pole. Things like
that seem more realistic and reasonable than imposing a weight limit, IMO.
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
> required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
> would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
> "negative" action?
I like score notification unless it's really not an issue (such as Galatea
or Photopia) or it's really clear what my objectives are.
I like the idea of hitting a max score and not actually being finished with
the game (one of the Zorks did this I think), and not getting points for
every single "correct" thing in the game. There should be a little mystery
as to whether you're going down the right path or not.
I don't really like the decreasing score idea. Maybe for an "intro to IF"
type game, but not in general.
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
> a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
> would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
> you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
> you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
> in which case 2b above is not needed.
> b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
> leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
> the wrong thing to do.")?
3a, no. Again, in an "intro to IF" game that would be fine, but not in a
regular IF game.
3b, maybe on an item-by-item and situational basis. For example, if one were
in a swordfight and the player typed DROP SWORD, it would be okay if the
game refused to let me do so, *if* it was handled in the context of being
against my PC's better nature (ie, "You've never laid down your sword in a
fight, and you're not about to start now." instead of a flat, "That would be
a bad idea."). I'm also all for giving players enough rope to hang
themselves, especially if it allows for amusing Easter egg-type hilarity. :)
Gregg
Sent using the Entourage X Test Drive.
Rikard Peterson
news:qaxc8.1107$u4....@news-reader.ntrnet.net...
>
> Personally, I find where this gets interesting for me in games,
> is where you have say 3 items that can break the window, one of
> which (say, the hammer) is a "throwaway" item. So if you go to
> break the window, the game then responds with something like
> "You manage to break the window of the observation tower, but
> the <item> disappears from view, and you hear a small splash
> at the bottom." Had you used the hammer, everything would be
> just fine, but since you used the stone, you now don't have
> everything for an optimal solution at the end. So you have a
> "preferred" solution, but the designer doesn't stupidly disallow
> you from using whatever will break the (in this case) window.
>
> The above wasn't that great an example, but it fits the idea
> I'm trying to get across.
In your example, I would prefer if I wasn't allowed to use the stone and
thus painting myself into a corner. It should be recognised that the
player might want to do that, and an apprpriate response produced as to
why he isn't allowed to. (Preferably more imaginative than "You might
need that later." Especially if it's a stone and you don't know why
you'd need it later.)
Rikard
J. Robinson Wheeler
> Fewer capital letters, please. We've got quite enough shouting in here
> already.
Yes, I hope you didn't write the subject in all caps hoping to make it
really stand out and get our attention. This isn't eBay. My newsreader
is perfectly capable of bringing new threads to my attention.
Ashley Price wrote:
> 1. Infinite Hold or Limited
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects or do you
> prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or similar to help
> carry extra items)?
I suppose it doesn't really matter, unless there's a ridiculous number
of carryable items that the player could end up with, and then it might
break mimesis somewhat. I seem to recall ending up with quite a sackful
of loot in Curses without it being odd, so maybe that's the way to go.
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have
> completed a required action?
Sure.
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away
> later, would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has
> been a "negative" action?
No.
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
Always allow players to drop items if they choose to. Warnings of
the type you describe ("You get a feeling...") should be used sparingly.
Really, you should save those messages for cases where the player has
just done something that removes the item from the game (like throwing
it down a chasm), or that sort of thing, not for when they simply
drop it.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler games: http://raddial.com/if/
whe...@jump.net movie: http://thekroneexperiment.com/
Gary Shannon
"Rikard Peterson" <trumg...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:a4ugse$3au43$1...@ID-26593.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
>
> In your example, I would prefer if I wasn't allowed to use the stone and
> thus painting myself into a corner. It should be recognised that the
> player might want to do that, and an apprpriate response produced as to
> why he isn't allowed to. (Preferably more imaginative than "You might
> need that later." Especially if it's a stone and you don't know why
> you'd need it later.)
>
> Rikard
I have a case in my first game where one the possible solutions uses up
something needed to get one of the bonus treaures. No harm done, really,
since you can still complete the main quest and win the game. You just miss
out on one of the bonuses. If a person really wants to find all the bonuses
then they might have to find alternate ways to solve some of the required
puzzles. I think that's reasonably fair.
--gary
Gary Shannon
"Gregg V. Carroll" <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote in message
news:B8981902.723%gr...@midcoast.com...
<snip>
>
> 3b, maybe on an item-by-item and situational basis. For example, if one
were
> in a swordfight and the player typed DROP SWORD, it would be okay if the
> game refused to let me do so, *if* it was handled in the context of being
> against my PC's better nature (ie, "You've never laid down your sword in a
> fight, and you're not about to start now." instead of a flat, "That would
be
> a bad idea."). I'm also all for giving players enough rope to hang
> themselves, especially if it allows for amusing Easter egg-type hilarity.
:)
>
> Gregg
I'm of the opinion that if a player chooses to jump while standing at the
window of a tall building he should be allowed to jump to his death, rather
than being told "that would be a bad idea." Let the player learn what to do
by allowing natural consequences rather than by imposing artifical limits.
--gary
Billy Harris
<ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
> 1. Infinite Hold or Limited
Infinite
> 2. Score
Score is optional, but if it is present, I like it to increase
monotonically.
>
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
I would generalize this to irreversably blocking a win. I prefer games
in which is impossible [or at least clearly warned] to enter a
non-winnable situation. So, there is no problem with dropping things if
I will later be able to return and pick them up. Obviously this is a
much bigger problem if you combine one-way passages with limited
inventory and lots of items.
Ashley Price
"J. Robinson Wheeler" <whe...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:59d693d5.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> > Fewer capital letters, please. We've got quite enough shouting in here
> > already.
>
> Yes, I hope you didn't write the subject in all caps hoping to make it
> really stand out and get our attention. This isn't eBay. My newsreader
> is perfectly capable of bringing new threads to my attention.
Hi all,
I am sorry my capital letters in the subject line offend. I tend to do this
in all e-mails (both business and personal) and posts. It is not simply to
get attention.
I'll put a stop to it NOW (whoops, sorry, now)! :-)
Ashley
--
Do you use HUGO? If so and would like a regular newsletter e-mail me at
ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com (obviously removing the DELETE-THIS
part)
Kodrik
> important it maybe as you drop it?
No, I don't want te be prevented to do mistakes, but I also want to be able
to correct my mistakes when I realize them.
Michael Iachini
> Hi all
<snip>
I've really enjoyed this thread. As a programmer, it has given me a
lot to think about. The questions Ashley poses are some that I've
considered, and some that I probably would end up considering
eventually, so I'm happy to see them discussed.
From reading the replies, I agree with the general consensus that some
sense of reality is important, but not to the degree that you'll annoy
the player for no real reason. Infinite carry is nice, since you
don't have to worry about where to put stuff, but perhaps the idea of
a sack to carry things in makes that more consistent with reality.
Although, if you're carrying a grand piano and fifteen chihuahuas,
you're ALWAYS going to wonder what kind of world you're in -- though
this is a good way to insert some humor into the game.
On the same lines, I agree that the player should be allowed to do
anything he or she wants to try, and you should endeavor to make this
happen. Some kind of warning seems to be best before or even after
the player does something disastrous, but I'd prefer not to see "Are
you sure you want to do that?" messages. Subtle hints that something
might be a mistake are better, like the earlier post regarding the use
of a stone rather than a hammer to break a window -- the player can
say, "Whoops -- I'd better UNDO that one," but he still had the chance
to try it out. Let the player kill herself or paint herself into a
corner -- just try to give some indication that this has happened
(unlike in Zork I, where you can make the game unwinnable in a million
different ways without ever knowing it, such as by failing to let the
Thief have the egg).
Your game sounds like the kind of IF I enjoy, so I'm looking forward
to trying it out! Best of luck, and thanks for a great thread!
Michael Iachini
D. R. Porterfield
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
> infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
> the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
> similar to help carry extra items)?
Limited hold is much more realistic, IMHO, but I also like to have a
roomy container object to tote things around in. This needn't be of
infinite capacity either, but should be large enough to contain a good
number of items.
>
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
> required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
Yeah, that's nice.
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
> would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
> "negative" action?
Definitely not. I don't think points should be taken away after
they've been rewarded.
>
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
> a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
> would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
> you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
> you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
> in which case 2b above is not needed.
No. I think the player should be given full control over what they do
and don't drop, and indeed as much control as possible over any action
they decide to take.
> b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
> leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
> the wrong thing to do.")?
No. I'd prefer to figure it out for myself if that was the wrong thing
to do, even if that meant going back to a saved position later on.
Hope these comments are helpful.
Lewis Raszewski
>
> > 1. Infinite Hold or Limited
> > Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
> > infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
> > the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
> > similar to help carry extra items)?
>
> Limited hold is much more realistic, IMHO, but I also like to have a
> roomy container object to tote things around in. This needn't be of
> infinite capacity either, but should be large enough to contain a good
> number of items.
>
This is a key point: large enough. I'm willing to go out on a limb here
and claim that limited hold is *not* more realistic. In real life, I can
indeed hold *as much as I want to*. In real life, I *never* have to
make the decision "Do I take the car keys or my wallet? I can't carry
both, so I have to decide which is more likely to help me today.", and I
can *always* carry *just one more item*. I don't recall any game that
ever imposed an inventory limit that wasn't ridiculously biting (okay;
this is not true. Inform actually enforces an inventory limit, which
defaults to 100 items, but this is sufficiently large that it gives the
appearance of being infinite). I-0, for example, is a delightful game in
most respects, but contains the assumption that "you really can't
realistically carry more than three things at the same time".
Right now, (just to prove the point),
Ross is carrying the following:
A stack of napkins
A Loyola College coffee mug
two pens
A mouse
His information retrieval homework
A clock radio
A digital watch
A class ring
In his atypically implemented pockets are:
A wallet (in which is some cash, 10 identification cards and a
magnifying glass)
A billfold (in which is some cash, two student ID cards, and two
grocery store check cashing cards)
A handkercheif (which is folded)
A lanyard, on which are:
Three brass keys (the key to your office, the key to the engineering
building, and the key to the lounge)
Three aluminum keys (the key to your front door, the key to your
back door, and the key to your parents' house
A swiss army knife (in which is a pair of tweezers)
A bottle opener
Which is more about me than you are liable to want to know
--
L. Ross Raszewski
The Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park 407
"Get off my world." -- Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart,
Doctor
Who: Battlefield
OKB -- not okblacke
>This is a key point: large enough. I'm willing to go out on a limb here
>and claim that limited hold is *not* more realistic. In real life, I can
>indeed hold *as much as I want to*. In real life, I *never* have to
>make the decision "Do I take the car keys or my wallet? I can't carry
>both, so I have to decide which is more likely to help me today.", and I
>can *always* carry *just one more item*.
For the most part, this is true. The problem, though, is that reality
imposes other consequences on carrying too much. Like, sure, I can fit a lot
of stuff into my backpack, but if I stick too much stuff in there it's going to
damage the backpack and probably the stuff as well. Also, the restriction
imposed on movement by carrying lots of objects are too complex to be
realistically modeled.
And for the record, as far as pocket contents and other stuff I carry on
my person, I often find myself unable to carry everything I want to.
I do, however, agree that limited inventory is for the most part not a
good game-design tactic; I just don't really agree that unlimited inventory is
really a more accurate model of reality.
--OKB (Bren...@aol.com) -- no relation to okblacke
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Dana Clarke
okblacke) wrote:
> I do, however, agree that limited inventory is for the most part not a
>good game-design tactic; I just don't really agree that unlimited inventory is
>really a more accurate model of reality.
>
I agree. An unlimited inventory model is not a more accurate model of
reality. Almost any other model is more accurate. However, accuracy
is not what we always want in a game (in fact, I might stick my neck
out here and proclaim it is virtually never what we want in a game).
However, at least for me, accuracy is what I virtually always want (or
at the minimum a very close approximation to reality) in fiction.
In IF we have a bonding of the two - and unfortunately their goals are
sometimes at odds. As was said, modelling the reality of carrying
capacity is quite complex - and well beyond not only the tools at hand
but likely the vast majority of the programmers of IF. As well, to
even attempt a close approximation is likely not worth the effort.
Dana
Lewis Raszewski
>
> Lewis Raszewski rras...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >This is a key point: large enough. I'm willing to go out on a limb here
> >and claim that limited hold is *not* more realistic. In real life, I can
> >indeed hold *as much as I want to*. In real life, I *never* have to
> >make the decision "Do I take the car keys or my wallet? I can't carry
> >both, so I have to decide which is more likely to help me today.", and I
> >can *always* carry *just one more item*.
>
> For the most part, this is true. The problem, though, is that reality
> imposes other consequences on carrying too much. Like, sure, I can fit a lot
> of stuff into my backpack, but if I stick too much stuff in there it's going to
> damage the backpack and probably the stuff as well. Also, the restriction
> imposed on movement by carrying lots of objects are too complex to be
> realistically modeled.
>
> And for the record, as far as pocket contents and other stuff I carry on
> my person, I often find myself unable to carry everything I want to.
>
> I do, however, agree that limited inventory is for the most part not a
> good game-design tactic; I just don't really agree that unlimited inventory is
> really a more accurate model of reality.
>
Well... Perhaps I was overly-ambitious in suggesting that it was.
Rather, I meant to say that an unlimited inventory more accurately
represents reality over the domain usually important to IF.
--
L. Ross Raszewski
The Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park 407
"And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower
in the
daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights: And, behold, here come
riders,
horsemen in pairs!" -- Isaiah 21.8-9
Gary Shannon
"Lewis Raszewski" <rras...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C75315E...@hotmail.com...
> "D. R. Porterfield" wrote:
<snip>
>
> Right now, (just to prove the point),
>
> Ross is carrying the following:
> A stack of napkins
> A Loyola College coffee mug
> two pens
> A mouse
> His information retrieval homework
> A clock radio
> A digital watch
> A class ring
<snip>
However, add a hammer, a keg of nails, a power saw and a handful of 12 foot
wooden planks and I'd say you were stretching the limit a bit too far.
That's where the concept of "bulk" used in TADS is probably a more useful
way of limiting inventory. I may well be able to carry 100 pocket-sized
items around, but I can't carry 100 heavy treasure chests around quite as
easily.
--gary
Billy Harris
Shannon <fiz...@starband.net> wrote:
> However, add a hammer, a keg of nails, a power saw and a handful of 12 foot
> wooden planks and I'd say you were stretching the limit a bit too far.
As an aside, Monkey's Island makes fun of this -- there is a hilareous
scene where Guybrush picks up a 10' ladder and forces into his coat
pocket.
Main point: To the extent that a piece of IF can be called a computer
game, fun / entertainment should be the major goal. I have not yet
found a case in which limiting my inventory increased my entertainment,
and I include inventory-limit puzzles in this assement.
Second, IF and real life are so vastly different in handling inventory
objects that it is almost pointless to claim that a limit on carryable
items is an improvement in reality. In real life, we have many
thousands of objects in easy reach. Right now on my desk I have over a
dozen CDs, some cookies, bills, stamps, address labels, a checkbook,
coupons, a university letter, a computer with monitor, keyboard, mouse,
and speakers, a stapler, a portable blackjack game, dozens of assorted
notes/papers, and a plastic stopper that I don't know what it's for.
And let's not forget that whatever I need I can buy from a hardware
store; I can call a locksmith to unlock doors for me; I have drawers,
folders, boxes, sacks, and table tops to organize items with, and
generally have incalculably more options than "You see a disk here."
Third, something that both games and fiction try to avoid is boredom.
In real life, I spilled some hot chocolate on my keyboard last month.
Although the keyboard still worked, the Macintosh see-through keyboard
doesn't look nearly as sylish with brown goop flowing around, so I
asked a friend to help fix it for me. We went through about a dozen
screwdrivers [actually, they were alan wrenches or something else, but
my mechanical ineptitude is so high I'll call them screwdrivers], but
none of them fit. No problem; go upstairs to another toolbox which has
a screwdriver with dozens of interchangeable heads of varrying sizes,
none of which fit. No problem; go to the garage to yet another toolbox
with varrying sizes and one of them fits! Take off the cover to find
more screws [different sizes, of course]. Take these off and find
plastic nubby things which you have to figure out how to take apart
without breaking them permanently. Start to open the plastic nubby
things and notice that something is still holding the keyboard
together. Start tearing off keys, to find two more screws hidden under
them [same size; different lengths so better keep track of where they
go]. Take these apart; keyboard opens like a grumpy clam but is still
held at one end by the USB port. Look around the USB port, decide not
to risk taking that apart, so wipe up the hot cholate thorugh a
half-opened crack in the keyboard. Now put it all back together.
Elapsed time: Roughly three hours, or too long for an IF-competition
game. Real life is tedious and boring. Yes, I do have to sometimes make
two trips to bring in the groceries from the car, or to make a run
to/from work to pick up something I forgot; unless there are important
plot elements involved these details should be left out of both static
fiction and IF.
Ashley Price
From what people have said I think I know the answer to the following
question, but I do not want to assume (never assume, you make an ASS out of
U and ME!)
You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
uncompletable - if that is a word)?
Ashley
--
Do you use HUGO? If so and would like a regular newsletter e-mail me at
ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com (removing the DELETE-THIS part).
Please include the word HUGO in the subject line. *Issue 1 out now!*
Ashley Price
Thanks for all your responses to my questions on this subject.
It seems to me that the consensus is that:
1. Most people prefer unlimited inventory (or something pretty close to it).
2. You like to have an increase in score when you have done an essential
action (i.e. required to help complete the game).
3. You do not want to have a decrease in score if you drop an essential item
that you picked up before, nor do you want another increase in score if you
pick up the item again later in the game.
4. You want to be able to drop essential items at your own free will, and
not necessarily with a warning message against doing so - unless this will
put the game in an unwinnable position (for instance, where you drop the
item will be inaccessible later in the game). But you do want the
opportunity of picking them up again later when you realise you need them.
Okay, now I have an idea of what people prefer I can get on with rewriting
part of the first section of the my game. Ho hum, another three to four
hours. :-)
Ashley
--
Do you use HUGO? If so and would like a regular newsletter e-mail me at
ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com (removing the DELETE-THIS part).
Please include the word HUGO in the subject line. *Issue 1 out now*!
Sean T Barrett
>You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
>command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
>section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
>section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
>
>I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
>without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
>uncompletable - if that is a word)?
I'd rather the game be structured in some way so that you can't go
on without getting everything, but it's not that you're just stopped
by the magic fairy who says "you have to have X Y and Z for the next
section".
If there's no way to design around that, I'm not sure what the best
thing is.
"For a Change" implemented a check like this and warned you AFTER you
did the action that you had made the game unwinnable. (Except I
think it only warned you TWO turns after, hope you had multi-turn
UNDO--if it did, my bad for not thinking of that at the time I
beta-tested.) This seemed to make people not very happy, but nobody
could think of anything better either. (I'm thinking specifically
of a review from either zarf or Adam Cadre, I forget.)
The Weapon was in beta a long time, and one of the hings I was
trying to resolve during those many months was how to deal with
one particular puzzle, which if I allowed you to do the winning
action too early in the game, you would make the game
unwinnable, yet still be able to solve lots of the puzzles
in the game; and although there would be an obvious change in
the scenario it probably wouldn't be clear you had done something
wrong. I ended up with a lame hack--you couldn't get out of the
handcuffs until the same stage of the game where the action was
safe without closing things off, so I made the action be
not-takable until you were out of the handcuffs, with some
spurious fictional justification for why the handcuffs prevented it.
But then I'm personally a strong proponent of never being closed off,
i.e. it's impossible to make the game unwinnable--that's what I prefer
in games I play so that's what I strive to write. I don't know how
universal that really is; look, for instance, at Lock & Key or
better yet Varicella (since it is basically part of the design
of Lock & Key in a sort of special way).
Another puzzle in The Weapon included an action that if I had
let you take it early on, it would have put the game in a state
where no matter what you did on that turn, you would lose on the
next one. At the appropriate time in the game, there WOULD be some
action you could take to avoid losing. I would have LIKED to let
you do this action and lose, and at least learn by dying a little
(as the sort-of fallback-clue system), but I was uncomfortable
with the idea of giving the player even ONE turn of the
game-closed-off-ness; because (a) the player might spend an
inordinate amount of time searching for an action that
would get them out safely (despite there being none), because
(b) on a terp with only one turn of UNDO, they'd potentially
lose a bunch of progress, and because (c) I wanted to promise
in the ABOUT that the game never closed off. Unfortunately, I
couldn't even find a lame fictional explanation for letting you
not do it, so the PC had to intervene and refuse, which is just
barely better than the magic fairy.
SeanB
Dana Clarke
<ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>From what people have said I think I know the answer to the following
>question, but I do not want to assume (never assume, you make an ASS out of
>U and ME!)
>
>You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
>command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
>section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
>section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
>
>I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
>without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
>uncompletable - if that is a word)?
>
>Ashley
In general, for my enjoyment at least, there NEEDS to be some very
compelling storyline reason why I cannot return to a previous section
to retrieve a necessary item (even up to the very last moment of the
game). Without this compelling reason, I generally quit playing games
at the point you are speaking of (because I do not like serious gm
cheats which I consider this to be).
If there IS a compelling storyline reason, then there should be a
warning (and perhaps an optional popup hint that tells me precisely
what the item is and where to get it). I have played games that allow
the player to get into uncompletable positions with no warning - and
when I realize this situation, I am usually deeply compelled to find
the author and wring his/her neck <g>. That is, there is GREAT
frustration (and games should not produce great frustration of this
sort).
Dana
Matthew F Funke
>
>You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
>command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
>section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
>section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
>
>I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
>without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
>uncompletable - if that is a word)?
Excellent question!
I, personally, would not like to see such a warning. Yes, there *is*
a certain amount of grumbling when I discover that I left something behind
(sometimes accompanied by occasional swearing if I'd forgotten to save
the game in a winnable state), but such a thing is, in a weird way,
gratifying. It's much less enjoyable to be told that I'm doing something
stupid than to discover it for myself. If the author feels it necessary
to steer me so carefully through her game, is she really trusting me to
*play* the game? To seek out her creations carefully and intelligently?
There is somewhat of a balance when writing IF, I think. The author
needs to be involved enough to *show* me her world, but if she's leading
me through it like a reined animal, it feels almost like someone watching
over my shoulder and telling me how I should play next. Receiving
instruction from someone who assumes more expertise when you're trying to
play something for *fun* just lessens the entertainment value.
-=shrug=- But that may just be me. Some people like to play these
games with a walkthrough nearby, and they may enjoy having a game that
helps them out directly this way.
Georgina Bensley
> Main point: To the extent that a piece of IF can be called a computer
> game, fun / entertainment should be the major goal. I have not yet
> found a case in which limiting my inventory increased my entertainment,
> and I include inventory-limit puzzles in this assement.
So here's a question. How would one discourage a player from behaving in
the "steal everything that isn't locked down" fashion without either
applying inventory limits or locking everything down that wasn't essential
to the plot?
How can you attempt to apply the mindset of not carrying things around
unless you have some use for them, without ending up in the situation from
zarf's review of Inherent Evil, where you can't pick up the gloves until
you've discovered the live wires and have to go back for them?
I suppose NPCs could snigger at you if they saw you stumbling around under
a massive pile of items, if you have NPCs...
__________________________________________________________________
Duke University Role-playing And Gaming Organization
http://www.duke.edu/web/DRAGO/
J. D. Berry
> Ashley Price <ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
> >You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
> >command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
> >section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
> >section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
> >
> >I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
> >without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
> >uncompletable - if that is a word)?
>
> I'd rather the game be structured in some way so that you can't go
> on without getting everything, but it's not that you're just stopped
> by the magic fairy who says "you have to have X Y and Z for the next
> section".
But I'm making a children's alphabet game based on Cinderella.
> I wanted to promise
> in the ABOUT that the game never closed off. Unfortunately, I
> couldn't even find a lame fictional explanation for letting you
> not do it, so the PC had to intervene and refuse, which is just
> barely better than the magic fairy.
But I'm making a game based on an adolescent boy attending
an Irish boarding school.
Jim
Lucian P. Smith
: You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
: command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
: section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
: section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
Here are some games that do different things in response to this:
In Andrew Plotkin's 'A Change in the Weather' and 'So Far', the game will
often reach an unwinnable state with no warning. In the 'about' text, you
are told this. It is also a fundamental part of the design of the game
that you learn this early on, and adjust your playing style accordingly.
In 'Nevermore' it is possible to make the game unwinnable. There is a
special command ('>WINNABLE', maybe?) that you can check at any time to
see if the game is still winnable. Again, the design of the game is such
that you learn this early on--there are obviously important resources that
can be easily squandered, for instance.
'Spider and Web' is an interesting case, because it shifts halfway through
from being always-winnable to easily-closed-off. Again, it tells you this
in the 'about' text. This actually is somewhat of a spoiler for the point
in the game where the transition occurs. And, again, the design of the
game is such that even if you weren't informed, it would be pretty
obvious.
A few other games have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
Obviously, there are many games that remain winnable the whole time, and
many others (especially older works) that close off without warning. I
think it's important that whichever you do, you pick a style and run with
it, so the player gets used to playing your game a particular way and
doesn't have to change play style partway through. In your example, then,
if you didn't want the player to go to section 2 without item X, either
make item X required for getting to section 2, put a replacement X in
section 2, or try to make the design such that it's clear in one move that
'whoops--have to go back and pick up all the stuff I left behind'. The
last is the most dangerous. And explicit warning could be annoying,
though.
One way of thinking of this is the 'zarfian cruelness scale':
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8lyOQ1m00WB3N3d0oI%40andrew.cmu.edu
-Lucian
Dana Clarke
wrote:
>How can you attempt to apply the mindset of not carrying things around
>unless you have some use for them, without ending up in the situation from
>zarf's review of Inherent Evil, where you can't pick up the gloves until
>you've discovered the live wires and have to go back for them?
One way is to not create any situation (puzzle or otherwise) that
requires "things". That is, do not make the game "things" oriented.
Another way is to create a world (much like real life) wherein the
"thing" you might need is either obviously nearby or obviously readily
available. For instance, if one is near a town have npc vendors
available to buy "things" as needed. If a piece of scrap wire is
needed for a simple puzzle, have it in the same room or in a nearby
room - preferably obvious (scrap wire might be in a scrap bin near the
object needing repair).
Dana
D. R. Porterfield
> In article <E5hd8.373$GS3.25...@twister2.starband.net>, Gary
> Shannon <fiz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
> > However, add a hammer, a keg of nails, a power saw and a handful of 12 foot
> > wooden planks and I'd say you were stretching the limit a bit too far.
>
> As an aside, Monkey's Island makes fun of this -- there is a hilareous
> scene where Guybrush picks up a 10' ladder and forces into his coat
> pocket.
>
> Main point: To the extent that a piece of IF can be called a computer
> game, fun / entertainment should be the major goal. I have not yet
> found a case in which limiting my inventory increased my entertainment,
> and I include inventory-limit puzzles in this assement.
I should probably clarify myself here. I'm not talking about imposing
excessively restrictive limits that would become annoying and tedious,
nor about making the inventory limit part of a puzzle. As a player,
I'm not fond of those either. OTOH, I know that if I'm walking into
work carrying a coffee mug, a lunchbox, an umbrella, a large hardcover
book, and a newspaper, my hands are full, even if I have the newspaper
tucked under my arm. On yet a third hand (heh) I do have a number of
things in my pockets -- wallet, keys, change, pocketknife, lucky
silver dollar -- but they're all small things. So my goal is to strike
a balance.
> Second, IF and real life are so vastly different in handling inventory
> objects that it is almost pointless to claim that a limit on carryable
> items is an improvement in reality. [snip]
I'm in full agreement that reality can never be fully duplicated, and
in some cases shouldn't be -- I don't like running all over the map
trying to remember where I had to drop such-and-such any more than the
next person does. At the same time, for me personally, trying to
picture myself tottering around the landscape holding 30 or 40 items
(some of which may be rather large) *in my hands* intrudes on the
mimesis of the story and pulls me out of it to some degree. I'm much
more ready to accept a sack or other portable container that holds an
unusually large number of objects, which I realize isn't any more
realistic per se, but for me it somehow works better. Otherwise I feel
like I've just bought a cartful of groceries and walked out of the
store with them without a bag.
> Third, something that both games and fiction try to avoid is boredom. [snip]
I fully agree. I'm not trying to inconvenience the player in any way,
and at no time will the player be forced to decide which item(s) to
leave behind, or have to keep running back and forth repeatedly,
because there will always be more than enough room in the "sack" (or
whatever). The only exception would be items too large to reasonably
fit in the "sack" -- a stepladder, for instance -- but there aren't
very many of these in the game.
Perhaps I should specifically define what I have set up right now, and
see if you folks think it's unreasonable. Currently, the player is
limited to carrying only 7 items, but is provided with an
extraordinarily roomy "sack" that will hold another 30 or 35 items --
more than would be available to take at any given point in the game,
so there's never a need to drop anything you don't want to. So in
effect, it is infinite hold, except you can't hold everything in your
hands. Sort of a "limited infinite hold", if you will. As a player,
I'd be perfectly satisfied with this setup myself -- it was a fairly
standard arrangement in the old Infocom games -- but would others
consider it unfair?
David (D. R. Porterfield)
drpf...@measinc.com
Dana Clarke
Porterfield) wrote:
>Perhaps I should specifically define what I have set up right now, and
>see if you folks think it's unreasonable. Currently, the player is
>limited to carrying only 7 items, but is provided with an
>extraordinarily roomy "sack" that will hold another 30 or 35 items --
>more than would be available to take at any given point in the game,
>so there's never a need to drop anything you don't want to. So in
>effect, it is infinite hold, except you can't hold everything in your
>hands. Sort of a "limited infinite hold", if you will. As a player,
>I'd be perfectly satisfied with this setup myself -- it was a fairly
>standard arrangement in the old Infocom games -- but would others
>consider it unfair?
>
Fair? Non-sequitor.
My take (having played many games with all sorts of variations on the
theme) is that UNLESS there is a serious storyline reason - don't go
to all the trouble of separating "what's in hand vs what's in sack".
The reason I say this is that UNLESS you go to a lot of programming
effort to ensure that the "7 in hand" limit doesn't allow for "silly"
combinations, one will lose the "sense of reality" anyway. For
instance, it is totally silly to believe that you can hold 7 quarts of
paint in your hands and then open a door - but unless you have gone to
a tremendous coding effort (it is hard to think of all the
combinations a player will try), this will occur in game. However, it
would be no trouble for a person to hold 7 sheets of paper and then
open a door. As others have said, reality is much more complex than
simply "number of items" or "weight of items" or "size of items".
So, unless there is a serious storyline reason - keep it simple.
Dana
Gary Shannon
"Ashley Price" <ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> Hi all
>
> From what people have said I think I know the answer to the following
> question, but I do not want to assume (never assume, you make an ASS out
of
> U and ME!)
>
> You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the
correct
> command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
> section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
> section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
Personally, I'd probably provide a second copy of the important item
somewhere in the second section so the mistake of leaving it behind could be
corrected, but perhaps with greater difficulty than if you had kept it in
the first place.
--gary
Gary Shannon
"Georgina Bensley" <ge...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020222...@carr10.acpub.duke.edu...
>
> > Main point: To the extent that a piece of IF can be called a computer
> > game, fun / entertainment should be the major goal. I have not yet
> > found a case in which limiting my inventory increased my entertainment,
> > and I include inventory-limit puzzles in this assement.
>
> So here's a question. How would one discourage a player from behaving in
> the "steal everything that isn't locked down" fashion without either
> applying inventory limits or locking everything down that wasn't essential
> to the plot?
>
> How can you attempt to apply the mindset of not carrying things around
> unless you have some use for them, without ending up in the situation from
> zarf's review of Inherent Evil, where you can't pick up the gloves until
> you've discovered the live wires and have to go back for them?
>
> I suppose NPCs could snigger at you if they saw you stumbling around under
> a massive pile of items, if you have NPCs...
>
The approach I used in my first game (to be entered in the IF Lib comp in
March, so I can't tell you anything about it yet :) was to have key items be
given to you by NPC's who wander around and only seek you out when you have
accomplished something that makes you "worthy" to receive their gift, or who
are "not in the office" at the moment when you come looking for them.
--gary
Rikard Peterson
news:a0425cbf.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> I fully agree. I'm not trying to inconvenience the player in any way,
> and at no time will the player be forced to decide which item(s) to
> leave behind, or have to keep running back and forth repeatedly,
> because there will always be more than enough room in the "sack" (or
> whatever). The only exception would be items too large to reasonably
> fit in the "sack" -- a stepladder, for instance -- but there aren't
> very many of these in the game.
>
> Perhaps I should specifically define what I have set up right now, and
> see if you folks think it's unreasonable. Currently, the player is
> limited to carrying only 7 items, but is provided with an
> extraordinarily roomy "sack" that will hold another 30 or 35 items --
> more than would be available to take at any given point in the game,
> so there's never a need to drop anything you don't want to. So in
> effect, it is infinite hold, except you can't hold everything in your
> hands. Sort of a "limited infinite hold", if you will. As a player,
> I'd be perfectly satisfied with this setup myself -- it was a fairly
> standard arrangement in the old Infocom games -- but would others
> consider it unfair?
Legend's Eric the Unready includes a backpack, but you never have to
worry about if an item is in your hands or not since the game handles
that automatically. If you have too many things in your hands the game
puts away something to your backpack, and similarly if you need to use
something in your backpack you don't have to take it first.
Due to my IF-newbie status, I don't know how common that behaviour is,
but I think that's a good solution if you want a sack.
Rikard
david carlton
> So here's a question. How would one discourage a player from
> behaving in the "steal everything that isn't locked down" fashion
> without either applying inventory limits or locking everything down
> that wasn't essential to the plot?
By making the game not much fun if the player behaves that way. (Or,
perhaps better, making it at least as much fun if the player doesn't
behave that way.) Specifically, flood the player with options if she
really wants to pursue them, but also provide the player with enough
guidance that pursuing all those options isn't particularly useful for
completing the game.
Shenmue did this very well (albeit in the different context of talking
to NPC's rather than inventory). You're investigating the death of
your father, and you can knock on maybe a hundred different apartment
doors in your neighborhood if you want to. But doing that isn't
useful in figuring out what's going on: you'll just get variants on a
person saying "sorry, I'm busy". Instead, after talking to a few of
the people out on the street, you'll run into somebody who will point
you in the right direction, so you can focus your search in a much
more useful fashion.
I thought it worked really well. The game didn't pretend that those
apartment doors weren't there, or that knocking on them wasn't a
sensible thing to do; but on the other hand it didn't make you go
through the tedious exercise of actually knocking on all the doors if
you didn't want to. It took me a few hours of retraining my
instincts, but once I'd done that retraining (and even before then) I
really liked the game.
david carlton | <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/>
car...@math.stanford.edu | Go books: <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/go/>
O.K.! Speak with a PHILADELPHIA ACCENT!! Send out for CHINESE
FOOD!! Hop a JET!
Kodrik
> without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
> uncompletable - if that is a word)?
I wouldn't want the next section to be unwinnable and I don't want a stupid
message telling me. You need this item to eventually win the game.
* You could make it you can't reach the next section without these items in
a way that fits the story. For some reason, you need these items to unlock
the exit. But this is not my favorite choice.
* You should make those items available in the second section of the game.
You could have an NPC collect the uncollected items from the first section
give them to you in the second (figthing helping, dropping...). If you do
this,it woud be nice if you had encountered than NPC in the first section.
* Or, like someone else suggested, just place those items in locations in
in the second map. Of coure, they should only be there if you crossed the
passage to the second map without them.
Andy Sithers
> Do you prefer games that allow you to hold infinite objects (although here,
> infinite really means you could technically hold every 'pick-upable' item in
> the game) or do you prefer the more realistic limited hold (with a bag or
> similar to help carry extra items)?
As many objects as possible please - it's too much work to be
realistic. Extra points for being able to put stepladders in my coat
pockets in true Threepwood style :)
>
> 2. Score
> a) Do you like to have an increasing score to hint when you have completed a
> required action (i.e. you need to do it to help complete the game)?
> b) What if you pick up a required item but drop it or give it away later,
> would you like to see the score decrease to show that this has been a
> "negative" action?
a) Personally I don't like the score / clue interrelationship. Sure,
give me points for completing a goal, but don't worry about doing it
along the way. It's not as helpful as it sounds.
b) If you adopt (a) then I guess this is the natural counterpoint.
However, since I don't like (a) then this is also a no-thankyou.
>
> 3. Required Items (i.e. items you need to help complete the game)
> a) Sort of connected to 2b above, but if you go to drop a required item
> would you prefer not to be able to drop (in other words the game won't let
> you with a message along the lines of "You go to drop the <object>, but then
> you get a feeling that you may need it later so decide to hang on to it."),
> in which case 2b above is not needed.
> b) If you can drop a required item should you be given a warning against
> leaving it though (for instance, "You drop the <object> but fear this may be
> the wrong thing to do.")?
I wonder if this would be better as a beginners option. Too much IMHO.
However, please please please don't allow the player to use up items
(say matches) that they'll need later on. Pet hate that.
j...@seasip.demon.co.uk
Billy Harris <wha...@mail.airmail.net> writes:
>Third, something that both games and fiction try to avoid is boredom.
>In real life, I spilled some hot chocolate on my keyboard last month.
<long tale of woe snipped>
>Elapsed time: Roughly three hours, or too long for an IF-competition
>game. Real life is tedious and boring.
>> LOOK
You're in a room.
There is a Macintosh keyboard (containing chocolate) here.
>> I
You are carrying nothing worthy of attention, except a feldspar lens
and a toolcase (which is open) (in which are a faded scroll, a stained
scroll, a brittle scroll, a featureless mahogany rod, a featureless
ebony rod, a featureless ivory rod, a pendulum and a seven-foot
ceremonial pig-tickling pole).
>> READ STAINED
It reads "caskly spell: Cause perfection".
Your sanity is shaken.
>> CASKLY KEYBOARD
You must be less than 60% sane to cast that spell.
... Oh well, at least it was worth a try.
Lewis Raszewski
>
> Hi all
>
> From what people have said I think I know the answer to the following
> question, but I do not want to assume (never assume, you make an ASS out of
> U and ME!)
>
> You are at the end of the first section of my game. Once you do the correct
> command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
> section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
> section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
>
> I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
> without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
> uncompletable - if that is a word)?
>
Yes, generally.
There are some extra considerations:
- Is the irreversibility obvious?
- Is the importance of the item obvious?
- Is the presence of the item related to the section transition?
In Moments out of Time, for instance, you're told flat out that once you
leave the introduction, you won't be able to go back, and aren't allowed
to proceed unless you have the key equipment. I decided to do it this
way because the PC knew these facts (though the player may not).
Alternatively, it may be more "seamless" if the key objects are somehow
related to the scene transition; The Ray Gun you need in the end-game,
you also need to blow up the bunker at the end of act 1.
An important thing to think about is how you integrate this warning --
if the player has good reason to know that the item is necessary, you
might want to warn him in-game, the "voice of the PC" breaking through
to the player. If there's good reason for *anyone* to know, it might be
good to have the warning come from even further in-game, a la "Q says
'Come now, double-oh seven, you can't seriously be planning to leave
your laser-guided shoelaces behind!'". Alternatively, if there's no way
in hell that the player should know that the stuffed rabbit will turn
out to be the key to winning the game, and you're just telling him to be
polite, it's probably best to step clear out of the game framework, and
have the parser tell him (this is usally set off in square brackets).
--
L. Ross Raszewski
The Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park 407
"I will stare at the sun until its light doesn't blind me, and I will
walk
into the fire until its heat doesn't burn me, and I will feed the fire"
--
Sarah McLachlan, Into the Fire
Lewis Raszewski
Well, I think this is pretty fair.
I should note that I don't have these mimesis-busting moments of "Hey,
I'm carrying a lot in my hands!", because I tend to interpret IF
loosely. I mean, it's exceedingly rare to have implemented clothes, but
I never assume the PC is nude. So, I take my inventory to mean "here
are the things you have ready-to-hand" -- in my pockets, cling ober my
shoulder, stuffed in my socks, stuck behind my ear, etc. That's one
reason I have a distaste for limited inventories; they break my
perception of inventory as "stuff ready-to-hand"
--
L. Ross Raszewski
The Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park 407
"The queen has the power to create you from nothing -- And that's what
you
are." -- Adam Cadre, Bad Subjects
D. R. Porterfield
Well, it's really not all *that* much effort -- I assigned a
max_carried constant, gave the sack-object a high capacity, and
defined certain objects with large or small attributes. I figure any
weirdness will come out in pre-release play-testing. But I'll
certainly keep your suggestions in mind. Thanks for the feedback.
David
Sean T Barrett
>In your example, then,
>if you didn't want the player to go to section 2 without item X, either
>make item X required for getting to section 2, put a replacement X in
>section 2, or try to make the design such that it's clear in one move that
>'whoops--have to go back and pick up all the stuff I left behind'. The
>last is the most dangerous. And explicit warning could be annoying,
>though.
One of my problems with this scenario is I'm just not clear
why one ever makes this game design move in the first place:
If there's a bottleneck/milestone going from section 1 to
section 2, why choose to put tools needed for section 2 in
section 1 in the first place?
Presumably because "it's fun" or "it's cool" or "it makes
sense in the story", none of which seem to hold much weight
against the "this arbitrarily closes the game off".
Another reason might because you have an object needed for
both section 1 and section 2, in which case you can either
make it undroppable during section 1, or else decide that
the game design law of "unwinnability" is more important than
the game design rule "it's neat to make things with multiple
uses".
I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
(e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
to kill a particular enemy). There may well be some players
who are happy with or prefer that philosophy of game design,
but I suspect they're in a small minority.
SeanB
Billy Harris
Porterfield <drpf...@measinc.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I should specifically define what I have set up right now, and
> see if you folks think it's unreasonable. Currently, the player is
> limited to carrying only 7 items, but is provided with an
> extraordinarily roomy "sack" that will hold another 30 or 35 items --
If I have to go through a routine like this:
> Pick up flower
You can't hold any more items.
> Put key in sack
Done.
> Pick up flower
Taken.
> Unlock door
You can't. The key is in the sack.
> Get key
You can't hold any more items.
... Then this qualifies as tedious and boring. You can satisfy both
the "Haul a lot of junk" people like me and the meisis [I can never
spell that one] people by adding addional coding:
> Pick up flower
[Putting the key in the sack to make room]
Done.
> Unlock door
[Removing the key from the sack]
[Putting the flower in the sack to make room]
Done.
... But this involves additional coding. Is it worth your time to get
this working smoothly compared to the time spent improving a puzzle or
making the NPC's more realistic? You'll have to decide.
Billy Harris
<ashle...@DELETE-THISbtinternet.com> wrote:
> I take it you would like to be warned, otherwise going to the next section
> without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
> uncompletable - if that is a word)?
Here is where eveyone will have different opinions because the features
which make for an enjoyable game conflict directly with the features
that make a believable simulation.
You will have to find your own answers -- gaming experience definately
helps. Each situation needs a custom solution, and your own philosophy
and the style of the game will affect which solutions you consider.
Is the transition between old rooms and new rooms predictable?
If the player starts out in a hotel lobby preparing to go on a cruise,
they can be expected to spend time deciding what items they need to
bring [see below]. On the other hand, if going north results in you
being kidnapped and whisked into another location, it is much less
likely they will have what they need.
Is it obvious that the transition is irreversable?
If you are wandering through a house and hear a lock click behind you,
the natural assumption is that somewhere there will be a key, a control
panel, or a secret passage letting you back into the rest of the house.
If you are frantically escpaing from prison, dodging bullets, and jump
on a passing train, it is much more obvious that you aren't planning to
return anytime soon. Worst of all would be a ferry which promises
service every 10 turns; you ride across and start exploring the new
area only to hear an explosion 5 turns later as the ferry sinks on the
other side.
How likely is the player to have the items needed?
This one is a bit tricky -- if the player can transition without ever
needing a particular item, they may never have found it and hence
become stuck. On the other hand, if you force the player to use an item
before they are able to transition, they may decide "I've already used
this item" and drop it. For some items, you can force their use during
the transition itself -- a battery to start the car, a navigation
device containing a battery and a map to fly a plane, a train ticket,
etc. But obviously it begins to stretch credibiliy to require the use
of a wet soapy sponge to trigger a cavein.
Thinking about all of these will give you some insight into which
objects they player might leave behind. There are several different
ways to react. In roughly increasing levels of cheesiness:
Provide alternatives. There is more than one hammer in the universe --
just because a miner left a pick in one section of the cave doesn't
mean that a different miner can't leave a different pick in another
section of cave. Very few locks have only one copy of their key, and
that's not even considering the creative use of credit-cards, axes, or
hand grenades. Many people like for puzzles to have alternate solutions
anyway; simply provide an alternate solution which doesn't require the
missing item.
Do nothing. Allow the player to be stuck, and respond to the inevitable
complaints with "But it's more realistic that way". You will have
actually quite a bit of support from the group, and figure whatever you
do will trigger complaints anyway so you might as well take an approach
which is both realistic and easy to implement.
Give the player an in-game reason to want to hold on to the items. A
college student with a list of scavenger-hunt items. A police detective
who identifies a photograph as "evidence". As a subtle example, a key
which has not been used. For this to work, you also have to make the
transition predictable, to avoid cases where the player decides "I'll
put all scavenger hunt items in this empty room."
In the readme file or ABOUT text, give an explanation along the lines
of "There is a point [you'll know when it happens] where part of the
game gets cutoff and you will need to have the correct items in
inventory to win the game. If you care, the *SPOILERS* list of items
you need appears at the bottom of this file."
Have a WINNABLE metacommand. After the transition, people who care will
see if the game is still winnable.
Have minor breaks of meisis -- you can't drop your toolkit because
[insert humour reason here]. After the cave-in, you find a hammer, a
key, and a wet soapy sponge sitting at your feet.
Remove the drop command. Lots of graphical adventures do just fine
without it.
Have the player get a sinking feeling that they did something wrong if
they go through a cavein without a crucial item. Or give a parse
message "The game is no longer winnable."
Have what another poster called the magic fairy, who prevents you from
advancing unless you have the necessary items.
Billy Harris
<Pine.GSO.4.44.020222...@carr10.acpub.duke.edu>,
Georgina Bensley <ge...@duke.edu> wrote:
> So here's a question. How would one discourage a player from behaving in
> the "steal everything that isn't locked down" fashion without either
> applying inventory limits or locking everything down that wasn't essential
> to the plot?
A big part of this is the style of game. Now that games have gotten
much better, the "steal everything that isn't locked down" and it's
corolary "Anything I can pry loose isn't locked down" are losing
popularity.
Actually, modern games tend to duck the whole question by having only a
few implemented items, all of which are interesting. But usually you
can set things straight by having -- especially in the first room -- a
collection of mundane items. If I start the game in a desk with some
unpaid bills, a walkman, and a 1974 edition of the TTL Databook, I may
pick them all up, but I'm likely to drop them again.
OKB -- not okblacke
>I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
>a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
>(e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
>to kill a particular enemy).
Many of the Sierra games I've played (Kings Quests, Laura Bow) can be
made unwinnable --- and my enjoyment level and estimation of those games has
been severly lowered because of that.
--OKB (Bren...@aol.com) -- no relation to okblacke
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Gary Shannon
"OKB -- not okblacke" <bren...@aol.comRemove> wrote in message
news:20020223002905...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> buz...@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett) wrote:
> >I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
> >a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
> >(e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
> >to kill a particular enemy).
>
> Many of the Sierra games I've played (Kings Quests, Laura Bow) can
be
> made unwinnable --- and my enjoyment level and estimation of those games
has
> been severly lowered because of that.
>
At the very least an unwinnable condition should be detected and should
trigger the player being hit by a "random" lightning bolt and instantly
killed. At least if you're PC is killed you won't waste time trying to win
an unwinnable game.
--gary
John W. Kennedy
> I'd rather the game be structured in some way so that you can't go
> on without getting everything, but it's not that you're just stopped
> by the magic fairy who says "you have to have X Y and Z for the next
> section".
A few years back, the Int'l Wizard of Oz Club sponsored a contest for an
official centennial sequel. In my ms., I introduced a character, "ZIP,
the adventure-game nymph". She was there to stop people from entering a
locked house by throwing objects through the glass windows. My hero got
into the house the "correct" way, opened the window from the inside, and
then, when outside again, threw a stone through the open window. The
resulting unexpected state broke her programming, and she decided to
accompany the party, hoping to find her lost home, the Castle of the
Implementors.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Lewis Raszewski
> I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
> a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
> (e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
> to kill a particular enemy). There may well be some players
> who are happy with or prefer that philosophy of game design,
> but I suspect they're in a small minority.
>
> SeanB
Scratch head.... Scratch head....
About 95% of commerical adventure produced before 1995 could be made
unwinnable, usually by means totally unforseeable, such as "you didn't
pet the cat in the first scene".
Not that I'm saying it's a good design decision (THough neither would I
say that insisting that the game never become unwinnable, even though
the logic of the story insists it should be is a good design decision
either)
--
L. Ross Raszewski
The Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park 407
"I've seen this thing before, in my best friend and the boy next door."
--
Blondie, Maria
Peter Seebach
Lewis Raszewski <rras...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>About 95% of commerical adventure produced before 1995 could be made
>unwinnable, usually by means totally unforseeable, such as "you didn't
>pet the cat in the first scene".
Ugh. Sierra was *AWFUL* this way. There was a thing in one of the King's
Quest games where, if you didn't figure out the interface for "throw boot
at cat" in about a 10 second window, you couldn't win.
I played around with that game for a while, and I kept thinking "Any day now,
I'll see why people like these", and finally I said "No, I won't". I'm much
happier now than I was when I was trying to play that game. :)
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Sean T Barrett
>Sean T Barrett wrote:
>> I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
>> a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
>> (e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
>> to kill a particular enemy). There may well be some players
>> who are happy with or prefer that philosophy of game design,
>> but I suspect they're in a small minority.
>>
>
>About 95% of commerical adventure produced before 1995 could be made
>unwinnable
Indeed, I meant to type "...of many MODERN commercial games".
With the intended implication "commercial game developers have
gotten past this design mistake at long last; can't we too?"
SeanB
Andrew Plotkin
Commercial game developers are developing graphical adventure games.
The pacing issues are different.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Sean T Barrett
>Sean T Barrett <buz...@theworld.com> wrote:
>>>About 95% of commerical adventure produced before 1995 could be made
>>>unwinnable
>
>> Indeed, I meant to type "...of many MODERN commercial games".
>
>> With the intended implication "commercial game developers have
>> gotten past this design mistake at long last; can't we too?"
>
>Commercial game developers are developing graphical adventure games.
>The pacing issues are different.
I did not mean to type "of many modern commercial adventure games",
and in fact I didn't. (I expressly mentioned unwinnability-due-to-
running-out-of-ammo thinking that would be moderately clear.)
You may consider that claim irrelevant, and perhaps turn-based
all-communication-through-text somehow radically changes
the medium compared to everything else, but it seems unlikely
to me.
It is true that UNDO reduces the tension significantly if you can
never go more than one turn off the winning track, but I'd choose
that as the lesser of the two evils versus tedious replaying.
The commercial game industry has gone through the same issue in
the form of save-anywhere-unlimited-times, and the masses have
spoken resoundingly on that. [*]
Perhaps it is simply the case that there is a small niche
audience that appreciates certain kinds of gameplay that go
against unwinnability (would it be bad if Sokoban stopped the
game if you closed it off? probably, but I'm not an expert),
although I'm not one of them; but I have doubts about the
overlap of that audience with the IF audience.
Of course you can make your art be anything you want.
SeanB
[*] more complicated than that, really, but hey
Mark J. Tilford
>
> I always prefer to be allowed to do anything I want in a game, thus I
> would vote for being allowed to drop the item. With that said, I feel
> that instead of a warning, there should be a log of some sort that is
> automatically maintained by the game that I can refer to later on to
> remind me where the heck it was that I dropped that particular item
><g>. This last is particularly important in a large acreage game.
> But then, there are problems if the place I dropped the item is
> essentially (or totally) inaccessible to me later in the game for some
> physical reason.
>
I think that Inform does this automatically with the OBJECTS command.
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Pope Jeremy I, KSC
> command you will go somewhere else and will not be able to return to this
> section. But what if you do not have all the items required for the next
> section (or the one after that) that may be in this first section?
>
> without the necessary items will make the game unwinnable (and possibily,
> uncompletable - if that is a word)?
>
When the player is sent to the second section, it could happen in a
magical way that whisks the player away and plops him down in section
two, emptyhanded. That is to say, you could avoid the problem, by
removing the need for the items from the first section in the second
section.
Or, you could devise some mechanism that requires the player to have
the required item in hand to trigger the trip to section 2. Here's a
made up example where the required item is a fish.
>look
You see a big button that says "Hit me with a fish to get to SECTON
TWO"
>hit the button
Not with your hand, with a fish.
>hit the button with the fish.
You wallop the fish against the button and instantly, in a psychadelic
swirl your surroundings are transformed! You find yourself in SECTION
TWO.
Just an idea.
Pope Jeremy I, KSC