How much detail?
Arfarfarf
I've played a fair few games of the Adventure Genre, and have always said that
it's a bit of a shame that I 'can't go that way', when the game complains about
something you've commanded...
...I suppose it's pretty much like the infinity theory... what's on the other
side of a wall? what's at the end of the universe? is there an end to
anything?
In a game though, 'how much' of the infinity thing should there be?
I know gamers don't want to be looking inside drawers, and boxes, and rooms
forever only to find a cobweb that has absolutely nothing to do with the game
whatsoever (other than a red herring). But, surely there should be a good
supply a freedom of movement and exploration in an adventure?
Have you ever visited a (in real life now!!!) public house and gardens? When
you go round the house/hall, there's rooms, etc, in them that the public just
aren't allowed to go, but you can see the places there - itching and nagging
you to go and peek, and investigate... where should all that stop in a game?
Kairla
As much as is necessary for the game. Seriously. Sure, it might be
cool to see what's down that forbidden alleyway, but if it's not
important for the game, why bother? I think IF is like any other work
of fiction, in that if you put lots of extraneous detail in, the
story/game loses it's impact.
In some better IF that I've seen, authors tried to keep the "what's over
there?" question at bay by making the "world" self-contained. Of
course, this isn't always possible, so closing off the other exits by
giving a plausible reason is acceptable, I think.
It should go without saying that anything you mention in a room
description should be examinable if not manipulatable.
> Have you ever visited a (in real life now!!!) public house and
> gardens? When you go round the house/hall, there's rooms, etc, in
> them that the public just aren't allowed to go, but you can see the
> places there - itching and nagging you to go and peek, and
> investigate... where should all that stop in a game?
I had to address this specific example. (In real life) Is it your
house? If not, then why would you go poking around where you shouldn't?
Because it's not socially acceptable. Why would a game be any
different? (Unless there's a valid reason, such as the MC being a
thief.)
Others will probably disagree with me and that's fine. I still stand by
the idea of the game losing impact when irrelevant detail is included.
Kairla ^_^
Kevin Venzke
"Arfarfarf" <jsk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040924175630...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> How detailed should a game be?
>
You have to be careful not to add so much detail that the player
can't figure out what is actually important to the game. I'm not sure
if there's a way to include lots of detail and also let the player know
that it isn't important. Maybe:
>ENTER TOWN
[NOTE: Nothing in the town is helpful in completing the game!]
Town Entrance
(insert beautiful and compelling description of the town)
>|
Kevin Y.
"Kairla" <em...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1096071908.pIfYlhNqYJ5mjR8xEsHpnw@teranews...
>> In a game though, 'how much' of the infinity thing should there be?
>
> As much as is necessary for the game. Seriously. Sure, it might be
> cool to see what's down that forbidden alleyway, but if it's not
> important for the game, why bother? I think IF is like any other work
> of fiction, in that if you put lots of extraneous detail in, the
> story/game loses it's impact.
>
This reminded me of a passage from the TADS 2 manual that really stuck with
me:
"As you flesh out the setting, you may be tempted to add enormous amounts of
space to your locations. For example, if you're building an airport, you may
find yourself putting in dozens of gates, each pretty much the same as all
the others. While the added space may make the game setting more like a real
airport, it can often harm the game's playability. Remember, you're
designing a game, not an airport -- the most important thing is making the
game fun to play, not real.
"The main problem with adding lots of essentially unused space to a game is
that it tends to make the level of detail throughout the game less
consistent. You should make an effort to keep the level of detail as
consistent as possible throughout the game, to avoid annoying and confusing
the player. If you have a few rooms with a great deal of detail (such as
lots of objects that can be examined and manipulated), the player will come
to expect that level of detail in other rooms."
From the chapter "Getting Started with TADS". Written in the context of
1996, but quite relevant.
> In some better IF that I've seen, authors tried to keep the "what's over
> there?" question at bay by making the "world" self-contained. Of
> course, this isn't always possible, so closing off the other exits by
> giving a plausible reason is acceptable, I think.
>
Absolutely it depends on the context; for example, some games declare a
limited setting, or a clearly laid-out goal, or a time limit right at the
beginning so that the player has no perogative to wander off at all. Other
games are expressly designed for wandering around, and in those the map
boundaries can be embellished in ways that add to the atmosphere of the game
while still putting realistic limits on it. I think So Far dealt with this
particularly effectively, actually going out of its way (or at least that's
what it looked like) to place additional inaccesible doors and paths in the
player's way. Here was a case, I think, where the red herrings and false
boundaries _added_ to the game, and were an integral part of it.
> It should go without saying that anything you mention in a room
> description should be examinable if not manipulatable.
>
>> Have you ever visited a (in real life now!!!) public house and
>> gardens? When you go round the house/hall, there's rooms, etc, in
>> them that the public just aren't allowed to go, but you can see the
>> places there - itching and nagging you to go and peek, and
>> investigate... where should all that stop in a game?
>
> I had to address this specific example. (In real life) Is it your
> house? If not, then why would you go poking around where you shouldn't?
> Because it's not socially acceptable. Why would a game be any
> different? (Unless there's a valid reason, such as the MC being a
> thief.)
>
Sadly, it seems that IF is built on throwing all sense of social
acceptability out the window right at the start of a game. After all, many
games _rely_ on you instinctively knowing to go poking around without even
knowing why!
Rexx Magnus
> How detailed should a game be?
>
> I've played a fair few games of the Adventure Genre, and have always
> said that it's a bit of a shame that I 'can't go that way', when the
> game complains about something you've commanded...
>
> ...I suppose it's pretty much like the infinity theory... what's on the
> other side of a wall? what's at the end of the universe? is there an
> end to anything?
Important interactive stuff should stand out in the room description.
Remembering that if the player is running in brief mode, important objects
still need to show up.
Anything that can be examined (that you would expect to be able to
examine) should have a description. Usually everything named in the room
description should have a description of its own at the very least.
It's no fun to have
The huge building in front of you stands proud of the treeline, its roof
almost touching the clouds above.
>look at roof
You can see no such thing.
Or, just as bad
You see nothing special about that.
KF
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:56:30 GMT, Arfarfarf scrawled:
>
> The huge building in front of you stands proud of the treeline, its roof
> almost touching the clouds above.
>
> >look at roof
>
> You can see no such thing.
>
> Or, just as bad
>
> You see nothing special about that.
Actually, why should there be something special about the roof, that
might be a perfectly reasonable response and tells the player not to
take any further interest in it. Of course, "You can see no such
thing" is really wrong as you have been told you can!
Rexx Magnus
> Actually, why should there be something special about the roof, that
> might be a perfectly reasonable response and tells the player not to
> take any further interest in it. Of course, "You can see no such
> thing" is really wrong as you have been told you can!
I believe that if someone intends to look at it, they still do. If they try
to interact with it in any other way, then they're told that they're not
able to, or it's not necessary.
Arfarfarf
> almost touching the clouds above.
>
> >look at roof
>
> You can see no such thing.
>
> Or, just as bad
>
> You see nothing special about that.
Actually, why should there be something special about the roof, that
might be a perfectly reasonable response and tells the player not to
take any further interest in it. Of course, "You can see no such
thing" is really wrong as you have been told you can!
------------------
I can see a reason there: that you should get something other than the
standard response "You see nothing special... blah blah blah"
Perhaps, "It's just a roof.", or "It's just a brick.", etc just to say to the
player 'yeah, you can examine it, but there's nothing special about it."
I'm learning a lot from all this blarb and waffle...
Thanks!
Tommy Herbert
> Actually, why should there be something special about the roof, that
> might be a perfectly reasonable response and tells the player not to
> take any further interest in it.
I think a roof is a complex enough entity that if there was really
nothing remarkable about one, that would be remarkable in itself. Of
course, the roof's colour, materials and architectural style might not
be relevant to the story, in which case it might be better to come up
with some text that the roof inspires, e.g:
"Running your eyes along the line of the roof reminds you of that time
in the Sudan, with everyone scanning the horizon for signs of the
approaching storm."
By the way, my favourite roof description comes at the beginning of
The God of Small Things. From memory:
"The old house wore its roof pulled down low over its ears like a
long, low hat."