Inventory Limit
Mike Berlyn
As some of you may know, Dr. Dumont's Wild P.A.R.T.I. is in beta, and is a
rev. or two away from being done.
Some testers whined when I limited inventory, while others whined when I had
no inventory limit.
Typically, in classic adventures (puzzle-based) like Zork, etc., your
inventory management was part of the puzzle of the game. Not wanting to be a
throw-back any more than I already am, I need to know the current thinking
on inventory management.
In Dumont, there is a central location, like the hub on a wheel, where
inventory can easily be dropped and retrieved, so travelling great distances
to retrieve the object shouldn't be an issue. There are things in the game
which make this place easily accessible, too.
Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
around with 20 items? Do you care?
-- Mike
mailto:mbe...@casacdepublishing.com
http://www.cascadepublishing.com
Andrew Plotkin
> Some testers whined when I limited inventory, while others whined when I had
> no inventory limit.
> Typically, in classic adventures (puzzle-based) like Zork, etc., your
> inventory management was part of the puzzle of the game. Not wanting to be a
> throw-back any more than I already am, I need to know the current thinking
> on inventory management.
> In Dumont, there is a central location, like the hub on a wheel, where
> inventory can easily be dropped and retrieved, so travelling great distances
> to retrieve the object shouldn't be an issue. There are things in the game
> which make this place easily accessible, too.
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
To an extent it depends on the style of the game. There are some kinds of
very realistic scenarios where inventory limits feel natural. But for me,
these are rare.
In Jigsaw, for example, it didn't bother me that I was carrying around a
screenful and a half of chronological detritus. I did notice, but I said
"heh" and went on with the game.
If I have a good sense what will be needed where, and can go back to the
hub once before each major expedition, that's good. If I don't have a good
sense what will be needed where, but my inventory is big enough to hold
everything I might *reasonably* need, that's also good.
If, every ten minutes, I have to go back to the hub and pick up an object
I didn't think of carrying, that's bad.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Den of Iniquity
> Ok, you guys and gals. I need some feedback.
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're
> walking around with 20 items? Do you care?
In short: don't make players backtrack unnecessarily.
In detail:
Ask yourself: why am I limiting inventory?
"There's a novel puzzle which revolves around inventory limitation."
Excellent. A fine reason. Nothing like getting the brain cells going.
"Inventory limitation adds to the atmosphere or facilitates certain
plot devices."
Sounds good to me. Perhaps returning to the hub to collect useful items is
an important part of the timing, forcing you to pass places or characters
that have new things to reveal to you as time progresses. If the journey
is as important as the terminus, who could complain?
"Inventory limitation is there to make things seem a bit more
realistic."
Ugh. Unless it's really, _really_ harmful to the feel of the game - like
you've got the inventory of an ADOM troll farmer (with a girdle of giant
strength) to wade through every time you're looking for something - or
knowing what to take with you is so trivial that you'll almost never go
back-tracking for stuff - then I don't think it's such a good idea. Might
as well throw in the need to eat, drink, sleep and evacuate waste every
200 turns and then flush the software down the lavatory for all I care.
--
Den
(Pointless addendum to follow. Ignore it if you don't want to see my
inventory.)
Lelah Conrad
<mbe...@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:
>Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
>around with 20 items? Do you care?
I dislike inventory limits. One thing I really like about OaF was
that if you wore things rather than carried them you could keep as
much stuff as you liked. In general, I'd rather solve problems and
see new vistas and interact with NPC's than manage an inventory, which
is often quite frustrating. (I don't like eating, drinking,
sleeping, etc. either.)
Just one adventurer's opinion.
Lelah
Den of Iniquity
>(Pointless addendum to follow. Ignore it if you don't want to see my
>inventory.)
Voyeurs Ahoy!
(Gods, what does all this stuff say about me?)
Hang on, let me put my coat on and see if I can produce a very sizeable
inventory. This isn't faked in any way - apart from putting my coat on.
(Imagine what you could get if you let the average person - or even
Zarf - include his backpack.)
I am carrying:
T-shirt
Boxers
Socks (2)
Shoes (2)
Safety Goggles [You know, computers nowadays...]
Trousers - containing (in pockets):
tissues (2)
wallet - containing:
23 pounds and 63 pence (assorted British notes & coins)
Bank service card (cash card / Switch debit card)
a small wad of receipts from shops and cash machines
Sticker noting UK and US scoring for 'Poker Squares'
British Telecom phonecard
First class stamps (14)
Second class stamp (1)
Twopenny stamps (2)
Loyalty cards (3 different retailers)
Student discount cards (2)
Library cards (3 different libraries)
National Insurance Numbercard [never did memorise it]
NUS card (Student ID)
York card [id's me as York resident for Yorkly discounts]
Young Person's Railcard
Train timetables (4)
Passport-photo of me [at least, it's _supposed_ to be me]
Scraps of paper with lists [games & books to look out for]
NHS medical card
Defunct medical appointment card [Dept of Neurology ;) ]
Birth certificates (2) [large and small versions thereof]
Coat - containing (in pockets):
Personal Stereo - containing
headphones
AA battery
Beautiful South cassette
Key-ring, holding
keys (6)
AA battery [for my personal stereo, y'know]
Lipsalve stick
Gloves (2)
Scarf [emblazoned with the logo 'Bolton Wanderers']
Paper tissues (2)
Carrier bag (which is empty)
Umbrella
Prescription Medicines (1)
Throat lozenges [I've got a bit of a sore throat, surprise...]
Pain-killers (3 types) [Never get stuck with a headache and
nothing to take :) ]
There. 46 types of thing and I'm not even trying to cart a lot of stuff
around with me. Mostly little things, admittedly, but it's amazing what
you can find in a real-life inventory.
--
Den
Adam Cadre
> (I don't like eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. either.)
Man, and people call *me* an ascetic.
-----
Adam Cadre, Anaheim, CA
http://208.246.163.14/adam
Michael Gaul
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
The inventory limit was one of the few things that
I really hated among the old infocom games. I don't
however object inventory limitiation as a whole.
But I think it is *very* difficult to get it
right. The things that I disliked most about it
were ...
- much too little inventory space. Being able to
carry just six or seven objects at once is just
ridiculous, even if it's part of a puzzle. It
isn't even realistic - as a player, I would just
feel lead by the string.
- inventory limitation does not increase realism
when you just limit the number of objects that
the player can carry. It is difficult to accept
that a game lets me pick up a book while I'm
carrying nine chairs, pot plants, or plate
mails, but refuses the same action when I carry
ten coins, gems or pencils.
- having to go long ways to retrieve dropped
objects. As you said, in a game with inventory
limitation you should have a central, easily
reachable room where you can store surplus items,
and where your findings are safe from theft.
However if you make that room *too* easily
reachable, and if storage is its only purpose,
people may complain why you didn't just raise
their carrying capacity.
- being forced to bring items to locations where
they logically should be present anyways. When
I'd fly to India with very limited inventory,
I'd pack some batteries, a water heater, and
some toilet paper, all things which can be
difficult to acquire there. I certainly won't
pack fruits, cloth, or tea, because I'd expect
that I can get those anywhere there without
much effort.
To put it short, for me inventory limitation is
okay, if you do it right. But doing it right
appears to be so difficult that I'd be tempted
to just leave it out for games I program.
Michael
(Mike from Berlin, talking to Mike Berlyn :))
Jacob Munkhammar
<mbe...@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:
> Ok, you guys and gals. I need some feedback.
>
> As some of you may know, Dr. Dumont's Wild P.A.R.T.I. is in beta, and is a
> rev. or two away from being done.
>
> Some testers whined when I limited inventory, while others whined when I had
> no inventory limit.
>
> Typically, in classic adventures (puzzle-based) like Zork, etc., your
> inventory management was part of the puzzle of the game. Not wanting to be a
> throw-back any more than I already am, I need to know the current thinking
> on inventory management.
>
> In Dumont, there is a central location, like the hub on a wheel, where
> inventory can easily be dropped and retrieved, so travelling great distances
> to retrieve the object shouldn't be an issue. There are things in the game
> which make this place easily accessible, too.
>
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
>
I prefer limitations. Because of the not-much-hailed reason of "realism".
Then, on the other hand, frequent inventory management is annoying.
So what I am saying is, if the player is accumulating an *unrealistic*
amount (whatever that is) of objects the program should protest.
In the system I am building, objects have both volume and weight and the
player has a maximum capacity for these two values, none of which may be
exceeded. Of course, putting objects in containers saves volume but not
weight, objects in "worn" containers (like clothes and backbacks) only
count as weight, a.s.o.
In that way the 9 chairs versus 9 keys problem is solved, at the same time
as the player cannot carry around 17 chairs, a canoe, a bicycle, *and* a
medium sized wine barrel.....
/Jacob
--
Hemma hos: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/
Textäventyr: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/SAK/
Bugatti: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~jacob/BILsidor/Bugatti/
Maskiner: PowerMac 4400, Mac LC, Mac Plus, Sinclair Spectrum
Joyce Haslam
Lelah Conrad <l...@nu-world.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 07:15:14 -0800, "Mike Berlyn"
> <mbe...@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:
> >walking around with 20 items? Do you care?
>
[...]
> Just one adventurer's opinion.
You speak for me too.
Oh the joy of deleting the restriction from Karos :-)
Joyce.
--
Joyce Haslam imho e&oe Lancashire, England
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dljhaslam/infrm.html
for Gateway to Karos [INFORM 5]
Schep
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Den of Iniquity wrote:
>
> >(Pointless addendum to follow. Ignore it if you don't want to see my
> >inventory.)
>
> Voyeurs Ahoy!
>
> (Gods, what does all this stuff say about me?)
>
> Hang on, let me put my coat on and see if I can produce a very sizeable
> inventory. This isn't faked in any way - apart from putting my coat on.
> (Imagine what you could get if you let the average person - or even
> Zarf - include his backpack.)
>
> --
> Den
Heh. Good point. And if you think that's bad, try the average person's
computer desk. At least mine's a mess.
On the desk you see blah blah blah.... (We don't really need another
illustration, do we?)
--
--Schep
Email address is scheplerAtpilotDotmsuDotedu.
green_g...@my-dejanews.com
"Mike Berlyn" <mbe...@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
I'm limiting inventory based on a simple "weight/size" combination fudge
factor per object. Each object is generally classed as one of 6 different
"sizes" (pea, book, breadbox, chair, table, horse - ranging from 0 to 100
points - plus "unlimited" for containers like a lake) and I sum them up see
if you can carry something else. Supporters and containers have a max value
they can hold as well. It's simplistic - tending toward the generous - yet
keeps the player from grabbing the dragon under one arm, the wardrobe under
the other, stuffing a chair in their pocket and then crawling through the
rabbit hole. :)
Given the kinds of objects in my game, unless you are into rearranging the
furniture you shouldn't notice the restrictions.
I hate inventory management just to make a puzzle more difficult (it ranks
right up there with mazes and timed puzzles - <blech>)
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lucian Paul Smith
: Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
: around with 20 items? Do you care?
In modern IF, if there's an inventory limit, I prefer there to be a
compelling reason for it. Often, this can be accomplished some other way
or limited to one piece of the game. I limited inventory in a couple
sections of 'Edifice', for example--in one area, you could only carry what
you were wearing, and in another, one item was so large and bulky you
could carry it alone, but nothing else. Having to manage inventory for
the entirety of the game, however, just makes a puzzle you've solved drag
out, which can be annoying.
To give a small nod to realism, it can help if you're given something to
carry stuff around in. Inform's sack_objects work around this problem
pretty nicely, I think. They also enable you to drop a large number of
items all at once, which, at times, can be useful.
-Lucian
Adam J. Thornton
What he said.
I'm not sure I like the idea of the _Curses_ knapsack, since half of what I
did in the game was to put *absolutely everything* in it so I had a 3-page
inventory listing. Likewise, the overcoat in _Anchorhead_ got a little
ridiculous. However, having a sack that can hold a good twenty little
objects or a few biggish ones seems like a good idea.
It isn't hard to give every item both a weight and a bulk property.
Anchorhead did nicely with not allowing you to put bulky items in your
pockets; if the coat had had a maximum capacity too, it would have been
more mimetic for me.
So I vote for the "container big enough to carry around all the obviously
useful stuff and some more besides, but not for *every item in the game all
at once*" approach.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Sean T Barrett
>I'm not sure I like the idea of the _Curses_ knapsack, since half of what I
>did in the game was to put *absolutely everything* in it so I had a 3-page
>inventory listing. Likewise, the overcoat in _Anchorhead_ got a little
>ridiculous. However, having a sack that can hold a good twenty little
>objects or a few biggish ones seems like a good idea.
>So I vote for the "container big enough to carry around all the obviously
>useful stuff and some more besides, but not for *every item in the game all
>at once*" approach.
I think for me the ideal "right" answer is "in a well-written game,
you will not run out of inventory unless it is for a particular
inventory-limit-based puzzle".
This may mean a smaller inventory limit is acceptable, but only
if the game is designed in such a way so as to avoid the player
having no clue what objects might be needed, and forcing the
player to use some location in the game as the "infinite stack".
There is no joy to tedium.
In the case of an *already coded* game which may not have the
opportunity to become "well-written" in this sense, so that
there are only these two options, then I would prefer the
non-realism of infinite inventory to the realism but tedium
of limited inventory.
Sean
LucFrench
weight restrictions, rather then number of items. (J, is it alright to mention
it?)
The system is fairly simple: every item has a "mass". When you pick up an item,
the game checks weither the item would put you over your "weight" limit. (Yes,
I know mass and weight are two different things; but I don't like using the
same word twice in a paragraph.)
It's more "realistic", and also simpler.
I think there's a library to this effect somewhere in gmd.
Is that any help?
Thanks
Luc "This is heavy" French
Pete
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
I like it when I can tote around at least *most* of what I think I need.
Makes me feel secure. I don't mind if I have to return to an
easily-accessible location to do a bit of object-swapping, but
otherwise, let me carry it! It depends on the milieu and the puzzle
requirements, of course, but to me a good rule of thumb is: Let the
player carry one-and-a-half times as much as would be possible in the
real world. (Assume the player has three strong arms.) Either that, or
give me a heavy-duty shopping bag/backpack/thing my aunt gave me but I
don't know what it is.
Pro-Inventory, but not a stupidly huge one,
Pete
Joe Mason
>
>I'm not sure I like the idea of the _Curses_ knapsack, since half of what I
>did in the game was to put *absolutely everything* in it so I had a 3-page
>inventory listing. Likewise, the overcoat in _Anchorhead_ got a little
>ridiculous. However, having a sack that can hold a good twenty little
>objects or a few biggish ones seems like a good idea.
For a game structured like Curses, the knapsack was perfect. For Anchorhead,
maybe the overcoat did get ridiculous - but I never noticed.
I'm in favour of an unlimited-size sack object, as long as you can make it
fit the game. That means calling it a Bag of Holding in a fantasy game,
or a Portable Hole in a cartoon-style game. Maybe a pocket universe in a
science-fiction game. Or in a Doctor Who game, just a pocket. (Although
a volume restriction might help here.)
I notice the title of the game in question is "Dr. Dumont's W.I.L.D Ride",
or something like that. To me, this title screams "portable hole".
Joe
--
Congratulations, Canada, on preserving your national igloo.
-- Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas
Mike Berlyn
weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
carry -- not the number of items.
LucFrench wrote in message <19990122231633...@ng138.aol.com>...
Emerick Rogul
: This is actually the way the Infocom games worked. A property (size) was the
: weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
: carry -- not the number of items.
This is the method that makes the most sense to me, and I always liked
that aspect of the Infocom games. It's a happy medium between the
magic sack that can hold anything and an arbitrarily-limited (by
number) inventory. Another thing that's key is automatically putting
things in the sack or bag when you go over the limit of what you can
reasonably hold in your hands -- I like it when a game looks after
details like this for me.
-Emerick
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick Rogul /\/ "...i saw your girlfriend and she's eating her
eme...@cs.bu.edu /\/ fingers like they're just another meal."
------------------------------------------------- 'summer babe', pavement
Dave G
>
> This is actually the way the Infocom games worked. A property (size) was the
> weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
> carry -- not the number of items.
With some items so heavy you could barely carry anything else. Piece of
timber, anyone? (Still, it was well worth the trouble of dragging that
thing back to the trophy case.)
David Glasser
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Den of Iniquity wrote:
>
> >(Pointless addendum to follow. Ignore it if you don't want to see my
> >inventory.)
>
> Voyeurs Ahoy!
>
> (Gods, what does all this stuff say about me?)
>
> Hang on, let me put my coat on and see if I can produce a very sizeable
> inventory. This isn't faked in any way - apart from putting my coat on.
> (Imagine what you could get if you let the average person - or even
> Zarf - include his backpack.)
>
> I am carrying:
>
> T-shirt
> Boxers
> Socks (2)
> Shoes (2)
> Trousers
[notes a lack of (being worn)]
Um.
--
David Glasser gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com http://onramp.uscom.com/~glasser
DGlasser @ ifMUD : fovea.retina.net:4001 (backup at 208.221.8.3:4001)
rec.arts.int-fiction FAQ: http://come.to/raiffaq
Sadie Hawkins, official band of David Glasser: http://www.port4000.com/
David Glasser
> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
> around with 20 items? Do you care?
I don't really like inventory limiting. A good compromise might be
marking bulky objects, and only allowing so many of them, while still
allowing infinite little things.
Jeff Hatch
> "Inventory limitation is there to make things seem a bit more
> realistic."
>
> Ugh. Unless it's really, _really_ harmful to the feel of the game - like
> you've got the inventory of an ADOM troll farmer (with a girdle of giant
> strength) to wade through every time you're looking for something - or
> knowing what to take with you is so trivial that you'll almost never go
> back-tracking for stuff - then I don't think it's such a good idea. Might
> as well throw in the need to eat, drink, sleep and evacuate waste every
> 200 turns and then flush the software down the lavatory for all I care.
Realism is preferable. It makes the game better. Two common mistakes,
though:
1) Your story is partly realistic and partly unrealistic, and the realism
calls attention to the lack of realism.
In real life, we aren't likely to _want_ to carry everything we see that's
not tied down. Perhaps in a great interactive fiction someday we won't need
to collect so many items. Until then, it's better not to let realistic weight
limitations call attention to the unrealistic need to be a pack rat!
Or 2) you don't automate the mindless things. Hey! We're using computers!
How hard is it to make the computer understand, "GO GET THE BRASS BELL"?
The eat/drink/sleep stuff is a good idea, but it's usually done badly. In
Enchanter your character apparently has a sufficiently strong will to hold a
piece of bread in her hand without eating it, even to the point of death.
Which takes about one day.
-Rúmil
Neil K.
> This is actually the way the Infocom games worked. A property (size) was the
> weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
> carry -- not the number of items.
TADS by default carries this a step further. Every item can have an
arbitrary weight and bulk number assigned to it.
I think this system is quite reasonable, especially if the upper bound of
weight and bulk a player can carry is set fairly high. (ie: somewhat
higher than TADS provides by default) Allowing a player to carry around
tons of extremely heavy and bulky objects is just too mimesis-shattering
for me. But inventory management is also a nuisance.
One other annoying thing is have the game make you drop stuff when you
try to pick up too many things. (the way older Infocom games did) That is
simply irritating. I'd much prefer a message along the lines of "your
hands are too full - tough" to "oops - you dropped the wombat!"
- Neil K.
--
t e l a computer consulting + design * Vancouver, BC, Canada
web: http://www.tela.bc.ca/tela/ * email: tela @ tela.bc.ca
Ben Parrish
>(at least I do) because life on its own isn't fun enough.
"Playing games" is part of "life on its own."
Otherwise, what is "life on its own"? Breathing and eating? Boooring.
L. Ross Raszewski
>though:
Um... Why? The ultimate realism is life, isn't it? And we play games
Lelah Conrad
<bpar...@remove.rvi.net> wrote:
>>Um... Why? The ultimate realism is life, isn't it? And we play games
>>(at least I do) because life on its own isn't fun enough.
>
>"Playing games" is part of "life on its own."
>
>Otherwise, what is "life on its own"? Breathing and eating? Boooring.
I think what Ross was saying here was that we play games to escape the
limitations of everyday life. "Play" is the operative word here.
Too many real life llimitations in a game turn it into work, and hence
not fun.
Lelah
okbl...@usa.net
> no inventory limit.
>
Here's what I'd like to see:
You're in the back yard.
You see the Magic Frisbee of Quendor on the roof of your house.
> GET FRISBEE
You can't reach it.
> GET LADDER
You go to the garage and fetch your ladder.
You're in the back yard.
> PROP LADDER AGAINST ROOF
[etc.]
-->Another example:
You're at Club 55.
> ENTER
The bouncer stops you. "Lemme see some ID, sweetie."
> GET FAKE ID.
You left your fake ID back in your dorm room.
> GO BACK AND GET IT.
Within about 20 minutes, you're back at Club 55, with your fake ID.
-->I realize this creates certain technical challenges, particularly for
people who have changing, dynamic maps that block certain paths or require
possession of the holy dodecahedron to get past the troll, and what have you.
But I think it is both "realistic" *and* sound from a literary standpoint.
Literature is full of the sort of vicissitudes that occur in everyday life,
but we are allowed to vicariously experience the frustration or anxiety
without being stopped in our progress through the story.
The last example is a good illustration of what I mean. The traditional IF
handling for forgotten objects requires step-by-step instruction: You would
have to go to the parking lot, get into your car, drive to the dorm, park the
car, get into your dorm room, find your ID, and then reverse the previous
steps because you forgot something.
The game can be an exercise in obstacles in getting into the club--might make
a fun game, actually--but if that's *not* the story, then it becomes annoying
and tedious.
[ok]
Joe Mason
>>Um... Why? The ultimate realism is life, isn't it? And we play games
>>(at least I do) because life on its own isn't fun enough.
>
>"Playing games" is part of "life on its own."
>
>Otherwise, what is "life on its own"? Breathing and eating? Boooring.
Well, you forgot a major factor in that equation, which makes things a little
less boring. More painful, though...
Ben Parrish
>
>Well, you forgot a major factor in that equation, which makes things a
little
>less boring. More painful, though...
Love is but a game...
And as we know, we play games because life on its own isn't fun enough. :)
Mark J. Tilford
>Er, I'd like to mention that there's a game forthcoming that's based upon
>weight restrictions, rather then number of items. (J, is it alright to mention
>it?)
>
>The system is fairly simple: every item has a "mass". When you pick up an item,
>the game checks weither the item would put you over your "weight" limit. (Yes,
>I know mass and weight are two different things; but I don't like using the
>same word twice in a paragraph.)
>
>It's more "realistic", and also simpler.
>
>I think there's a library to this effect somewhere in gmd.
>
>Is that any help?
>
>Thanks
>Luc "This is heavy" French
Didn't GAGS/AGT work that way?
--
-----------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@cco.caltech.edu
Joe Mason
>>>Otherwise, what is "life on its own"? Breathing and eating? Boooring.
>>
>>Well, you forgot a major factor in that equation, which makes things a
>little
>>less boring. More painful, though...
>
>
>Love is but a game...
Love? I was talking about excretion. You know, "breathe, eat and excrete"?
Laurel Halbany
>> Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
>> around with 20 items? Do you care?
Depends on the game. In a less serious game, I think it adds to the
atmosphere to be able to pull a Viking longboat out of your handbag.
In a more serious, realistic game, reasonable inventory management is
important. I really dislike games that let you carry, oh, two items at
a time and give you no carrying objects, though.
Frank Filz
> One other annoying thing is have the game make you drop stuff when you
> try to pick up too many things. (the way older Infocom games did) That is
> simply irritating. I'd much prefer a message along the lines of "your
> hands are too full - tough" to "oops - you dropped the wombat!"
Haven't you ever dropped something which would have been better not to
drop while trying to pick up just one more thing to carry in your
overburdened arms? I sure have (I hate making too many trips between
the car and the upstairs apartment I live in).
Now it would be nice for the game to make it obvious that its paying
attention to such detail, and that you can easily determine when you're
carrying too much (one way might be after the 1st time you do this, a
message given when you pick up the item which gets you close to this
load, which actually usually is more number of items based than weight -
though bulk does play in also).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ff...@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ff...@mindspring.com
okbl...@usa.net
>
Life is but a game.
And, as we know, we play games because existence on its own isn't fun enough.
Existence is but a game.
And, as we know, we play games because non-existence on its own isn't fun
enough.
Non-existence isn't.
Daniel Barkalow
> > Hang on, let me put my coat on and see if I can produce a very sizeable
> > inventory. This isn't faked in any way - apart from putting my coat on.
> > (Imagine what you could get if you let the average person - or even
> > Zarf - include his backpack.)
>
> Heh. Good point. And if you think that's bad, try the average person's
> computer desk. At least mine's a mess.
> On the desk you see blah blah blah.... (We don't really need another
> illustration, do we?)
Perhaps we could avoid some of the blatency of the unrealism, and make it
less annoying, if there was a "cruft" object that swallowed up anything
more than a few objects you put in your backpack.
In the backpack you see:
A change of clothing
2 bottles of vitamins (C and Zinc)
3 books by Umberto Eco
Cruft
] Search cruft
In the cruft you find:
Six campus newspapers
A copy of the Editorial Humor from three weeks ago
A wad of unrecognizable papers crumpled up
Your homework from last April
A bag of atomic fireballs
...
That way we maintain the illusion that the character is only carrying a
few items, in the same way that we maintain this illusion in real life.
Personally, I'm in favor of limiting inventory when designing games. At
any point when the character is going on a long trip, ask yourself, can
the person carry enough items to reasonably choose to carry all of the
ones they'll need? If not, give hints that the person's going to need the
additional items, make the less likely-looking ones unnecessary, or make
it obvious that some of the unnecessary items won't be needed.
-Iabervon
*This .sig unintentionally changed*
J. Kerr
> headphones
> AA battery
> Beautiful South cassette
Den becomes the first person in history to admit in public to owning a
Beautiful South album. You'll be telling us you vote Conservative next
;-)
John Francis
>Mike Berlyn wrote:
>>
>> This is actually the way the Infocom games worked. A property (size) was the
>> weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
>> carry -- not the number of items.
>
>timber, anyone? (Still, it was well worth the trouble of dragging that
>thing back to the trophy case.)
Zork/Dungeon spoilers ahead, in case anyone really cares ...
>With some items so heavy you could barely carry anything else. Piece of
>timber, anyone? (Still, it was well worth the trouble of dragging that
>thing back to the trophy case.)
Really? Why? For a long time (i.e. until the last mainframe release
of Zork) the piece of timber was utterly useless. I always thought it
was added just to make things difficult for the compulsive collector.
I dragged the thing back to the living room simply for the fun of seeing
a six-page room description, but it served no useful purpose.
Once the sooty room came along the timber did have one function, but it
wasn't the only object in the game you could use.
Mike Berlyn
inventory. Rewriting the game is just not an option. If you'd like to try
this, though, I'd be interested in seeing how it plays.
-- Mike
okbl...@usa.net wrote in message <78fud8$76p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
ExecPC
>Ok, you guys and gals. I need some feedback.
>
>As some of you may know, Dr. Dumont's Wild P.A.R.T.I. is in beta, and is a
>rev. or two away from being done.
>
Maybe I'm a little late on this one, but I have to add my two cents.
It's not so much inventory as it is placement of inventory. Sometimes you
need it in hand and sometimes the puzzle is leaving things in places that
are logical for your 'next trip'.
It sounds like the hub makes that difficult since it's a crossroads to
everywhere. I don't know - maybe leave the inventory limitless, but place
other constraints on bringing along everything.
For instance, if you brong a certain item that isn't needed on a particular
path, maybe something happens to it and you lose it (retrievably).
Shrug. If you're making puzzle-if, inventory seems to be a key feature.
Jarb
Neil K.
> Haven't you ever dropped something which would have been better not to
> drop while trying to pick up just one more thing to carry in your
> overburdened arms? I sure have (I hate making too many trips between
> the car and the upstairs apartment I live in).
Of course I have. It pisses me off. However, a) it doesn't happen every
time I try to pick something up whilst overburdened and b) adding piss-off
factors to games is no way to endear it to the player.
Den of Iniquity
> Den of Iniquity <dms...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Beautiful South cassette
> Den becomes the first person in history to admit in public to owning a
> Beautiful South album.
Wow! Do I win a prize?
Or to put it another way
Oh no! I've unwittingly made some sort of terrible faux pas!
Or to put it another way
I thought I'd read some statistic somewhere that over 50% of UK households
contain at least one Beautiful South album. Or more than that but I'm
afraid of letting my terrible memory overly exaggerate things.
Or to put it another way
I've got an excuse. Up until a few months ago I had no interest in the
Beautiful South at all - nor any of their music. Then my attention was
drawn to their Spring 1999 'Quench' UK tour, or more specifically, to
their 'special guests'. So I instantly went out and got my girlfriend to
get some tickets for one of their performances (she lives near one of the
featured venues, I don't, OK?). So then I thought it might be a good idea
to familiarise myself with some of the Beautiful South's music before
going to the concert (not till April). Hence the tape.
The warm-up band, of course, is Barenaked Ladies - I thought it would be
my best chance to actually see them play in the UK.
So imagine my surprise when a friend announced that he had tickets to see
BNL play live at Shepherd's Bush Empire (London) on January 27th. Hurrah!
I'm off on the train tomorrow; I wonder if they'll throw Kraft dinner (or
some British equivalent like "Pasta 'n' Sauce") at me.
Or to put it another way
So how many points have I won/lost?
Or to put it another way
> You'll be telling us you vote Conservative next
I shared a house with a young Conservative once (among other people).
And I was once on sneering terms with another young Conservative, called
John the Fascist by his friends (whenever we passed each other we'd give
each other a loud, well-meant sneer).
Does that count?
--
Den Or to put it another way
You should have seen the things in my inventory that I didn't mention...
Sam Barlow
> Mike Berlyn writes:
>
> : This is actually the way the Infocom games worked. A property (size) was the
> : weight of the object, and limits were based on how much weight you could
> : carry -- not the number of items.
My problem with this was that when I reach the inventory limit I have to
work out exactly how much to take out in order to put a new object
in--e.g. I come across a jar of honey. I can't pick it up-- I'm carrying
too much. I discard my magic scroll. Still can't pick up the honey. I
discard my wand. Still can't pick up the honey. Discard my dagger. At
last I can pick up the honey...
See, this method requires the player have a very good idea of the weight
of all the objects in order to correctly manage his inventory. The
standard object limiting one may be "unrealistic" but it avoids
situations like this.
In weighted games I usually end up dropping all, picking up the new
object, then getting all in order to make avoid the messing about. But
then the parser sometimes leaves an important object on the floor and
you have to repeat the whole thing over again.
I don't generally like games that make you choose which items to carry--
the Unkuulia games drove me wild; their puzzles were so bizarre that
I really didn't know what item I would need next and would have to run
around the locations trying to remember just where I put the object I
need for the current puzzle.
Ok, so Anchorhead and Jigsaw may have had big lists but there was a lot
less of this messing about. And if the player wants, he can always
discard superflous objects in the hub.
Look forward to the finished product.
Sam.
Michael Gentry
In the same spirit as creating the One-Room game or the One-Puzzle game or
the One-NPC game:
I hereby announce the Inventory Comp! (or InvComp or IComp, of course -- who
really types out "Inventory" anymore?)
Make a game with absolutely NO INVENTORY. This can mean zero takable
objects, or some restriction on the player which prevents the taking of
objects (no arms, germ freak, whatever), or however you want to implement
it. Only one rule: if, at any point, the player can type "I" and get
something other than "You are empty-handed," then you lose.
This contest will not be moderated. The winner gets the satisfaction of a
meaningless task finished.
signing out,
-M.
================================================
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Ben Parrish
He didn't say "no hands".
Jake Wildstrom
Michael Gentry <edr...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Make a game with absolutely NO INVENTORY. This can mean zero takable
>objects, or some restriction on the player which prevents the taking of
>objects (no arms, germ freak, whatever), or however you want to implement
>it. Only one rule: if, at any point, the player can type "I" and get
>something other than "You are empty-handed," then you lose.
Ridiculous. How can you be "empty handed" if you have no arms?
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
karvic
Michael Gentry wrote in message <78lkj2$q...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
>In the same spirit as creating the One-Room game or the One-Puzzle game or
>the One-NPC game:
>
>I hereby announce the Inventory Comp! (or InvComp or IComp, of course --
who
>really types out "Inventory" anymore?)
>
>Make a game with absolutely NO INVENTORY. This can mean zero takable
>objects, or some restriction on the player which prevents the taking of
>objects (no arms, germ freak, whatever), or however you want to implement
>it. Only one rule: if, at any point, the player can type "I" and get
>something other than "You are empty-handed," then you lose.
>
Sean T Barrett
>In the same spirit as creating the One-Room game or the One-Puzzle game or
>the One-NPC game:
>
>I hereby announce the Inventory Comp! (or InvComp or IComp, of course -- who
>really types out "Inventory" anymore?)
In the same spirit, I hereby announce the
One-Description,
One-Exit,
One-Puzzle,
One-Room,
One-Impossibility,
One-Verb/Action,
One-Turn,
One-Inventory-Object,
One-NPC
Comp!
Sean
Bonus points if the NPC is a dragon.
Gunther Schmidl
>objects, or some restriction on the player which prevents the taking of
>objects (no arms, germ freak, whatever), or however you want to implement
>it. Only one rule: if, at any point, the player can type "I" and get
>something other than "You are empty-handed," then you lose.
Okay. My entry is up at
http://linz.orf.at/gast/gschmidl/files/camping.z5
--
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
+ Gunther Schmidl + "I couldn't help it. I can resist everything +
+ Ferd.-Markl-Str. 39/16 + except temptation" -- Oscar Wilde +
+ A-4040 LINZ +---------------+------------------------------+
+ Tel: 0732 25 28 57 + ICQ: 22447430 + http://gschmidl.home.ml.org/ +
+------------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
TenthStone
>In article <36ab8...@news1.uswest.net>,
> "Ben Parrish" <bpar...@remove.rvi.net> wrote:
>>
>> Love is but a game...
>>
>> And as we know, we play games because life on its own isn't fun enough. :)
>>
>
>Life is but a game.
Life = Game
Life = Pain
Game = Pain?
-----------
The imperturbable TenthStone
tenth...@hotmail.com mcc...@erols.com mcc...@gsgis.k12.va.us
Jonadab the Unsightly One
Cute.
- jonadab
Ricardo Dague
> Life = Game
> Life = Pain
> Game = Pain?
LIFE
LIVE
GIVE
GAVE
GAME
DAME
DAMN
DARN
DAIN
PAIN
-- Ricardo
David Glasser
> LIFE
> LIVE
> GIVE
> GAVE
> GAME
> DAME
> DAMN
> DARN
> DAIN
Bing! Not a word.
> PAIN
DARN
BARN
BAIN
PAIN
--
David Glasser gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com http://onramp.uscom.com/~glasser
DGlasser @ ifMUD : fovea.retina.net:4001 (backup at 208.221.8.3:4001)
rec.arts.int-fiction FAQ: http://come.to/raiffaq
Sadie Hawkins, official band of David Glasser: http://www.port4000.com/
David Glasser
> David Glasser <gla...@DELETEuscom.com> wrote:
> >Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> LIFE
> >> LIVE
> >> GIVE
> >> GAVE
> >> GAME
> >> DAME
> >> DAMN
> >> DARN
> >BARN
> >BAIN
> >PAIN
>
> Hmm, you complain about 'dain' but not 'bain'?
One's in my dictionary (a bath). The other isn't.
Actually, I meant to put WARN/WAIN/PAIN.
> [And you can shorten life-live-give-gave-game-dame...
> to life-lime-lame-dame...]
[snip]
> life life life life
> lift lift line line
> sift list lane lane
> soft last pane land
> soot lass pans laid
> slot laws paws paid
> slit lawn pawn pain
> slid pawn pain
> said pain
> paid
> pain
The point was that there should be GAME in the middle.
Sean T Barrett
>Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> LIFE
>> LIVE
>> GIVE
>> GAVE
>> GAME
>> DAME
>> DAMN
>> DARN
>BARN
>BAIN
>PAIN
Hmm, you complain about 'dain' but not 'bain'?
[And you can shorten life-live-give-gave-game-dame...
to life-lime-lame-dame...]
Also...
life life life life
lift lift line line
sift list lane lane
soft last pane land
soot lass pans laid
slot laws paws paid
slit lawn pawn pain
slid pawn pain
said pain
paid
pain
Sean
Joe Mason
>lift lift line line
>sift list lane lane
>soft last pane land
>soot lass pans laid
>slot laws paws paid
>slit lawn pawn pain
The t'cah! A message from the t'cah! (10 pt. ref)
Ricardo Dague
>
> Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > LIFE
> > LIVE
> > GIVE
> > GAVE
> > GAME
> > DAME
> > DAMN
> > DARN
> Bing! Not a word.
Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
(I almost put a semicolon after that last quote mark.)
> > PAIN
>
> DARN
> BARN
> BAIN
Bing! Not a word. :)
> PAIN
-- Ricardo
Gareth Rees
> > > DAIN
> > Bing! Not a word.
>
> Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
> it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
> my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
You're thinking of "deigned". Isn't English spelling fun?
--
Gareth Rees
John Elliott
>Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
>it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
>my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
It's spelt 'deign'.
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
TenthStone
>David Glasser wrote:
>>
>> Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > LIFE
>> > LIVE
>> > GIVE
>> > GAVE
>> > GAME
>> > DAME
>> > DAMN
>> > DARN
>> > DAIN
>> Bing! Not a word.
>
>Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
>it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
>my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
>
>(I almost put a semicolon after that last quote mark.)
>
>> > PAIN
>>
>> DARN
>> BARN
>> BAIN
>Bing! Not a word. :)
>> PAIN
DARN
YARN
YAWN
FAWN
FAIN
PAIN
Den of Iniquity
[of BNL]
> I wonder if they'll throw Kraft dinner at me.
FWIW, it's 'Kraft Cheesy Pasta' in this country, apparently. I was a bit
too far back to get any, alas.
> Or to put it another way
> You should have seen the things in my inventory that I didn't
> mention...
Mmm. Mendacious inventories. A cute kind of Inv-Comp entry? (No, not +=3,
please...)
--
Den
Phil Goetz
Lelah Conrad <l...@nu-world.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 07:15:14 -0800, "Mike Berlyn"
><mbe...@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Opinions? Do *you* limit inventory? Does it bother you when you're walking
>>around with 20 items? Do you care?
>
>In general, I'd rather solve problems and
>see new vistas and interact with NPC's than manage an inventory, which
>is often quite frustrating. (I don't like eating, drinking,
>sleeping, etc. either.)
>
>Just one adventurer's opinion.
>
>Lelah
I second this. If the game requires me to carry a lot of objects around
to different places, it's probably not my favorite sort of game.
In the first place, I like story more than puzzles.
In the second place, I like puzzles to be localized; otherwise, I can't
usually solve them, because the possibilities are too open.
In the third place, "Use X on Y" puzzles aren't really puzzles.
Puzzles like Bank of Zork, or the sliding columns in Zork III, or the
diamond in Enchanter, or the first maze I ever mapped, give more
satisfaction.
Phil Goetz
>I'm in favour of an unlimited-size sack object, as long as you can make it
>fit the game. That means calling it a Bag of Holding in a fantasy game,
>or a Portable Hole in a cartoon-style game. Maybe a pocket universe in a
>science-fiction game. Or in a Doctor Who game, just a pocket. (Although
>a volume restriction might help here.)
What if the game is realistic, not genre? Or a physically realistic genre?
Phil
LucFrench
>YARN
>YAWN
>FAWN
>FAIN
>PAIN
Thanks
Luc "Overly Pedantic" French
Andrew Plotkin
"Fain" is listed in MW, albeit as "archaic".
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
John Elliott
Oh yes it is. It's in my copy of the Shorter OED; volume 1, page 719,
near the bottom of the first column. HTH.
--
John Elliott.
J. Robinson Wheeler
>
> Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > DAIN
> > > Bing! Not a word.
> >
> > Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
> > it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
> > my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
>
> You're thinking of "deigned". Isn't English spelling fun?
Deign also specifically means "to condescend," although there is
a sense of reluctant condescension implied. So, your "snooty man"
example was exactly right.
I actually am rather fond of English spellings of the "deign"
variety.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler
whe...@jump.net http://www.jump.net/~wheeler/jrw/home.html
okbl...@usa.net
Ricardo Dague <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I can't find it in a dictionary, but I could've sworn
> it mean "reluctantly do" as in "The snooty man didn't shake
> my hand, and only barely dained to acknowledge my presence."
>
Others have pointed out that the spelling is "deign", I'd like to point out
that the correct definition is "condescend to" as opposed to merely
"reluctantly do" (which is more or less correct but not specific).
> > BAIN
> Bing! Not a word. :)
He probably meant "BANE".
How about:
LIFE
LIVE
GIVE
GAVE
GAME
DAME
DAMN
DAWN
PAWN
PAIN
[ok]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
okbl...@usa.net
>
> Thanks
> Luc "Overly Pedantic" French
Since others have pointed out that this is a word, I won't also do so, but I
will provide a quote:
o/~
Oh, where have ye been, Lord Randall my son,
And where have ye been, my blue eye young one,
I've been to the wild wood,
Mother, make my bed soon,
For I'm weary with hunting and fain would lie down.
~\o
This (bearing an uncanny resemblance to a Bob Dylan song) is about 600 years
old, and it's possible no one has used the word since....
Phil Goetz
Gunther Schmidl <sot...@usa.net> wrote:
>>Make a game with absolutely NO INVENTORY. This can mean zero takable
>>objects, or some restriction on the player which prevents the taking of
>>objects (no arms, germ freak, whatever), or however you want to implement
>>it. Only one rule: if, at any point, the player can type "I" and get
>>something other than "You are empty-handed," then you lose.
>
>Okay. My entry is up at
>
>http://linz.orf.at/gast/gschmidl/files/camping.z5
Error 404
Diese Seite wurde nicht gefunden
Phil
sg...@my-dejanews.com
go...@cse.buffalo.edu (Phil Goetz) wrote:
> In article <36af2...@alijku02.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
> Gunther Schmidl <sot...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Okay. My entry is up at
> >http://linz.orf.at/gast/gschmidl/files/camping.z5
>
> Error 404
>
> Diese Seite wurde nicht gefunden
>
> Phil
>
Es ist .zip nicht .z5
http://linz.orf.at/gast/gschmidl/files/camping.zip
regards,
SteveG
s...@REMOVETHIS.xtra.co.nz