Walkthrough convention
J. J. Guest
minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending)
or is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the
game would need to complete the game from scratch?
To put it another way, do I need to include commands that would clue a
new player to complete a puzzle, or only those that a returning player
would use to solve the puzzle?
For example, say a puzzle involved drinking a magic strength potion to
lift a boulder. A new player would try to lift the boulder before they
realised they needed extra help. A returning player would ignore the
boulder altogether until they had drunk the potion.
Personally I'm inclined to include the "clueing" commands since they
help make more sense of the game.
Rexx Magnus
I think if I write another comp game, I'll probably include a transcript
of likely play AND a whizz through list of commands. That way, any
reviewer not having enough time to test the game properly (or can't) can
at least give some review based on the prose in the transcript and not
necessarily miss out some of the nuances of the game that may be missed by
the direct route.
To email me, visit the site.
Greg Boettcher
> When writing a walkthrough, is it standard practice to include only
the
> minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending)
> or is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the
> game would need to complete the game from scratch?
Definitely the latter, at least in my opinion.
Papillon mentioned this before, and gave the example of Bellclap from
last year's IF Comp, which probably would have scored higher if its
walkthrough had given a better picture of the game. Instead, it just
gave a minimum list of commands, which made no sense in themselves. If
you're going to provide a walkthrough, I think its purpose should be to
give people a sense of what your game is like, not simply to get you to
"You have won."
I have a friend who also believes in providing comments like "WEAR
GLOVES (to protect yourself from the acid)" and things like that.
Greg
Quintin Stone
> When writing a walkthrough, is it standard practice to include only the
> minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending) or
> is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the game
> would need to complete the game from scratch?
I have to say, I've not really noticed a standard practice for either. I
think that the latter is better, since it may help players figure out
which clue that they missed. It sucks to have to turn to the walkthrough,
but it's even worse when you still don't understand how you were supposed
to guess the solution given. On the downside,, a full and complete
walkthrough like this is more work for the author.
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
Adam Thornton
Quintin Stone <st...@rps.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 May 2005, J. J. Guest wrote:
>> When writing a walkthrough, is it standard practice to include only the
>> minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending) or
>> is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the game
>> would need to complete the game from scratch?
>I have to say, I've not really noticed a standard practice for either. I
>think that the latter is better, since it may help players figure out
>which clue that they missed. It sucks to have to turn to the walkthrough,
>but it's even worse when you still don't understand how you were supposed
>to guess the solution given. On the downside,, a full and complete
>walkthrough like this is more work for the author.
It is certainly a matter of personal preference.
I suspect that what I actually like best is games that have both
a) a hint system, that, in the later hints for a particular puzzle,
walks you through the logic required to solve that puzzle
-and-
b) a minimalist walkthrough.
Adan
Damian Dollahite
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, J. J. Guest wrote:
>
>
>>When writing a walkthrough, is it standard practice to include only the
>>minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending) or
>>is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the game
>>would need to complete the game from scratch?
>
>
> I have to say, I've not really noticed a standard practice for either. I
> think that the latter is better, since it may help players figure out
> which clue that they missed. It sucks to have to turn to the walkthrough,
> but it's even worse when you still don't understand how you were supposed
> to guess the solution given. On the downside,, a full and complete
> walkthrough like this is more work for the author.
>
That depends on your development methods. Most of us play through our
game, issuing the sequence of commands we want the player to issue when
they play, so that we'll see the output as we want the player to see it.
If you're already doing that, all you have to do is turn on command
recording and voila -- the terp automagically makes your walkthrough for
you.
--
Ryukage
J. J. Guest
your responses. I'm definitely going with the clued walkthrough. I'm
quite tempted to go for something like the narrative style preferred by
Glenn P. in that thread; it reminds me very much of the chatty
solutions offered by computer magazines in the 80s, except that in
those the actual commands needed were generally capitalised for
clarity.
Jason
Andy M
news:1115930599.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's interesting that most responses have agreed that clued walkthroughs are
the norm, or at least preferred. I don't think I've ever seen a clued
walkthrough in my life. I always thought the whole point of a walkthrough
was to show a path through the game in (roughly) the least amount of time,
with a minimum of unnecessary action. By contrast, hint books, hint files,
invisiclues or the like are what you look at when you want a nudge without
totally ruining the experience. Those typically take the form of a Q&A. At
least, this was always my experience with mainstream games across most
genres, I confess I don't get to play as many amateur IF games as I'd like.
Not saying I advocate one way over the other, but I guess I just have a
different entity in mind from most folks here when I think of the word
"walkthrough".
Andy
dswxyz
J. J. Guest wrote:
> When writing a walkthrough, is it standard practice to include only
the
> minimum commands needed to complete the game (for the optimal ending)
> or is it usual to include all the commands a complete newcomer to the
> game would need to complete the game from scratch?
I prefer writing what I call 'verbose walkthroughs', which includes all
sorts of extra commands that aren't strictly necessary to get through
the game. I also tend to include comments and maps. I don't think what
I do is at all 'standard', but it's what I like to create, and the
feedback I get suggests that the extra stuff is appreciated.
Hm. My approach does have one major drawback for the user, though. One
can't easily cut and paste large sections from my walkthroughs into the
games; I expect people to type commands in-game or cut 'n' paste only
one line at a time. I'm not sure how big a deal that is.
-- David Welbourn
JohnnyMrNinja
I always enjoy sections of a walkthrough, so you can go to exactly the
part you need, or just read the whole thing all the way through. And I
always like to know how you come to a certain command, if it isn't
obvious.
2.3 Backyard: Garden
The first thing you might notice is there's a large boulder here,
proving your aunt's powers of understatement. Try to lift it, and
nothing happens. Remember that Unlabeled Bottle from the cabinet? Well,
if you were to talk to Uncle Carmine (but don't bother), he'd tell you
it's a strength potion, go ahead and -
>DRINK POTION
>LIFT BOULDER
And what's this? There's no White Rabbit, but let's pretend.
>D
Curiouser and curiouser...
ems...@mindspring.com
dswxyz wrote:
> I prefer writing what I call 'verbose walkthroughs', which includes
all
> sorts of extra commands that aren't strictly necessary to get through
> the game. I also tend to include comments and maps. I don't think
what
> I do is at all 'standard', but it's what I like to create, and the
> feedback I get suggests that the extra stuff is appreciated.
>
> Hm. My approach does have one major drawback for the user, though.
One
> can't easily cut and paste large sections from my walkthroughs into
the
> games; I expect people to type commands in-game or cut 'n' paste only
> one line at a time. I'm not sure how big a deal that is.
Personally, I love this approach, and I don't mind the lack of
cut-n-paste ability. I think if I got to the point where I was so
impatient with a game that I didn't even want to type the commands, I
would quit rather than fuss with the walkthrough.
Others' mileage may vary, though.
Tommy Herbert
Greg Boettcher wrote:
> Papillon mentioned this before, and gave the example of Bellclap from
> last year's IF Comp, which probably would have scored higher if its
> walkthrough had given a better picture of the game. Instead, it just
> gave a minimum list of commands, which made no sense in themselves.
Actually, it did both. The mistake, I think, was to give the minimal
list first. The order things are presented in walkthroughs is very
important, because people often want to read only far enough to get
them through a problem.
While I'm here I'll second Emily Short: yay David Welbourn's
walkthroughs!
dswxyz
Tommy Herbert wrote:
>
> While I'm here I'll second Emily Short: yay David Welbourn's
> walkthroughs!
Why, thank you. I'm positively inspired. Have a new walkthrough:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/sol/bellclap.html .
-- David Welbourn