HOW MUCH DETAIL?
Ashley Price
I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your opinion
on the following:-
Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do you not
mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
For instance:-
"You are in a room with a chair and table..."
>X TABLE
[the table and chair have nothing to do with the solving the game or puzzle
so would you prefer:-]
a) "The table is wooden with four legs and stands in the corner of the
room."
[or]
b) "You don't need to refer to that."
Obviously the second is easier because (certainly in HUGO) you can mark
these things as extra_scenery and it will automatically print phrase as in
'b'. But would you prefer it if everything mentioned did have a description?
This, of course, is not the same as the program not knowing the object apart
being mentioned in the room description, as I think there is nothing worse
than:-
"You are in a room with a chair and table..."
>X TABLE
"You don't see anything like that."
When it quite plainly states that you do see a table and chair.
Let me know what you think.
Ashley
Alex Watson
news:92n2fi$gs1$2...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Hi All
>
> I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your
opinion
> on the following:-
>
> Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do you
not
> mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
>
> For instance:-
>
> "You are in a room with a chair and table..."
>
> >X TABLE
>
> [the table and chair have nothing to do with the solving the game or
puzzle
> so would you prefer:-]
>
> a) "The table is wooden with four legs and stands in the corner of the
> room."
>
> [or]
>
> b) "You don't need to refer to that."
>
> Obviously the second is easier because (certainly in HUGO) you can mark
> these things as extra_scenery and it will automatically print phrase as in
> 'b'. But would you prefer it if everything mentioned did have a
description?
If you've got something big like a chair an table, I think you should be
allowed to see a description, and maybe sit in the chair - They could easily
act as red herrings. If you've got something like (to take an example from
_Jigsaw_) some ivy on a wall, then I think it's perfectly fine to give a
"you don't need to refer to that" description.
--
Alex Watson (WatsonA on JRChat)
http://www.watson1999-69.freeserve.co.uk/
http://www.h2g2.com/U103477
Remove kill.the.spam to reply. (Usenet-wise)
Aris Katsaris
Ashley Price <ashle...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:92n2fi$gs1$2...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your
opinion
> on the following:-
>
> Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do you
not
> mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
A description (even small ones) for anything and everything is the ideal.
People
recognize though that in a large puzzle-oriented game with hundreds of
objects
around it may come as a help for the reader if they know which objects are
completely irrelevant.
But if puzzles weren't at all an issue, then I'd certainly prefer
descriptions for
everything. "You don't need to worry about that." is in my mind an intrusion
in the narrative by the game, and nothing but a way to admit its limitations
and flaws.
Aris Katsaris
Arcum Dagsson
<m...@watson1999-69.freeserve.co.uk.kill.the.spam> wrote:
However, keep in mind that you should never have too many objects in a room that
are print "You don't need to refer to that" in a room. Players are likely to
miss the item that is vital in the mix.
Generally, IMHO, if an item is likely to be something the player will
immediately look at in a room, like a table, or a painting, it should have a
full description. Background items that have potential for use, but won't be
used, like trees, should get very brief descriptions. Background items without
much in the way of potential uses, like clouds, ought to just be scenery.
Also keep in mind that descriptions of otherwise useless objects in the game is
always good for adding to the feel of a game. OTOH, too detailed of a
description will lead people to think that it might be useful for something, so
it should all be balanced out...
--
--Arcum Dagsson
"You say there's a horse in your bathroom, and all you can do is stand
there naming Beatles songs?"
Susan in WA
> Hi All
>
> I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your opinion
> on the following:-
>
> Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do you not
> mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
>
> For instance:-
>
> "You are in a room with a chair and table..."
>
> >X TABLE
>
> [the table and chair have nothing to do with the solving the game or puzzle
> so would you prefer:-]
>
> a) "The table is wooden with four legs and stands in the corner of the room."
I like the description (but I'm a neophyte so I may be in the minority) as it seems
to add more realism to the game. It also helps me form visual images. That said,
when given a description of an item, I have a tendency to think it may have
something to do with the solution. Hence, when I go to use the item, I need to be
told my efforts there are fruitless.
--
Susan in WA
Domokov
and messages that say "You don't need to refer to that" instantly shatter
memisis for me. There is some validity to the "if you describe everything, I'm
going to think everything is neccessary to solve a puzzle" argument, but I
personally would rather play with detailed red herring than have a flat world.
Part of the fun of a game is playing with different objects to see how they'll
work, not just searching for the one object that will obviously work. To use
an extreme example, if I walk into a room with a hundred keys and one locked
door and 99 keys say "You don't need to refer to that" and only one key is a
viable object, then that's not much of a puzzle.
On the other hand, adding detail is a BIG, time-consuming job, and the odds are
that some of the finely crafted descriptions you come up with will be read by
one player out of a hundred who decides that they want to examine not just the
wall, but the plaster on the wall seperately. But when that one player gets
rewarded, you can bet he's going to remember your game. So my advice is to
describe as much as you have the patience to. This is just my opinion, take it
with large NaCl tablets.
Ian Finley
David Welbourn
not
> mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
Well, it all depends, doesn't it? In a small game, say a mini-comp size
game, it's probably nicer to give descriptions as much as possible. In a
game the size of Curses or Jigsaw, though, just the opposite -- only
describe what's necessary so us poor players can tell what's relevant
amongst all the clutter.
Then again, it may be a matter of style. This year's Metamorphoses told its
backstory mainly through its very detailed descriptions of all sorts of
scenary objects.
With normal utility objects like tables and chairs, it's a bit of a toss up.
If it's just a normal wooden table of no distinction, and you're not
planning on hiding the cat or the PDP-11 manual underneath it, the "you
don't need to worry about that" message is fine. If you've got a good
description for the table, though, and want to tell us that it's made of
faux zebrawood and made in the style of King Pliny IV of Zoobaria and such
like, go for it. You probably don't want to go overboard like that, but
just make sure it's a real description of a real object, and not a
placeholder description. Just the same way every location in the game
should be a real location, and not yet another featureless
hallway/corridor/etc. OTOH, you don't want to fill up your game will
hundreds of interesting but ultimately useless objects either. There's a
balance that must be struck. It's really easy to create a lot of doors you
really don't care about.
The real test of this sort of question, for me anyway, usually turns up in
Bathroom locations. Everyone expects a tub, toilet, and sink -- and maybe
a faucet, shower, mirror, and counter/vanity as well -- even if they're not
mentioned in the Bathroom's description. Check out a few games and see how
they handled bathroom objects, and if you liked how they handled them, and
if so why, and if not why not.
-- David Welbourn
Carl Muckenhoupt
descriptions like "The table is wooden and has four legs". If you're
going to provide a description, you can at least give it a little
character. Even if the table is completely uninteresting, the way
it's described can say things about the observer or the situation.
For example:
"It's the table Joan bought when you first moved in together. Those
were happier days."
"Genuine Earth manufacture, by the looks of it."
"Oddly enough, there are no bloodstains on it. It must be new."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ashley Price
Thanks for the replies so far on this.
Here's a bit of a follow up question to it. How many people expect to be
able to examine items not explicitly but implied in the description of a
room or object?
For instance, (to use my original and Ian Finley's example):
"You are in a room, there is a table and chair..."
Would anyone expect to examine not just the wall (implied by being in a
room), but the plaster on the wall separately (implied by being on the wall,
unless wall description specifically mentions other material for its
construction)?
Alex Watson
news:Arcum_Dagsson-A90...@news.randori.com...
> In article <92ns7q$l6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Alex Watson"
> <m...@watson1999-69.freeserve.co.uk.kill.the.spam> wrote:
>
> > "Ashley Price" <ashle...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:92n2fi$gs1$2...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > > Hi All
> > >
> > > I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your
> > opinion
> > > on the following:-
> > >
> > > Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do
you
> > not
> > > mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
> > >
mark
> > > these things as extra_scenery and it will automatically print phrase
as in
> > > 'b'. But would you prefer it if everything mentioned did have a
> > description?
> >
> > If you've got something big like a chair an table, I think you should be
> > allowed to see a description, and maybe sit in the chair - They could
easily
> > act as red herrings. If you've got something like (to take an example
from
> > _Jigsaw_) some ivy on a wall, then I think it's perfectly fine to give a
> > "you don't need to refer to that" description.
> >
> However, keep in mind that you should never have too many objects in a
room that
> are print "You don't need to refer to that" in a room. Players are likely
to
> miss the item that is vital in the mix.
Indeed. If I play a game where every second item has a "you don't need to
refer to that", I find it does break mimesis, because it should be possible
for most scenery to be looked at, if not interacted with (See the scenery
items in _Sins Against Mimesis_ for an amusing approach).
> Generally, IMHO, if an item is likely to be something the player will
> immediately look at in a room, like a table, or a painting, it should have
a
> full description. Background items that have potential for use, but won't
be
> used, like trees, should get very brief descriptions.
Bear in mind that if you do have a tree, you should probably print out a
message about it being too tall to climb (etc.) rather than something like
"that would achieve nothing".
Gene Wirchenko
>This isn't really an answer to your question, but I'd shy away from
>descriptions like "The table is wooden and has four legs". If you're
>going to provide a description, you can at least give it a little
>character. Even if the table is completely uninteresting, the way
>it's described can say things about the observer or the situation.
>For example:
>"It's the table Joan bought when you first moved in together. Those
>were happier days."
>"Genuine Earth manufacture, by the looks of it."
>"Oddly enough, there are no bloodstains on it. It must be new."
I like. It got me thinking of the sorts of situations that might
lead to the various descriptions. THEN I thought that combinations of
the three could fit. #1 and #3 together makes for a particularly
vivid combination.
As for the chair:
"Joan thought the purple and orange stripes were beautiful. Why
haven't you thrown this thing out?"
"It would be part of a mismatched set of kitchen chairs if you
had ever bothered to get any others."
"It creaks when you sit in it. You have been meaning to lose
weight."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
David Welbourn
> able to examine items not explicitly but implied in the description of a
> room or object?
Oh, sure, sometimes. IIRC, I-0 has a car that assumes you'll look for
seats, tires, hood, trunk, doors, steering wheel and a glove compartment
without explicitly spelling it all out. As I mentioned earlier, I expect
the usual fixtures in a bathroom, even if not explicitly mentioned. Same
with beds in bedrooms, and fridges, stoves, and a sink in kitchens.
But that's almost as far as it goes. In one of the ChickenComp games (The
Chicken, the Lion and the Monkey, I think it was), you have to realize
there's a gutter at the side of the road -- even though the gutter isn't
mentioned in the text! That's the sin of "reading the author's mind".
I will examine and look under tables. I will look at chairs, but rarely
bother to sit on them unless it's a briefing, debriefing, or other type of
interview situation. Sofas are subject to much abuse; I will search them,
push them, look under and behind them -- but if there's a pillow or cushion
I need to know about, you must tell me. I usually ignore walls entirely
unless the author clues me in by mentioning a material type; I will fiddle
with walls if there's a hint about loose bricks or tearable wallpaper or
it's shimmering an electric blue. The wood panelling with an odd smell in a
Hollywood Hijinx hallway made me spend more time there than was really
necessary. But I've never looked for plaster (although I remember a
British game where "plaster" meant "bandage"). I need a good hint before
I'd start looking for air vents, say. Although beds often have sheets,
pillows, blankets, mattresses, headboards, footboards, and bedposts, I'm not
likely to tear a bed apart looking for any of them unless you mention them
in the description. I always forget to look under and behind counters when
in stores or in hotels; that's caught me off guard too many times. I'm far
far more likely to examine the mantle of a fireplace without prompting, then
the lintel of a doorway.
Does that help?
-- David Welbourn
David Welbourn
> Even if the table is completely uninteresting, the way
> it's described can say things about the observer or the situation.
> For example:
> "It's the table Joan bought when you first moved in together. Those
> were happier days."
> "Genuine Earth manufacture, by the looks of it."
> "Oddly enough, there are no bloodstains on it. It must be new."
Good descriptions all. Descriptions are more vivid when they have an
emotional impact, or tell you a little more about the story or your world
(or worldview). I don't think I'll easily forget the cup of coffee in
Rameses, or the leftovers in Saied. :-)
Nowadays, with few exceptions (like rusty keys and yellowed notepaper), I
guess an object description should tell more than just it's colour or
material. We're looking for history, meaning, story, and good jokes.
('Cause that's what we're gonna remember.)
-- David Welbourn
Ching Liu
One of my favorite games of all time is Worlds Apart, by Suzanne
Skinner. And the reason I loved it so much was that it created an
entire world, and immersed you in it. Nearly every object you read
about could be examined and elaborated on. But she managed to do this
without creating huge amounts of clutter and confusion over what was
important, and what wasn't.
One technique I noticed her using was that background scenery, while
it could be examined, would all get lumped into one description. So
that if you enter a room with a table, chairs, and a sofa, examining
any one of them gives you the same general furniture description.
Things added in for flavor you might be able to play around with, but
never pick up or change in any way. And things that were truly
important could be interacted with in all sorts of ways - using all
the senses, and most verbs that made sense.
This created the same sort of hierarchy as "You don't need to worry
about that," short description, and long description, but did so with
much more magic and artistry.
>Hi All
>For instance:-
>>X TABLE
>[or]
>>X TABLE
>Ashley
--
Ching Liu, chin...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~chingliu/
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" -Tennyson
Check out the Caltech Ballroom Dance Club Web Page!
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~chingliu/Ballroom.html
Andrew MacKinnon
>
> "Ashley Price" <ashle...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >I am writing an adventure and would like to ask all of you for your opinion
> >on the following:-
>
> >Do you prefer all the things in a "room" to have a description or do you not
> >mind if it comes up with "you don't need to worry about that.".
>
> >For instance:-
>
> >"You are in a room with a chair and table..."
>
> >>X TABLE
>
> >[the table and chair have nothing to do with the solving the game or puzzle
> >so would you prefer:-]
>
> >a) "The table is wooden with four legs and stands in the corner of the
> >room."
>
> >[or]
>
> >b) "You don't need to refer to that."
I think the (a) would be better because people expect a description for
most things and people expect to be able to put things on a table, etc.
I feel that "You don't need to refer to that" breaks the spell of
realism. (Even this "scenery" library that allows descriptions but
nothing else to be done to an object is annoying.)
--
Andrew MacKinnon
andrew_mac...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_mackinnon_2000/
Gene Wirchenko
>"Arcum Dagsson" <Arcum_...@hushmail.c.o.m> wrote in message
>news:Arcum_Dagsson-A90...@news.randori.com...
[snip]
>> However, keep in mind that you should never have too many objects in a
>room that
>> are print "You don't need to refer to that" in a room. Players are likely
>to
>> miss the item that is vital in the mix.
>
>Indeed. If I play a game where every second item has a "you don't need to
>refer to that", I find it does break mimesis, because it should be possible
>for most scenery to be looked at, if not interacted with (See the scenery
>items in _Sins Against Mimesis_ for an amusing approach).
I don't like the generic message. Something fitting to the work
is good:
>get ladle (or knife, fork, spoon, etc.)
Fiddling with kitchen stuff? That's not macho.
along with some specific cases to break the genericity:
>get engine
You'll break your back trying to pick it up. Macho doesn't
have to be stupid, you know.
>> Generally, IMHO, if an item is likely to be something the player will
>> immediately look at in a room, like a table, or a painting, it should have
>a
>> full description. Background items that have potential for use, but won't
>be
>> used, like trees, should get very brief descriptions.
>
>Bear in mind that if you do have a tree, you should probably print out a
>message about it being too tall to climb (etc.) rather than something like
>"that would achieve nothing".
You can only climb short trees?