Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Question to if-gamers

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Christopher E. Forman

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to
Philip Dearmore (mor...@eskimo.com) wrote:
[Dust bunnies/interacting-with-unnecessary-objects question snipped.]

It's a tough call, depending largely on the author's own opinion. IMHO,
seeing something but not being able to interact with it in some way
shatters the illusion of the game, and thus makes it less enjoyable.
The situation you have given, though, is not so irritating as seeing the
dust bunnies but getting the message "I don't know the word 'bunnies'" when
you attempt to interact with them. Again IMHO, if the game refers to
something, you should be allowed to interact with it, even if only in a
limited manner. In your example, I would expect, at the very least, to be
able to examine the dust bunnies, and to get a special message should I try
to take them. (Perhaps "You don't really want to pick up that icky old
dust, do you?" would suffice.)

At the same time, though, you can't make the special message create the
impression of a puzzle in the player's mind. For example, "You can't
reach the dust bunnies" might cause the player to believe he needs them,
thus making him search for a way to move the bed. This is an unnecessary
red herring and should be avoided. At any rate, the simple abilities to
examine and try unsuccessfully to take the dust bunnies should be allowed.
For other actions, the "You don't need to refer to..." message could be used.

As for actually being able to take them, I would say no, unless there's
something fun you can do with them that gives the player something to
explore after he's finished the game. (Perhaps a humorous response could
be generated by carrying the dust bunnies around a character with severe
allergies.) If the dust bunnies will serve no purpose, however, I'd probably
drop the possibility of taking them. All it does is complicate the game,
make inventory-management a real pain, and serve to confuse the player
beyond the manner in which a normal adventure game should.

Just my opinions. Agree or flame away as you like.

Philip Dearmore

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to

Here's a question for you all. Say you were playing
a game, and you looked under the bed (as you know you
always do), and you found some dust bunnies. Do you
think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
in the game? Or would you rather that the game print
something like "you don't have to worry about the
dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry
about whether you will have to use them at some time
(especially if you have limited space in your
inventory)? Either mail me an answer at
mor...@eskimo.com, or just post here.


[ Philip Dearmore ]
mor...@eskimo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
/\ This message was printed on 100% recycled bandwidth
~~

JeffJetton

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to
mor...@eskimo.com (Philip Dearmore) asks:

>Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
>to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
>in the game? Or would you rather that the game print
>something like "you don't have to worry about the
>dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry
>about whether you will have to use them at some time
>(especially if you have limited space in your
>inventory)?

Good question. On one hand, such an attention to detail really makes a
difference in a game. On the other hand, having to manage a large
inventory with the constant fear that you'll need every little thing you
can grab can be a big drag, especially when there's many "little things".
On the third hand (hey, it's IF, you can have 3 hands) a few red herrings
are essential, otherwise you know that everything you can take will be
used in a puzzle, thus giving them away too easily.

So the trick, IMHO, is to balance the details, red herrings and
essentials. There's no formula for this, of course, so it's up to the beta
testers and the skill of the writer.

- Jeff

jeffj...@aol.com
jje...@delphi.com
jje...@afm.org

Christopher Angelini

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to
Philip Dearmore (mor...@eskimo.com) wrote:

[Bit About Free will as it relates to Dust Bunnies Snipped]
It really depends upon what I'm expecting from the game's environment.
Now, if this were an example of a very detailed, fleshed out world, then
you should have the dust bunnies moveable. The problem? This sort of
world tends to get bogged down in code, as you start creating objects for
the paint that covers the walls! <irony> I don't enjoy it when I have to
trade playable speed for detail.
On the other hand, if it were a object/effect puzzle intensive game,
and the dust bunnies were red herrings, I would want to be able to
manipulate them, just to make the game harder (as I would be trying
everything to use them!)
Finally, in a balance between the two poles that I've listed above
(and there are more...many more categories!), its really up to the
programmer.
-Chris

David Librik

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to
mor...@eskimo.com (Philip Dearmore) asks:

>Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
>to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
>in the game? Or would you rather that the game print
>something like "you don't have to worry about the
>dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry
>about whether you will have to use them at some time
>(especially if you have limited space in your
>inventory)?

I would say definitely go with the "you don't have to worry about the
dust bunnies" message. This is a fairly important point in IF design.
If you give people the ability to manipulate something at all, they
naturally assume that they can do reasonable things with that stuff.
If you haven't then coded in dust-bunny manipulation routines, people
will feel surprised when they've "overstepped" the bounds of the game.

All games have inherent limitations and bounds of complexity. It is
important to pick and enforce these bounds in your IF game. Players
will quickly pick up, unconsciously, on what sort of things they "can"
and "cannot" do, and won't keep trying to do excessive things.

Look at the level of complexity in the Infocom games and in the
Unnkuulian Unventures. In Zork, you were in a forest, but that
didn't mean you could pull leaves off the trees. You couldn't
even examine leaves on trees. You could tell when things were
important and when they weren't. I don't remember ever being
annoyed that I couldn't tie something to the grate, or light the
carpet on fire, or examine most details of a room. The UU games pick
another level of complexity -- in general, you can examine everything
that is mentioned in a room description. Most of it is decoration,
but it is there. You get used to looking at everything for keywords,
and doing a lot of EXAMINEs. Dave Baggett's games are memory hogs
for that reason, but they do pick a certain level and stick faithfully
to it.

Now, when you go from playing UU2 back to Zork, there's a period when
you're really annoyed that you can't examine stuff or do things you
would expect from the later game. But after not too long, you get used
to the limitations of the specific game, and you don't notice them anymore.
And since players adapt to whatever kind of adventure-world they're in
(people even enjoyed the Scott Adams adventures!) it's not necessarily
always better to just "add more depth." CONSISTENCY of depth is far more
important!

- David Librik
lib...@cs.Berkeley.edu

u6...@wvnvm.wvnet.edu

unread,
Apr 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/15/95
to
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


In article <morbeus.30...@eskimo.com>, <mor...@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>
> Here's a question for you all. Say you were playing
> a game, and you looked under the bed (as you know you

> always do), and you found some dust bunnies. Do you


> think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
> to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
> in the game? Or would you rather that the game print
> something like "you don't have to worry about the
> dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry
> about whether you will have to use them at some time
> (especially if you have limited space in your

> inventory)? Either mail me an answer at
> mor...@eskimo.com, or just post here.
>
>
> [ Philip Dearmore ]

Well, just as a matter of policy I always see what's takeable. Besides,
those dustbunnies might be hiding something!

:->
bonni

1) She Who Must Be Obeyed is never wrong.
2) When She is wrong, refer to #1.


Gerry Kevin Wilson

unread,
Apr 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/16/95
to
>mor...@eskimo.com (Philip Dearmore) asks:

>
>>Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
>>to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
>>in the game? Or would you rather that the game print
>>something like "you don't have to worry about the
>>dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry
>>about whether you will have to use them at some time
>>(especially if you have limited space in your
>>inventory)?

Well, I'm back in the swing of things. My monitor burned out awhile back
and it took me this long to replace it. But, now that I have, I'll put
my thoughts on this up.

There are several 'depths' to which you can go with object
simulation, and I'm not even looking at the simulationist view where you
have burning of paper objects etc. I just mean in general
manipulation-wise stuff. I benchmark these by the games I find most
atypical of them. Here's a list, ordered least to most manipulation.
The descriptions are referring to the red herring/decoration objects in
the game, not the puzzle objects.


Level Game Description
-----------------------------------------------------
Little Scott Adams' Very little examine, no toying with props.
Some One Hand Clapping Some props examine/use, some not.
More Zork Many props x/use, only most useless ignored.
Much Legend! x anything, more or less. Use some of it.
Most Avalon x anything, Use some, fun but useless things
you can do with many things. Smell + listen
implemented in a general fashion. ie no
'smell flower', just 'smell'.
All Never seen one. x anything, and anything connected to it.
Use anything for any logical purpose it might
have at all.

Now, my personal theory is this. If I mention it, then I let the player
look at it. If there's something recursively inside it, I describe that
as well, up to a point. For instance, if a tree has glowing moss, you
can 'x tree', and 'x moss', but 'get moss' will say "There's not enough
to bother with." A very clear and distinct message that says this item
is useless without saying "While you're playing this GAME, you need not
refer to this object." It is bad to flash the fact that the player is
playing a game if you don't really need to. Excuses are better, so long
as a puzzle isn't implied in the excuse.

Now then, as for taking/manipulating items that are just decoration, I
deal with this on a case by case basis, sometimes taking scenery, getting
an idea, and fleshing it out into a puzzle. In your case with the dust
bunnies, I'd probably just crack a joke with something to do with the
dust bunnies from Zork and prevent the player from grabbing them. Like
"No way. Once you get one dust bunny, they start multiplying like crazy,
and next thing you know, you're buried in dust up to your armpits." or
something like that. In general, players enjoy it, I get to flash my
small amount of wit, and everyone's happy. (As a side note, you will
almost never see "You can't go that way." in Avalon. You see "The
sea cliff is in the way." or something like that instead.)

My point here is that, like others suggest, the key to how in-depth to
make descriptions is all up to the author. Pick a level you're
comfortable at, and stick to it. If you don't want a lot of work, then I
wouldn't suggest going above 'More' level. As DMB will tell you,
anything higher than that is a bear to deal with. Just tell your
betatesters ahead of time what level of decoration you wish to go to, and
have them help you out there.

--
<~~~~~E~~~G~~~SIGHT~UNSEEN~~~LOST~IN~THE~FOG~~~CYBER~CHESS~~~SPAG~~~|~~~~~~~>
< V R I O Software. We bring words to life! | ~~\ >
< T "We at Vertigo apologize for the delay. Sorry." | /~\ | >
<_WATCH for Avalon in early 1995!_____w...@uclink.berkeley.edu__|_\__/__>

Gareth Rees

unread,
Apr 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/24/95
to
Philip Dearmore <mor...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> Here's a question for you all. Say you were playing a game, and you
> looked under the bed (as you know you always do), and you found some
> dust bunnies. Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the

> freedom to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use in the
> game?

Have you not played "Beyond Zork?"

> kill dust bunny
You deal the dust bunny a mighty blow, splitting it in two!

There are now two dust bunnies here!

In any case, "dust bunny" is an Americanism that's probably lost on
European readers (it doesn't appear in Chambers 1988, for example).

--
Gareth Rees

John Payson

unread,
Apr 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/24/95
to
In article <GDR11.95A...@stint.cl.cam.ac.uk>,

Gareth Rees <gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Philip Dearmore <mor...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> Here's a question for you all. Say you were playing a game, and you
>> looked under the bed (as you know you always do), and you found some
>> dust bunnies. Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the
>> freedom to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use in the
>> game?
>
>Have you not played "Beyond Zork?"
>
> > kill dust bunny
> You deal the dust bunny a mighty blow, splitting it in two!
>
> There are now two dust bunnies here!

If you notice, each bunny waits one turn before it splits.

Thus, after your first attack, there is one new bunny and one old bunny.
The new bunny splits yielding a new bunny, and the two bunnies existing
before are "old". [3 bunnies]
The two old bunnies split and the 3 bunnies before are now "old". [5 total]
3 split, 5 old [8 total]
5 split, 8 old [13 total]
8 split, 13 old [21 total]
etc.

Fibonacci thought bunnies reproduced this way (not sure why) but finally
there are some bunnies which do. :-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )

Darin Johnson

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
> In any case, "dust bunny" is an Americanism that's probably lost on
> European readers (it doesn't appear in Chambers 1988, for example).

Except they're described and pictured in the manual.

Possible spoilers

The manual for Beyond Zork that shows the various creatures actually
gives many hints on how to deal with them.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!

John Hartnup

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to
Gareth Rees (gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:

: In any case, "dust bunny" is an Americanism that's probably lost on


: European readers (it doesn't appear in Chambers 1988, for example).

..it's lost on me. Pray explain (and sorry if this is an FAQ)..
--
_______________________________________________________________________
John Hartnup : hart...@cs.aston.ac.uk | If it's delicious and light
http://www.aston.ac.uk/~hartnupj/ | it could be a marshmallow...
_______________________________________________________________________


Fred Sloniker

unread,
Apr 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/28/95
to
John Hartnup <S9H...@wsdps364.wsdl.uk.ibm.com> wrote:

>Gareth Rees (gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: In any case, "dust bunny" is an Americanism that's probably lost on
>: European readers (it doesn't appear in Chambers 1988, for example).
>
>..it's lost on me. Pray explain (and sorry if this is an FAQ)..

AFAIK, it isn't. A dust bunny is one of those little balls that dust
under your bed, furniture, or whatever tends to collect into. It's so
named, I assume, because of its habit of multiplying. (:3

The text from the manual of "Beyond Zork" reads:

"Dust bunnies burrow in obscure corners and under furniture, and
defend their territory by multiplying. They can clog a passageway in
seconds, filling the air with dark, suffocating particles. Static
electricity and lemon-scented sprays are their only natural enemies."

---Fred M. Sloniker, stressed undergrad
L. Lazuli R'kamos, FurryMUCKer
laz...@u.washington.edu

Until I get my act together, you'll just have to deal with the real me.

0 new messages