Walkthroughs - are we really trying to solve puzzles?
Alpha
I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
I know we all get stuck sometimes at a certain point in an adventure and we
look up clues but after looking at the clue I often by accident read the
next puzzle clue my accident!
Thus spoiling the game somewhat!!
The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
Your thoughts people!
Alpha
J. Robinson Wheeler
> I know we all get stuck sometimes at a certain point in an adventure and we
> look up clues but after looking at the clue I often by accident read the
> next puzzle clue my accident!
>
> Thus spoiling the game somewhat!!
>
> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
> Your thoughts people!
Well!
Let me think about this!
I think that, in general, walkthroughs are evil last-resorts that are
guaranteed to kill your enjoyment of the game even if you're careful about
reading them!
Because what happens is, you can never just take one look at a walkthrough
-- the next puzzle you get to, you end up going to the walkthrough that much
sooner, instead of really trying to solve it -- and eventually, you end up
just typing it in instead of getting any satisfaction out of the challenge!
I know this doesn't add much to what you already said, but those are my
thoughts!
--
J. Robinson Wheeler! http://thekroneexperiment.com
whe...@jump.net Coming Soon
M. St. Bernard
>
> Because what happens is, you can never just take one look at a walkthrough
> -- the next puzzle you get to, you end up going to the walkthrough that much
> sooner, instead of really trying to solve it -- and eventually, you end up
> just typing it in instead of getting any satisfaction out of the challenge!
Could be, and that will -- I think -- legitimately spoil the
experience. And I've done this myself.
But have you ever gotten completely stuck, and fruitlessly struggled
for weeks, drawn diagrams, resorted to metaphysics, screamed, felt
stupid, and finally consulted the walkthrough...only to say afterward,
"holy cow, what an dumb puzzle! I would NEVER have figured that out!"
This has certainly happened to me. Some puzzles are extremely poorly
designed, or they are designed in a way that's counterintuitive to me,
and no amount of creative thinking on my part will solve them.
If, afterwards, I realize I was missing something logical or obvious,
then I will regret consulting a walkthrough. And sadly, that happens as
well. :-)
Muffy.
Adam Cadre
Not for me. What spoils interactive fiction is not being able to make
progress. Walkthroughs *prevent* spoilage.
> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself
> and the enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
Not for me. What I enjoy is an interesting, well-written story, and
getting fun responses to anything I try. My preferred method of playing
IF is to follow a walkthrough, occasionally deviating from it to see
what happens if I knock over a vase, kiss my sidekick, drink the
hydrochloric acid, etc. But I don't find problem-solving to be very
entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac
Mark Musante - Sun Microsystems
> > I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
>
> Not for me. What spoils interactive fiction is not being able to make
> progress. Walkthroughs *prevent* spoilage.
>
> > The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself
> > and the enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
> Not for me. What I enjoy is an interesting, well-written story, and
> getting fun responses to anything I try. My preferred method of playing
> IF is to follow a walkthrough, occasionally deviating from it to see
> what happens if I knock over a vase, kiss my sidekick, drink the
> hydrochloric acid, etc. But I don't find problem-solving to be very
> entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
And there you have both sides of the coin: story and puzzles.
As an author, you have to be aware that if you weight your game heavily
towards story, you're going to put off those of us who like solving
puzzles. And if you weight your game heavily towards puzzles, you're
going to put off those of us who want a good story.
However, as Adam points out, a walkthrough allows those who prefer
story IF to enjoy puzzle IF.
So the answer is obvious: make a game with a good story, throw in some
devious puzzles, tack on a walkthrough (or some other means of bypassing
parts where players could get stuck), and your game will be enjoyed
by all.
-=- Mark -=-
ical...@my-deja.com
> > The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself
> > and the enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
In article <39A514...@adamcadre.ac>,
re...@adamcadre.ac wrote:
> Not for me. What I enjoy is an interesting, well-written story, and
> getting fun responses to anything I try. My preferred method of
> playing IF is to follow a walkthrough, occasionally deviating from it
> to see what happens if I knock over a vase, kiss my sidekick, drink
> the hydrochloric acid, etc. But I don't find problem-solving to be
> very entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
Amen.
irene
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ryan Franklin
> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
God, I hope that's not the whole point of interactive fiction.
--
hint: walkthroughs spoil _your_ game, they don't spoil _everyone's_
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
Joshua Wise
"Ryan Franklin" <ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
news:39a5...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...
> Alpha <Alph...@care4free.net> wrote:
> > The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and
the
> > enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
> God, I hope that's not the whole point of interactive fiction.
I would say that IF, in its youth, was just this, puzzle solving. No one
can tell me that the fisrt 3 Zorks had any cohesive story line, they were
puzzle fests. And, for many people, the ZORK trillogy IS IF. IF is
defined, in many people's minds as just that. However, with the advent of
the "Pure Story" challenge: "Let's see how well we can make IF a story and
put as few, if any puzzles in at all", IF has become defined differently for
others. The kind of IF Adam Cadre writes/likes, "story" IF is much
different than the Blanc/Lebling IF.
When dealing with "Cadre" IF, some people may find that puzzles are an
unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the story. Others, when playing
the Blanc/Lebling IF might find a detaild plot to be distracting.
There are obviously uncountable shades of gray between these two extremes.
Concerning walkthroughs, however, I assume that the Blanc/Lebling players
should be slow to pick one up (unless, as stated, the puzzles are simply
badly written), and the Cadre players should feel very comfortable using
them as a tool to further a story.
My humble thoughts,
Josh
Vincent Lynch
> Alpha <Alph...@care4free.net> wrote:
>> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
>> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
> God, I hope that's not the whole point of interactive fiction.
It's the whole point of _some_ interactive fiction!
> hint: walkthroughs spoil _your_ game, they don't spoil _everyone's_
I tend to think that if a game requires you to use a walkthrough, it's badly
designed.
(I originally wrote about five pages of ranting about game design at this
point, but I suspect it wasn't very interesting.)
-Vincent
BrenBarn
>The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
>enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
This a subjective statement. It is not true for me, personally, and so
its possible it may not be true for others. If you don't want to use
walkthroughs, don't use them :-); I think it's impossible to make any sort of
catch-all statement about what's "good" or "bad" about walkthroughs.
--BrenBarn (Bren...@aol.com)
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Ryan Franklin
> When dealing with "Cadre" IF, some people may find that puzzles are an
> unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the story. Others, when playing
> the Blanc/Lebling IF might find a detaild plot to be distracting.
>
> There are obviously uncountable shades of gray between these two extremes.
A good point. It's kinda neat, though, if you look back at the
Invisiclues for the Zorks, to see that they really cater to the kind of
mindset that likes story. (The Invisiclues were often amusing and
contained completely superfluous information, some of which I still
remember to this day.) And clearly, one of the major points of providing
the Invisiclues was because there are a lot of people who are willing to
bang their brains against a puzzle for only so long and not a minute
longer. So they targeted the hint books to appeal to both story fiends
and impatient puzzle-solvers.
I freely admit to being one of those people. Sure, I feel good when I
solve a puzzle ("I AM A GENIUS! BEHOLD MY MIGHTY GIANT BRANE!"), but I
wouldn't want to just sit down and do puzzles all night. I want a story,
and part of making the story entertaining is maintaining an appropriate
pace. If a puzzle comes up that I can't figure out in a timely fashion, I
don't want to keep coming back to it every night for four weeks until
inspiration hits; I'm willing to have a walkthrough tell me the answer so
I can move on. (Getting a larger reward--the fun of seeing the game in
its entirety at a comfortable pace--for less effort seems like a better
deal than getting the smaller reward of stroking my ego by solving a
puzzle on my own even though it means I have to sit there, stumped, for
days on end.)
This is probably why I liked _A Mind Forever Voyaging_ so much. ;-)
--
look ma, it's all story!
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
kevin and emma
immediately you come across a puzzle, then i would say it does spoil the
game and (only my opinion) it begs the question, why "play" the game at all
if your only going to follow the walkthrough? however, personally, i try and
solve a puzzle in every way i can think of, then i leave the game for a
while, come back, try again, and if i've had no luck, then i look for hints
or a walkthrough to help. as for reading the next solution etc, that is
surely a case of applying self control. certainly as a novice gamer, it is
frustrating to be stuck permanently at a puzzle and if this happens in
several games, you do tend to think "what's the big deal with these games?".
i am speaking as a novice here and have encountered these thoughts myself. i
do try and solve the puzzle as exhaustively as i possibly can before looking
for help. sorry for my rambling here!
cheers
kevin
"Alpha" <Alph...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8o2lpd$3sf$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> Hi folks,
>
> I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
>
we
> look up clues but after looking at the clue I often by accident read the
> next puzzle clue my accident!
>
> Thus spoiling the game somewhat!!
>
the
> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
>
> Alpha
>
>
>
>
>
kevin and emma
by thinking along sensible lines. what i hate are puzzles which are obscure
with totally unnecessary wondering about and the need for repeticious
actions. for example, i found the bell, book and candle puzzle in zork1 a
bit troublesome at first but with a bit of logical thinking, solvable.
whereas, i found the octagonal room thing in ballerina tedious and
unnecessary. okay i know these games are "fiction" but ballerina is set in a
shopping centre, how logical is an octagonal room in a tower with fantasy
like other worlds attached to it?
yes i'm probably not making much sense here (rather like some puzzles!) and
so i'll shut up and go away now as i'm about to post a request for help with
ballerina anyway.
cheers
kevin
"Adam Cadre" <a...@adamcadre.ac> wrote in message
news:39A514...@adamcadre.ac...
> > I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
>
> progress. Walkthroughs *prevent* spoilage.
>
> > and the enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
> getting fun responses to anything I try. My preferred method of playing
> IF is to follow a walkthrough, occasionally deviating from it to see
> what happens if I knock over a vase, kiss my sidekick, drink the
> hydrochloric acid, etc. But I don't find problem-solving to be very
> entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
>
Ross Presser
Wise).wrote.posted.offered:
>When dealing with "Cadre" IF, some people may find that puzzles are an
>unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the story.
Apparently Mr. Wise has not played "Varicella".
--
Ross Presser * ross_p...@imtek.com
A blank is ya know, like, a tab or a space. A name is like wow! a
sequence of ASCII letters, oh, baby, digits, like, or underscores,
fer shure, beginnin' with a letter or an underscore.
Michael Kinyon
[snip]
> ...as for reading the next solution etc, that is
> surely a case of applying self control.
Well, yes and no. Many walkthroughs are rather badly written,
and unless one has complete tunnel vision, one may not be able
to avoid reading a bit ahead of where one really wants help.
It is interesting that although there exist various essays "out there"
about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
Cheers,
MK
******
Michael Kinyon
Dept. of Mathematics & Computer Science
Indiana University South Bend
South Bend, IN 46634 USA
email: mki...@iusb.edu
www: http://www.iusb.edu/~mkinyon
kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu
>> I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
> Not for me. What spoils interactive fiction is not being able to make
> progress. Walkthroughs *prevent* spoilage.
I think the poster meant spoil in the sense of spoiler. Kind of.
> But I don't find problem-solving to be very
> entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
Obviously spoken by someone who was never on a math team. I *did* pass the
time taking trig tests, many moons ago. How embarrassing! Good thing I've
grown up, so that now I can pass the time reading Obfuscated Perl or
coding up an ASCII implementation of Solitaire.
-Amir
J.D. Berry
mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
>
> It is interesting that although there exist various essays "out there"
> about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
> which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
> the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
>
Interesting that you mention this. The recent discussion on Invisiclues
got me to thinking about how to write an effective walkthrough on paper.
If I finish my game for the Comp, I hope to have an example for
discussion.
Jim
Joshua Wise
"Michael Kinyon" <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:39A584DD...@iusb.edu...
> kevin (of kevin and emma) wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > ...as for reading the next solution etc, that is
> > surely a case of applying self control.
>
> Well, yes and no. Many walkthroughs are rather badly written,
> and unless one has complete tunnel vision, one may not be able
> to avoid reading a bit ahead of where one really wants help.
>
> about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
> which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
> the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
It seems to me that with the simple use of HTML, one could create a quick
hint system/walkthrough for a game. I did a very small example of this on
my webpage for Deephome
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/Yesuslave/help.htm
There should be a way of creating a small program that a person can download
that will give them a comprehensive hint system/walkthrough for a game. In
fact isn't there a program out there called the Universal Hint System?
Couldn't we use this, or implement something similar?
Josh
Joshua Wise
"Ross Presser" <rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8F9A92BC...@209.155.56.90...
> alt.distingui...@earthlink.net (Joshua
> Wise).wrote.posted.offered:
>
> >When dealing with "Cadre" IF, some people may find that puzzles are an
> >unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the story.
>
> Apparently Mr. Wise has not played "Varicella".
Pardon the misnomer then, perhaps instead of "Cadre" style, a more
specifically "fotopian" style might suit my more specific companions. I do
admit to never having played Varicella, being astonishingly particular about
the games I play, not truly based on their own merrits but often on their
subject matter. *shrug* I'm more of a fan of Wossname than I am of A
Change in the Weather, even though I did like Weather fairly well. But this
is all off topic.
I hereby ammend my statement and my misuse of Adam's Good name, and submit
this ammendation to my folly. I unreservedly completely and sincerely
appologize and retract my statement.
The most appologetic
Josh
Kathleen M. Fischer
"Joshua Wise" <yesu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> There should be a way of creating a small program that a person can
download
> that will give them a comprehensive hint system/walkthrough for a
game. In
> fact isn't there a program out there called the Universal Hint System?
> Couldn't we use this, or implement something similar?
Don't know... but I will say that while hint systems and walkthru's are
great for players, they greatly reduce feedback to the author, and
publicity for the game in the form of hint requests to the newsgroups.
Just ask the author of Ballerina about that sometime :) (which, IMHO,
has the best in-game help systems I've ever seen, hence you rarely see
comments about the game in this group even though the puzzles are
obscenely difficult (again, in IMO) Great game though! Run out and play
it if you haven't.)
Kathleen
--
-- The Cove - Best of Landscape, Interactive Fiction Art Show 2000
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Cove.z5
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Michael Kinyon
> "Michael Kinyon" <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote in message
> news:39A584DD...@iusb.edu...
[snip]
> > It is interesting that although there exist various essays "out there"
> > about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
> > which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
> > the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
[snip]
> There should be a way of creating a small program that a person can download
> that will give them a comprehensive hint system/walkthrough for a game. In
> fact isn't there a program out there called the Universal Hint System?
> Couldn't we use this, or implement something similar?
Sure. The UHS can be found at
http://www.uhs-hints.com/
It's a pretty good system. Or as you say, there are various other ways
of building such things.
However, I was not really talking about the mechanics of
constructing a hint system or a walkthrough. I was really addressing
more the "art" (ha!) of writing one of these. And in fact, to split hairs
even further, I was really just talking about walkthroughs, which was
the topic about which the Original Poster At The Top Of This Thread
was attempting to provoke all of us.
Implicit in your follow-up, though, is a good point. Hint systems tend to
be written by the original authors of a game, and if they give enough
spoilers, they preempt walkthroughs. Walkthroughs are generally
(though certainly not always) written by some zealous player.
OK, I have an idea:
**** Walkthrough Comp ***
Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
I am starting to really like the idea. However, it is a little too close
to the real comp right now, and besides, authors are probably too
busy with Toaster Comp. So let's wait a bit and try it.
Adam J. Thornton
Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>OK, I have an idea:
>**** Walkthrough Comp ***
>Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
>(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
>on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
>
>I am starting to really like the idea. However, it is a little too close
>to the real comp right now, and besides, authors are probably too
>busy with Toaster Comp. So let's wait a bit and try it.
You are most godly, Mr. (Dr.?) K.
And where the hell you been?
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Tina
Vincent Lynch <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>I tend to think that if a game requires you to use a walkthrough, it's badly
>designed.
I tend to think that if _I_ need to use a walkthrough (the game never
really makes me do this, you know; maybe you've been playing some tougher
games, the kind that hang out down in Harlem) while it _may_ be because
the puzzle was poorly designed, there's a good chance it's just because I
happen to suck at that type of puzzle.
Carl Muckenhoupt
puzzles may not realize it - that "LOOK AT MY BIG BRANE" is not the
only satisfaction resulting from solving a really good puzzle. Much
more compelling than pride of accomplishment is the moment of
realization, when all the pieces come together neatly because you're
suddenly thinking about things differently. The effect can leave me
dazzled, not at my own brilliance, but at the brilliance of the
author. And this effect really is diminished by reading the solution
in a walkthrough, in much the same way that having a joke explained to
you isn't funny - the walkthrough enables you to understand the thought
processes that the autor was trying to induce, but that's not the same
as actually experiencing them.
Mind you, I'm only talking about the best puzzles. But those are the
puzzles that keep me interested in puzzle games.
Ross Presser
Wise).wrote.posted.offered:
>I unreservedly completely and sincerely appologize and retract my
>statement.
No big deal. I just remembered my own headbanging in Varicella and
thought how humorous it was to think Adam Cadre never tried intense
puzzles. Varicella definitely is a strong story game too, though --
it's no Zork.
Vincent Lynch
I'm not sure this is entirely separate, though. For a start, I don't think
the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function of the
difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making any
progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether there's
another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are all dependent
on how well the game is designed.
Also, an author isn't doing themselves any favours by putting in puzzles which
stop people from getting to the good bits.
Yes, all of this depends on the player, but that's essentially true for all
aspects of the design.
-Vincent
Vincent Lynch
> Implicit in your follow-up, though, is a good point. Hint systems tend to
> be written by the original authors of a game, and if they give enough
> spoilers, they preempt walkthroughs. Walkthroughs are generally
> (though certainly not always) written by some zealous player.
That's a good point. I feel that having a player go to a walkthrough is a
way in which the author loses control. It's not just in that the player may
read something they shouldn't; it takes the player out of the author's world,
and reminds them that the solution is just a series of command inputs.
Whereas a well written set of built-in hints can hopefully keep the player
immersed in the game world, with just the feeling of the author looking over
their shoulder and pointing them in the right direction.
(That probably sounds incredibly pretentious, but I can't think of a better
way to put it right now.)
Then again, I also agree with Kathleen's point about built-in hints, which is
why I generally don't like them either. ;-)
-Vincent
Michael Kinyon
> In article <39A5B321...@iusb.edu>,
> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
> >OK, I have an idea:
> >**** Walkthrough Comp ***
> >Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
> >(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
> >on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
> >
> >I am starting to really like the idea. However, it is a little too close
> >to the real comp right now, and besides, authors are probably too
> >busy with Toaster Comp. So let's wait a bit and try it.
>
> You are most godly, Mr. (Dr.?) K.
Thank you , Adam, but I'm not quite ready for deification yet. (And yes, it's
Dr.,
but I only require my family to use that title when addressing me.) I knew
that
of all the Old Guard of r.*.i-f, Walkthrough Comp would get your attention.
> And where the hell you been?
Getting on with Real Life, I suppose. I still playtest on request if I can
manage the time, but <LIE>my days of shameless self-promotion as playtester
are but a pleasant memory</LIE>. I have only recently returned to lurking
and now nonlurking in the newsgroups, and so many things you all have been
taking for granted (e.g., the disappearance of Dr. Nelson) have come as
quite a surprise to me. And finally, my nonwork time is taken up with
managing the entertainment and personal plumbing of my three week old son.
Cheers,
MK
Michael Kinyon
> ...I will say that while hint systems and walkthru's are
> great for players, they greatly reduce feedback to the author, and
> publicity for the game in the form of hint requests to the newsgroups.
My favorite example of this is what happened to _Curses_. There
was no walkthrough for the game for a rather long time, and hint
requests certainly dominated r.g.i-f. After Russ Bryan wrote his
walkthroughs, discussion of _Curses_ dropped nearly to nil.
The irony is that in the weeks preceding his writing of the walkthrough,
Russ had posted somewhat derogatory comments about using hints
when playing games.
Cheers,
MK
BrenBarn
> It is interesting that although there exist various essays "out there"
> about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
> which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
> the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
Well, I'd say one way to write a walkthrough, at least for text IF, is to
just provide a script of commands. The player can then feed in these commands
and read the game text, if that's what he wants. Definitely an efficient and
unambiguous method, but somehow I sense you're looking for a more verbose type
of walkthrough.
<and, in a different message>
>**** Walkthrough Comp ***
>
>Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
>(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
>on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
Wow, that idea sounds great. Are we shooting for quality or humor here?
Also, would "transcript" walkthroughs be acceptable? It would be like one side
of a phone conversation, and no one would know what was going on:
>L
>X STRANGE PURPLE CLOUD
>STAB CLOUD WITH IRON ROD
>TIE ROD TO TALL, WARPED CARVING
>JUMP OVER RIVER OF GOO
>GET PECULIAR LOAF. EAT IT.
:-)
BrenBarn
>[Adam Cadre wrote:]
>> But I don't find problem-solving to be very
>> entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
>
>Obviously spoken by someone who was never on a math team. I *did* pass the
>time taking trig tests, many moons ago. How embarrassing! Good thing I've
>grown up, so that now I can pass the time reading Obfuscated Perl or
>coding up an ASCII implementation of Solitaire.
Amen. I actually spent my lunchtime hours for several weeks creating a
new number system, just for fun.
Even weirder, I don't like puzzly IF!
BrenBarn
>For a start, I don't think
>the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function of the
>difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making any
>progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether there's
>another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are all dependent
>on how well the game is designed.
This reminds me of that quote (from zarf, if I recall) that says something
like: "Being stuck is not the state of being unable to solve a puzzle. Being
stuck is the state of *believing* you are unable to solve a puzzle."
I'll go further and say that, if you're basing your judgement of the
puzzle on, as you say "whether I feel I feel I'm making any progress" and
"whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution", I think you're using
different critera than "how well the game is designed". In other words, how
"well" the game is designed may have zero effect on whether YOU feel you're
making progress.
This is just like the discussion we had over on r.a.i-f on the thread
about winning and losing. Does the game have a "quality" separate from any
player, or does it have a unique quality for each player? But since this
thread is really supposed to be about walkthroughs and puzzles, this is kind of
off topic.
Vincent Lynch
> Vincent Lynch ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
>>For a start, I don't think
>>the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function of the
>>difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making any
>>progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether there's
>>another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are all dependent
>>on how well the game is designed.
>
> This reminds me of that quote (from zarf, if I recall) that says something
> like: "Being stuck is not the state of being unable to solve a puzzle. Being
> stuck is the state of *believing* you are unable to solve a puzzle."
>
> I'll go further and say that, if you're basing your judgement of the
> puzzle on, as you say "whether I feel I feel I'm making any progress" and
> "whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution", I think you're using
> different critera than "how well the game is designed". In other words, how
> "well" the game is designed may have zero effect on whether YOU feel you're
> making progress.
>
> This is just like the discussion we had over on r.a.i-f on the thread
> about winning and losing. Does the game have a "quality" separate from any
> player, or does it have a unique quality for each player? But since this
> thread is really supposed to be about walkthroughs and puzzles, this is
> kind of off topic.
OK, but the point I'm making is that whether or not using a walkthrough is
appropriate doesn't just depend on the player, it depends on the game. Some
games will be completely ruined with a walkthrough, some won't at all, and
it's not always possible, as a player, to tell.
And in some games it may be that most players will go to a walkthrough (due
to a near-impossible first puzzle, or whatever) and the walkthrough will
spoil the game for them. I'd say such games are badly designed.
-Vincent
Michael Kinyon
> Michael Kinyon mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
[snip]
> <and, in a different message>
> >**** Walkthrough Comp ***
> >
> >Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
> >(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
> >on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
>
> Wow, that idea sounds great. Are we shooting for quality or humor here?
Yes.
> Also, would "transcript" walkthroughs be acceptable?
Why not? There seem to be a lot of possibilities. That's what would make
it interesting.
> >L
> >X STRANGE PURPLE CLOUD
> >STAB CLOUD WITH IRON ROD
> >TIE ROD TO TALL, WARPED CARVING
> >JUMP OVER RIVER OF GOO
> >GET PECULIAR LOAF. EAT IT.
>REZROV SKULL
>RESTART
Cheers,
MK
Mike Sousa
>remove author hat
Okay, you're no longer wearing an author hat.
>wear player hat
Okay, you're now wearing the player hat.
I hate resorting to walkthroughs. I'm weak, I admit it. Once I start reading
it, I can't stop. I would prefer to email the author and ask for a direct
nudge, but if the WT is available, I feel obliged to leave the author alone and
download it.
I much prefer in-game hints, but not the kind that show you a menu and lets you
select which one. Remember. I'm weak. I'll take a peek to save time. I have
a family, a job, a make-believe social life, so if the hint is there for the
taking, I reluctantly take it.
Sherbet did a decent job of displaying hints, only showing you menu options to
areas that you've been. An adaptive hint system, I guess that's what you call
it.
I prefer a hint system that nudges you along. <shameless plug>I tried that
with Above and Beyond!, but came up short, for many reasons. </shameless plug>
The problem with that is it can work well for linear games (puzzles) but if you
get to an area that has several puzzles available at the same time, it's quite
difficult to implement. I think there was a recent game that incorporated
this, but the name escapes me.
<rambleOff>
The ideal hint/walkthrough system for me, remember, I'm weak, is one that does
this:
depending on where you are in the game, what you have tried and how many times
you've asked for that hint, the response(s) will go from a gentle nudge to the
full solution.
>remove player hat
Okay, you're no longer wearing the player hat.
>wear author hat
Okay, you're now wearing an author hat.
I guess I'll be working on the hint system of my WIP next.
Alpha wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
>
> I know we all get stuck sometimes at a certain point in an adventure and we
> look up clues but after looking at the clue I often by accident read the
> next puzzle clue my accident!
>
> Thus spoiling the game somewhat!!
>
> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
>
> Your thoughts people!
>
> Alpha
J. Robinson Wheeler
> BrenBarn wrote:
>
>> Michael Kinyon wrote:
>>> **** Walkthrough Comp ***
>>>
>>> Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
>>> (Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
>>> on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
>>
>> Wow, that idea sounds great. Are we shooting for quality or humor here?
>> Also, would "transcript" walkthroughs be acceptable?
>
> Why not? There seem to be a lot of possibilities. That's what would make
> it interesting.
Hmmmmm. This is how "Four in One" got started, as a walkthrough transcript
for a nonexistent Marx Brothers game. Then one day I woke up thinking I knew
how to actually write the game.
Be careful what you create, it may come back to honk you.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler http://thekroneexperiment.com
whe...@jump.net
Alpha
I was really just talking about walkthroughs, which was
> the topic about which the Original Poster At The Top Of This Thread
> was attempting to provoke all of us.
>
Hi folks,
My original posting was just to ask you all for your thoughts on
walkthroughs whether or not they spoil interactive fiction.
I was most interested to read that some people find them useful, some find
them as I do a distraction, and some just like them for the enjoyment of the
storyline without the need to solve ANY clues.
I am a veteran of adventures and I remember many a late night tapping away
on my commodore 64 keyboard all those years ago :)
I remember one clue that I'll give as an example; remember Infocom's
hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy and the Babel fish?
Boy was that puzzle baffling!!! I spent many a time banging my head on a
wall with that one!
But I still remember the pure enjoyment when I DID solve the puzzle. I felt
like a million bucks!!
Walkthroughs are useful only if you have tried everything you can think of
and should ONLY be used as a last resort!! :)
Regards,
Alpha
BrenBarn
>appropriate doesn't just depend on the player, it depends on the game. Some
>games will be completely ruined with a walkthrough, some won't at all, and
>it's not always possible, as a player, to tell.
Hmmm. I see what you're saying, but its tough to think of a solution.
Because it doesn't depend just on the game either; it's a combination of game
and player. But -- hmm, I have a little Descartes-type argument coming up
after these messages. . .
>And in some games it may be that most players will go to a walkthrough (due
>to a near-impossible first puzzle, or whatever) and the walkthrough will
>spoil the game for them. I'd say such games are badly designed.
Okay, how about this. . . If you play the game for the first time and use
a walkthrough (either from the beginning or after a certain point), you
experience the game a certain way. Had you played it for the first time
without the walkthrough, you'd have experienced it differently. But if you
play the game a second time, without using the walkthrough, you have a third,
still different experience.
Now, what I'd call "spoiling" is when the first case (1st time, with
walkthrough) is "better" -- whatever that means to you -- than the second (1st
time, no walkthrough). But you can't play a game for the first time twice. So
how can you know whether the game was spoiled? All you can really do is
suspect -- either by comparing the part of the game you played with the
walkthough to the part you played without, or by using your own instincts --
that it would have been better without the walkthrough.
And now, leaving that strange tack, I'll say that MY opinion is that the
player's definition of -- aw, heck, I'm about to repeat myself. I'll leave it
at that for now, and maybe when I've thought about it for awhile, I'll be able
to finish this concept off.
BrenBarn
>here?
>
Oh. THAT kind of humor. :-)
Adam J. Thornton
J. Robinson Wheeler <whe...@jump.net> wrote:
>Be careful what you create, it may come back to honk you.
In the immortal words of Stiffy Makane, HONK HONK!
Adam J. Thornton
Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>Thank you , Adam, but I'm not quite ready for deification yet. (And yes, it's
>Dr.,
>but I only require my family to use that title when addressing me.) I knew
>that
>of all the Old Guard of r.*.i-f, Walkthrough Comp would get your attention.
Why me? Why me, Lord?
>And finally, my nonwork time is taken up with
>managing the entertainment and personal plumbing of my three week old son.
Congratulations!
Adam J. Thornton
BrenBarn <bren...@aol.comRemove> wrote:
>Also, would "transcript" walkthroughs be acceptable? It would be like one side
>of a phone conversation, and no one would know what was going on:
>>X STRANGE PURPLE CLOUD
>>STAB CLOUD WITH IRON ROD
>>TIE ROD TO TALL, WARPED CARVING
>>JUMP OVER RIVER OF GOO
>>GET PECULIAR LOAF. EAT IT.
More like
>X CLOUD
>PURPLE
>STRANGE PURPLE
>STAB IT WITH ROD
>IRON
>TIE IRON ROD TO CARVING
>TALL
>TALL WARPED
>JUMP OVER RIVER
>GOO
>GET LOAF
>PECULIAR
>EAT IT
Of course, in older versions of TADS, you'd doubtless end up with
"Which peculiar loaf do you mean, the peculiar loaf or the peculiar
loaf?"
Gene Wirchenko
>Vincent Lynch ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
>>For a start, I don't think
>>the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function of the
>>difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making any
>>progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether there's
>>another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are all dependent
>>on how well the game is designed.
>
> This reminds me of that quote (from zarf, if I recall) that says something
>like: "Being stuck is not the state of being unable to solve a puzzle. Being
>stuck is the state of *believing* you are unable to solve a puzzle."
Someone used it as a sig. I collect sigs. Therefore:
'"Stuck" is not a state of being unable to solve a puzzle. "Stuck" is
a state of *believing* that you are unable to solve a puzzle.'
- Andrew "Zarf" Plotkin, waxing philosophical again
Andrew made an excellent point.
> I'll go further and say that, if you're basing your judgement of the
>puzzle on, as you say "whether I feel I feel I'm making any progress" and
>"whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution", I think you're using
>different critera than "how well the game is designed". In other words, how
>"well" the game is designed may have zero effect on whether YOU feel you're
>making progress.
The above plus I have gone to a walkthrough or checked the source
code where I've begun to suspect a bug or misdesign. In one game, to
move in the subway, you pressed a button. The button was not in the
room description and was not a separately described item. I don't
like games that require that I "read author's mind".
> This is just like the discussion we had over on r.a.i-f on the thread
>about winning and losing. Does the game have a "quality" separate from any
>player, or does it have a unique quality for each player? But since this
>thread is really supposed to be about walkthroughs and puzzles, this is kind of
>off topic.
Probably both. How much of one vs. the other would depend on the
game.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Chris M.
>Michael Kinyon mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
>> It is interesting that although there exist various essays "out there"
>
>> about designing and writing games (and even about playtesting,
>> which is my own domain), there seems to be little discussion about
>> the art of writing a walkthrough. Any takers?
>
> Well, I'd say one way to write a walkthrough, at least for text IF, is to
>just provide a script of commands. The player can then feed in these commands
>and read the game text, if that's what he wants. Definitely an efficient and
>unambiguous method, but somehow I sense you're looking for a more verbose type
>of walkthrough.
>
><and, in a different message>
>>**** Walkthrough Comp ***
>>
>>Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
>>(Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
>>on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
>
> Wow, that idea sounds great. Are we shooting for quality or humor here?
>Also, would "transcript" walkthroughs be acceptable? It would be like one side
>of a phone conversation, and no one would know what was going on:
>>L
>>X STRANGE PURPLE CLOUD
>>STAB CLOUD WITH IRON ROD
>>TIE ROD TO TALL, WARPED CARVING
>>JUMP OVER RIVER OF GOO
>>GET PECULIAR LOAF. EAT IT.
>
For a game I just put out into beta, I wounded up doing this to help
the testers, and while doing it, found that I had rooms that didn't
work correctly.
So for me, it was helpful :-)
Chris
Michael Kinyon
> In article <39A68171...@iusb.edu>,
> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
> >I knew that of all the Old Guard of r.*.i-f, Walkthrough
> >Comp would get your attention.
>
> Why me? Why me, Lord?
Because There Can Be Only One.
Unless we can get a sequel out of it.
MK
Michael Kinyon
> "Michael Kinyon" <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote in message
> news:39A5B321...@iusb.edu...
> >I was really just talking about walkthroughs, which was
> > the topic about which the Original Poster At The Top Of This Thread
> > was attempting to provoke all of us.
[snip]
> My original posting was just to ask you all for your thoughts on
> walkthroughs whether or not they spoil interactive fiction.
>
> I was most interested to read that some people find them useful, some find
> them as I do a distraction, and some just like them for the enjoyment of the
> storyline without the need to solve ANY clues.
Very good. You have collected the data, and summarized it
quite adequately. Applying Occam's Razor, it follows that the
decision to use or not use a walkthrough--as well as how much
guilt to feel about doing so--is an entirely personal matter.
However, you concluded:
> Walkthroughs are useful only if you have tried everything you can think of
> and should ONLY be used as a last resort!! :)
How fortunate that you included an emoticon (smiley) at the end
of your assertion. It certainly does the job of distracting my
attention away from your obtuseness.
MK
Alpha
> However, you concluded:
>
> > Walkthroughs are useful only if you have tried everything you can think
of
> > and should ONLY be used as a last resort!! :)
>
> How fortunate that you included an emoticon (smiley) at the end
> of your assertion. It certainly does the job of distracting my
> attention away from your obtuseness.
Michael I didn't think I was *being* obtuse! :)
This has become a good thread and the subject about walkthroughs; i.e.. The
pro's and the con's is interesting - so come on, gimme a break eh?
Alpha
Michael Kinyon
Actually, I do owe you the benefit of the doubt. After all,
if it were not for your original post and the subsequent discussion,
I would not have had the idea for Walkthrough Comp.
So I gladly extend an olive branch in your direction.
And for what it's worth, I did indeed need a nudge to solve the
very last piece of the Babelfish puzzle in _HHGTTG_. However,
I didn't feel too guilty. I was too busy laughing.
Cheers,
MK
Alpha
"Michael Kinyon" <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:39A7D6ED...@iusb.edu...
> However, you concluded:
>
> > Walkthroughs are useful only if you have tried everything you can think
of
> > and should ONLY be used as a last resort!! :)
>
> How fortunate that you included an emoticon (smiley) at the end
> of your assertion. It certainly does the job of distracting my
> attention away from your obtuseness.
Michael I didn't think I was *being* obtuse! :)
This has become a good thread and the subject about walkthroughs; i.e.. The
pro's and the con's is interesting - so come on, gimme a break eh?
Alpha
Alpha
> Alpha wrote:
> > This has become a good thread and the subject about walkthroughs; i.e..
The
> > pro's and the con's is interesting - so come on, gimme a break eh?
>
> if it were not for your original post and the subsequent discussion,
> I would not have had the idea for Walkthrough Comp.
> So I gladly extend an olive branch in your direction.
As in Level 9's "Lords of Time" when the vikings give you an olive branch?
:))
Thanks, gratefully received!
>
> And for what it's worth, I did indeed need a nudge to solve the
> very last piece of the Babelfish puzzle in _HHGTTG_. However,
> I didn't feel too guilty. I was too busy laughing.
Yup, has to be Infocom's funniest next to Leather Goddesses :)
Keep on adventuring!
Regards,
Alpha
Tina
Vincent Lynch <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tina <ti...@eniac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I tend to think that if _I_ need to use a walkthrough (the game never
>> really makes me do this, you know; maybe you've been playing some tougher
>> games, the kind that hang out down in Harlem) while it _may_ be because
>> the puzzle was poorly designed, there's a good chance it's just because I
>> happen to suck at that type of puzzle.
>
>the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function of the
>difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making any
>progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether there's
>another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are all dependent
>on how well the game is designed.
Okay, so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds to me like what
you're saying is that if you have to reach for a walk-through it is
entirely, 100%, always and completely the author's fault for poor design.
It couldn't possibly be really good design that just happens to include an
area of weakness of yours.
Or am I missing something?
I just don't think 'needing to hit a walkthrough' and 'bad game design'
are inextricably linked. In fact, I'm quite sure of it. It is a rare,
rare, rare game in which I do not need to consult hints or a walkthrough
a few times, which if I were using that standard (as I've interpreted it)
would mean I have absolutely never seen a well-designed game, which of
course is not the case. The case is, I happen to tend to be very bad at
certain types of puzzles (and, alternately, very good at certain types
that drive other people mad), and it's an entirely individual thing.
Of course, it -may- be because it was poorly designed -- information
necessary to solve the puzzle (or items required) may be difficult to
come by, or possibly the actions needed to solve the puzzle are so
bizarre that most people would never think of them, and in that case I
would agree that it's poor design. But I don't think that's always what
it means.
>Also, an author isn't doing themselves any favours by putting in puzzles which
>stop people from getting to the good bits.
I think you misspelled "some people". For an example of just how very
differently people perceive various games, take a look at the middle
scorers of any comp. Some people's 'hard' is other people's 'easy', and
vice versa. So an author may put in a puzzle that he feels is perfectly
straightforward and that his beta testers (since I'm assuming any good
design inherently includes beta testing) found possible to solve, and
then it goes to Joe Player, who is completely stumped by it.
>Yes, all of this depends on the player, but that's essentially true for all
>aspects of the design.
If I need to consult a dictionary while reading a piece of fiction, that
does not make the fiction poorly written even if a specific section is
inaccessible to me without outside help. It just means I ran into
something I don't know. It happens frequently, being that I am not
omniscient, nor is anyone else (except possibly zarf).
Tina
Alpha <Alph...@care4free.net> wrote:
>hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy and the Babel fish?
>
>Boy was that puzzle baffling!!! I spent many a time banging my head on a
>wall with that one!
>But I still remember the pure enjoyment when I DID solve the puzzle. I felt
>like a million bucks!!
To further illustrate the point I made in another post, this seems like
an excellent time to point out that I considered the babel fish puzzle
relatively straightforward and had no difficulty solving it.
Where -I- got stuck in HHTTG was with no tea.
Adam J. Thornton
Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>"Adam J. Thornton" wrote:
>> Why me? Why me, Lord?
>Unless we can get a sequel out of it.
I'm either flattered or terrified.
J. Robinson Wheeler
>> GET LOAF
>> PECULIAR
>> EAT IT
>
> Of course, in older versions of TADS, you'd doubtless end up with
> "Which peculiar loaf do you mean, the peculiar loaf or the peculiar
> loaf?"
Hm, I must not be using the latest TADS version correctly, because I still
get messages like that coming from my work-in-progress.
BrenBarn
>does
>this:
>depending on where you are in the game, what you have tried and how many
>times
>you've asked for that hint, the response(s) will go from a gentle nudge to
>the
>full solution.
Well, I guess I'm weak too, because that's what I'd like. Except what I'd
like even more is if it didn't give you a hint per se, but just pushed the game
itself along, perhaps letting it unfold in a different way than it otherwise
would have.
Konnrad / T Taylor
> for weeks, drawn diagrams, resorted to metaphysics, screamed, felt
> stupid, and finally consulted the walkthrough...only to say afterward,
> "holy cow, what an dumb puzzle! I would NEVER have figured that out!"
Dizzy, Prince of the Yolkfolk. Jump off the side of screen while on a cloud that would
logically kill you onto a secret screen where you talk to God.
Arghhhhh!
TOM
Konnrad / T Taylor
> getting fun responses to anything I try. My preferred method of playing
> IF is to follow a walkthrough, occasionally deviating from it to see
> what happens if I knock over a vase, kiss my sidekick, drink the
> hydrochloric acid, etc. But I don't find problem-solving to be very
> entertaining. If I did I'd pass the time taking trig tests.
Story is good, good, logical puzzles are good.
Both are good.
TOM
Vincent Lynch
news:8o9sa6$8kg$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <8o5ts2$eac$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
> Vincent Lynch <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Tina <ti...@eniac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> I tend to think that if _I_ need to use a walkthrough (the game never
> >> really makes me do this, you know; maybe you've been playing some
> >> tougher games, the kind that hang out down in Harlem) while it _may_ be
> >> because the puzzle was poorly designed, there's a good chance it's just
> >> because I happen to suck at that type of puzzle.
> >I'm not sure this is entirely separate, though. For a start, I don't
> >think the speed with which I reach for a walkthrough is just a function
> >of the difficulty of the puzzle; it depends on whether I feel I'm making
> >any progress, whether I'm expecting it to have a fair solution, whether
> >there's another puzzle I can work on at the same time, etc. These are
> >all dependent on how well the game is designed.
>
> Okay, so maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds to me like what
> you're saying is that if you have to reach for a walk-through it is
> entirely, 100%, always and completely the author's fault for poor design.
I didn't say that. But of course it's the author's fault! If I'm the one
playing a game, I expect the author to have written it with _me_ in mind;
it's no good the author telling me that it's _my_ fault for not being clever
enough to solve his puzzles, or understand the points he was trying to
convey. A good author will write a game that a large number of people will
enjoy.
> It couldn't possibly be really good design that just happens to include an
> area of weakness of yours.
>
> Or am I missing something?
Perhaps you think I mean that if a game requires me to use a walkthrough,
then it's utterly worthless, and the author has failed entirely. That's not
what I'm trying to say. If I've said "bad design", I mean imperfect design;
and no, I haven't seen many perfectly designed games recently. But I insist
that it's a design issue.
(For instance, I really enjoyed The Mulldoon Legacy, because even though I
found a lot of the puzzles really hard, earlier puzzles had logical
solutions, and the game was open enough that I was rarely left with just one
problem to tackle. It's a huge, difficult game, and I needed help exactly
once, I think. I believe that was due to good design. I don't believe it
was because I happened to be really good at solving Jon's puzzles.)
> >Also, an author isn't doing themselves any favours by putting in puzzles
> >which stop people from getting to the good bits.
> I think you misspelled "some people".
I think you misunderstood. I didn't say _all_ people.
> For an example of just how very
> differently people perceive various games, take a look at the middle
> scorers of any comp. Some people's 'hard' is other people's 'easy', and
> vice versa. So an author may put in a puzzle that he feels is perfectly
> straightforward and that his beta testers (since I'm assuming any good
> design inherently includes beta testing) found possible to solve, and
> then it goes to Joe Player, who is completely stumped by it.
This seems to assume that judges rate games purely according to how
difficult they find them!
> >Yes, all of this depends on the player, but that's essentially true for
> >all aspects of the design.
> If I need to consult a dictionary while reading a piece of fiction, that
> does not make the fiction poorly written even if a specific section is
> inaccessible to me without outside help. It just means I ran into
> something I don't know. It happens frequently, being that I am not
> omniscient, nor is anyone else (except possibly zarf).
I'm not sure how this relates to the point above... But if a piece of
fiction uses words that most of its target audience won't understand (and
it's not the Jabberwocky ;-) then I'd say it's badly written.
Hmmm. I suspect we're not really disagreeing much, except about the way in
which I'm putting things. But I don't subscribe to the view that
_everything_ is dependent on the player.
-Vincent
BrenBarn
>If I'm the one
>playing a game, I expect the author to have written it with _me_ in mind;
>it's no good the author telling me that it's _my_ fault for not being clever
>enough to solve his puzzles, or understand the points he was trying to
>convey.
I can't tell if you're joking here or not. If I had written this, I'd
definitely have been joking. But I don't see a smiley or anything, so I fear
you may be serious.
If you're joking: Ha! Don't we all. :-)
If you're not: I don't know what to say. The author may not even know you
exist; how can he possible write a game for you?
>A good author will write a game that a large number of people will
>enjoy.
I don't know about "will". I don't even know what a "good" author is. Is
a game that 1000 people enjoy better than a game that 100 people love
passionately?
>Perhaps you think I mean that if a game requires me to use a walkthrough,
>then it's utterly worthless, and the author has failed entirely. That's not
>what I'm trying to say. If I've said "bad design", I mean imperfect design;
>and no, I haven't seen many perfectly designed games recently. But I insist
>that it's a design issue.
<snip>
>But I don't subscribe to the view that
>_everything_ is dependent on the player.
Do you subscribe to the view that "_everything_" is dependent on the
author? If not, which way do you lean?
>But if a piece of
>fiction uses words that most of its target audience won't understand (and
>it's not the Jabberwocky ;-) then I'd say it's badly written.
Ooooh. I wouldn't say that -- not by a long shot. Of course, you can
think whatever you want, but I think this may be the root of some of the
disagreement on this thread.
Adam J. Thornton
Konnrad / T Taylor <t...@stutaylor.SPAMISBAD.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Dizzy, Prince of the Yolkfolk. Jump off the side of screen while on a cloud that would
>logically kill you onto a secret screen where you talk to God.
For real?
I finished Dizzy's Big Adventure *only* with
a) the Game Genie for infinite lives
b) a walkthrough
and
c) leaving the game on overnight, twice, while I got some rest.
I refuse to believe that ANYONE ever finished it without cheating.
LoneCleric
opinions
toward Walkthroughs are so strong I felt the need to add my little rant
to it.
Alpha wrote:
> I am wondering if walkthroughs spoil Interactive fiction...
> [...]
> The whole point of interactive fiction is to problem solve yourself and the
> enjoyment is the reward of solving the puzzles!
Walkthroughs are MANDATORY. Period. As an author, you might try to
control
their spread, and I admit (with regrets) that this remains your
prerogative.
BUT, with that said, let me tell you something.
As some of you (especially IFmudders) know, I decided, a few months ago,
that I
was to play *every single* entry from the previous IFComps. Maybe I'm
crazy,
maybe I'm obsessive-compulsive or something. I only played Commercial
IF
before that, and I wanted to get a throughout update of the current IF
scene.
Anyway, as we speak, I'm almost done. So, you might ask, what annoyed
me the
most? Rybread games? Coming Home? Obscure puzzles? Bad homemade
parsers?
Well, all of above remained bearable. As long as they had a
walkthrough.
This is what happend to me several times, through email conversations:
Me:
Hey there. I've been playing your IFComp '9X entry. I think it's a
great/cool/original/neat lil' game. Unfortunately, though, I'm stuck.
Would
you mind sending me a walkthrough?
Author:
Err, well, you see, the game [was too buggy / was too short / was too
long /
got ratings so bad] that I didn't... I mean I thought it wouldn't be
worth...
You know...
Me:
(Sigh!)
You get the idea.
Therefore, I'm now totally convinced that every IF author, right BEFORE
releasing the game, should write up his own walkthrough. The benefits
are
numerous:
- You get to test the game, as a whole, one more time.
- The walkthrough becomes a 'proof of concept'. Even if buggy, you know
the
game can be finished, and you can prove it.
- If, after a while, you get bored of answering questions from players,
you can
release the wlk and be done with it.
- If you start getting emails from a crackpot like me, we'll both end
happier.
;-)
I can understand why some authors might want to try to enforce a
specific way
of playing their games. But the key word here remains 'try'. If you
write a
novel, can you stop me from reading the last chapter first?
You hate walkthroughs? You don't want to release one along with your
game.
Fine, I can understand that. But not releasing it *ever*? Think about
it:
- If your game rules, someone will definitely end up writing his own
walkthrough. (I myself wrote 4 anonymous wlks while playing the old
games.)
And a fan-made wlk could be worse than one you wrote out of love.
- If your game sucks, hmm, well, what difference does it make, then?
Sad but
true.
If your game has multiples endings, you should ideally provide an
walkthrough
leading to every single ending. I know it's not an appealing idea, but
think
about it: if no one can get to an ending you wrote, what good was it
writing
it?
Of course, it's my own opinion, and I'm aware that incurring my wrath my
not be
such a big incentive, but I felt the need to argue.
"Walkthroughs - they're not just for breakfast anymore"
LC
BrenBarn
>Hey there. I realize that this thread's getting a little old, but my
>opinions
>toward Walkthroughs are so strong I felt the need to add my little rant
>to it.
>Walkthroughs are MANDATORY. Period.
Whoa! That is indeed a strong opinion. :-)
>I can understand why some authors might want to try to enforce a
>specific way
>of playing their games.
Actually, at least for my current WIP, I'm more interesting in NOT
enforcing ANY specific way of playing it. But you addressed this below. . .
>If your game has multiples endings, you should ideally provide an
>walkthrough
>leading to every single ending.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the game. If you have a
game where seeing one ending can substantially help you understand another,
then providing a walkthrough for one but not the other would probably not be a
good idea. But if the endings are not meant to shed light on one another, but
on some other concept/character/"thing" in the game, providing a walkthrough to
each ending might direct the player's thoughts more toward those endings than
toward the different paths leading to them.
>I know it's not an appealing idea, but
>think
>about it: if no one can get to an ending you wrote, what good was it
>writing
>it?
There's a large difference between no one reaching a given ending, and one
specific person not reaching that ending. I think the abscence of a
walkthrough may cause players to confer more about "did you ever get to
such-and-such ending? / Oh no, I never did. How do you get to that one?"
This, in turn, may help the flow of information about your game and allow the
players, in sharing their methods of reaching each ending, to share their own
insights about those endings, thus lessening the author's power to exclusively
affect a player's reaction. (Not that that power is all-encompassing in any
case; obviously, players discuss games whether they have many endings or one.)
>Of course, it's my own opinion, and I'm aware that incurring my wrath my
>not be
>such a big incentive, but I felt the need to argue.
Well, I can definitely say that it's made me consider carefully whether or
not to make a walkthrough available for my current WIP. I haven't reached a
conclusion yet; you've definitely given me food for thought.
>"Walkthroughs - they're not just for breakfast anymore"
They are now. . .(DUN-DUN-DUN) available for LUNCH! :-)
Ben Schaffer
> **** Walkthrough Comp ***
>
> Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
> (Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
> on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
>
I actually did this, ca. 1989. I think it was actually a full
transcript, rather than a walkthrough, in the manner of the examples in
Infocom manuals. One feature I remember was that the game would be a
little pushy to make sure the player did the right thing now and then.
The title? -Intelligence Takes a Holiday-.
(For getting my entry in twelve years before the announcement, let alone
the deadline, I think I deserve some sort of Lifetime Achievement Award,
if not an outright sweep of the competition.)
What I'm thinking now is that, in 1989, writing a transcript was my best
bet as far as writing interactive fiction. Maybe today I would have just
written the actual game, but then, I didn't even have the technology
advanced enough to produce IF. The walkthrough comp would be the
ultimate expression of the IF community's continuing love affair with
the past. Today, we write IF even though we have the technology to write
graphics-and-sound-laden miasmas. I say, roll it back -- write
walkthroughs even though you have the technology to write actual IF!
Regards,
Ben Schaffer
Lifetime Achiever
-----= 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! =-----
okbl...@my-deja.com
bren...@aol.comRemove (BrenBarn) wrote:
>
> If you're not: I don't know what to say. The author may not
even know you
> exist; how can he possible write a game for you?
This sounds like you're suggesting that an author would have to have
personal knowledge of each member of his intended audience in order to
write something for them. What makes an author popular, then, would be
the degree to which the people he personally knows are like other
people in the world?
I don't think so. At least, not exactly.
An artist has to have an intended audience. He has to *know* that
audience. That audience can (and should) have the experience that the
art was to some degree created *for* them.
> Do you subscribe to the view that "_everything_" is dependent on
the
> author? If not, which way do you lean?
Whose responsibility would it be, if not the author's? He's the one
making the game, getting it to the audience, and so on. He holds all
the cards. Audiences are not always fair which is really just another
hurdle the author has to jump. But if he doesn't do it, who will? The
audience in any art form has to be won over.
--
[ok]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BrenBarn
>[I wrote:]
>> Do you subscribe to the view that "_everything_" is dependent on
>the
>> author? If not, which way do you lean?
>
>Whose responsibility would it be, if not the author's? He's the one
>making the game, getting it to the audience, and so on. He holds all
>the cards. Audiences are not always fair which is really just another
>hurdle the author has to jump. But if he doesn't do it, who will? The
>audience in any art form has to be won over.
Well, I was talking more about who affects the player's reaction to the
game than about who affects the game itself. Obviously the game author is the
primary (if not the sole) influence on the game itself. But the reaction that
a given player has to that game is a different story -- at least, that's what I
was referring to.
Vincent Lynch
news:20000828000301...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> "Vincent Lynch" vincen...@lineone.net wrote:
> >If I'm the one playing a game, I expect the author to have written it
with
> >_me_ in mind; it's no good the author telling me that it's _my_ fault for
> >not being clever enough to solve his puzzles, or understand the points he
> >was trying to convey.
> I can't tell if you're joking here or not. If I had written this,
I'd
> definitely have been joking. But I don't see a smiley or anything, so I
fear
> you may be serious.
I think it's clear enough that I'm being serious here; I suspect you don't
understand what I'm saying. Of course, that may be entirely _my_ fault for
not making myself clear enough; I'll try again.
> If you're joking: Ha! Don't we all. :-)
> If you're not: I don't know what to say. The author may not even
know
> you exist; how can he possible write a game for you?
I don't know. But quite a few people I don't know have written games that
I've enjoyed, so it seems to be possible.
If I deliberately write a book that is meant only for adults, then it's my
fault if children don't like it. That's fine, as I'm not trying to write a
book for children. It doesn't mean it's a bad book, by any reasonable
definition of "bad".
> >A good author will write a game that a large number of people will
> >enjoy.
> I don't know about "will". I don't even know what a "good" author
is.
> Is a game that 1000 people enjoy better than a game that 100 people love
> passionately?
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "large"; that's not the judgement I'm making
here. I certainly wouldn't argue that IF is any less good than other kinds
of game simply because fewer people play it. I forget the exact context,
but I'm working on the assumption that a good game is one that is enjoyed by
a significant number of the target audience; and a good author writes good
games. Yes, this relates to whether games have an objective "quality"
independent of what individual people think of it, as you mentioned earlier.
> >Perhaps you think I mean that if a game requires me to use a walkthrough,
> >then it's utterly worthless, and the author has failed entirely. That's
not
> >what I'm trying to say. If I've said "bad design", I mean imperfect
design;
> >and no, I haven't seen many perfectly designed games recently. But I
insist
> >that it's a design issue.
> <snip>
> >But I don't subscribe to the view that
> >_everything_ is dependent on the player.
>
> Do you subscribe to the view that "_everything_" is dependent on the
> author? If not, which way do you lean?
No, and that's very hard to quantify. I agree that all of this is to some
extent subjective; I just don't think it's as subjective as a lot of people
seem to make out. If I look at the different lists of favourite games
various people have posted here, most of them have one or two games in
common; perhaps half of the lists I've seen mention Anchorhead, for
instance. That's a strong correlation, and suggests to me that a lot
depends on the game, not just on the players.
(If that seems incredibly obvious, it's probably because I'm not trying to
say anything very deep.)
> >But if a piece of fiction uses words that most of its target
> >audience won't understand (and it's not the Jabberwocky ;-) then
> >I'd say it's badly written.
> Ooooh. I wouldn't say that -- not by a long shot. Of course, you
can
> think whatever you want, but I think this may be the root of some of the
> disagreement on this thread.
Then I really don't understand the disagreement here; what I've written
there looks to me to be fairly indisputable. If I write a book for
children, but I make it too difficult for most children to understand, then
it's unlikely to be a good children's book.
-Vincent
Adam Cadre
> If I look at the different lists of favourite games various people
> have posted here, most of them have one or two games in common;
> perhaps half of the lists I've seen mention Anchorhead, for instance.
> That's a strong correlation, and suggests to me that a lot depends on
> the game, not just on the players.
As it happens, earlier this year there was a survey in this newsgroup
to see what sort of correlations there were in people's tastes. You
mention Anchorhead; the results suggested that Anchorhead was popular
among fans of Babel, Varicella, and Worlds Apart, but distinctly
unpopular among fans of Chicks Dig Jerks. For more, see:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=600220195
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac
Tina
Vincent Lynch <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>BrenBarn <bren...@aol.comRemove> wrote:
>> Do you subscribe to the view that "_everything_" is dependent on the
>> author? If not, which way do you lean?
>
>No, and that's very hard to quantify. I agree that all of this is to some
>extent subjective; I just don't think it's as subjective as a lot of people
>seem to make out. If I look at the different lists of favourite games
>various people have posted here, most of them have one or two games in
>common; perhaps half of the lists I've seen mention Anchorhead, for
>instance. That's a strong correlation, and suggests to me that a lot
>depends on the game, not just on the players.
I think that there's a difference between 'good' and 'widely accessible'.
It's possible to be both. It's possible to be only one.
Again turning to the literary comparison, I note that Shakespeare is not
widely accessible but yet still 'good'. There are a lot of people who
need to routinely reach for a dictionary or who buy annotated versions
that explain the language, which I see as the static fiction equivalent
to having to consult hints/walkthroughs, yet who still enjoy the works as
a whole. There are some people who can get through Shakespeare with no
problem. There are some who give up on Shakespeare and try something
else. This seems like a pretty direct parallel to IF.
Too, you mention Anchorhead, which gets a fair number of posts for hint
requests, so I think the correlation between 'accessible' and 'good'
there isn't as strong as you may think.
It's true that highly accessible games are more likely to be popular. But
popularity is not a good measure for determining quality. It's just a
good measure for determining accessibility. McDonald's is popular, but
let's face it, not very high-quality. Some corner fast-food place owned
by a Greek guy in his 50s who has been there forever may be tough to get
to for most people but have much better hamburgers.
Michael Kinyon
> In article <39A5B321...@iusb.edu>, mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
>
> > **** Walkthrough Comp ***
> >
> > Your entry should be a walkthrough for a nonexistent game.
> > (Cf. Stanislaw Lem's _Perfect Vacuum_) You will be judged
> > on the quality of your writing by some arcane voting procedure.
> >
>
> I actually did this, ca. 1989. I think it was actually a full
> transcript, rather than a walkthrough, in the manner of the examples in
> Infocom manuals.
[snip]
> (For getting my entry in twelve years before the announcement, let alone
> the deadline, I think I deserve some sort of Lifetime Achievement Award,
> if not an outright sweep of the competition.)
Well, you certainly seem to be alive, and eventually you
will have achieved a lifetime, so sure, go ahead and take the
award now while you can still use it.
As far as the sweep, I'll have to think about whether or not game
transcripts
that show the game's response will be part of this. As you said in a part of
your message I snipped, your "game" actually moved the player along, so
in some sense it functioned as a game that didn't need a walkthrough. Hmm.
I could use some 2nd/3rd/etc. opinions. For those of you who are actually
following this idea, is the type of transcript Ben is describing here an
acceptable entry, or is it too far from the spirit of Walkthrough Comp?
Should Ben wait until.... *** Transcript Comp *** ?
> Today, we write IF even though we have the technology to write
> graphics-and-sound-laden miasmas. I say, roll it back -- write
> walkthroughs even though you have the technology to write actual IF!
It sounds like you are equating "IF" with "text", which not everyone in
this group does. Whose to say that someone's entry in Walkthrough
Comp won't be for a graphic-based IF game? Although maybe that
would be a bit dull....
"Click on all your inventory items, and then click on all the hot spots
in this scene. Move to the next scene. Repeat."
Cheers,
MK
sg...@my-deja.com
Mike Sousa <mso...@efortress.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Sherbet did a decent job of displaying hints, only showing you menu
options to
> areas that you've been. An adaptive hint system, I guess that's what
you call
> it.
>
> I prefer a hint system that nudges you along. <shameless plug>I
tried that
> with Above and Beyond!, but came up short, for many reasons.
</shameless plug>
> The problem with that is it can work well for linear games (puzzles)
but if you
> get to an area that has several puzzles available at the same time,
it's quite
> difficult to implement. I think there was a recent game that
incorporated
> this, but the name escapes me.
> <rambleOff>
>
[snip]
> >wear author hat
> Okay, you're now wearing an author hat.
>
> I guess I'll be working on the hint system of my WIP next.
There's info on implementing adaptive hints in TADS in the examples
directory at IF Archive.
http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/programming/tads/examples/adhint.zip
"an adaptive hint module which tracks game state to give "good" hints,
by Dave Allen with a few modifications by Stephen Granade. Last update:
22nov96. "
Have you seen that? I found it very helpful (even though I was
programming in Alan!)
[snip]
Regards,
SteveG.
sg...@my-deja.com
lonec...@as-if.bigfoot.com wrote:
[snip]
> Walkthroughs are MANDATORY. Period. As an author, you might try to
> control
> their spread, and I admit (with regrets) that this remains your
> prerogative.
> Therefore, I'm now totally convinced that every IF author, right
BEFORE
> releasing the game, should write up his own walkthrough. The benefits
> are
> numerous:
> - You get to test the game, as a whole, one more time.
> - The walkthrough becomes a 'proof of concept'. Even if buggy, you
know
> the
> game can be finished, and you can prove it.
> - If, after a while, you get bored of answering questions from
players,
> you can
> release the wlk and be done with it.
> - If you start getting emails from a crackpot like me, we'll both end
> happier.
> ;-)
[snip]
Yes, I agree with you. From an author's rather than a player's
viewpoint, having a walkthrough is an excellent idea. (For the reasons
that you state - especially for the purpose of testing that your game
actually works before you release it.)
I also think it is a nice idea to NOT release the walkthrough but to
advertise that it is available if people email you for it. The
advantages are
- you get some feedback on your game
- people will not leap to the walkthrough too soon because there is a
bit of effort involved in accessing it
- but there's not so much effort that people will give up on the game
too soon
- there's no need for an enthusiastic player to write a walkthrough
which in your opinion as the author overly spoils your game
Hmmm. I shall file this advice away in the back of my mind for the day
that I actually write a game myself! :-)
Adam Cadre
> all I can say is that the non-solid part of that opinion is whether
> the author can choose his "target audience", and indeed whether there
> is and/or can be a "target audience" at all.
Mmm. This can get pretty tautological. As Joel Hodgson said, "The
right people will get it" -- and what makes them the right people is
the fact that they get it.
Konnrad / T Taylor
I just needed a hint. I asked my Speccy-mad friend - what do I do next? He just smiled
and said - "Make a leap of faith." And wiggled his eyebrows. 2,364 tries later -
SUCCESS!!!
And it's easy to get through without dying. Sans cheats.
TOM
BrenBarn
>> "Vincent Lynch" vincen...@lineone.net wrote:
>> >If I'm the one playing a game, I expect the author to have written it
>with
>> >_me_ in mind; it's no good the author telling me that it's _my_ fault for
>> >not being clever enough to solve his puzzles, or understand the points he
>> >was trying to convey.
>> I can't tell if you're joking here or not. If I had written this,
>I'd
>> definitely have been joking. But I don't see a smiley or anything, so I
>fear
>> you may be serious.
>
>I think it's clear enough that I'm being serious here; I suspect you don't
>understand what I'm saying.
You're right; I didn't understand, but now, from reading your response, I
do, and your position as a whole is much more clear to me as a result.
>If I deliberately write a book that is meant only for adults, then it's my
>fault if children don't like it. That's fine, as I'm not trying to write a
>book for children. It doesn't mean it's a bad book, by any reasonable
>definition of "bad".
Okay, I get what you're saying now. I don't fully agree with the notion
of writing a book that "is meant only for" some particular group, but I don't
fully disagree with it either. In any case, I can see where you're coming
from.
>I forget the exact context,
>but I'm working on the assumption that a good game is one that is enjoyed by
>a significant number of the target audience; and a good author writes good
>games. Yes, this relates to whether games have an objective "quality"
>independent of what individual people think of it, as you mentioned earlier.
Okay, again, my definition of "good game" is different (I'm not even sure
if I have one :-), but I understand your definition.
Incidentally, I can't see why I didn't understand this before. It
doesn't seem like you're saying anything radically different, nor is your
language anything but crystal clear; I must have been spaced out when I read
your earlier posts :-).
>I agree that all of this is to some
>extent subjective; I just don't think it's as subjective as a lot of people
>seem to make out.
I suspect that I'm one of those "lot of people" :-).
>If I look at the different lists of favourite games
>various people have posted here, most of them have one or two games in
>common; perhaps half of the lists I've seen mention Anchorhead, for
>instance. That's a strong correlation, and suggests to me that a lot
>depends on the game, not just on the players.
Now, just to show you where I'm coming from, I would look at similar data
and conclude that the correlation in favorite games was due to a similarity
among the temperaments/tastes/etc. of the various players. I haven't played
Anchorhead, so unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately :-) I can't give my own
opinion about that game as another example.
>> >But if a piece of fiction uses words that most of its target
>> >audience won't understand (and it's not the Jabberwocky ;-) then
>> >I'd say it's badly written.
>> Ooooh. I wouldn't say that -- not by a long shot. Of course, you
>can
>> think whatever you want, but I think this may be the root of some of the
>> disagreement on this thread.
>
>Then I really don't understand the disagreement here; what I've written
>there looks to me to be fairly indisputable. If I write a book for
>children, but I make it too difficult for most children to understand, then
>it's unlikely to be a good children's book.
Well, as I said, I now DO understand the disagreement, because what you
wrote there looks disputable to me :-). This disputability (for me) is
implicit in the notion of a "target audience", a concept that I find mentioned
with reference to many media, and on which I still haven't fully solidified my
opinion.
Since I haven't solidified my opinion (and probably won't anytime soon),
all I can say is that the non-solid part of that opinion is whether the author
can choose his "target audience", and indeed whether there is and/or can be a
"target audience" at all.
But I sense I'm losing coherence, so I've talked enough for now.
BrenBarn
>It's possible to be both. It's possible to be only one.
See, now, here I go again blabbering about my opinion, but I think of both
of those terms as being so subjective that they are close to meaningless to me.
>Again turning to the literary comparison, I note that Shakespeare is not
>widely accessible but yet still 'good'. There are a lot of people who
>need to routinely reach for a dictionary or who buy annotated versions
>that explain the language, which I see as the static fiction equivalent
>to having to consult hints/walkthroughs, yet who still enjoy the works as
>a whole.
This is a very interesting comparison. Using myself as a data point:
While reading Shakespeare, I don't reach for a dictionary as often as most of
my peers; but I don't much like the Shakespeare that I've read.
Is this the static fiction equivalent of a person who doesn't need a lot
of hints to win a game, but doesn't like the game?
This comparison to static fiction seems like it could help me understand
my own views better. Thanks for proposing this thought! :-)
BrenBarn
>As far as the sweep, I'll have to think about whether or not game
>transcripts
>that show the game's response will be part of this.
What about transcripts that DON'T show the game's response? Are those
allowed? (I already asked this, but I can't remember if the person who
responded saying "Why not?" was the Official Walkthrough Comp Organizer :-).
Michael Kinyon
> Michael Kinyon mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
> >As far as the sweep, I'll have to think about whether or not game
> >transcripts that show the game's response will be part of this.
>
> What about transcripts that DON'T show the game's response? Are those
> allowed? (I already asked this, but I can't remember if the person who
> responded saying "Why not?" was the Official Walkthrough Comp Organizer :-).
Well, I was the one who said "Why not?", and yes, I guess I am the OWCO.
Remind me to mention it on my curriculum vitae.
It sounds like you are already working on your entry.
I encourage all of you out there who now realize that the regular comp is
just too close for comfort to abandon your efforts at game writing, and
move on to a higher art form: walkthroughs. Walkthrough Comp
will be held shortly after regular comp fever dies down.
Cheers,
MK
James M. Power
who speak English (or French, etc.) those who have leisure time access
to computers or a palm pilot, those who are willing to try IF. Those
three steps alone bring us to a tiny fraction of the world. But it goes
further. If I write a piece with a title such as "Pass the Banana to
the Flaming Head" the audience starts to become self selected.
IMHO, a good piece takes these inevitable limitations as a starting
point.
Adam Cadre wrote:
>
> Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> > all I can say is that the non-solid part of that opinion is whether
> > the author can choose his "target audience", and indeed whether there
> > is and/or can be a "target audience" at all.
>
BrenBarn
>Remind me to mention it on my curriculum vitae.
Don't forget to mention it on your curriculum vitae :-).
>It sounds like you are already working on your entry.
Yes, but (I admit it) not for this comp. :-)
>I encourage all of you out there who now realize that the regular comp is
>just too close for comfort to abandon your efforts at game writing, and
>move on to a higher art form: walkthroughs. Walkthrough Comp
>will be held shortly after regular comp fever dies down.
I'll never give up! Never! :-) Actually, I hope to enter in both comps,
if I have the time. (I'm definitely entering the "regular" comp.)
kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu
> Ben Schaffer wrote:
> your message I snipped, your "game" actually moved the player along, so
> in some sense it functioned as a game that didn't need a walkthrough. Hmm.
> I could use some 2nd/3rd/etc. opinions. For those of you who are actually
> following this idea, is the type of transcript Ben is describing here an
> acceptable entry, or is it too far from the spirit of Walkthrough Comp?
> Should Ben wait until.... *** Transcript Comp *** ?
It's definitely too far. It's basically turning IF into non-IF, aka
fiction with a lot of '>' characters in it meant to invoke a sense that
it's a transcript from an IF game. The whole point of the Walkthrough Comp
(didn't you read the Walkthrough Comp FAQ? It's at
http://2001.timetravel.com/) is that it's the equivalent of filming one
side of a telephone conversation -- the reader/viewer is forced to imagine
the other side.
Note: While transcripts can undoubtedly be great, I don't know if the
more purist Walkthrough Comp will actually produce anything good. But
that's no reason to sully our art by accepting shoddy imitations!
> "Click on all your inventory items, and then click on all the hot spots
> in this scene. Move to the next scene. Repeat."
Ha!
-Amir
Adam J. Thornton
Konnrad / T Taylor <t...@stutaylor.SPAMISBAD.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I refuse to believe that ANYONE ever finished it without cheating.
>
>and said - "Make a leap of faith." And wiggled his eyebrows. 2,364 tries later -
>SUCCESS!!!
>
> And it's easy to get through without dying. Sans cheats.
Er, maybe the spectrum version of Prince of the Yolkfolk. THe Nintendo
version of Dizzy's Big Adventure, er, no. *MAYBE* if you'd already
mapped the mine tracks, and had nerves of steel and no need to sleep.
Tina
BrenBarn <bren...@aol.comRemove> wrote:
>>I think that there's a difference between 'good' and 'widely accessible'.
>>It's possible to be both. It's possible to be only one.
>
> See, now, here I go again blabbering about my opinion, but I think of both
>of those terms as being so subjective that they are close to meaningless to me.
Well, 'good' is certainly quite subjective. 'Accessible' is a more
objective value. Highly accessible works are those which a wider audience
is apt to appreciate on a more casual basis, rather than appealing to
people with a particular interest that they're willing to work a bit to
support. Actually, I'm not sure that's the world's best definition, but
I'm a day away from going on a real vacation for the first time in
several years and therefore I don't currently have much of a brain.
> This is a very interesting comparison. Using myself as a data point:
>While reading Shakespeare, I don't reach for a dictionary as often as most of
>my peers; but I don't much like the Shakespeare that I've read.
>
> Is this the static fiction equivalent of a person who doesn't need a lot
>of hints to win a game, but doesn't like the game?
Yes. There have certainly been examples of games that are fairly easy to
get through but where the genre, presentation, or basic premise is not
particularly appealing to some. In fact, I expect this to happen at least
twice during this year's comp to me. :)
[My goal this year is to play every game that will run on my computer
even if it means having no life for 6 weeks...]
Michael Kinyon
> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
[referring to Ben Schaffer's completely snipped post]
> > I could use some 2nd/3rd/etc. opinions. For those of you who are actually
> > following this idea, is the type of transcript Ben is describing here an
> > acceptable entry, or is it too far from the spirit of Walkthrough Comp?
> > Should Ben wait until.... *** Transcript Comp *** ?
>
> It's definitely too far. It's basically turning IF into non-IF, aka
> fiction with a lot of '>' characters in it meant to invoke a sense that
> it's a transcript from an IF game.
This jives with my intuition. Thank you, Amir, for the confirmation. Sorry, Ben.
If someone organizes *** Transcript Comp ***, then you will certainly
get the Early Bird Award.
> The whole point of the Walkthrough Comp
> (didn't you read the Walkthrough Comp FAQ? It's at
> http://2001.timetravel.com/)
I suppose I should read it, since I am probably the one who will
write it. Be prepared and all that, doncha know.
> is that it's the equivalent of filming one
> side of a telephone conversation -- the reader/viewer is forced to imagine
> the other side.
Yes, though let me hasten to add that an entry does not have to be
in "half-transcript form". BrenBarn asked elsewhere if half-transcript form
was acceptable. Just to clarify my "why not" responses: yes, but that is
certainly
not compulsory. Any walkthrough format is OK.
> Note: While transcripts can undoubtedly be great, I don't know if the
> more purist Walkthrough Comp will actually produce anything good.
Such pessimism. Using my OWCO telepathic powers, I already know
that some of IF's finest writers plan to rise to the challenge. How could
they resist a medium which allows such flexibility and freedom of
expression? Why, it's even better than [insert recently overhyped new
game system here].
Cheers,
MK
BrenBarn
>Using my OWCO telepathic powers, I already know
>that some of IF's finest writers plan to rise to the challenge. How could
>they resist a medium which allows such flexibility and freedom of
>expression? Why, it's even better than [insert recently overhyped new
>game system here].
<JOKE>
Say, this gives me an idea. How about a simple, object-oriented
programming language that lets people easily write walkthroughs in various
genres? We could include such features as a sophisticated parser to correctly
interpret all the preset commands in the walkthrough (this would be easy,
because since its a walkthrough we'd know exactly what commands we'd have to
process), and then it could automatically NOT print the game's responses. We
could even have a built in non-random number generator to make sure the
walkthrough always works for the nonexistent game it's meant for!
</JOKE>
Michael Kinyon
> Michael Kinyon mki...@iusb.edu wrote:
> >Using my OWCO telepathic powers, I already know
> >that some of IF's finest writers plan to rise to the challenge. How could
> >they resist a medium which allows such flexibility and freedom of
> >expression? Why, it's even better than [insert recently overhyped new
> >game system here].
>
> <JOKE>
> Say, this gives me an idea. How about a simple, object-oriented
> programming language that lets people easily write walkthroughs in various
> genres? We could include such features as a sophisticated parser to correctly
> interpret all the preset commands in the walkthrough (this would be easy,
> because since its a walkthrough we'd know exactly what commands we'd have to
> process), and then it could automatically NOT print the game's responses. We
> could even have a built in non-random number generator to make sure the
> walkthrough always works for the nonexistent game it's meant for!
> </JOKE>
I am probably going to regret this, but...
Dare I ask if you have selected an appropriate acronym for this
remarkable language?
Cheers,
MK
kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu
>> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>> The whole point of the Walkthrough Comp
>> (didn't you read the Walkthrough Comp FAQ? It's at
>> http://2001.timetravel.com/)
> I suppose I should read it, since I am probably the one who will
> write it. Be prepared and all that, doncha know.
Don't do it! If you read it before you write it, you might decide to
rework that awkward analogy in the third paragraph. But that would lead to
your writing a different version than the version that you actually are
destined to write, and we all know what sort of temporal anomaly *that*
can cause.
<OT geeky science stuff>
Speaking of time travel, did you know that tachyons are the flipside of
normal particles? They can never travel *slower* than the speed of light.
The really cool part is that normal particles can be in the same place at
two different times, but never at two places at one time. Tachyons are
just the opposite: they can be in two places at once, but they can never
be in the same place twice. Which means that they always have to travel in
a straight line! (They're traveling in a straight line in space; while we
travel in a straight line in time.)
</OT geeky science stuff>
>> is that it's the equivalent of filming one
>> side of a telephone conversation -- the reader/viewer is forced to imagine
>> the other side.
> Yes, though let me hasten to add that an entry does not have to be
> in "half-transcript form". BrenBarn asked elsewhere if half-transcript form
> was acceptable. Just to clarify my "why not" responses: yes, but that is
> certainly
> not compulsory. Any walkthrough format is OK.
My first thought was, What other formats are there? But I guess you mean
you could have a walkthrough like:
Your first task is to distract Ms. Hopkins long enough for you to
sneak out of class. You can do this by creatively using your telekinetic
powers on the hamster cages.
Hm. Could be interesting. But again, that seems to approach Real Fiction
(albeit with "you" as the protagonist) again. Well, I suppose we'll see.
-Amir
Konnrad / T Taylor
> who speak English (or French, etc.) those who have leisure time access
> to computers or a palm pilot, those who are willing to try IF. Those
> three steps alone bring us to a tiny fraction of the world. But it goes
> further. If I write a piece with a title such as "Pass the Banana to
> the Flaming Head" the audience starts to become self selected.
Pass the Banana is class. But I still can't get the last (tenth) point. Although that
could be through lack of trying.
TOM
Tina
Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>BrenBarn wrote:
>>
>> <JOKE>
>> Say, this gives me an idea. How about a simple, object-oriented
>> programming language that lets people easily write walkthroughs in various
>> genres? We could include such features as a sophisticated parser to correctly
>
>I am probably going to regret this, but...
>Dare I ask if you have selected an appropriate acronym for this
>remarkable language?
Well, we could call it the Data Object-Oriented Walkthrough Application
Process.
Konnrad / T Taylor
> version of Dizzy's Big Adventure, er, no. *MAYBE* if you'd already
> mapped the mine tracks, and had nerves of steel and no need to sleep.
I'm talking about the Amiga version.
TOM
David Thornley
<kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>It's definitely too far. It's basically turning IF into non-IF, aka
>fiction with a lot of '>' characters in it meant to invoke a sense that
>(didn't you read the Walkthrough Comp FAQ? It's at
>side of a telephone conversation -- the reader/viewer is forced to imagine
>the other side.
>
>that's no reason to sully our art by accepting shoddy imitations!
>
sequences in the whole game is presented this way.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
BrenBarn
>[I wrote:]
>> <JOKE>
>> Say, this gives me an idea. How about a simple, object-oriented
>> programming language that lets people easily write walkthroughs in various
>> genres? We could include such features as a sophisticated parser to
>correctly
>> interpret all the preset commands in the walkthrough (this would be easy,
>> because since its a walkthrough we'd know exactly what commands we'd have
>to
>> process), and then it could automatically NOT print the game's responses.
>We
>> could even have a built in non-random number generator to make sure the
>> walkthrough always works for the nonexistent game it's meant for!
>> </JOKE>
>
>I am probably going to regret this, but...
>Dare I ask if you have selected an appropriate acronym for this
>remarkable language?
>
Well, you asked for it. . .
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
No. :-)
Michael Kinyon
> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
> > kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu wrote:
>
> >> Michael Kinyon <mki...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The whole point of the Walkthrough Comp
> >> (didn't you read the Walkthrough Comp FAQ? It's at
> >> http://2001.timetravel.com/)
>
> > I suppose I should read it, since I am probably the one who will
> > write it. Be prepared and all that, doncha know.
>
> Don't do it! If you read it before you write it, you might decide to
> rework that awkward analogy in the third paragraph.
You mean the one where I compare the Art of the Walkthrough
with late 19th century agri-business? Stubbornly, I insist that it is
a good analogy. So it stays in.
> But that would lead to
> your writing a different version than the version that you actually are
> destined to write, and we all know what sort of temporal anomaly *that*
> can cause.
Yes. Grapefruit will become the dominant species.
[speculative science snipped]
> > ...Any walkthrough format is OK.
>
> My first thought was, What other formats are there? But I guess you mean
> you could have a walkthrough like:
>
> Your first task is to distract Ms. Hopkins long enough for you to
> sneak out of class. You can do this by creatively using your telekinetic
> powers on the hamster cages.
Right. Many walkthroughs on the archive are of this type.
> Hm. Could be interesting. But again, that seems to approach Real Fiction
> (albeit with "you" as the protagonist) again.
Let's live dangerously.
Cheers,
MK
Neil Cerutti
(W)alkthru (A)pplication (L)ayer and (K)ludged
(T)ranscripting (H)ollisticly (R)edoubtable (U)nifier.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@together.net>
<http://homepages.together.net/~cerutti/>
kar...@yale.edu
> On young...@tinyonline.co.uk posted:
>>I also had no real difficulty solving the Babel Fish puzzle, and
>>thought it was done very well, which is more than I can say for
>>the rest of the game, which was unfairly hard, unfunny, too
>>linear, and full of tedious retyping to get or do certain
>>actions. And as for that dreary robot... Ahhh.
> SPOILER WARNING
No, really, SPOILER WARNING.
> Well, it all depended on if you had, early in the game, for no reason at
> all, picked up the junk mail.
> I suspect that those with the junk mail weren't stymied very
> long.
Bzzzt!
I got everything but the last step of the puzzle, despite being a pack
rat. I think someone eventually told me how to do it.
-Amir