Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..
Sam Hulick
Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
--
--- Sam Hulick ------------- shu...@indiana.edu ---------------------
Systems Consultant | Homepage:
Indiana College Placement | http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~shulick/
and Assessment Center | PGP public key available on request
Dan Shiovitz
In article <1995Sep8.2...@news.cs.indiana.edu>,
Sam Hulick <shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
>so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
>country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
>country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
>without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
>you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
>later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
Obviously, the best sort of thing is to just not have any situations like this
at all in a game :P But that's pretty tough to do. If you must have them, I
would rather just be allowed to board the ship. Possibly, it might be a good
idea to suggest a save before the player sets sail, if it's obvious this could
be a one-way trip. In general, I prefer the author to stay out of the game as
much as possible. I wouldn't like getting a "strange feeling I'm forgetting
something" (and that could be *real* frustrating if you can't figure out what
it is), and in general, I don't like messages that say "The game would be
unsolvable if you did that. Better not." Let the player have all the rope
they want, that's my motto :P
>--- Sam Hulick ------------- shu...@indiana.edu ---------------------
--
------------------------------------------------+--------------
The Grim Reaper ** scy...@u.washington.edu |
Dan Shiovitz ** sh...@cs.washington.edu | Aude
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Sapere
_Music of the Spheres_ : Coming Nov '95 |
------------------------------------------------+--------------
Gareth Rees
> Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship without a few
> things?
Make it an optional setting, like score notification. People who want
to experience the consequences of their own mistakes would turn the
option off, more timid adventurers would turn it on.
--
Gareth Rees
Jason Dyer
: Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
: so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
: country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
: country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
: without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
: you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
: later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
Three options:
1. Before leaving, the game asks "Do you want to save your game now?"
2. All the objects in question will have been taken by the time the
player gets to the transport. For example, if they need a spray paint
can in the next country, put it next to an object required to get
to the transport. This won't necessarily assure that the player will have
the objects, but it will make the possession of them much more likely.
3. When leaving, have the game say [The game is now in an unsolvable
state. You may want to undo that last move.] but still allow the player
to go ahead.
--
Jason Dyer - jd...@indirect.com
Christopher E. Forman
: Make it an optional setting, like score notification. People who want
: to experience the consequences of their own mistakes would turn the
: option off, more timid adventurers would turn it on.
My current project does just this.
There are a couple segments of the game that are quite linear (necessarily
so), and it's possible to get stuck without realizing it. I've included a
"Warning Mode," similar to score notification, that informs players of these
situations.
It's not designed to help with everything -- using a one-use object in the
wrong place doesn't activate it -- since that would give away too much of
what's important. It's up to the player to determine that, since nothing
happened as a result of his/her actions, it's probably time to undo or
restore. I only use Warning Mode to tell players they've screwed up when
there's a chance they can't determine that for themselves.
--
C.E. Forman cef...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Read the I-F e-zine XYZZYnews, at ftp.gmd.de:/if-archive/magazines/xyzzynews!
* Interactive Fiction * Beavis and Butt-Head * The X-Files * MST3K * C/C++ *
Sam Hulick
>Sam Hulick (shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>: Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
>: so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
>: country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
>: country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
>: without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
>: you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
>: later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
>
>Three options:
>
>1. Before leaving, the game asks "Do you want to save your game now?"
Kind of obvious that they left something behind, then.
>2. All the objects in question will have been taken by the time the
>player gets to the transport. For example, if they need a spray paint
>can in the next country, put it next to an object required to get
>to the transport. This won't necessarily assure that the player will have
>the objects, but it will make the possession of them much more likely.
>3. When leaving, have the game say [The game is now in an unsolvable
>state. You may want to undo that last move.] but still allow the player
>to go ahead.
I was thinking about a wimpy mode.. i.e.
>wimpy on
Game is now in wimpy mode. The game will never reach an unsolveable
state.
So then I would code things like this:
... if player is about to board the ship
{
if (wimpy is on and player doesn't have this & this & that)
"You feel like you've forgotten something. Better go back.";
! ..otherwise, board the ship.
}
This way, the player can decide for themself if they want the game to be
tough & mean, or not let them pass important things up. What do you
think?
--
--- Sam Hulick ------------- shu...@indiana.edu ---------------------
J. I. Drasner
>Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
>so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
>country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
>country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
>without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
>you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
>later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
How about a happy medium? Such as you get a warning, but you can choose to
ignore it if you want, and another try will let you board the ship,
whether or not you have the object.
Personally -- and even though I know it's my fault when it happens,
naturally -- I dislike games where you can get about 1 point away from
finishing and discover that because you threw away some plastic wrapping
in the first ten moves of the game, you're not going to win. (Well, you
know what I mean. Like the dog puzzle in Hitchhiker's Guide.)
****************************************************
All done. Bye bye.
****************************************************
Guildenstern: He's -- melancholy.
Player: Melancholy?
Rosencrantz: Mad.
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can't help that, we're all mad here.
(From "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern in Wonderland")
****************************************************
Johanna "Joey" Drasner: ow...@interport.net (Greenwich Village)
****************************************************
edharel
"Sam Hulick" <shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
> so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
> country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
> country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
> without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
> you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
> later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
Well, it really depends on what type of a game it is. And where in the
game. In a game called Demon's Tomb, the prologue consists of you
being an archeologist in a tomb that's on fire, and you have to save
all your stuff. The game itself tells you that he cannot be saved, and
that you have to save as much as you can (I thought I did, until I saw
that I had to go about slowing down the fire annother way). Whether or
not you save everything you can, the game goes on, whether it's
possible to finish the game or not.
However, there are other games (particularily "Enhanced") where it just
gets annoying after a while. My suggestion is to make puzzle's
solvable an additional way, and then have the game just go ahead anyway
(although this really depends on the puzzle. If you haven't gotten the
diamond of blah blah, and it states at the beggining that you have to
find this or that it could help, it would be reasonable to put a "You
have forgotten somthing" message.
Of course, this is all IMHO.
Jason Dyer
: >: so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
: >: country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
: >: country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
: >: without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
: >: you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
: >: later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
: >Three options:
: >
: >1. Before leaving, the game asks "Do you want to save your game now?"
: Kind of obvious that they left something behind, then.
No, I meant ALWAYS ask this even when you have
everything...like in The Legend Lives!
Of course, if you do one-way things alot (but that really wouldn't be in good
taste anyway) the message might become annoying.
Sam Hulick
I decided against wimpy mode, and letting the player know they forgot
something. Instead, I will go back to my code and rework it so that
they cannot leave without a few important objects. In other words, they
will have to use these objects to leave the country somehow.
As always, thanks for your input :)
JEFFREY MILLER
<shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>
>Furthermore, I think that an I-F game player should follow this simple
>golden rule about items: If you can carry it, take it with you. IMO,
>only a fool would leave things behind that were 1) not concealed
>somehow, and 2) transportable. For instance, if you find even
something
>as silly as a toothbrush lying around, why pass it up? You may need
it
>in the future.
I agree; however, many games have a limit on the number of items that
may be carried. Unless you have a container that allows a player to
carry an unlimited number of objects, the player would have to
a) use knowlege from a former life in order to know which object to
bring (something I think unacceptable) or
b) use a clue planted somewhere earlier in the game that a certain
object may be necessary later on.
Personally, I've always hated having a limit on what I may carry
because usually I end up dropping something early in the game that I
need later on, resulting in either a long and boring trek to recover it
or restoring an ancient saved game.
Just my $.02.
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
Andrew C. Plotkin
> In article <1995Sep8.2...@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Sam Hulick"
>
> >Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
> >so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
> >country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
> >country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
> >without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
> >you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
> >later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
>
> ignore it if you want, and another try will let you board the ship,
> whether or not you have the object.
Decide what kind of game you want to write, and stick to it.
I prefer games where there are no warnings -- no game-intrusive
warnings, that is. It's quite clear to me that if I get on a
commercial starliner, I may not be able to get off before it leaves;
that's how airplanes work, after all. And I don't mind the even harder
kind of game where you can stumble through one-way actions without any
warning, or even where you don't know until much later that you've
done so. By default, in fact, I assume any given game is of that type.
If you put in lots of warnings, chances are I won't enjoy your game
very much. It's just a matter of what kind of thing I like. If you
have a "warnings off" mode, I'll use it and have a better time.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Sam Hulick
Furthermore, I think that an I-F game player should follow this simple
golden rule about items: If you can carry it, take it with you. IMO,
only a fool would leave things behind that were 1) not concealed
somehow, and 2) transportable. For instance, if you find even something
as silly as a toothbrush lying around, why pass it up? You may need it
in the future.
--
Trevor Barrie
>Furthermore, I think that an I-F game player should follow this simple
>golden rule about items: If you can carry it, take it with you. IMO,
>only a fool would leave things behind that were 1) not concealed
>somehow, and 2) transportable.
Personally, I see the encouragement of this sort of thing as a flaw
in most current I-F. There just aren't that many stories where it
makes sense for the protagonist to run away grabbing everything that
isn't nailed down. As an example, look at King's Quest V: few situations
in a computer game have seemed as (non-deliberately) silly to me as
having this King collecting every smelly fish he came across.
**************************************************************************
Trevor Barrie tba...@peinet.pe.ca "It's a great big universe,
87 Kennedy Drive and we're all really puny;
West Royalty, PEI we're just tiny little specks
C1E 1X7 CANADA (902) 628-6845 about the size of Mickey Rooney."
**************************************************************************
Adam J. Thornton
Sam Hulick <shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>For instance, if you find even something
>as silly as a toothbrush lying around, why pass it up? You may need it
>in the future.
I think I'd rather let my teeth get dirty than use a toothbrush I found
laying around somewhere.
A game I'm beta testing, _Avarice_, promises eventually to have several
thousand objects. You see, it's set in a mansion. Sure, you _could_ pick
up the porcelain poodle and the astrolabe from the bric-a-brac shelf--as
you could in real life--but why _should_ you?
A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
it up--it must be useful".
This, oddly, is something that works better in a graphical game like
_Avarice_ than in a text adventure, where the necessity to enumerate each
object would lead to absolutely unwieldy screens of text.
Adam
--
ad...@io.com | ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
64,928 | TEAM OS/2 | "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!" | Linux | Fnord
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.
uid no access
>so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
>country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
>country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
>without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
>you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
>later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
I agree with other posters about suggesting a save first. Furthermore,
I think you should *definitely* be allowed to continue onward in
spite of any warnings, because it might then become obvious later
on what you needed to obtain from back home. When you encounter
the dense jungle you might realize that you should have waited for
Bob's Chainsaw Emporium store to open before jumping on that ship...
-dce
--
David Etherton | Megatek Corporation | "Shop as usual, and avoid panic buying."
Trevor Barrie
>A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
>all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
>no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
>it up--it must be useful".
>
>This, oddly, is something that works better in a graphical game like
>_Avarice_ than in a text adventure, where the necessity to enumerate each
>object would lead to absolutely unwieldy screens of text.
Not necessarily - you don't have to list every portable object in
the main room desription, after all. You could easily say something
like "There are some knick-knacks on the dresser.", and give a more
detailed description only if the player examines it.
Greg Ewing
In article <1995Sep8.2...@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Sam Hulick" <shu...@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
|>
|> you take a ship to another
|> country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
|> country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
|> without a few things?
Some suggestions that come to mind:
1) Provide a way of getting back.
2) Provide an alternative solution not requiring anything
from home (perhaps a more difficult one).
3) Have a friend back home you can write to and say
"Please send me the left-handed screwdriver!" (Not sure
how to make the syntax for this discoverable, however!)
|> --- Sam Hulick ------------- shu...@indiana.edu ---------------------
Greg
J. I. Drasner
>A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
>all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
>no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
>it up--it must be useful".
>
>This, oddly, is something that works better in a graphical game like
>_Avarice_ than in a text adventure, where the necessity to enumerate each
>object would lead to absolutely unwieldy screens of text.
Or take, for example, the recently violently vilified game "Myst", which I
happened to enjoy immensely. (I didn't realize, by the way, that there was
a contest between Infocom and Myst going on. I happen to enjoy them both
at different times...but I digress...<g>) Very cool thing about that game
was all the totally "useless" little knickknacks lying around, many of
which had purposes -- meaning, you could play with them, but they had
absolutely nothing to do with solving the game. Provided lots of
atmosphere, and was realistic in the sense that, yes, not everything you
encounter is going to help you solve the game.
Loved Deadline's "plate of red herrings" (I first played this game before
I knew what the phrase "Red herring" meant), especially since those early
games had a tendency to make almost every object necessary for some
reason.
Erik Hermansen
>golden rule about items: If you can carry it, take it with you. IMO,
>only a fool would leave things behind that were 1) not concealed
>as silly as a toothbrush lying around, why pass it up? You may need it
>in the future.
Imagine if you lived your life like an adventure game.
Whenever you came to a location you had never been before, you would
examine everything closely. If there were any closed cabinets or desk
drawers, you'd have to open them and look at everything that might be
inside. If you came across a dumpster, you'd hop right in and start
examining everything.
Anything that was not bolted down, you'd grab it. You'd be some bizarre
kleptomaniac. If there was gum on the bottom of a bus seat, you'd want
it. And when you had more objects than you could carry (picture that
scene with Steve Martin from The Jerk) you would deposit them all in some
safe room. (Granted my apartment currently looks like it has been filled
with randomly collected objects.)
Whenever there was a problem that had you stumped, you would wander
around all of the locations you'd already been to and reexamine them.
If there was a locked door, you would just assume that you needed to get
to the other side of it. And you'd try any inane solution. You'd go
back to your apartment and get the jar of acid you stored there, then go
back to the door and pour the acid on the padlock. Somebody would see
you and call the cops. When they arrived you'd be sure to EXAMINE
POLICEMEN. Then you might try to GO NORTH, but the policeman would stop
your progress. Then you might THROW ACID AT POLICEMAN, but the policeman
would sidestep your attack and subdue you.
Then you would go to jail and your actions would mainly be limited to
taking INVENTORY and Z and SLEEP, but you would assume that you could
escape the prison if you had just remembered to bring some object along
with you.
Ban adventure games--they promote an unrealistic worldview.
--
*****************************************************************************
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
-----------------------------------------Erik Hermansen (daed...@eskimo.com)
Erik Hermansen
Adam J. Thornton <ad...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
...
>A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
>all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
>no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
>it up--it must be useful".
Exactly right. I would take it a step further and have more locations
than should actually be visited. Think of how many locations there are
in the real world that have absolutely no visitation value. You have to
think about where you're going in real life to arrive at any place of
interest.
It wouldn't be hard to create a whole skyscraper full of rooms based on
series of random numbers derived from a specific seed number, so that the
player would have a consistent but randomly constructed world to deal with.
It would be a complete waste of time for the player to wander through it,
but it would be there.
Glen Elder
: I decided against wimpy mode, and letting the player know they forgot
: something. Instead, I will go back to my code and rework it so that
: they cannot leave without a few important objects. In other words, they
: will have to use these objects to leave the country somehow.
: As always, thanks for your input :)
I would either have the object appear again on the far shore, or
have the player overhear, before the ship leaves "They say the King of
(the far shore) will pay $1,000 for a left-handed smoke shifter." On the
far shore, the player will find out that the rumor was false, but at
least she was given a strong hint that she should take the smoke shifter
with her. I would also only put in this hint if they had boarded the
ship without the object. I would hate the vage clue "something is missing."
: --
: --- Sam Hulick ------------- shu...@indiana.edu ---------------------
: Systems Consultant | Homepage:
Carl Muckenhoupt
>In article <4333qe$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>Adam J. Thornton <ad...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>...
>>A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
>>all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
>>no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
>>it up--it must be useful".
>...
>Exactly right. I would take it a step further and have more locations
>than should actually be visited. Think of how many locations there are
>in the real world that have absolutely no visitation value. You have to
>think about where you're going in real life to arrive at any place of
>interest.
I'd take a different approach to the same end: give most rooms *multiple*
uses. That takes care of the "checklist" approach to adventuring, and makes
for a much tighter and cohesive game. I think of Ballyhoo, where you were
constantly revisiting places to solve puzzles you didn't realize existed
on your first visit. Nice structure. As for the "realism" of this: if
you're worried about the geography being too densely packed with
relevance, make each location in the game represent a larger area.
I'm beginning to form a theory here, that locations should correspond to
areas of equal conceptual content, rather than equal size. Say, the
Closet and the Parking Lot are equally interesting - each containing two
or three things to poke at - even though the parking lot covers 100 times
the area. If, on the other hand, the parking lot is bare of detail, why
give it its own "room" at all? Just throw it into the description of a
larger area; make it, in essence, furniture. The content is the same,
it's just organized differently.
--
Carl Muckenhoupt | Is it true that Kibo habitually autogreps all of Usenet
b...@tiac.net | for his name? If so: Hi, Kibo. Like the sig?
Magnus Olsson
>In article <43b1n9$9...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>Dan Shiovitz <scy...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>Exactly right. I would take it a step further and have more locations
>>>than should actually be visited. Think of how many locations there are
>>>in the real world that have absolutely no visitation value. You have to
>>>think about where you're going in real life to arrive at any place of
>>>interest.
>>the sort of excess rooms you're talking about here would be a big mistake.
(...)
>
>Well, not every game. But at least one like this would be interesting.
>
Have you had a look at the infamous "Detective"? There are lots of
rooms there that seem to have been added just as padding. "This is a
useless room. Go south". :-)
I think you'll have to think about what you're trying to create:
1) A simulation of reality.
Sure, go ahead, add as many useless rooms and objects as you like. However,
I think there are more pressing issues to deal with before you can even
dream of calling an adventure game a realistic simulation.
2) Interactive literature. Every author should think about economy.
The reader doesn't want to bother with pointless complications. The
reader wants a story, a plot, a mood. Every room and every object in
your game should have a purpose in advancing the plot, contributing to
the atmosphere, or whatever. Of course, you may consider adding rooms
for realism, but you shouldn't overdo it. There is such a thing as
"suspension of disbelief". Suppose, for example, that your game is set
in a large hotel. Having just one room in the enitre hotel would
perhaps be a bit too much for the reader to swallow. However, there's
absolutely no reason to implement all 450 rooms. You need to implement
just enough rooms to give the reader the impression that this is a big
hotel. And don't forget that there are more ways of doing this than
the brute-force method of just implementing a lot of empty rooms. Use
your writing to get the message across, and the reader will willingly
suspend his disbelief in a huge hotel where only five rooms or so are
actually implemented.
Of course, you may want to add a lot of empty rooms to create
atmosphere. But then they aren't quite pointless, are they? And surely
there are better ways of creating atmosphere?
3) A game.
From the pure game-play viewpoint, your extra rooms might simply be
considered as red herrings. Put yourself in the player's shoes: do you
actually think it's enjoyable to examine a lot of empty rooms and
useless items that the author put there just to make the whole thing
more realistic? Or would you prefer some action, some actual problems
to solve?
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se) -- "Pretentious? Moi?"
Susan
>Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
>so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
>country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
>country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
>without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
>you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
>later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
I would rather discover in the new country what I missed picking up or
doing in the old country and finding either the same means of
returning to the old country or a new means of returning to the old
country to pick up or do what was forgotten. The adventure should be
fully playable without having to technically resort to re-playing from
an old saved game. And I HATE no win situations then.
Once you have returned to the new country accomplishing all old tasks
correctly the means you used to go back and forth can disappear or be
found broken or left intact.
Actually I think a good game subtly won't let you proceed until you
are ready. Forinstance, the ship captain tells you, "No money, no
passage!" and kicks you off the ship. Finding the money leads you
into the part of the adventure you missed doing in the old country.
* Susan * <Sus...@ix.netcom.com>
* Sometimes The Dragon Wins! *
Mark Clements
> country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
> country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
> without a few things?
be playing the game, not writing it (or the other way round). I would
simply play it as it lay. If I was warned, I would go back, If not
I wouldn't go back until I was stuck.
Gold Rush had a nice idea, though, where at certain points of
the game you were told you had 'x out of a possible y points' which was
given as a congratulatory message. It also told you if you would be
unable to complete the game from that point.
However, if you included a lot of things that give points but aren't
actually necessary (e.g. witty responses or more complicated solutions)
the player won't know they have missed anything, just that they haven't
got all the points. However this may still prompt them to replay, and
not move on until they have.
In short - It's your game, it's up to you.
--
(Don't eat your fridge)
___ ,';_,-,__
Writing is just backwards reading. /~_ ,',' |O|,:,\,
Reading is just clever seeing. / /,',' /--|_|-;:;|
Seeing is believing. ( )',_) ) ):;)
To write, you must believe... >\,(__ / /:;;|
:...Mark...//~ /:;:;:\