My short-sighted experiment with IF and the Casual Gamer
Valzi
for myself. I suppose I could have learned a bit of the same from the
response to IF from readers of Play This Thing and Jay Is Games.
On separate occasions, I asked four friends (three of whom are not
computer-savvy, none of whom are gamers) to try "Lost Pig" and they
became engrossed after a few minutes of user-interface confusion. I
had always thought this anticipated confusion would be enough to put
off the average user, but each of them greatly enjoyed the game and
wanted to continue playing longer than my laptop was available to
continue play. This is far from where I thought the uninitiated would
be in relation to IF.
Each of the four had alternating expressions of intense focus and
cheerful satisfaction. The latter is unusual with those playing
popular commercial games, in my experience. Frustration was not
uncommon, which is to be expected in most games, and might be argued
to be a necessary part of the game aesthetic.
On the negative side, none of these four cared to do any work to
enable themselves to complete the game. A couple of days later, none
of them had any interest in me installing the game on their personal
computers for them, much less doing it themselves, even though I
explained they could pick up where they left off since I kept their
saved games.
I still do not believe in IF as a profitable venture, but I do believe
a bit more strongly in its marketability to certain groups.
aar...@gmail.com
I wonder how this experiment would differ with a random casual game,
or a random Flash arcade game. Or if you handed a book to a few random
people and had them read the first few pages.
(I'm not being sarcastic; I really don't know. My perception is that
IF doesn't "hook" people very well, since virtually any other form of
computer game is graphically more appealing, and many other forms of
written fiction are visually better designed and laid out. The latter
problem is perhaps more fixable than the former.)
--Aaron
Michael Bacon
> or a random Flash arcade game. Or if you handed a book to a few random
> people and had them read the first few pages.
That makes sense, yes. I neglected to mention that all four mine have
previously enjoyed playing some sort of casual PC game or another and
have enjoyed reading long novels.
Jay
I think most people read, and IF has a little bit of an in with that.
It's much easier for non gamers to comprehend prose that responds to
them rather than understand why they need to hit all of the green
pegs. :)
Victor Gijsbers
Hash: SHA1
aar...@gmail.com wrote:
> (I'm not being sarcastic; I really don't know. My perception is that
> IF doesn't "hook" people very well, since virtually any other form of
> computer game is graphically more appealing, and many other forms of
> written fiction are visually better designed and laid out. The latter
> problem is perhaps more fixable than the former.)
I believe IF doesn't "hook" people well because there are no... how
would you call it... small, repeatable, instantly-rewarding elements of
gameplay.
In Quake, I can always walk to the next room, shoot a monster, and
advance through the level.
In Red Alert, I can always wait a few seconds for my harvesters to get
me more ore, then build another unit, getting a better army.
In Oblivion, I can always walk to an as yet unexplored part of the map,
kill something, and get experience.
...
The only thing like that in IF is typing "x ..." for every noun, but
that won't get you very far, rarely gives out real rewards, and there'll
almost inevitably be moments when you've already examined everything.
(Actually, conversations like in your games, or mine, are a bit like
this as well--you can always just choose e new word / option and see the
game advance.)
IF doesn't hook because (a) it often doesn't have a clear reward cycle,
and (b) if it does, it's often not easy to keep the cycle going. (You've
got to solve puzzles and stuff!)
Just analyse why there are many people addicted to World of Warcraft,
and you'll have an analysis in hand of why people do not get addicted to
IF games. :) I would not, however, see this as an exclusively _bad_ thing.
Regards,
Victor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkn20m8ACgkQoiOrMwvIZLwRbwCghUnQF0vTSe5yTbT0FS/9KJjh
UiIAnR62Jm5JEODKf+ksZ+b4eAB2tOLB
=1P2h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Conrad
> I believe IF doesn't "hook" people well because there are no... how
> would you call it... small, repeatable, instantly-rewarding elements of
> gameplay.
Feedback loops. Yeah, IF has them, but they're not easily repeatable
and they usually happen over a long period of time. This is something
simulators do better.
> IF doesn't hook because (a) it often doesn't have a clear reward cycle,
> and (b) if it does, it's often not easy to keep the cycle going. (You've
> got to solve puzzles and stuff!)
Yes, video games with a clear reward cycle generally have a limited
set of skills which we are testing against the simulator, whereas in
IF the problems vary and the rewards (or moments of victory) are
further apart... Although, in a well-paced, short game, the reward
cycle can be about like that of a video game. I'm thinking for
example of _Spider and Web_, which was fun, solvable for me (I'm not
good with puzzles), and the pacing was good.
But also, because they're skill-based, video games tend to have better
replay value.
> Just analyse why there are many people addicted to World of Warcraft,
> and you'll have an analysis in hand of why people do not get addicted to
> IF games. :) I would not, however, see this as an exclusively _bad_ thing.
Good or bad, it's something to understand.
Once I gave a then-WIP to some friends of mine, a married couple, to
test. They got *really* into it. They were bickering over what they
should do next, getting very focused on the game, and so on. It was
very surprising.
When they got to the end of what I had implemented, I had to take it
away from them. And they were a bit disappointed. But later, when I
had more of it for them to play, they had only polite interest.
Again, some time later, when I showed them a completely different WIP,
they were into it again. I'd be interested to try something similar
with static fiction, to see if this has something to do with how
people respond to narrative.
Conrad.
Jayson Smith
because of all the cool toys I got upon entering the complex, and partly
because of the way the game works. In the model of an interrogation where
the player is reliving his earlier moments, there are tons of things you can
try, and many of them are going to get their own response from the
interrogator. So, just like with the Enchanter trilogy from Infocom, it's
fun to do things in a "I wonder what would happen if..." way.
Jayson
"Conrad" <conra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:64dc486e-135d-437b...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
namekuseijin
> But also, because they're skill-based, video games tend to have better
> replay value.
That's only true in the case of pure action games, like shooting,
fighting or racing games. One generally don't go through the likes of
Final Fantasy, Metal Gear or other story-heavy games a second time.
You've seen or acomplished pretty much everything there's to be seen or
to be acomplished. It's something shared by pretty much all
narrative-based entertainment, even though in games you may find missing
subplots the second time around or minor twists and endings.
It's interesting that casual games are pretty much all about skill, not
narrative, which is incidentally why I don't believe in IF targetting
casual gamers. The short attention span is just not worth it.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Victor Gijsbers
Hash: SHA1
namekuseijin wrote:
> It's interesting that casual games are pretty much all about skill, not
> narrative, which is incidentally why I don't believe in IF targetting
> casual gamers. The short attention span is just not worth it.
In fact, I'm not sure it's useful to target _any_ group of gamers,
because I'm not sure if any group of gamers is significantly more likely
also to like IF.
I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these people
like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
As evidence, I will now consider two well-known IF-players who regularly
write about other games as well, and myself.
1. Andrew Plotkin: when not playing IF, Andrew Plotkin apparently plays
graphical adventures.
2. Emily Short: when not playing IF, Emily Short apparently plays casual
games.
3. Me: when not playing IF, I play real-time and turn-based strategy
games, as well as RPGs.
Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
likely? :)
Regards,
Victor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkn3/N8ACgkQoiOrMwvIZLw5MACfRnPRqnxbwZDuly3kjW5x2UEq
rNsAn0yVNSA0u2HCkCIwF7WHNmmssvgx
=HRvE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew Plotkin
>
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
> people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
> games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these people
> like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
>
> As evidence, I will now consider two well-known IF-players who regularly
> write about other games as well, and myself.
>
> 1. Andrew Plotkin: when not playing IF, Andrew Plotkin apparently plays
> graphical adventures.
But also casual graphical adventures (room escape games); casual skill
games (five-minute Flash shooters and platformers); hardcore
environmental action-adventure (Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia); and
some kinds of board and card games.
I think there's *some* common element, but you can find common
elements between many different sets of things.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
QF
> Jayson Smith escreveu:
>> But also, because they're skill-based, video games tend to have
>> better replay value.
>
> That's only true in the case of pure action games, like shooting,
> fighting or racing games. One generally don't go through the likes of
> Final Fantasy, Metal Gear or other story-heavy games a second time.
> You've seen or acomplished pretty much everything there's to be seen
> or to be acomplished. It's something shared by pretty much all
> narrative-based entertainment, even though in games you may find
> missing subplots the second time around or minor twists and endings.
What about games like nethack, then? Definitely very high replay value
(the game is completely different every time you start over), and even
though once you've been through it once, you more-or-less know the major
milestones of the game, each playthrough is still so vastly different in
details, strategy, possible outcomes, that it doesn't reduce the
replayability value at all.
Of course, nethack isn't casual at all... it's probably one of the
hardest games in existence, and requires much forethought, planning, and
calculated risk to survive beyond the first few levels.
> It's interesting that casual games are pretty much all about skill,
> not narrative, which is incidentally why I don't believe in IF
> targetting casual gamers. The short attention span is just not worth
> it.
I've always wondered if it was possible to accomplish in IF what nethack
does in terms of replayability value. Unlike action shooters and other
such modern contrivances, nethack allows a vast array of creative
actions and unusual use of items that resemble the open-endedness of
IF's command prompt. It also sports random game world generation at a
level unattested to in IF. I wonder if it is possible to accomplish
something similar in IF---or, indeed, improve upon nethack by allowing
the full freedom of the command prompt instead of being restricted to a
fixed number of actions---by implementing random world generation that
nevertheless ties itself around fixed, major milestones so that there is
always a story to tell, more-or-less, just that the details will be
different every time.
I'm not so sure about copying nethack's difficulty level, though. Modern
IF players seem to have a phobia against things that require prior
knowledge (experienced nethack players, esp. those who actually manage
to beat the game, often rely on knowledge gained from failed attempts or
spoiler-type information, such as how shops price their items, to
identify important items). But I think this is an area unexplored in IF.
--QF
QF
[...]
> In fact, I'm not sure it's useful to target _any_ group of gamers,
> because I'm not sure if any group of gamers is significantly more
> likely also to like IF.
>
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
> people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
> games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these
> people like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
>
> As evidence, I will now consider two well-known IF-players who
> regularly write about other games as well, and myself.
>
> 1. Andrew Plotkin: when not playing IF, Andrew Plotkin apparently
> plays graphical adventures. 2. Emily Short: when not playing IF,
> Emily Short apparently plays casual games. 3. Me: when not playing
> IF, I play real-time and turn-based strategy games, as well as RPGs.
>
> Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
> likely? :)
When not playing IF, I play casual games such as PopCap's Bookworm,
Sudoku, lightweight adventures like Mazera, graphical shooters like
Powermanga, platform games like Blob Wars, as well as not-so-casual
games like nethack (an incredibly difficult, non-graphical RPG---I
haven't played it for the last while because it takes an incredible
amount of time and effort to beat, more than I can spare from Real Life
nowadays).
--QF
namekuseijin
> What about games like nethack, then? Definitely very high replay value
> (the game is completely different every time you start over), and even
> though once you've been through it once, you more-or-less know the major
> milestones of the game, each playthrough is still so vastly different in
> details, strategy, possible outcomes, that it doesn't reduce the
> replayability value at all.
Never played it, only hear about it all the time. Is it even
story-based? I always pictured it as some kind of hack'n'slash taking
place in randomly generated twisty little passages with ASCII graphics.
> level unattested to in IF. I wonder if it is possible to accomplish
> something similar in IF---or, indeed, improve upon nethack by allowing
> the full freedom of the command prompt instead of being restricted to a
> fixed number of actions---by implementing random world generation that
> nevertheless ties itself around fixed, major milestones so that there is
> always a story to tell, more-or-less, just that the details will be
> different every time.
That's interesting, but plot won't ever be as interesting as preset and
told by a human rather than algorithmically assembled from various
distinct little pieces. A good plot is inherently linear. No plot and
open-worlds give you Second Life, mildly generated plots and open-worlds
give you WoW and strong plots and predefined situations give you IF,
Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and the likes. I very much get a stronger
kick out of the latter model. :)
> I'm not so sure about copying nethack's difficulty level, though. Modern
> IF players seem to have a phobia against things that require prior
> knowledge (experienced nethack players, esp. those who actually manage
> to beat the game, often rely on knowledge gained from failed attempts or
> spoiler-type information, such as how shops price their items, to
> identify important items). But I think this is an area unexplored in IF.
It was common in the old days to die all the time and nethack is a
representative of that, I guess.
Jerome West
> 3. Me: when not playing IF, I play real-time and turn-based strategy
> games, as well as RPGs.
>
> Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
> likely? :)
Sure - when away from IF, I enjoy first person shooters. I often wish
they incorporated more elements of the IF experience mind you, but I
enjoy them nevertheless.
Emily Short
> I'm not so sure about copying nethack's difficulty level, though. Modern
> IF players seem to have a phobia against things that require prior
> knowledge (experienced nethack players, esp. those who actually manage
> to beat the game, often rely on knowledge gained from failed attempts or
> spoiler-type information, such as how shops price their items, to
> identify important items). But I think this is an area unexplored in IF.
It isn't unexplored; see any of the things on this list:
http://ifdb.tads.org/viewlist?id=ysz45l3zgpvpa97c
or Jon Ingold's recent "Make It Good". It's more the case that IF
players are unforgiving of games that do this casually and
unsystematically. All of the games mentioned here are designed to be
fun to replay on the way to reusing the knowledge; some of them use
the replaying to considerable artistic effect, so that the second or
subsequent playthroughs feel very different from the first.
"Mystery House Possessed" was sort of an experiment in doing something
like what you describe. The space of the game was not autogenerated,
but the character behavior was goal-seeking with an element of
randomness, and which character was the murderer to be caught changed
from game to game as well. There were also a bunch of plot events
triggered by having the characters in the right configuration, which
happened partly as a result of character action and partly as a result
of player action. It was a bit sprawly and the design could have used
some work, but it was a stab in this direction.
A somewhat more effective experiment in the randomized mystery field
is "An Act of Murder", which again gets easier as you replay (though I
found that after a few playings I was starting to see repetition of
elements and it became less compelling).
Emily Short
> 2. Emily Short: when not playing IF, Emily Short apparently plays casual
> games.
Well, sort of. I play a lot of things on the indie side of casual, and
there are major casual genres (match 3, hidden object, time management
done badly, which is more and more of them lately) that I dislike
strongly.
Something else I dislike in the casual game world is this experiment
with having games that "go on when you're not playing", so that the
point is to play for fifteen minutes a day and come back to see how
your pet fish is coming along or how your imaginary village has
changed from yesterday. I don't want my first hundred minutes of
gameplay to be a dead bore because I'm just setting everything up for
the long-term realtime development. I don't want to have to play
something every day in order to get something out of it. I especially
don't want my imaginary fish to die when I spend too many days grading
papers instead of firing up the imaginary-fish-feeding simulator --
I've got plenty of real responsibilities and don't want that kind of
stress coming, even playfully, out of a game.
Add in the fact that such games are just about impossible to review
without an investment of more days than I want to give to a project I
don't enjoy, and I have zero incentive to play them.
So it would be a better description to say I play games that are
relatively inexpensive in both time and money, have low graphics
demands, and run on an aging Mac laptop (or, occasionally, the PC
partition of same, though in practice this is finicky and many things
won't play right because of the lack of a dedicated graphics card and
a two-button mouse).
When practical constraints have been lifted, I've enjoyed big RPGs,
graphical adventures, simulation and strategy games (Europa
Universalis took away a week of my life before I uninstalled it). Back
in the day I played a bunch of Puzzle Pirates. I love Guitar Hero and
Rock Band, despite being awful at them.
If I do have any preference overall, it's towards games that don't
rely on very repetitive but un-challenging action (like the Sims),
have a clear narrative component, are not purely a rip-off of some
other game, take fewer than 20 hours to play to completion, and don't
base their gameplay mainly on reflexes.
IF tends to be extremely high-value when looked at in these terms.
But this is one of the reasons why I've been interested in pitching to
casual gamers, especially the kind who frequent JIG and are exposed to
a lot of quirky indie browser games. There's little common ground
between IF and, say, "Samantha Swift and the Hidden Roses of Athena";
on the other hand, people who are playing casual/indie stuff for
reasons like mine may also find IF appealing.
Michael Bacon
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
> people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
> games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these people
> like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
I would argue that the shared element that matters is an interest in
reading fiction. I think that the problem-solving skills that may come
from gaming (particularly puzzle gaming) are more of a side-show in IF
rather than a main attraction, from the new player's perspective.
Michael Bacon
> does in terms of replayability value. Unlike action shooters and other
> such modern contrivances, nethack allows a vast array of creative
> actions and unusual use of items that resemble the open-endedness of
> IF's command prompt.
Dwarf Fortress is procedurally generated and non-linear but takes a
giant step toward careful storytelling. It's the closest thing to a
fusion of IF and Nethack that I know of.
S. John Ross
> In fact, I'm not sure it's useful to target _any_ group of gamers,
> because I'm not sure if any group of gamers is significantly more likely
> also to like IF.
Yah. I think works are best promoted on their individual merits to
people who'll appreciate them based on subject matter, genre, and
style ... and then if folks _happen_ to fall in love the medium,
that's a bonus (and probably very occasional) side-effect.
Michael Bacon
Dwarf Fortress.
http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/Main_Page
Emily Short
> 2. Emily Short: when not playing IF, Emily Short apparently plays casual
> games.
More accurately, I play games that are not terribly expensive in time
or money and will run on an aging Mac laptop either directly or via
dual-boot to Windows.
There are a number of typical casual genres I don't care for at all
(match-3, hidden object) or don't care to play in many cloned forms if
nothing has been added to the gameplay (time management, Luxor and its
ilk); on the other hand, I do play lots of unusual indie games.
What I'm looking for is usually something with some amount of
narrative content, minimal grinding, and low requirements that I buy
new equipment. If the game is challenging, I prefer that the challenge
not involve my reflexes, because the frustration of trying to play
through the same level fifty times wears out the fun really quickly. I
am happiest if I can play the game to completion (whatever that means)
in 20 hours or less, or if the game is the sort of thing I can pick up
and put down without "completion" exactly being an issue.
IF fits this description extremely well, but I've also enjoyed
strategy and simulation games, RPGs, graphical adventures, et al. I
also really like Guitar Hero and Rock Band, and I've had an enjoyable
time with Wii Sports at friends' houses, though I wouldn't knock over
any old ladies to get to play again.
Much of the reason I've suggested/attempted pitching IF to a casual
audience (or rather, via casual gaming websites) is that that is the
best way I can think of to reach people who select games around the
same lifestyle constraints that I do: a need to work their game-
playing around their real-life responsibilities, and a limited
willingness or ability to buy expensive equipment to support their
habit.
Ron Newcomb
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim.
We shall all flock to it! :-D
I've traditionally been an action gamer: Street Fighter 2, River City
Ransom, Zelda, the indie BreakQuest, odd racing games I'd play with my
brother. I do play the occasional Final Fantasy or other RPG, but
after I've played one (usually to completion over the course of a few
weeks), I'm done with them for awhile.
However, I like to read. Though I can't understand much of literary
fiction, I tend to stick to the better speculative fiction. I also
read a lot of non-fiction because I love learning stuff.
I can't play Street Fighter anymore. My reflexes are too slow and my
blood pressure skyrockets. I dislike time-management games like Diner
Dash for similar reasons: anxiety.
Though I can do them, I'm not generally fond of puzzles; programming
scratches that itch. Complex turn-based games like chess, Axis &
Allies, and even the occasional card game I do like.
+roN
Emily Short
Sorry for the essentially duplicate posting: Google was eating
messages again this morning, I guess.
QF
>
> Never played it, only hear about it all the time. Is it even
> story-based? I always pictured it as some kind of hack'n'slash taking
> place in randomly generated twisty little passages with ASCII
> graphics.
It's only a hack'n'slash game if you play the easier characters
(samurai, barbarian, etc.). When playing one of the harder characters,
such as a tourist, the gameplay becomes very different: you have to plan
ahead, think of ingenious ways of avoiding confrontation and indirect
ways to despatch your opponents, make creative use of limited items, and
sometimes take calculated risks (read an unidentified scroll when you're
cornered---which may either teleport you to safety or turn your armor
into dust). The amount of creative maneuvering the game forces you to do
in order to get out of deadly situations can be quite amazing.
As far as story is concerned, no, there isn't much of a story to it, but
there are certain milestones in the game that somewhat tie the whole
together. What I envision is something with a stronger story element:
so, not completely randomly-generated, and not just a matter of "make 25
random dungeon levels, plus or minus 5, at the end of which insert
Special Encounter #1, after which is another 25 random dungeon levels",
etc., and not completely static (in terms of having an unchanging plot)
either.
>> [...] I wonder if it is possible to accomplish something similar in
>> IF---or, indeed, improve upon nethack by allowing the full freedom of
>> the command prompt instead of being restricted to a fixed number of
>> actions---by implementing random world generation that nevertheless
>> ties itself around fixed, major milestones so that there is always a
>> story to tell, more-or-less, just that the details will be different
>> every time.
>
> That's interesting, but plot won't ever be as interesting as preset
> and told by a human rather than algorithmically assembled from various
> distinct little pieces. A good plot is inherently linear. No plot
> and open-worlds give you Second Life, mildly generated plots and
> open-worlds give you WoW and strong plots and predefined situations
> give you IF, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and the likes. I very much get
> a stronger kick out of the latter model. :)
I agree that predefined situations give rise to more compelling
story-telling, but I've noticed that IF has the tendency to overly
define the situation where it may be immaterial to the central plot.
For example, at some point the PC may have to get past the proverbial
locked door by, say, bribing the housekeeper, picking the lock, or any
number of other things. But as far as the actual plot is concerned, it
may be immaterial whether the McGuffin is hiding behind the locked door,
lurking in a crypt under a false floor, or kept in a high tower guarded
by a three-headed dog. By fixing the precise manner in which said object
is hidden, the replayability value is unnecessarily reduced. After all,
all that matters as far as the story is concerned is that the PC somehow
obtains this object, which is necessary in some subsequent part of the
story, from wherever it is being safeguarded. The exact manner in which
it is hidden and the exact procedure by which the player acquires it in
the end doesn't really change the story that much. We might as well have
randomly flipped a coin when selecting how the object will be hidden.
So why not flip the coin each time the game is restarted, rather than
while the game is being written?
Of course, this was just a contrived example to illustrate my point.
Another area where this kind of randomization may happen is in stories
where the PC starts in a very limited area and work his/her way
outwards, and plot elements are gradually unfolded as progress is made.
In this kind of settings, there may be a number of different starting
points that could've served the plot just as well, since eventually they
converge towards the same storyline. So the choice of where the PC
begins could be randomized.
Another area where this can be used is in puzzles with alternate
solutions, where not every alternative is necessarily available during
each game. Contrived example: to cross the river into the Land of Doom,
you could either bribe the gnome in the forest to ferry you across, feed
the Magic Mushroom to the frog in the well and ride it as it hops
across, or ford the river yourself. However, the gnome can only be found
at noon, the Magic Mushroom can only be found at dawn, and the water
level only drops low enough for fording in the evening. The PC may
arrive at the river at a number of different times during the day
depending on exactly what actions were performed earlier, so he/she has
to make do with what is currently available before the Orc Squad
arrives. The gnome and Mushroom may have other uses later on in the
game, so this isn't just a matter of implementing 3 times the amount of
code just so the same puzzle can be replayed 3 times.
And while I'm at it: perhaps the forest may not even be located in the
same place between games, and so the PC has to adapt accordingly. The
gnome may have a distinctive personality which the PC can exploit in
various situations, depending on the exact set of circumstances the
current game's semi-random geography imposes. In other words, the exact
solution (or perhaps even nature) of the puzzles arise from the setting,
and the setting changes across games (to a certain extent---since
otherwise we have combinatorial explosion which is not feasible to
implement).
And what about games with more-or-less the same puzzles, but with the PC
starting out with different tools each time, which necessitate vastly
different solutions?
I think there's a lot of territory here that haven't been explored very
much. ("An Act of Murder" appears to be one of the rarer types of IF
that explores this kind of randomization.)
--QF
Jayson Smith
"Sanity Claus." In it, the player is cast into the role of Santa Claus,
delivering presents to all the good little girls and boys on Christmas Eve.
This game has way too much repetition of actions for my liking, but it does
implement situations where the problems Santa faces, and by definition,
their solutions, will change depending on how he got to his current
location. The game is made up of many different tiny areas representing
different parts of the world. Naturally, Santa usually has some choices as
far as where to go next on his yearly trip. Thus, depending on where he's
been before, he will pick up different items. So the problems and solutions
are many times totally different at different times, even though the
location is the same.
The repetition comes into play because Santa, it turns out, can't
possibly visit the entire world in one night. So every time he makes it back
to the north pole, he uses some of the magic in Mrs. Claus's pantry to turn
the clock back a day and visit some of the places he missed last time
around. The problem with this approach is that, every time Santa makes it
back to the north pole, the things he has to do in preparation for his big
trip are pretty much identical. Thus, the player is stuck replaying the same
sequence of events, over and over and over again.
Jayson
"QF" <quic...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:VI5Kl.8$ho...@newsfe10.iad...
Conrad
> I agree that predefined situations give rise to more compelling
> story-telling, but I've noticed that IF has the tendency to overly
> define the situation where it may be immaterial to the central plot.
>
> For example, at some point the PC may have to get past the proverbial
> locked door by, say, bribing the housekeeper, picking the lock, or any
> number of other things. But as far as the actual plot is concerned, it
> may be immaterial whether the McGuffin is hiding behind the locked door,
> lurking in a crypt under a false floor, or kept in a high tower guarded
> by a three-headed dog. By fixing the precise manner in which said object
> is hidden, the replayability value is unnecessarily reduced. After all,
> all that matters as far as the story is concerned is that the PC somehow
> obtains this object, which is necessary in some subsequent part of the
> story, from wherever it is being safeguarded. The exact manner in which
> it is hidden and the exact procedure by which the player acquires it in
> the end doesn't really change the story that much. We might as well have
> randomly flipped a coin when selecting how the object will be hidden.
>
> So why not flip the coin each time the game is restarted, rather than
> while the game is being written?
In my opinion, that's a dead end. By all means, design games that
way: but I'd like to say why I think it's a poor investment of
creativity.
First, I've played a few games like that, and these tricks do not, for
me, add to the replay value. The reason is hinted at in your
description: it isn't important. On the one hand, doing the actual
legwork of reclaiming the MacGuffin is the least interesting to me of
the attractions of IF. At best, this kind of thing is task
completion; at worst, obstructionism. It needs to be there, or you
wouldn't have a game; but unless it's one of those rare puzzles that's
clever without being too difficult, it's just not appealing to me.
Second, there's far more overhead in designing a puzzle part than in
imagining it. Now to build this kind of puzzle, it's three times the
work. Actually more, because you need to ensure that the three
varieties are all mutually inter-compatible and you don't get weird
bugs.
Third, in my opinion, the three options you list -- in a closet, in a
secret crypt, and in a Cerberus-guarded tower -- are *not*
interchangeable if you're putting proper care into designing your
game. Other closets and closet-like spaces will call to mind the
earlier one. A secret crypt calls to mind images of death and grave-
robbing. And the tower oddly mixes the image of Hades (via the dog)
and a number of resonances with Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, and so on.
That is, a similar argument could be made for randomizing your
descriptions of a location: but in fact, extraneous information
presented in parallel is just as irritating as extraneous information
presented in series. My response to randomized room descriptions is
to stay in the room LOOKing until the thing repeats and I can conclude
it's not important.
So, my argument is that this doesn't enrich player experience.
Conrad.
ps - I'm doubtful about your other framings for similar reasons. One
thing I think would be cool, which I think you mention in passing, is
a simulator-based text game, where the puzzles and resources really
are randomly distributed. Add in a few goal-seeking NPCs and you have
something interesting. But I have no illusions about how difficult
that would be, if it's possible at all.
namekuseijin
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
> people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
> games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these people
> like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
>
> As evidence, I will now consider two well-known IF-players who regularly
> write about other games as well, and myself.
>
> 1. Andrew Plotkin: when not playing IF, Andrew Plotkin apparently plays
> graphical adventures.
> 2. Emily Short: when not playing IF, Emily Short apparently plays casual
> games.
> 3. Me: when not playing IF, I play real-time and turn-based strategy
> games, as well as RPGs.
>
> Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
> likely? :)
I'm fond of classic arcade shooting action, Galaga, Defender, R-Type
and most console arcade heritage as well. :)
QF
> On Apr 29, 7:50ï¿œpm, quick...@quickfur.ath.cx (QF) wrote:
[...]
>> For example, at some point the PC may have to get past the proverbial
>> locked door by, say, bribing the housekeeper, picking the lock, or any
>> number of other things. But as far as the actual plot is concerned, it
>> may be immaterial whether the McGuffin is hiding behind the locked door,
>> lurking in a crypt under a false floor, or kept in a high tower guarded
>> by a three-headed dog. By fixing the precise manner in which said object
>> is hidden, the replayability value is unnecessarily reduced.
>> So why not flip the coin each time the game is restarted, rather than
>> while the game is being written?
> First, I've played a few games like that, and these tricks do not, for
> me, add to the replay value. The reason is hinted at in your
> description: it isn't important. On the one hand, doing the actual
> legwork of reclaiming the MacGuffin is the least interesting to me of
> the attractions of IF. At best, this kind of thing is task
> completion; at worst, obstructionism. It needs to be there, or you
> wouldn't have a game; but unless it's one of those rare puzzles that's
> clever without being too difficult, it's just not appealing to me.
I look at it more from the POV that you are presented with a situation,
and must think of a way to somehow solve it given the set of tools you
currently have. Whether or not the result is interesting or merely
tedious depends on how the problem is presented: this is where the
author's creativity factors in. You have to design the puzzles such that
they can be solved by reasonable applications of the tools you provide,
but the solution should be non-trivial and interesting.
> Second, there's far more overhead in designing a puzzle part than in
> imagining it. Now to build this kind of puzzle, it's three times the
> work. Actually more, because you need to ensure that the three
> varieties are all mutually inter-compatible and you don't get weird
> bugs.
The inter-compatibility arises from having a coherent world model (not
necessarily literally, as in code, but conceptually). As for the three
times more work: that's what I mean by "arising from the setting": you
have a model world in which a given character dwells, and the PC, by
learning how this character interacts with the world around it, makes
use of this knowledge to get what he/she wants. I don't really see it as
3 times more work; I see it as creating a dynamic character which fits
into the environment it interacts with in a consistent way such that one
can naturally exploit its behaviour to solve various situations that
might arise.
> Third, in my opinion, the three options you list -- in a closet, in a
> secret crypt, and in a Cerberus-guarded tower -- are *not*
> interchangeable if you're putting proper care into designing your
> game. Other closets and closet-like spaces will call to mind the
> earlier one. A secret crypt calls to mind images of death and grave-
> robbing. And the tower oddly mixes the image of Hades (via the dog)
> and a number of resonances with Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, and so on.
That was just a contrived example to illustrate what I meant. They
weren't intended to be well-designed or give a coherent image; I'm just
trying to get my point across. :-)
> That is, a similar argument could be made for randomizing your
> descriptions of a location: [...]
I didn't suggest randomizing location descriptions: I agree that that
would be really dull. What I'm proposing is dynamic world generation
where preprogrammed locations are put together in different ways each
time the game is played. Obviously, this is not feasible to implement if
*all* possible combinations are permitted (and neither would it be very
interesting, since the only way for the pieces to be able to fit with
any other piece means they have to be generic and boring and
disconnected). So only a subset of the possibilities need to be
considered, by constraining them with, among other things, plot
requirements, continuity, etc..
[...]
> ps - I'm doubtful about your other framings for similar reasons. One
> thing I think would be cool, which I think you mention in passing, is
> a simulator-based text game, where the puzzles and resources really
> are randomly distributed. Add in a few goal-seeking NPCs and you have
> something interesting. But I have no illusions about how difficult
> that would be, if it's possible at all.
Which is why I said that the puzzles and resources cannot be
*completely* random; they have to be constrained somehow. The best way
to constrain puzzles and resources is to design them around a (possibly
branching) plotline. I like to think of it as, you are presented with a
goal to reach, and some resources that might (or might not) help you get
there, and it's up to you to figure out what you need and how to use
them. Along the way, unforeseen problems may crop up, and you have to
figure out how to deal with them with what you have, and adapt
accordingly.
So I guess what I have in mind is a middle ground between a completely
simulationist game where everything arises ex machina, so to speak, and
a totally constrained game where the story is unchanging and
unchangeable.
--QF
David C.
> Probably none of this is anything new, but it was interesting to see
> for myself. I suppose I could have learned a bit of the same from the
> response to IF from readers of Play This Thing and Jay Is Games.
>
> On separate occasions, I asked four friends (three of whom are not
> computer-savvy, none of whom are gamers) to try "Lost Pig" and they
> became engrossed after a few minutes of user-interface confusion. I
> had always thought this anticipated confusion would be enough to put
> off the average user, but each of them greatly enjoyed the game and
> wanted to continue playing longer than my laptop was available to
> continue play. This is far from where I thought the uninitiated would
> be in relation to IF.
>
> Each of the four had alternating expressions of intense focus and
> cheerful satisfaction. The latter is unusual with those playing
> popular commercial games, in my experience. Frustration was not
> uncommon, which is to be expected in most games, and might be argued
> to be a necessary part of the game aesthetic.
>
> On the negative side, none of these four cared to do any work to
> enable themselves to complete the game. A couple of days later, none
> of them had any interest in me installing the game on their personal
> computers for them, much less doing it themselves, even though I
> explained they could pick up where they left off since I kept their
> saved games.
>
> I still do not believe in IF as a profitable venture, but I do believe
> a bit more strongly in its marketability to certain groups.
I don't think any of this is very surprising. As market tests go
though, targeting four friends is miniscule and mostly random. A true
market test would determine which demographics one wishes to target
their products to, determine how to reach those people, gather or
locate a group large enough for a sampling (I would say hundreds at
least) and then implement the testing.
You would also want a controlled environment. You'd want to see what
everyone typed, the time it took between commands, and you might also
want to record video of their faces/voices as they played if at all
possible.
Then you'd want to do follow-ups and potentially invite people back to
play again or give them a "connected" version of the game so that if
they play it again, all of their responses are recorded on a server
somewhere.
After all of this you'd have a nice set of data to determine what
worked and what didn't work and how many people liked the product
enough to go home, install it, and play it.
David C.
namekuseijin
> The repetition comes into play because Santa, it turns out, can't
> possibly visit the entire world in one night. So every time he makes it back
> to the north pole, he uses some of the magic in Mrs. Claus's pantry to turn
> the clock back a day and visit some of the places he missed last time
> around. The problem with this approach is that, every time Santa makes it
> back to the north pole, the things he has to do in preparation for his big
> trip are pretty much identical. Thus, the player is stuck replaying the same
> sequence of events, over and over and over again.
In other words: being a gift-bearer on crack is no fun at all. ;)
Jim Aikin
> Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
> likely? :)
I guess I'd better chime in here. The one game I play consistently is
go. I usually have several games running at once on Dragon Go Server. An
online game typically lasts several weeks, if you make a few moves every
day.
--JA
Richard Bos
> Jayson Smith wrote:
> > around. The problem with this approach is that, every time Santa makes it
> > back to the north pole, the things he has to do in preparation for his big
> > trip are pretty much identical. Thus, the player is stuck replaying the same
> > sequence of events, over and over and over again.
>
> In other words: being a gift-bearer on crack is no fun at all. ;)
Fear the crack'd, even if he bears gifts.
Richard
Richard Bos
> I have a single, very bad argument for this claim. Among the very few
> people of whom I know (a) that they like modern IF, and (b) what other
> games they play, I see no shared interest in non-IF games: these people
> like wildly different kinds of non-IF game.
>
> As evidence, I will now consider two well-known IF-players who regularly
> write about other games as well, and myself.
>
> 1. Andrew Plotkin: when not playing IF, Andrew Plotkin apparently plays
> graphical adventures.
> 2. Emily Short: when not playing IF, Emily Short apparently plays casual
> games.
> 3. Me: when not playing IF, I play real-time and turn-based strategy
> games, as well as RPGs.
>
> Anyone care to increase N beyond 3, and make my theory more or less
> likely? :)
Nethack, and chess.
Richard