Look vs examine vs search
Claudia M. Gohr
Hello all,
I have been playing IF for a while now and this thought just occured to me,
since when do players need to search everything? It used to be that when
entering a room, one could look around to survey the scene and then examine
particular objects and the significance of the object was obvious. Lately,
though, a simple examine will just not do. Now you have to search the
object in order to determine its' significance. I don't know about the rest
of you but when I think of 'search', I picture myself lookin for something
in particular, ie. searching a house for a weapon used to commit a crime. I
expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
Claudia
Admiral Jota
cg...@post.its.mcw.edu (Claudia M. Gohr) writes:
>I have been playing IF for a while now and this thought just occured to me,
>since when do players need to search everything? [snip] I don't know
>about the rest of you but when I think of 'search', I picture myself
>lookin for something in particular, ie. searching a house for a weapon
>used to commit a crime. I expect when I examine an object that the
>hidden compartment would be made visible and if I don't see it, it's not
>there, I don't expect to have to search the item as well. What do the
>rest of you think?
Well, secret compartments should be found on their own (PULL STATUE'S
ARM), but I think that SEARCH does have a valid use. If I look at a desk,
I don't expect to automatically know what's in the drawers. Likewise,
examining the stove won't tell me what's behind it, and examining a bed
shouldn't tell me what's under it. I think that all of these are cases
where it makes sense to SEARCH the object, to find objects that wouldn't
be visible by just simple examination.
--
/<-= -=-=- -= Admiral Jota =- -=-=- =->\
__/><-=- http://www.tiac.net/users/jota/ =-><\__
\><-= jo...@mv.mv.com -- Finger for PGP =-></
\<-=- -= -=- -= -==- =- -=- =- -=->/
Andrew Plotkin
Claudia M. Gohr (cg...@post.its.mcw.edu) wrote:
> I have been playing IF for a while now and this thought just occured to me,
> entering a room, one could look around to survey the scene and then examine
> particular objects and the significance of the object was obvious. Lately,
> though, a simple examine will just not do. Now you have to search the
> object in order to determine its' significance.
Well, which games do you mean?
The Inform library applies subtle psychological leverage: "search" is
equivalent for "look in" for containers / supporters, and prints "You
find nothing of interest" otherwise. (I may have missed some cases, but
that's the idea.)
I think this is fine. "search" should denote looking inside things, or
through things, or out of things. ("look through" also maps to "search",
so it's reasonable that "look through window" and "look through keyhole"
are different from just "examine window" and "examine keyhole." But maybe
for the window they'd be the same after all. I have a certain idea of what
"examination" means; "x window" means looking through the window as well
as at it. But "x keyhole" is iffy. It depends very much on the scene. Is
the player already thinking of peering through keyholes, or should it be a
moment of revelation when he thinks of doing so?)
> I don't know about the rest
> of you but when I think of 'search', I picture myself lookin for something
> in particular, ie. searching a house for a weapon used to commit a crime. I
> expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
> visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
> search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
If the object is *not* a container -- I mean not *obviously* a container
-- then I agree. "examine" and "search" should do the same thing; both
should reveal the hidden button, or compartment, or whatever. (If it's a
compartment, then we can revert to the "look in" meaning of search, once
it's open.)
For a pile of debris, I expect "search" and "examine" to do the same
thing.
Now if you're in a time-critical situation, that's different. (Recall
Deadline, where searching a room could take several minutes.) You could
point that out by having the default "search" message be "You spend a few
minutes looking over X..." And of course if you do it during a battle,
you die.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Joe Barlow
cg...@post.its.mcw.edu (Claudia M. Gohr) wrote:
>I expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
>visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
>search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
>Claudia
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has made this observation. I
consider EXAMINE, SEARCH and LOOK INSIDE to be synonyms, and have
gotten stuck in a few games because I EXAMINEd an object (a cupboard,
for example) instead of SEARCHing it, and as such did not find the
key that I needed to proceed, and other similar problems. Even though
I had the right idea, I didn't find the neccessary object because of
the verb I used. A lot of new games have gotten better about this
problem, but I think I did encounter this at least once in a recent IF
game (JIGSAW, maybe?)
I'm doing my best to avoid this problem in INERTIA (which is my
current, and indeed my first, I-F game). I'd be interested to hear
other folks' thoughts on this. Should SEARCH = EXAMINE = LOOK INSIDE?
Why or why not?
Joe Barlow
jba...@ipass.net
"Zorkers do it under the rug..."
Steven Howard
In <5407n8$j...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>, cg...@post.its.mcw.edu (Claudia M. Gohr) writes:
>Hello all,
>
>I have been playing IF for a while now and this thought just occured to me,
>since when do players need to search everything? It used to be that when
>entering a room, one could look around to survey the scene and then examine
>particular objects and the significance of the object was obvious. Lately,
>though, a simple examine will just not do. Now you have to search the
>of you but when I think of 'search', I picture myself lookin for something
>expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
>visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
>search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
In most games, especially Infocom/Inform games, "examine" and "look at"
are equivalent, while "search" is equivalent to "look in". So "examine box"
will describe the box while "search box" will describe its contents. It's
sort of idiomatic and it's certainly not consistent, even within the same
game.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Candace Krepel
Steven Howard (bl...@ibm.net) wrote:
: In most games, especially Infocom/Inform games, "examine" and "look at"
: are equivalent, while "search" is equivalent to "look in". So "examine box"
: will describe the box while "search box" will describe its contents. It's
: sort of idiomatic and it's certainly not consistent, even within the same
: game.
"Time" spoiler space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
However, when I "x bed", I find that it has sheets and a hard pillow. I
"search bed" and find only bugs and lice, and "search pillow" to find
feathers. I am required to "look under pillow" to find the book. This makes
the game unnecessarily frustrating.
Candy Krepel
ckr...@post.its.mcw.edu
First Law of Interactive Fiction: Go everywhere.
Second Law of Interactive Fiction: Look at/on/in/under everything.
Corollary to the Second Law: Take and examine everything.
Robert A. DeLisle
Joe Barlow (jba...@ipass.net) wrote:
: I'm doing my best to avoid this problem in INERTIA (which is my
: current, and indeed my first, I-F game). I'd be interested to hear
: other folks' thoughts on this. Should SEARCH = EXAMINE = LOOK INSIDE?
: Why or why not?
EXAMINE should give an outer physical description which could include
'the pocket bulges' and/or 'there is writing on it'
SEARCH and LOOK INSIDE should be synonymous.
Then there is LOOK UNDER, BEHIND, ON, etc.
I get tired of trying every variation. Search or a response that
indicated a location would be welcome.
Joe Barlow
bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) wrote:
>In most games, especially Infocom/Inform games, "examine" and "look at"
>are equivalent, while "search" is equivalent to "look in". So "examine box"
>will describe the box while "search box" will describe its contents.
I agree that it certainly SHOULD be that way, but unfortunately it's
not always the case:
>OPEN THE TREASURE CHEST
The treasure chest is now open.
>EXAMINE THE CHEST
The chest is wooden. It is open.
>SEARCH CHEST
You find nothing unusual.
>LOOK IN CHEST
You see a pile of jewelery!
In my opinion, doing any of the above should have returned the message
about the jewelery, even the "open" command. In real life, if you
open a container, you immediately know its contents (unless something
is hidden). Although its not a major problem usually, I have
encountered frustration in a few text adventure games. I remember one
specific example (though I forgot the game) in which I was looking for
a key to unlock a door. I had searched EVERYWHERE for the key, with
no luck. I had suspected that it was in a cupboard (based on a clue I
had found in the game), but when I searched the cupboard, I was told
"You see nothing special." After searching fruitlessly for a couple
of hours, I went back to the keyboard just to double check.
>SEARCH CUPBOARD
You see nothing special.
Just as a desperate act, I then tried:
>LOOK IN CUPBOARD
You find a large key!
The key was not mentioned either when I opened the cupboard or when I
searched it. I find this unacceptable, and it so annoyed me that I
never bothered to finish the game.
Bill Hoggett
Again, I've posted this to r.a.i-f as it's of relevance to i-f implementors.
Also in the following quote I've replaced the ">" symbol for the prompt
with the "->" symbol. Many newsreaders use ">" and ">>" to signify quoted
lines so this should clear up some confusion.
On 17-Oct-96 Joe Barlow <jba...@ipass.net> wrote:
>bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) wrote:
>>In most games, especially Infocom/Inform games, "examine" and "look at"
>>are equivalent, while "search" is equivalent to "look in". So "examine box"
>>will describe the box while "search box" will describe its contents.
> I agree that it certainly SHOULD be that way, but unfortunately it's
>not always the case:
>->OPEN THE TREASURE CHEST
>The treasure chest is now open.
>->EXAMINE THE CHEST
>The chest is wooden. It is open.
>->SEARCH CHEST
>You find nothing unusual.
>->LOOK IN CHEST
>You see a pile of jewelery!
> In my opinion, doing any of the above should have returned the message
>about the jewelery, even the "open" command. In real life, if you
>open a container, you immediately know its contents (unless something
>is hidden). Although its not a major problem usually, I have
>encountered frustration in a few text adventure games. I remember one
>specific example (though I forgot the game) in which I was looking for
>a key to unlock a door. I had searched EVERYWHERE for the key, with
>no luck. I had suspected that it was in a cupboard (based on a clue I
>had found in the game), but when I searched the cupboard, I was told
>"You see nothing special." After searching fruitlessly for a couple
>of hours, I went back to the keyboard just to double check.
>->SEARCH CUPBOARD
>You see nothing special.
>Just as a desperate act, I then tried:
>->LOOK IN CUPBOARD
>You find a large key!
>The key was not mentioned either when I opened the cupboard or when I
>searched it. I find this unacceptable, and it so annoyed me that I
>never bothered to finish the game.
I agree this is totally unacceptable. As I've mentioned elsewhere SEARCH
should cover LOOK INSIDE automatically (and LOOK UNDER, BEHIND, etc.).
The question of what should be visible when opening say, a box, is more
interesting. You should obviously see anything clearly visible inside
the box but not something hidden under some clothes, for instance. You
would need to SEARCH the box (or TAKE the clothes) before the hidden item
was revealed. Another problem arises when you open not a box, but a pouch
or sack. The items inside are not usually visible (it's dark in there) and
even a search might not reveal everything (things tend to move and shift in
a very disconcerting manner inside a pouch or sack - it's easy to miss
something). The only sure way to search the pouch/sack is to empty it onto
a surface. (NASTY TRAP: have something fragile in the sack so that upending
it results in the item smashing to smithereens).
However, I don't see how all this can be properly programmed into libraries.
Much of it is common sense and I think it's the programmer's resposibility
to cover these areas. (You reading this Kevin ? - how will AGATE cope ?)
Bill Hoggett (aka BeeJay) <mas.su...@easynet.co.uk>
who will one day use a spell-checker on his posts...
Bill Hoggett
I've cross-posted this thread to r.a.i-f as I think it's relevant.
So there! :-)
On 17-Oct-96 Robert A. DeLisle <r...@crl.com> penned:
>Joe Barlow (jba...@ipass.net) wrote:
In my view SEARCH and EXAMINE should be different. To simplify:
EXAMINE = LOOK AT
SEARCH = LOOK [UNDER, BEHIND, ON, INSIDE, etc.]
with SEARCH doing the entire location in one go with one drawback:
SEARCH could trigger off any traps attached to any item in the room.
(EXAMINE should never set off traps without warning).
^^^^^
Then again, what about a SEARCH FOR command. To explain: You have
determined that you need a foo box to solve a puzzle. You could then
say SEARCH FOR FOO BOX and on entering every new location you would
automatically search it, but only replies to do with the foo box
would be printed. So you either get:
"The foo box is under the four-poster bed." or
"The foo box doesn't seem to be here. Your search goes on."
What does everyone else think ?
Bill Hoggett (aka BeeJay) <mas.su...@easynet.co.uk>
IF GOD IS LIFE'S SERVICE PROVIDER WHY HAVEN'T I GOT HIS I.P. NUMBER ?
George Caswell
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Joe Barlow wrote:
> cg...@post.its.mcw.edu (Claudia M. Gohr) wrote:
>
> >I expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
> >visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
> >search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
> >Claudia
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one who has made this observation. I
> consider EXAMINE, SEARCH and LOOK INSIDE to be synonyms, and have
> gotten stuck in a few games because I EXAMINEd an object (a cupboard,
> for example) instead of SEARCHing it, and as such did not find the
> key that I needed to proceed, and other similar problems. Even though
> I had the right idea, I didn't find the neccessary object because of
> the verb I used. A lot of new games have gotten better about this
> problem, but I think I did encounter this at least once in a recent IF
> game (JIGSAW, maybe?)
> I'm doing my best to avoid this problem in INERTIA (which is my
> current, and indeed my first, I-F game). I'd be interested to hear
> other folks' thoughts on this. Should SEARCH = EXAMINE = LOOK INSIDE?
> Why or why not?
>
I think if examine, search, or whatnot give more information, it should
be made clear in the game intro... just as you would provide information
on any verbs added for the game... I also think, perhaps, the most basic
descriptions (as you get in time looking at -anything-) should be included
when you look at the room-- and if you look at the thing more carefully,
-then- you get a whole in-depth thing about every known detail of the
object...
....T...I...M...B...U...K...T...U... ____________________________________
.________________ _/>_ _______......[George Caswell, CS '99. 4 more info ]
<___ ___________// __/<___ /......[ http://www.wpi.edu/~timbuktu ]
...//.<>._____..<_ >./ ____/.......[ Member LnL+SOMA, sometimes artist, ]
..//./>./ /.__/ /./ <___________.[writer, builder. Sysadmin of adamant]
.//.</.</</</.<_ _/.<_____________/.[____________________________________]
</.............</...................
Darryl O'Neill
I think that there does need to be some differentiation. Search implies a
detailed examination.
It implies a much greater (game) time spent in the effort. You might
examine every object in the game
but you would only search those objects that seemed appropriate. If I were
to examine my couch at home
I would see the color, size, number of cushions, objects/people on the
couch. If I were to search the couch
I might find some loose change (if my kids have not beat me to it). If you
have four minutes before a bomb
goes off, I would want to examine the things that need a quick look and
search the things that need the time
and detail. I think that there should always be a reasonable reason for
having to do a search. Searching objects
just to arbitrarily hide something is not a puzzle, it is just annoying. I
do think that game authors need to standardize
on what some common verbs do. Then maybe this has just been ingrained on
me in the last 14 years of playing these
silly things.
Darryl
Claudia M. Gohr <cg...@post.its.mcw.edu> wrote in article
<5407n8$j...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> Hello all,
>
> I have been playing IF for a while now and this thought just occured to
me,
> since when do players need to search everything? It used to be that when
> entering a room, one could look around to survey the scene and then
examine
> particular objects and the significance of the object was obvious.
Lately,
> though, a simple examine will just not do. Now you have to search the
> object in order to determine its' significance. I don't know about the
rest
> of you but when I think of 'search', I picture myself lookin for
something
> in particular, ie. searching a house for a weapon used to commit a crime.
Paul Harker
> >visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
> >search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
> >Claudia
>
> consider EXAMINE, SEARCH and LOOK INSIDE to be synonyms, and have
> gotten stuck in a few games because I EXAMINEd an object (a cupboard,
> for example) instead of SEARCHing it, and as such did not find the
> key that I needed to proceed, and other similar problems. Even though
> I had the right idea, I didn't find the neccessary object because of
> the verb I used. A lot of new games have gotten better about this
> problem, but I think I did encounter this at least once in a recent IF
> game (JIGSAW, maybe?)
> I'm doing my best to avoid this problem in INERTIA (which is my
> current, and indeed my first, I-F game). I'd be interested to hear
> other folks' thoughts on this. Should SEARCH = EXAMINE = LOOK INSIDE?
> Why or why not?
As far as I'm concerned I'd rather SEARCH = EXAMINE and should be
synonomous
with LOOK INSIDE when in real life it would be equivalent. For example,
if
I find a pail and say EXAMINE PAIL, I expect the game to tell me the
contents
of the pail. On the other hand if I come across a purse and say EXAMINE
PURSE, I would only expect a description of the exterior of the purse. I
would
expect to have to LOOK INSIDE PURSE to actually determine it's contents.
I too have been frustrated by the lack of standard implementation of
these
verbs. I would suggest since there is no standard, that in the HINTS or
How to
Play This Game section an author make clear whether these are synonomous
or not, and how they are implemented in the particular game.
Paul
Andrew Plotkin
Adrian (adr...@skyweb.net) wrote:
> It would have to depend on the object. Take a cupboard. I expect that
> when I search a CLOSED cupboard that I would only find those secret
> panels, etc. that might be on the OUTSIDE. If I opened the cupboard I
> would want to be told of what was on the inside or in plain view, i.e.
> "You see a row of canned goods." Now say there is something behind those
> cans, or a secret panel in the back of the cupboard where it is attached
> to the wall. I would have to search it to find those things.
> So how does this all equal out? In my mind it seems pretty logical and
> ultimately confusing, for example:
> When looking over an object that cannot contain things: LOOK DOES NOT
> = EXAMINE, and SEARCH should be pretty much irellevant.
> When looking over an object that can obviously contain things: (LOOK =
> EXAMINE) but DOES NOT = SEARCH
> I would also add that when you OPEN a container of some kind it should
> naturally be assumed you are looking inside.
This actually parallels my feelings. (It's not too hard to code, even.)
The point is (well, my point is): I would never put information in a game
that can only be discovered by "search". (Unless, as I said, there was a
heavy-duty "search" ability which took a lot of game time -- and that
fact would be announced in the game intro.)
If "search" were not an Inform synonym for "look in" and "look through",
it would not be in my games at all. As it is, it gets used *only* because
"look in" or "look through" get used. I expect the player to think of
"look in" or "look through", but I don't expect the player to think of
"search" per se.
Note that it's not only containers that you "look in/through". There's
also the archetypical "debris on the floor." Although "examine" might as
well work for finding hidden things in debris.
Brad O`Donnell
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> The point is (well, my point is): I would never put information in a game
> that can only be discovered by "search". (Unless, as I said, there was a
> heavy-duty "search" ability which took a lot of game time -- and that
> fact would be announced in the game intro.)
>
> If "search" were not an Inform synonym for "look in" and "look through",
> it would not be in my games at all. As it is, it gets used *only* because
> "look in" or "look through" get used. I expect the player to think of
> "look in" or "look through", but I don't expect the player to think of
> "search" per se.
>
> Note that it's not only containers that you "look in/through". There's
> also the archetypical "debris on the floor." Although "examine" might as
> well work for finding hidden things in debris.
Hmmm... How badly would people complain if the verb "search" did
something like the following: (borrowing from Sean Givan a bit)
[ SearchSub;
< Examine Noun >;
< LookIn Noun >;
< LookUnder Noun >;
];
I think this would be good and it would make "search" a popular verb
indeed. Of course, there would be the problem of keeping the default
responses quiet when the subordinate actions failed...Hmm.
--
Brad O'Donnell
Who wishes that someone else was
interested in being able to type
"pat head + rub tummy" in a game
and have it mean something.
Adrian
Joe Barlow wrote:
>
> cg...@post.its.mcw.edu (Claudia M. Gohr) wrote:
>
> >I expect when I examine an object that the hidden compartment would be made
> >visible and if I don't see it, it's not there, I don't expect to have to
> >search the item as well. What do the rest of you think?
> >Claudia
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one who has made this observation. I
> consider EXAMINE, SEARCH and LOOK INSIDE to be synonyms, and have
> gotten stuck in a few games because I EXAMINEd an object (a cupboard,
> for example) instead of SEARCHing it, and as such did not find the
> key that I needed to proceed, and other similar problems. Even though
> I had the right idea, I didn't find the neccessary object because of
> the verb I used. A lot of new games have gotten better about this
> problem, but I think I did encounter this at least once in a recent IF
> game (JIGSAW, maybe?)
You begin to wonder if we ever got past the Scott Adams "guess the verb"
game...
> I'm doing my best to avoid this problem in INERTIA (which is my
> current, and indeed my first, I-F game). I'd be interested to hear
> other folks' thoughts on this. Should SEARCH = EXAMINE = LOOK INSIDE?
> Why or why not?
>
It would have to depend on the object. Take a cupboard. I expect that
when I search a CLOSED cupboard that I would only find those secret
panels, etc. that might be on the OUTSIDE. If I opened the cupboard I
would want to be told of what was on the inside or in plain view, i.e.
"You see a row of canned goods." Now say there is something behind those
cans, or a secret panel in the back of the cupboard where it is attached
to the wall. I would have to search it to find those things.
So how does this all equal out? In my mind it seems pretty logical and
ultimately confusing, for example:
When looking over an object that cannot contain things: LOOK DOES NOT
= EXAMINE, and SEARCH should be pretty much irellevant.
When looking over an object that can obviously contain things: (LOOK =
EXAMINE) but DOES NOT = SEARCH
I would also add that when you OPEN a container of some kind it should
naturally be assumed you are looking inside.
All seems pretty clear...as mud. I would hate to code all that. So my
advice is:
LOOK EVERYTHING
EXAMINE EVERYTHING
SEARCH EVERYTHING
and when you OPEN...LOOK INSIDE.
So where were we, square one?
Andrew Plotkin
Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
> Hmmm... How badly would people complain if the verb "search" did
> something like the following: (borrowing from Sean Givan a bit)
> [ SearchSub;
> < Examine Noun >;
> < LookIn Noun >;
> < LookUnder Noun >;
> ];
I (as an author) would complain very loudly indeed, and I don't like it
much as a player either.
Automating actions? No! That's not what I want. If my players are typing
commands automatically, because trying everything is easier than thinking
about what they wants to do next, then I have failed as an author. Failed
in what I'm trying to do. I want every single action the game character
performs to happen because the player thought, "I want to do this. I want
to look under this bush. I want to walk over to the bush, get down on my
hands and knees, lift up some branches, and poke around in the dirt near
the roots."
As the author, I have to do two things to facilitate this. First, I have
to ensure that the player can easily communicate this thought to the
game. We have a mutually-agreed-on language for this purpose; it's
fuzzily defined, but I think the majority of us would agree that "LOOK
UNDER BUSH" is a valid (though not the only valid) way of translating
this thought. Whereas "GET DOWN ON HANDS AND KNEES" is not worth trying.
Second, I must try to make sure that the player doesn't perform the
action by *accident*. Otherwise the immersion of that mini-scene is gone,
poof. This is where the balancing game starts. If the player types
"EXAMINE BUSH", did he mean "get down on hands and knees and poke around
in the dirt", or "peer closely at a leaf, paying particular attention to
the texture and color"? What about "SEARCH BUSH"? It's questionable. My
decision has much to do with how much emotional impact I want in the
scene, finding this thing under a bush. Because I *know* I will guess
wrong for some players, either way. On the one hand, there will be
the frustration of players who thought they *did* look under the bush
when they typed "X BUSH". On the other hand, there will be the sogginess
of players who discovered the thing under the bush by accident, when they
never thought of looking down there at all, but only were curious what
kind of bush it was. *That's* the choice I must make as an author. Which
failure is less damaging in this particular case?
This is why I would not implement your suggestion, you see? It aids the
game at the expense of what I'm trying to induce in the player. Nobody
would use such a verb if they wanted to look at the leaves, or look
around the roots, or look among the branches; they would use it because
it's easier than paying attention.
> Who wishes that someone else was
> interested in being able to type
> "pat head + rub tummy" in a game
> and have it mean something.
I'm interested. I believe there was such a thing in Bureaucracy, right?
"Turn handle 1 and handle 2" was different from "turn handle 1. turn
handle 2."
Brad O`Donnell
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
> > Hmmm... How badly would people complain if the verb "search" did
> > something like the following: (borrowing from Sean Givan a bit)
> > [ SearchSub;
> > < Examine Noun >;
> > < LookIn Noun >;
> > < LookUnder Noun >;
> > ];
>
> I (as an author) would complain very loudly indeed, and I don't like it
> much as a player either.
>
> Automating actions? No! That's not what I want. If my players are typing
> commands automatically, because trying everything is easier than thinking
> about what they wants to do next, then I have failed as an author.
Perhaps the onus is on the player for such behavior; for instance,
I have little problem reading the middle chapters of a book first,
then going back to the start and reading the book through... In fact,
I often use the reading one of the middle chapters first as a test
to see if I'll like the book. (Using the reasoning that the middle
chapters are more likely to be representative of the rest of the book
than the beginning or end) Far be it from me to complain, after having
done this, that the author didn't give the book to me one page at a
time.
Similarly, far be it for the player to complain (as long as he knew
that the command did this... more on that later) that he used "search"
instead of the more rigorous method, and the Suspension of Disbelief
was shot to pieces...
> Failed
> in what I'm trying to do. I want every single action the game character
> performs to happen because the player thought, "I want to do this. I >want
> to look under this bush. I want to walk over to the bush, get down on >my
> hands and knees, lift up some branches, and poke around in the dirt >near
> the roots."
I (as a player and a somewhat half-bred author) like to work under
the assumption that if I type a command in, it is for that exact reason.
Of course, sometimes I'm just being silly...when I type (or implement)
EAT PLANT POT, I don't really expect it to work; but I'd like a funny
answer.
>
> As the author, I have to do two things to facilitate this. First, I have
> to ensure that the player can easily communicate this thought to the
> game. We have a mutually-agreed-on language for this purpose; it's
> fuzzily defined, but I think the majority of us would agree that "LOOK
> UNDER BUSH" is a valid (though not the only valid) way of translating
> this thought. Whereas "GET DOWN ON HANDS AND KNEES" is not worth trying.
This is a very good point: the player really should be told what a
given command is REALLY trying to do... for the most part, this doesn't
change, but any instances where a command does something other than the
norm (as a whole command) should be noted ( "...the verb SIT ON is not
the same as ENTER anymore...)
A clear specification of the "Language of Adventure," which is usually
taught via a mentor system, is not _direly_ needed, but would be nice.
(I'd really like to write one... I'd have to put it up for consensus,
though...)
>
> Second, I must try to make sure that the player doesn't perform the
> action by *accident*. Otherwise the immersion of that mini-scene is gone,
> poof. This is where the balancing game starts.
---------
> My
> decision has much to do with how much emotional impact I want in the
> scene, finding this thing under a bush. Because I *know* I will guess
> wrong for some players, either way. On the one hand, there will be
> the frustration of players who thought they *did* look under the bush
> when they typed "X BUSH". On the other hand, there will be the
> sogginess
> of players who discovered the thing under the bush by accident, when they
> never thought of looking down there at all, but only were curious what
> kind of bush it was. *That's* the choice I must make as an author. Which
> failure is less damaging in this particular case?
I really don't know...spatial relationships (and physics)
in IF are weird, and
I don't see them getting any less weird soon. ( Nor should they.)
If I were under the bush when I looked at it, I would be upset if
LOOK UNDER BUSH produced a different result than X BUSH. But no
matter where I was (except inside the bush, of course) I would
not have a fit if LOOK IN BUSH provided a different response; in
fact, I would expect it.
>
> This is why I would not implement your suggestion, you see? It aids
> the
> game at the expense of what I'm trying to induce in the player. Nobody
> would use such a verb if they wanted to look at the leaves, or look
> around the roots, or look among the branches; they would use it because
> it's easier than paying attention.
Someone (Harlan Ellison, but he might have got it from somewhere else)
said that the overriding message of all art is "pay attention." The
more I think about it, the more I agree.
>
> > Who wishes that someone else was
> > interested in being able to type
> > "pat head + rub tummy" in a game
> > and have it mean something.
>
> I'm interested. I believe there was such a thing in Bureaucracy, right?
> "Turn handle 1 and handle 2" was different from "turn handle 1. turn
> handle 2."
THAT's a different post altogether, and highly theoretical (can you
say "modifying the parser a bit," boys and girls?)
Maybe I'll re-post about it sometime...if it'll get an answer, I'd
really like that...
>
> --Z
>
> --
>
> "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
> borogoves..."
--
Brad O'Donnell
"In any battle between the will and the imagination,
the imagination will win:
If you imagine you can, you _might_ not;
If you imagine you can't, you _will_ not!"
--T.L. Rampa
Brad O`Donnell
Candace Krepel wrote:
>
> Andrew Plotkin (erky...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : the texture and color"? What about "SEARCH BUSH"? On the one hand, there will be
> : the frustration of players who thought they *did* look under the bush
> : when they typed "X BUSH". On the other hand, there will be the sogginess
> : of players who discovered the thing under the bush by accident, when they
> : never thought of looking down there at all, but only were curious what
> : kind of bush it was. *That's* the choice I must make as an author. Which
> : failure is less damaging in this particular case?
>
>Candace wrote:
> I think it depends on the context. The puzzle which started this thread
> dealt with the (stop reading George)
> .
> .
> .
> book under the pillow on the bed in the main camp in the desert of Time. If
> I LOOK at the bed, I would expect to be told that it was an iron frame army
> cot (or whatever). If I EXAMINE it, I would expect to be told that there
> were some sheets and a hard pillow on it. But, if I SEARCH the bed, I would
> expect to find anything hidden in the sheets or under the pillow, and given
> a clue if there was something IN the mattress or the pillow.
Me, too: to me, EXAMINEing an object is a different action than
LOOKing AT it. When I LOOK AT something, I would expect a purely
visual reference...if I weren't holding it at the time, I would not
expect any Really Close Details.
EXAMINEing (in my ideal world) would give me a more comprehensive
sensory report...and you might need to hold a small object to
EXAMINE it. (A friend of mine once pointed out: "If I saw a key on
the sidewalk, I wouldn't just stand there, looking at the thing; If
I were really interested I would pick it up.")
Thing is, in order to be "rigorous" (heaven knows if I'm using that
in a popularly acceptable sense...) the EXAMINE verb would no doubt
need to have an implicit LOOK AT.
SEARCHing, (back on my planet) is the act of finding out what an
object is composed of and/or contains; any objects that are
immediately available as an external part,
inside, on, or under (or among, if searching a plural object) are
revealed, unless the author wants to hide them further. It is my
contention that the SEARCH verb should be defined in terms of simpler
actions (for each complicated object, anyway)
Hence, SEARCHing a desk would (depending on the desk):
(This example assumes that the desk has one drawer, and that nothing
is under it )
EXAMINE THE DESK ( for the immediately obvious stuff )
FEEL THE DESK ( for nooks and crannies and stuff )
OPEN THE DRAWER
LOOK IN DRAWER (and show what's inside)
(NOTE: The "search" verb wouldn't have to actually EXECUTE this
array of commands, but instead could provide some equivalent
response)
However, if the drawer contains a false bottom, you would need to
SEARCH (or perhaps FEEL, or KNOCK ON) the drawer itself.
I'm VERY interested in what people think that verbs are supposed to
do... I'm thinking of compiling a list; It would be helpful to authors
(or at least to me) to have a just a bit more clearly defined
Adventure Lexicon. To have it more exact might seem less artsy, but
let's face it: we're (or at least I am) basically grunting at the
game anyway...
> Andrew's bush
> example is not exactly the same kind of a problem.
>
It's a response to a different question altogether: I asked
how players would react if the "search" verb automatically
LOOKed AT, IN, and UNDER the object being searched...that maybe
that would standardise it a bit (I do admit that it's not a good
example, but it's all I could come up with at the time.)
Andrew's bush problem is put up as an example of the difficulty an
author goes through trying to decide how much to reveal with a given
command, while trying to help make sure that every command issued
by the player is a purposeful expression of intent. (i.e. very little
is discovered by "accident" unless the author intends it, in which
case it's not an accident.) Automated searching of the kind I
suggested might endanger this goal.
Did I get that right, Andrew?
--
Brad O'Donnell
Candace Krepel
Andrew Plotkin (erky...@netcom.com) wrote:
: the texture and color"? What about "SEARCH BUSH"? It's questionable. My
: decision has much to do with how much emotional impact I want in the
: scene, finding this thing under a bush. Because I *know* I will guess
: wrong for some players, either way. On the one hand, there will be
: the frustration of players who thought they *did* look under the bush
: when they typed "X BUSH". On the other hand, there will be the sogginess
: of players who discovered the thing under the bush by accident, when they
: never thought of looking down there at all, but only were curious what
: kind of bush it was. *That's* the choice I must make as an author. Which
: failure is less damaging in this particular case?
I think it depends on the context. The puzzle which started this thread
dealt with the (stop reading, George)
.
.
.
book under the pillow on the bed in the main camp in the desert of Time. If
I LOOK at the bed, I would expect to be told that it was an iron frame army
cot (or whatever). If I EXAMINE it, I would expect to be told that there
were some sheets and a hard pillow on it. But, if I SEARCH the bed, I would
expect to find anything hidden in the sheets or under the pillow, and given
a clue if there was something IN the mattress or the pillow. Andrew's bush
example is not exactly the same kind of a problem.
Candy Krepel
Candace Krepel
Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
: However, if the drawer contains a false bottom, you would need to
: SEARCH (or perhaps FEEL, or KNOCK ON) the drawer itself.
I have no problem with this, as long as there is a clue to the player that
knocking or feeling could be useful.
T
I
M
E
.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
When I searched the column in the desert scene, I was informed that it was a
stone column without any markings. There was no indication that it could be
turned. There could have been. I could have been told that on closer
inspection the column appeared to go thru the floor instead of sitting on
it, or something like that. Some indication that further manipulation was
indicated.
I don't think that it is fair to expect the player to spend the time
manipulating every object in every possible way in the hopes that, once in a
blue moon, something might be discovered.
Need more help? Just ask.
Candy Krepel
ckr...@post.its.mcw.edu
First Law of Interactive Fiction: Go everywhere.
Second Law of Interactive Fiction: Look at/on/in/under everything.
Corollary to the Second Law: Take and examine everything.
David's rider: Keep everything you possibly can.
Brad O`Donnell
> : SEARCH (or perhaps FEEL, or KNOCK ON) the drawer itself.
>
> knocking or feeling could be useful.
In the case of a secret bottom to a drawer, I would probably make
it _completely_ unapparent in the drawer itself; I would stick a
(unavoidable) clue somewhere in the rest of the game (until you
found this clue, the bottom would probably be empty.) The owner of
the drawer's dying breath, perhaps... then, the real puzzle would
probably be about getting _back_ to the drawer. If needing to
SEARCH the drawer with no indicators isn't a guess-the-verb puzzle,
I don't know what is.
> Need more help? Just ask.
Yes. I could use input from as many people as possible (that's an
invitation, folks!) about what they think verbs in a game do.
I already mentioned what I think some verbs should act... in just
about any game, there is a remarkable inconsistency to what EXAMINE
does, for instance...and yet, we all agree that EXAMINEing an object
_doesn't_ mean "tell me everything there is to know about this object"
When I (finally) make a game (all by my lonesome) I intend to include
a list of the Adventure Lexicon that the game uses, and what each
command TRIES to do. Take, for instance, my definition of PULL:
PULL X:
X is portable:
Move X toward you.
" " static:
Exert a force toward you on X.
" " a part:
Move X away from whatever it is a part of.
In the case of PUSH, just change "toward" to "away from" and vice-versa
Of course, this is a generally acceptable (I think) definition. Not
all verbs would have the same three cases.
When it comes to revealing information, that's another story; that's
where most conflict occurs.
--
Brad O'Donnell
Candace Krepel
Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
: When it comes to revealing information, that's another story; that's
: where most conflict occurs.
I agree. I humbly offer the following:
LOOK AT: All obvious external characteristics described.
EXAMINE: You pick it up and discover anything under it, as well
as depressions, irregularities, etc. If it is openable
it would need to be opened to reveal contents.
SEARCH: Reserved for plural objects, like the pile of clothes, the
garbage, the mess on the desk, the woodpile, the contents of
a bag, the shelves, etc.
A divergent thought, if I may. I really prefer parsers that let a player
know that an object is not there. If an author includes manipulatable
objects in his/her room descriptions along with others that are part of the
atmosphere, some parsers make it very difficult to tell the difference.
Example:
Parser1: LOOK UNDER WHATSAWHIZZER
You see nothing unusual.
Parser2: LOOK UNDER WHATSAWHIZZER
There's no whatsawhizzer here.
Parser2 lets the player know that the object is merely part of the scenery.
Brad O`Donnell
Candace Krepel wrote:
> I humbly offer the following:
>
> LOOK AT: All obvious external characteristics described.
> EXAMINE: You pick it up and discover anything under it, as well
> as depressions, irregularities, etc. If it is openable
> it would need to be opened to reveal contents.
> SEARCH: Reserved for plural objects, like the pile of clothes, the
> garbage, the mess on the desk, the woodpile, the contents of
> a bag, the shelves, etc.
Thanks. The only thing of yours I'm not sure about is the "reserved
for plural objects" bit in search...although the more I think about it
the more sense it makes (by tomorrow morning, I'll probably have
totally turned either for or against that bit)
Please send any other ideas on this matter.
>
> A divergent thought, if I may. I really prefer parsers that let a player
> know that an object is not there. If an author includes manipulatable
> objects in his/her room descriptions along with others that are part of the
> atmosphere, some parsers make it very difficult to tell the difference.
>
> Example:
>
> Parser1: LOOK UNDER WHATSAWHIZZER
> You see nothing unusual.
>
> Parser2: LOOK UNDER WHATSAWHIZZER
> There's no whatsawhizzer here.
>
> Parser2 lets the player know that the object is merely part of the scenery.
I'll go you one further: I like games that tell you, in some way
separate from room descriptions, what objects are immediately and
obviously available, and ditto for directions. The room descriptions
would provide information and flavour text, but you wouldn't have to
keep searching them for information that you needed EVERY TURN!
(Example)
At the Border of Infinitee.
A cross between a Taco Bell and a Jiffy-Lube, the high-rise
restaurant in front of you tempts you to enter with the succulent
smell of freshly fried Hiwarg roots, a northern delicacy. It is
perched on a high precipice and is framed by a curtain of stars.
[ Restaurant [Left Door, Right Door], Precipice, Stars ]
Exits: N:[Restaurant], S:[Border's Driveway],NE:[Back of Building]
A park bench is here.
Mr. X is here, watching you and eating a burger. (on the park bench)
[burger]
(End Example)
In the above case, anything that is "real" and mentioned in the
scenery is listed right under the description. Anything mentioned
in an object description and is "real" is Mentioned after that
description (see the burger in the above example)
I have yet to see
a game do this, And I'm having a fairly hard time getting mine to,
(But I got the Exits thing going... and I just figured out how to
do the object listing right now...cool) but I think that a setup
like this would let the player relax a little, and enjoy the text
alone, instead of being annoyed that the author spent so many words
describing the Hiwarg roots when there are none! I would very much
enjoy such a game; Would you?
--
Brad O'Donnell
Michael Straight
I think the key to solving this problem is in carefully crafting the
responses one gets from using a particular keyword. I only get frustrated
when I think I've searched something and I really haven't because I didn't
use the right word, but this is often a result of responses. Using the
bush as an example, if I get the following response...
>LOOK AT THE BUSH
You see nothing special about the bush.
...I'm likely to move on. If the responses go like this, however...
>LOOK AT THE BUSH
It is a rose bush, about as tall as you are.
>EXAMINE THE BUSH
The leaves on the rose bush are full and green, but it's too early in the
year for any buds.
>SEARCH THE BUSH
You find nothing among the branches of the bush.
>FEEL THE BUSH
Ouch! Watch those thorns!
>LOOK UNDER BUSH
You see something shiny sticking up from under the rose bush's roots.
...thus the author makes clear to the player what exactly is accomplished
by using the various search words. The response to "search" may be too
obvious a clue that one should keep looking, but something like that
should give the reader a feel for what exactly he/she is doing when using
these verbs.
For simplicity, the author might want to conflate "LOOK AT" and "EXAMINE"
or even "SEARCH" and "LOOK UNDER," but it should always be made clear from
the responses what actions a verb actually performs.
Michael Straight is still looking for time to complete Curses.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Irate Clam Thighs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Candace Krepel
Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
: separate from room descriptions, what objects are immediately and
: obviously available, and ditto for directions. The room descriptions
: would provide information and flavour text, but you wouldn't have to
: keep searching them for information that you needed EVERY TURN!
: (End Example) ---lucid example cut---
: In the above case, anything that is "real" and mentioned in the
: scenery is listed right under the description. Anything mentioned
: in an object description and is "real" is Mentioned after that
: description (see the burger in the above example)
I have mixed feelings about this. I am not sure that I would like to be
informed of every manipulatable object. I think some sense of discovery is
lost. However, I really get ticked when I have tried to pick up every piece
of room description in the first 15 rooms, decide that room descriptions
are just that, then find out (after I post a Help) that there is an object
in the room description of room 23 that I need to win the game (and of
course I am already past the one-way door).
Not sure how to balance the two.
Brad O`Donnell
> : (End Example) ---lucid example cut---
Thank You (given my definition of lucid...)
>
> : In the above case, anything that is "real" and mentioned in the
> : scenery is listed right under the description. Anything mentioned
> : in an object description and is "real" is Mentioned after that
> : description (see the burger in the above example)
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. I am not sure that I would like to be
> informed of every manipulatable object.
Sorry about that (Blast my imprecision!) Every "real" object
that the author doesn't want hidden is listed, for example the
following would not happen:
--
X BUSH
The bush is a small juniper shrub. [Purple Ring]
LOOK
BLah, BLAH BLAAAH!! (Room description)
There is a purple ring here.
--
Nor would the following happen:
--
X BUSH
The bush is a small juniper shrub.
LOOK
Blah. blablabah room, big garden ... Yackety. (Sorry, I'm pressed for
time :)
There is a purple ring here.
--
More likely would be:
--
X BUSH
The bush is a small juniper shrub. There is a purple spot hidden
within its depths. (Notice there is no [Purple Spot] indicator )
LOOK
This room is nice.
There is a purple spot here, under the bush.
X PURPLE
Under the bush you see a purple Captain Murphy Decoder Ring.
--
The [Hey, there's an object here!] Notation should perhaps be
standardized (In fact, discussion about this [ I've received some
private e-mail in addition to posts ] has got me to the point where
I have just _GOT_ to try this out.)
> I think some sense of discovery is
> lost. However, I really get ticked when I have tried to pick up every piece
> of room description in the first 15 rooms, decide that room descriptions
> are just that, then find out (after I post a Help) that there is an object
> in the room description of room 23 that I need to win the game (and of
> course I am already past the one-way door).
>
> Not sure how to balance the two.
I hope the above example helps...but there is nothing to prevent the
first two cases from happening, so a programmer would have to be
careful (he said, as though programmers don't normally have to be
careful.)
--
Brad O'Donnell