I played several games almost entirely from walkthrough. I think I was
feeling less tolerant of puzzles than usual this year -- or at least,
less tolerant of puzzles that were out of place or not contributing to
the story. There seemed to be a lot of this going around. Mobius and
Delightful Wallpaper both did innovative and fun things with puzzles,
and I enjoyed them. Labyrinth may have as well, but this was presented
so abstractly that I couldn't get into it right then. (I did have a lot
of flashbacks to David Bowie in tight leather pants, which may or may
not have been the author's intention.) But in several other games, even
including Elysium Enigma, there were quite a few times where I was
conscious that the story had been hijacked to make room for an IF-style
puzzle when there was really no *need* for such a thing, and where the
puzzle itself was nothing that terrific. This is not, I should add, a
rant against puzzles in all cases -- I like a really well-designed
puzzle for its own sake, and I like it even more if it can be justified
in the context of the story or if it sheds some new insight on what's
going on. But I felt that several of the more narrative entries this
year did an awkward job of incorporating the puzzles, and should either
a) have done those puzzles better or b) come up with a different form
interaction for the player. The feeling of puzzle artificiality kept me
getting into Traveling Swordsman, which otherwise looked like something
I might enjoy.
I did appreciate the prevalence of walkthroughs and hint systems in
these games -- another bit of polish that makes a game much more fun,
especially under competition conditions.
My comments on individual games follow, and, as mentioned, I skipped
a lot of things either because they didn't look good or because they
suit my mood at the time. And some things I finished, but didn't have
to say about. So these only cover:
Tower of the Elephant
Aunts and Butlers
They have spoilers. Read at your own risk.
Elysium Enigma (8)
Interesting story, though I got frustrated in a few spots about not
being able to confront Leela as directly as I wanted to. The secret
truths here were not especially shocking, I thought -- no vast twists
that surprised me -- but I did enjoy uncovering what there was to
uncover. (And I didn't end the game with full points, so it is possible
that there was still more under the surface here that I just did not
ever get to.)
The puzzles felt a bit old-school for the narrative, though -- this
doesn't really feel like the kind of 'verse where we ought to be
catching trout with a conveniently sharp hook just in order to move a
cat. Unless cats on this planet are much larger than they are on Earth,
I'm usually able to dislodge even an unwilling one by force. So the
puzzles of that sort felt a bit forced. There were also several that
were just too hard or guess-y: I would never have gotten the datatab
password without the hints, nor would I have thought of CRAWL UNDER
TARPAULIN as a plausible command. On the other hand, the hints *are*
pretty thorough, which kept this from ever getting to be too
and I did finish in just a bit over two hours.
The coding is strong and the work is well polished, as I would expect
from Eric; the game feels thoroughly tested and smooth.
There were a couple of conventions I disliked. The exits command lists
even the exits I have discovered are useless (like going outside the
borders of the town), and I found this distracting. I also found the
room description in the center of town quite confusing, in that it
suggested to me that I should go north, *then* east or west. Which
On the other hand, Leela's interactions were very good. My least
favorite moments are the ones where she feels a bit too automatic --
the way you trick her seems too easy, and sometimes her behavior
is too obviously dictated by the needs of a particular puzzle.
But I've never before felt like I have been hoodwinked by an NPC.
I avoided her initially, figuring that she would lead to trouble,
because my orders warned me about people like her. Then I went
through a phase of thinking she really was the naive thing she seemed,
possibly trying to use me for food, but not otherwise untrustworthy.
But that evolved too, in subtle ways: I found myself telling her
things confidently at the beginning, then becoming suspicious when her
questions seemed unusually pointed for a person in her position; then
finally starting to think that maybe I had already said too much. The
way through, I knew she was trying to manipulate me, but I didn't
always know to what end (just because she was hungry? because she
wanted a rescuer? because she was bored, or sinister?). And
that was really cool.
It was also good interactive story-telling. One of the things
do for a story is get the player to buy into dubious actions, whereas
the reader might be standing back a bit: when you read a novel and the
protagonist does something foolhardy, you may mutter a bit at the page.
But how mad can you really get if that was *you*, innocently prattling
on with imperial secrets because you thought you were talking to a
village girl? I've played other games in which this was a gimmick, but
this one does something with it that is important to the story.
For me, that aspect of the game was the neatest, most art-revealing
thing to come out of the competition, and it's likely to stick with me.
But this game had a lot else going for it as well, including its
Tightly implemented, fun variation on the repeating-time-loop format. I
am a little tired of this idea -- I didn't finish "All Things Devours",
for instance -- but this was version was a fresh take on the puzzle. No
story worth speaking of, I'd say, but satisfying as pure-puzzle game.
did occasionally get a little annoying that when I had screwed up an
iteration I had to then wait (or sleep, or commit suicide) a couple
times to get the chance to start over. Still, this is a minor gripe.
A few of the puzzles were non-obvious, but overall, this was pretty
solidly constructed, with some interesting areas to explore. I did wind
up relying quite a bit on the hints; this may have reduced my
frustration with some of the less obvious bits.
I was a little weirded out by the idea that the seductive wolf was also
Red Riding Hood's father -- shades of the Baron, there. I did enjoy the
gradual realization of my true nature, though. The things that made
sense only in moonlight were neat, too. Good work overall.
Delightful Wallpaper (7)
Strange, evocative, and with the entertaining outlines of a plot in the
middle distance. But still really a puzzle game. There were a few
moments that felt a little-underclued, but generally it was good; I
found I was able to solve the map puzzles, which at the very beginning
dismayed me with the prospect of something tediously labyrinthine. The
notebook helped a lot. Still, I enjoyed myself more when I got past
that phase of
the game and into the business of placing the intentions. (The
distinction between the two phases did give the game a slightly odd
disjoint feel, but I suppose either side on its own would have felt
insufficient; and I do see that we want to get the player to
explore the environment thoroughly before expecting him to make use of
that knowledge when placing the intentions.)
Another point in its favor: the Dark City/Gorey/"Hush"-episode-of-Buffy
flavor, which was unlike anything else entered.
(Disclaimer: I played this game in beta.)
Tower of the Elephant (7)
I don't generally have high hopes for games adapting pieces of static
fiction. It's hard to do this at all convincingly: the pacing of the
original story is often wrong; there are usually elements that
are hard to convey in IF terms; often the protagonist of the original
does at least one thing that is weird and hard to get the player to
emulate. What's more, the original usually doesn't go into as much
detail about setting as IF has to, which means that there's a lot of
text for the IF-adaptor to supply, and if he doesn't have a very
strong sense of language, the result is prose that clashes with itself
stylistically. "Tempest" didn't quite work for gameplay reasons.
Neither did Francesco Cordella's "Land of the Cyclops", though
its problems were more diverse. (Which I went on about at length here:
And then I'm also a little suspicious of the impulse in the first
Why are we adapting this story to IF anyway? Is it because the author
actually has an interesting idea about why that particular piece of
fiction would make good IF (and, to be fair, I think both Nelson and
Cordella did have some such reasons in mind)? Or is it because he
couldn't think of a plot of his own and/or wanted to cash in on the
popularity of the original? Derivative IF works, whether based on a
or emulating/parodying previous games, often leave me cold. Where's the
invention? Where's the author's new take on things? This is not to say
that it's impossible to write a good retelling or re-envisioning of
existing work -- people have been retelling classical mythology for the
last several thousand years and haven't run out of interesting versions
yet. But the the existing art or story doesn't mean that the author can
get away without doing any imaginative work of his own.
Anyway, Tower of the Elephant is one game where, unexpectedly, I think
the adaptation worked reasonably well at a craft level. Not perfectly:
don't care for the section where my PC watches the
thief do things. The problem here is not just that this section is
railroaded; it's that the PC is completely passive. In static fiction
can accept stories where someone else takes over the action for a while
and the protagonist doesn't do that much; in IF, this doesn't work so
well. In fairness, I discovered later that it's possible for the player
take another path through this section, but since it seemed (at least
me) like the most obviously advantageous course was to hang out
waiting for the thief to clear my path, that's what I did -- and then
mildly miffed at the game for not giving me more to do. So the point is
not just that the player has to be *able* to do things, but that he
to feel encouraged to do them. I've played a few games where just
waiting was suspenseful and felt like real action, but that wasn't
the effect for me here.
It did take me several tries and a hint to get past the spider; I think
this could have been better clued. There were also some implementation
faults in the endgame, where the syntax to cut out and use the heart
fairly restricted and a number of (I thought) sensible phrasings were
not honored. This could be cleaned up before the final release.
Still, on the whole, the structure of the game essentially worked with
source material, and that's an achievement in itself.
I'm not quite so sure about the value of adapting this story to IF
rather than coming up with something new, but again, I was more
sympathetic this time than I usually am. In particular, the adaptation
provided texture: the game did a good job of preserving the prose style
of the original. That style is unusual for IF, but not unworkable,
it does dwell heavily on descriptions of objects and actions. I enjoyed
the novelty. We don't see a lot of this exact kind of fantasy, really.
was a little reminded of the Oz books, which I imagine could also be
selectively adapted for interactive fiction, since they tend to be
on imagery, setting, and wacky objects, and episodic enough to slice
All in all, I don't think this was a masterpiece, but it was competent,
playable, and fun, and some of what I liked about it did come from the
work it adapted. Which makes it perhaps the most successful
static-fiction adaptation I've played to date.
Unauthorized Termination (7)
This had a bunch of rough edges, implementation-wise -- some problems
typical of ADRIFT parsers, and some others. It also has a somewhat
railroady presentation -- there are usually only one or two sensible
things for the player to do, and often these are more or less
laid out for you -- and there was one bit, involving finding an item,
which I would never have gotten without the walkthrough. The endgame
could have been better paced, I think.
All the same, I found this strangely enjoyable. The robots, despite
everything, came across with something approaching a genuine
personality. I found the encounter with the First One almost touching.
The mystery plot, though laid out in a linear way, still took enough
turns to be interesting as I discovered it. So yes, there were some
flaws, but this was fun.
Aunts and Butlers (7)
This doesn't always *quite* hit the mark for tone, but it does manage a
general Wodehousian flavor much of the time. There's a trick about
though: Wodehouse plots tend to revolve around completely bizarre
solutions to wacky situations. In IF, this is a problem, because the
player is required to come up with the bizarre solution on his or her
own. This is the same problem I had with Hitchhiker's and Bureaucracy
amusing games, but not particularly *fair*.
In the case of Aunts and Butlers, I tried to get the zany solutions
myself, but one of the early puzzles stumped me; when I looked at the
answer, I realized it was something I would never ever have tried, and
lost faith. So I played from the walkthrough for most of the game. This
was probably wise, since in passing I noticed several other points
it's a good idea to do things in a certain order without any particular
motivation, or where the solution is fairly esoteric. It says something
that I still enjoyed the game anyway, but I would have enjoyed it more,
if, somehow, these implausible puzzles had been solvable.
I did very much like what happened with the pheasant hat, though.
As homebrewed systems go, this was pretty decent, too. Missing just a
few conveniences from other systems, but it didn't annoy me nearly as
much as nonstandard IF systems usually do.
I also enjoyed this game a little more because it strayed from the
conventional genres of the rest of the competition. A fresh setting or
genre is worth a lot to players trekking through 40-odd games.
Primrose Path (6)
One great visionary puzzle/moment; confusing plot that I never quite
a handle on; some minor annoyances in play. I felt pretty extensively
led by the hints, again because I was not sure how to make sense of
happened by any other means. I used to be more tolerant of games where
I don't get the plot; these days, I'm inclined to think that if I make
effort, I should wind up essentially understanding what just happened.
Roads, e.g., I remember as a collage of nifty images, and I assumed at
time that I had trouble putting them together because I played the game
a feverish state. But I've never heard anyone else explain the plot in
that makes sense, either. [But I digress.])
I also wound up not liking the protagonist and Leo as much at the end
I had in the middle of the game -- possibly because some of the early
remarks about their relationship promised a substance and complexity
that never in fact materialized. I can easily believe in a relationship
that has gone through phases of romantic attraction and phases of
friendship and phases of distrust or dislike. What I can't believe is
that said relationship would feature so few concrete events or specific
feelings. What draws these people to one another? What pushes them
apart? You turned Leo down before; why? And so on.
I guess it's not necessary to spell all that out if this is a puzzle
game, but it felt like it was reaching to be a story game in spots --
especially since I get to decide whether the protagonist accepts Leo's
offer of marriage. And before I can feel much of anything about that, I
need to have feelings about him -- more detailed than "I guess he's a
talented artist and his mom has some real issues".
I don't know -- I guess ultimately it seemed that this game was trying
to do several different things, and it didn't quite succeed at any of
them. But the climbing of the raindrops is an awesome scene and will
stick with me. I would encourage the author to write more. Preferably
with a bit more clarity about what he's trying to accomplish.
Carmen Devine, Supernatural Troubleshooter (5)
There are some writing issues here. Unfortunately, one of the worst
offenders is the first room description in the game: "Bouncing along in
a 4x4, the harsh bite of Chen's cigarette burns in your lungs as his
smoking fills the jeep." "Bouncing along in a 4x4" is a dangling
modifier: grammatically, it should apply to "the harsh bite of Chen's
cigarette". Even when we rule that out, it's not immediately obvious
what it *does* refer to -- not Chen's cigarette either, presumably, but
Chen himself? Or perhaps the player, who is not mentioned in the
sentence at all? We can work out what sort of scene we're probably
supposed to be imagining here, but it requires some unraveling of that
very first sentence.
This wasn't the only thing about the beginning that made it hard for me
to get immersed. I've never been to northern China, and I could have
used a few more elements of physical description to set up scene and
atmosphere. What're the road conditions like? What's the landscape?
Flat, mountainous? Dominated by huge abandoned steel mills from the
1950s industrial push? Rural, with the occasional house or farm? Empty
wasteland? Is it just cold, or is there snow or ice on the ground? What
does Chen look like? What is he wearing? For that matter, what am I
wearing? Not that we need to answer *all* of these questions by any
stretch. The author obviously did enough research to choose a specific
city for the protagonist to land in, but more sensory detail would have
helped flesh this out.
Finally, and perhaps worst, it took me a little while -- possibly
than the author intended -- for me to understand who and what the
protagonist is. There are hints in the cover art, I guess, but they're
not entirely clear. If I examine myself, I'm told I have "natural
weaponry", but there is no indication what that might be or how I might
find out. Result: I am reminded of the distance between myself and the
protagonist by the fact that she knows a bunch of important things that
I don't -- and have no way to explore. Attempts to look at myself, the
landscape, Chen, my outfit, my "natural weaponry", etc., aren't very
Well, all right. So after this stark beginning, I was not able to get
Chen to do anything, at first, and then READ FOLDER inexplicably
Tried again, now with more confined expectations. Managed to read the
folder, arrive in the village, and so on. Then found that most of the
puzzles seem to require a certain amount of reading the author's mind,
and that the walkthrough doesn't actually give the commands needed to
win, just a general description of what you ought to do. Which
unfortunately is not quite enough to get me through this one. Oh well.
I wish I liked this better than I do -- "Chinese werewolf story" should
be a fun departure from the usual fare, but unfortunately this is not
developed far enough for me to get into it. The setting is not very
rich; the werewolfiness is not very fully explored. In its favor, I do
like the fact that the player can do different things depending on
whether or not she has shifted into wolf form. Still, this could have
gone further and been more interesting. That interesting material could
have been revealed through puzzles, plot, or exploration, and it
wouldn't really have mattered to me which the author picked: I would
have enjoyed learning more about the PC's history and powers, or
more puzzles using her wolfiness, or having more plot events that
on the politics and behavior of the pack she meets. But as it was this
potentially novel premise was really underused.
The reason I've gone on about it so long is that I felt Carmen Devine
could have been so very much better than it was, and that possibly
were some neat details that remained languishing in the author's
imagination rather than making it into the game so I could see them
(Random aside: I can only remember one other IF game about a werewolf.
Does this comp really triple the existing corpus of werewolf IF?)
Managed to get rid of "her" by descending into the core and waiting.
Suspect from the hints that it is also possible to do other, more
complicated things, but never really got the hang of what I was
to be doing and how. I am told something way more interesting is
possible, so maybe I will try this again later. However, I think it is
major tactical blunder to have a trivially easy win-state that can
distract the player from the actual point of the game. The *author* may
know that that side path is just there as an easter egg of sorts, but
the player -- especially in a game like this where the goal, setting,
and even the nature of the PC are all completely mysterious at the
outset -- is likely to explore blindly and reach it by accident.
> Aunts and Butlers (7)
> This is the same problem I had with Hitchhiker's and Bureaucracy --
> amusing games, but not particularly *fair*.
I'm quite pleased with that. I *love* Hitchhiker's and Bureaucracy.
> In the case of Aunts and Butlers, I tried to get the zany solutions
> myself, but one of the early puzzles stumped me; when I looked at the
> answer, I realized it was something I would never ever have tried, and
> lost faith. So I played from the walkthrough for most of the game.
Quite a few people are saying this, and quite a few are saying they
liked the puzzles. Again, I think I'm happy with that.
> As homebrewed systems go, this was pretty decent, too. Missing just a
> few conveniences from other systems, but it didn't annoy me nearly as
> much as nonstandard IF systems usually do.
well aware that the established systems have better parsers and
community support, and I knew that using a 'homebrew' would lower both
my score and the quality of my game. But I think a web platform is the
best way to get more players from outside the community - "Click to
play" versus "Click to download a file in a format you don't recognise,
then click here and follow the instructions to install an
interpreter... you do know what an interpreter is, don't you?"
I know "outside the community" isn't the Comp audience.
If someone made a browser-based z- or TADS-machine that I really liked,
I'd probably switch. (I don't really like zplet or ZPPL.)
I sympathize with the motivation, at least.
> If someone made a browser-based z- or TADS-machine that I really liked,
> I'd probably switch. (I don't really like zplet or ZPPL.)
Oh? What would make for a browser-based z-machine that you did like? (I
don't have enough experience with the TADS equivalents to comment much
on that side of things.)
The ability to tinker directly with the DOM - so that the I/O of your
game can be through ordinary HTML elements, not clunky applet windows -
and save and restore to cookies. Save/restore to files on disk is
supposedly possible from browser apps using various forms of trickery,
but has too many security and cross-browser-friendliness problems.
Zplet and ZPPL both do it, both differently, neither perfectly.
There was talk on rec.arts.int-fiction a few months back of some
prototype called "Smeagol" that might be worth looking at. It wasn't
in deployable form by comp time, though.
As one of the beta-testers of Legion, I also ran into the core ending by
pure accident. I did tell the author that this ending seemed a bit too
easy to reach, and, in the original version of the game, too satisfying
compared with the other endings. The author added a lot more meat to the
other endings as a result, although apparently that wasn't enough. I was
sufficiently captivated by the premise and the unusual PC that I
*wanted* to find the other endings---I didn't think this would cause
some players to just move on instead.
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
Well, hm. I will probably still come back and play it again sometime,
especially since many people liked it. The thing is that I'd figured
out almost nothing of what was going on by the time I reached this
conclusion, and here I was being told that I'd succeeded. (At what?
Why? What happened? Huh?)
And at the same time I didn't really have any clear idea what *else* I
could have done, or have any other avenues I wanted to go back and try.
Sometimes when I finish a game, I have some idea of an alternate path
or choice I want to experiment with. This time I didn't. So I quit.
If I'd been beta-testing, on the other hand, I would certainly have
gone back and tried some more. Context of play makes a huge difference
to how things are received, and sometimes I find I like games that I
beta-test better than ones I play in regular release, just because I
approach them with a different attitude.
I've been thinking again about an AJAX-based Glk library. This would
allow Glulx, most Z-code, and text-mode TADS games to operate in a
Negatives: would require a server to operate the games, and every move
would be a round trip RPC request to the server. Not as speedy as
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Just because you vote for the Republicans, doesn't mean they let you be one.
> Elysium Enigma (8)
> Interesting story, though I got frustrated in a few spots about
> being able to confront Leela as directly as I wanted to.
That seems to have been a fairly widespread complaint. I'll try to
mitigate it a bit in the post-comp release. Any indications of when
and how people tried, or would like to have tried, to challenge
Leela would be most welcome (not least in the form of any annotated
transcripts anyone kept and would be willing to send me).
> The secret
> truths here were not especially shocking, I thought -- no vast
> that surprised me -- but I did enjoy uncovering what there was to
> uncover. (And I didn't end the game with full points, so it is
> that there was still more under the surface here that I just did
> ever get to.)
Indeed; the point is not to discover that Leela is up to something,
but to work out what she's up to and then prove it.
> The puzzles felt a bit old-school for the narrative, though
Another common complaint; I'm not sure there's a lot I can do to fix
it in EE, I'll just have to bear it in mind for any future work!
> doesn't really feel like the kind of 'verse where we ought to be
> catching trout with a conveniently sharp hook just in order to
> move a
> cat. Unless cats on this planet are much larger than they are on
> I'm usually able to dislodge even an unwilling one by force. So
> puzzles of that sort felt a bit forced.
> There were also several that
> were just too hard or guess-y: I would never have gotten the
> password without the hints,
Again this is seems to be a common complaint, so I'll have to see if
I can find a way to clue this one a bit better.
> nor would I have thought of CRAWL UNDER
> TARPAULIN as a plausible command.
Well, you didn't have to use that exact form of words. GO UNDER
TARPAULIN, GO THROUGH GAP, ENTER TARPAULIN and even a simple IN
would all have done the job at that point. Was there some obvious
phrasing you tried that didn't work? If so, please let me know so I
can add it.
> There were a couple of conventions I disliked. The exits command
> even the exits I have discovered are useless (like going outside
> borders of the town), and I found this distracting.
Hm. Is this a general view or a matter of taste, I wonder?
> I also found the
> room description in the center of town quite confusing, in that it
> suggested to me that I should go north, *then* east or west. Which
> was wrong.
Okay, I'll take another look at that room description and see if I
can make it clearer. A transcript I received suggests you may not be
the only one to find it a bit confusing, so thanks for pointing it
> On the other hand, Leela's interactions were very good. My least
> favorite moments are the ones where she feels a bit too
> automatic --
> the way you trick her seems too easy, and sometimes her behavior
> is too obviously dictated by the needs of a particular puzzle.
Again, should you have a transcript that illustrates this, I'd be
glad to see it (though I think I can guess some of the points you're
most probably referring to).
I'm glad this worked for you; it was, indeed, the main point of the
game (in the sense that the interaction between Leela and the PC was
the central conception around which the rest of the game was
constructed, within the setting I already had a back-story for). Of
course Leela is being rather obviously manipulated (though I
expected different players would come to this conclusion - or
rather, come to the conclusion that she wasn't entirely harmless -
at different points), but it's good to hear that her manipulations
worked almost better than I expected in your case!
One difficulty in creating the Leela NPC (the other major one being
keeping track of who knows what and when) is the constant danger of
player perception getting out of step with PC perception, when the
game can't read the player's mind to tell what his or her current
perception of Leela is (and I assumed that players would differ in
this). This clearly bothered some people more than others, and I'm
putting a few small tweaks in the post-comp release to try to
> But this game had a lot else going for it as well, including its
> extreme technical competence.
Thanks! And thanks too for a very nice review overall.
> > nor would I have thought of CRAWL UNDER
> > TARPAULIN as a plausible command.
> Well, you didn't have to use that exact form of words. GO UNDER
> TARPAULIN, GO THROUGH GAP, ENTER TARPAULIN and even a simple IN
> would all have done the job at that point. Was there some obvious
> phrasing you tried that didn't work? If so, please let me know so I
> can add it.
Ah, hm. At this point I think I was looking at hintage a fair amount,
for time reasons, so I believe what happened was that I didn't envision
that I needed to enter the tarpaulin at all (removing it seemed more to
the point); looked at the hints; saw this phrasing and thought ?!?.
I reconstruct, though; I don't have a transcript handy. But I think
that's how it went.
> > There were a couple of conventions I disliked. The exits command
> > lists
> > even the exits I have discovered are useless (like going outside
> > the
> > borders of the town), and I found this distracting.
> Hm. Is this a general view or a matter of taste, I wonder?
I'll have to let others weigh in on that. :)
> > On the other hand, Leela's interactions were very good. My least
> > favorite moments are the ones where she feels a bit too
> > automatic --
> > the way you trick her seems too easy, and sometimes her behavior
> > is too obviously dictated by the needs of a particular puzzle.
> Again, should you have a transcript that illustrates this, I'd be
> glad to see it (though I think I can guess some of the points you're
> most probably referring to).
I'm afraid not -- I sometimes keep transcripts, but I was playing this
on someone else's computer.
> One difficulty in creating the Leela NPC (the other major one being
> keeping track of who knows what and when) is the constant danger of
> player perception getting out of step with PC perception, when the
> game can't read the player's mind to tell what his or her current
> perception of Leela is (and I assumed that players would differ in
Yes, this is always a hard problem. I'm not sure how to solve it --
though in this case it was good that at least when I started to have
specific doubts I was allowed to follow up by doing some digging into
her story and background. I'm not sure how you'd introduce that at
exactly the right time in the dialogue, though.
After I had discovered the truth and gathered enough evidence to prove
it (though not quite everything there is) I decided that the proper
course of action was to take Leela back with me to the ship, where,
after I had told the captain everything, she would be imprisonned and
questioned as an enemy agent. When she refused to enter the shuttle my
first thought was to subdue her with physical force. Confronting her
and eliciting a confession seemed neither necessary or useful (she
might pull a weapon or commit suicide before she could be properly
restrained) and the "you wouldn't shoot/hit an innocent local without a
very good reason" was off putting since the character should have
reached the obvious conclusion by that point (reading two datatabs,
examining the comb and mallet handle, etc).
> I also found the
> > room description in the center of town quite confusing, in that it
> > suggested to me that I should go north, *then* east or west. Which
> > was wrong.
> Okay, I'll take another look at that room description and see if I
> can make it clearer. A transcript I received suggests you may not be
> the only one to find it a bit confusing, so thanks for pointing it
I also found it a bit difficult to parse. One of very few difficulties
in an otherwise excellently written game.
As an aside, as someone else said in another thread, I'd love to see
the static fiction set in this universe.
Cirk R. Bejnar
> After I had discovered the truth and gathered enough evidence to
> it (though not quite everything there is) I decided that the
> course of action was to take Leela back with me to the ship,
> after I had told the captain everything, she would be imprisonned
> questioned as an enemy agent. When she refused to enter the
> shuttle my
> first thought was to subdue her with physical force. Confronting
> and eliciting a confession seemed neither necessary or useful (she
> might pull a weapon or commit suicide before she could be properly
> restrained) and the "you wouldn't shoot/hit an innocent local
> without a
> very good reason" was off putting since the character should have
> reached the obvious conclusion by that point (reading two
> examining the comb and mallet handle, etc).
Thanks for this feedback. I've come up with a way of addressing some
of these points in the post-comp version (basically, by keeping a
score of what clues the PC has discovered, so that some responses
can be changed as the PC's suspicion score mounts), and also by
toning down the explicitness of one of the earlier clues so that the
player's perception is a bit less likely to run ahead of the PC's.
Certainly the course of action you thought of trying is an entirely
one under the circumstances. It may be that the changes I've put in
train will already cope with it a bit better, but I'll see if
there's anything else I can do.
> > I also found the
>> > room description in the center of town quite confusing, in that
>> > it
>> > suggested to me that I should go north, *then* east or west.
>> > Which
>> > was wrong.
>> Okay, I'll take another look at that room description and see if
>> can make it clearer. A transcript I received suggests you may not
>> the only one to find it a bit confusing, so thanks for pointing
> I also found it a bit difficult to parse. One of very few
> in an otherwise excellently written game.
Well, there's clearly a problem that needs fixing here, so I'll get
onto it. I don't know whether it's an issue that the room
description changes after the first time you see it (no one's
commented on this); I get the impression that it's the placing of
the buildings people are confused by,
> As an aside, as someone else said in another thread, I'd love to
> the static fiction set in this universe.
Well, I suspect the chances of it ever appearing in print are
roughly equal to those of my winning the National Lottery (without
buying a ticket). At least, I'm well aware of how difficult is to
get fiction published, and I'm also painfully aware that what I've
written so far just isn't up to the standard of most published
fiction. I had yet another go (the fourth or fifth? I'm losing
count) as re-writing _The Legacy of Relda_ (which would be the first
novel set in this universe) last summer, and then deliberately put
it to one side so that I could re-read it when it was no longer too
fresh in my mind for me to make a quasi-objective judgement on it
(and on what might need changing). I suppose it could get to the
point when I offered people electronic versions if I read it through
and didn't find it too cringe-worthy!