Infocom's Trinity Ending

[brian...@yahoo.com]

I finished Infocom's Trinity, and I was quite disappointed with the
ending. You go to all that work to stop the scientists from detonating
the Atomic Bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and when you sabotage the
bomb, the bomb still goes off, but in a less severe explosion, and you
end up back in London, and London is still going to be destroyed by
World War, and judging by the final screen of text, you are stuck going
in an infinite loop to sabotage the bomb, and you keep having to repeat
that, though you don't actually do that in the game. I expected that
after I sabotaged the Atomic Bomb, there wouldn't be a World War 3, and
London and everywhere else in the world would be safe from Atomic
Bombs. Trinity has a very grim ending, and I was very disappointed
with the ending.

Brian

[Daphne Brinkerhoff]

Spoilers here for Trinity... although that's pretty obvious from the
subject.

I took it to mean, if you *hadn't* done the sabotage, the actual
explosion would have been a lot worse and destroyed the world, so the
player actually accomplishes something, just not as much as one would
like. "Grim" is not inappropriate, but I prefer to call it "somber" or
"bittersweet".

--
Daphne

[there...@yahoo.com]

Hey!

Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!

Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.

What's the matter with you? You don't know how to put a warning and a
few blank lines in??

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Jerkass.

[Daphne Brinkerhoff]

there...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hey!
>
> Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!
>
> Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
> like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
> and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.
>
> What's the matter with you? You don't know how to put a warning and a
> few blank lines in??

While you're correct, of course, I can't help but wonder what you hoped
to learn from a thread titled "Infocom's Trinity Ending" except
spoilers for the ending.

--
Daphne

[The Wanderer]

Daphne Brinkerhoff wrote:

As I've seen independent discussions of on a number of newsgroups: not
everyone uses a newsreader which makes it possible (or, at least,
remotely convenient) to see the Subject line of a thread or post before
displaying the body of that post for reading. Spoiler space is a
necessity in polite society; mentioning spoilers in the Subject line is
never enough.

(Of course, to properly accomodate *all* newsreaders - including Google
Groups - one must make sure that *unquoted* spoiler space is included in
every reply which quotes a spoiler... because otherwise Google Groups
will elide the quoted spoiler space behind a cut link, and display the
spoily discussion for ready view. Personally I think there are limits to
what may be considered reasonable effort.)

This has been a half-asleep random etiquette bomb. You may feel free to
ignore me again now.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

[markm]

there...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!

You can't be serious. Trinity is how old, now?

> Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
> like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
> and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.

I take this to mean that it would be OK if we spoiled games you have no
intention of playing.

[Daphne Brinkerhoff]

The Wanderer wrote:
> Daphne Brinkerhoff wrote:
>
> > there...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Hey!
> >>
> >> Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!
> >>
> >> Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know
> >> I'd like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the
> >> shit of me) and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.
> >>
> >> What's the matter with you? You don't know how to put a warning
> >> and a few blank lines in??
> >
> > While you're correct, of course, I can't help but wonder what you
> > hoped to learn from a thread titled "Infocom's Trinity Ending" except
> > spoilers for the ending.
>
> As I've seen independent discussions of on a number of newsgroups: not
> everyone uses a newsreader which makes it possible (or, at least,
> remotely convenient) to see the Subject line of a thread or post before
> displaying the body of that post for reading. Spoiler space is a
> necessity in polite society; mentioning spoilers in the Subject line is
> never enough.

Thanks for mentioning this. I've been lucky enough never to encounter
a newsreader like that, so I didn't even imagine it was possible.
Given what you say, spoiler space seems absolutely required.

--
Daphne

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time markm wrote:

>there...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
>> like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
>> and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.
>
>I take this to mean that it would be OK if we spoiled games you have no
>intention of playing.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

**
Captain Infinity

[there...@yahoo.com]

Exactly the case with me -- Google Groups, first new thread, the whole
paragraph quoted. Thanks for saving me the explanation.

[there...@yahoo.com]

> there...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!

markm wrote:
> You can't be serious. Trinity is how old, now?

Old. And that makes . . . exactly what difference?

I've had the LTOI for about ten years. I'm not always in the mood for
IF. I like to save things up, best for last and all that. Regardless
of how old it is, it's poor etiquette to spoil an ending within a
single paragraph that gets quoted on the Google Groups page.

> > Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
> > like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
> > and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.
>
> I take this to mean that it would be OK if we spoiled games you have no
> intention of playing.

Sure. Go ahead and tell me how "BJ Drifter" comes out. But somebody
else might mind.

[brian...@yahoo.com]

I forgot to put in a Spoiler Space. I'm really sorry about that. From
now on, I'll remember to put in a Spoiler Space if I'm posting
spoilers. I promise this will never happen again. Please forgive me.

Brian

[Gene Wirchenko]

"markm" <mark.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

>there...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Thanks for the BLATANT SPOILER, buddy!
>
>You can't be serious. Trinity is how old, now?

It is newer than new for me. I have never played it.

>> Damn. One of the few Infocom games I've yet to play that I know I'd
>> like (as opposed to Starcross, which I'm sure will bore the shit of me)
>> and you go and ruin it in a single paragraph.
>
>I take this to mean that it would be OK if we spoiled games you have no
>intention of playing.

No, it expresses that because of the circumstances, his
disappointment is especially keen.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

[Urbatain]

I must say I LOVE that ending.

SPOILER!!!!!!

SPOILER!!!!!

Maybe you or I didn't understand the ending, but for my understanding
I stopped the bomb, but when returning to my time-space spot, ey! the
wabewalker must to work for the pace until his death because a
time-space paradox. The PJ must save the world again and again keeping
the pace with a constant effort. It's just a pretty beatifull
no-ending.

See you.

Urbatain.

[there...@yahoo.com]

Thanks for the apology, and I accept it!

I'm sure I'll still enjoy the game.