Opinions please....?
MoonHaze
worthy of making public, I am trying to determine what most of you look for
in a game.
I was wondering what your opinions were about long descriptions. I mean, do
you guys prefer some sort of interesting response when you examine an
object, even if that response is irrelevant to the game's solution. Or do
you think it's better to restrict these to real clues etc.?
Personally, I hate those 'fob off' responses, but I am not writing the game
for myself.
Any opinion appreciated. Thanks in anticipation.
Gadget
I like to see as much interactivity in a game as possible. Which, for
me, means that everything that is mentioned should at least produce an
interesting response upon EXAMINation. And the more oddball verbs the
game accepts, the better. I know (form experience) this can be a
hassle to code. But the better the responses, the more enjoyment I get
from playing.
Now, as for the length of descriptions:
<opinion>
If your descriptions are all of the "You are in a room. You can go
west and east" variety, this is definitively not fun to play. Adding
details to the scenery, even if they have no 'proper' function in the
game can enhance the atmosphere greatly.
If, on the other hand, you need two pages of text to describe a room,
there might be something wrong, too. You don't want to swamp the
player in detail unless it is vital to the game. And even then: try to
avoid making every room description a lecture and provide the
information in a more interactive way. By examining the objects in a
room the player can get small doses of info and feel much more
involved, since he has discovered the information, rather then having
it forced upon him.
Trying to find a balance between a telegraph message and two page
essays is something every writer has to find for himself.
Which brings me to my last (and possibly most important) point:
Try to create a game YOU would like to play yourself. If you start
designing things for others which you loathe yourself, you WILL give
up and stop coding. If you are not making it interesting for yourself,
your audience will not be interested either.
-------------
It's a bird...
It's a plane...
No, it's... Gadget?
-------------------
To send mail remove SPAMBLOCK from adress.
MoonHaze
I took your comments on board and will design any game with those points in
mind.
> Try to create a game YOU would like to play yourself. If you start
> designing things for others which you loathe yourself, you WILL give
> up and stop coding. If you are not making it interesting for yourself,
> your audience will not be interested either.
Guess I'd better clarify. I was trying to point out that I was aware that
writing an adventure for myself wouldn't really be much point as I would
know all the solutions. Yes, I can make it interesting from my aspect, and
therefore it would be more enjoyable to me. However, there's not much point
of going to all the effort of desiging if it's just going to gather
cyber-dust on some server. So obviously, a kind of market research is needed
to find out what other's prefer. Then I guess, the hard part is going to
encourage others to play it, but that's a bridge to cross in the future.
Much appreciate your time and effort to respond - thanks again.
Cedric Knight
> I was wondering what your opinions were about long descriptions. I
mean, do
> you guys prefer some sort of interesting response when you examine an
> object, even if that response is irrelevant to the game's solution.
Or do
> you think it's better to restrict these to real clues etc.?
I like the quote from Adam Cadre in a recently mentioned PC Gamer
article:
'...you'll have to put in other sources of interest and motivation
before players will find [your game as interesting as you do].... just
giving the player a goal isn't enough. The experience of achieving that
goal should be rewarding. Every diegetic piece of text should have
something to recommend it: a joke, a bit of imagery or a character
insight. Something.'
By 'diegetic' I guess is meant to do with the story as opposed to
puzzles. If it's functional, fair enough; if it's ornamental, it should
be good or else players may even mistake it for functional (a red
herring). Better still to be both functional and aesthetic.
[To aid your 'market research': I like conceptual horror, satire,
consistently worked out scenarios and historical or scientific
plausibility, literate and allusive prose, a sense of mystery or that
something unexpected is going to work itself out (a twist), some
emotional involvement, interesting ideas... the usual ]
HTH
CK
MFischer5
>worthy of making public, I am trying to determine what most of you look
>for in a game.
>Personally, I hate those 'fob off' responses, but I am not writing the game
>for myself.
I want the author to sell me on their world, their character(s) and their
plot/story/puzzles. If the author doesn't believe in these, and the way they
are presented, then why should I?
I don't mean to be flippant - I just think it's a big mistake to try to write
to please others on such basic things... especially in IF where you can spend
several hundred hours, creating something played by half that many people,
liked by a few dozen, and reviewed by less than a handful.
My advice: Listen to your betatesters but please yourself, that way you know at
least ONE person will think it's worth a 10. :)
Kathleen - as for the length of the descriptions... it depends on your writing
style and the kind of game it is (compare and contrast AdVerbum and
DangerousCurves)
jibi
1 - Love your work.
2 - Love your readers.
JB
mfis...@aol.com (MFischer5) wrote in message news:<20030205012217...@mb-ff.aol.com>...
MoonHaze
everything you say.
============ FRAS ===============
"....he's the Son of God..."
"And that's Sagittarius, is it?"
--------Monty Python's Life Of Brian
Jessica Knoch
> I was wondering what your opinions were about long descriptions. I mean,
do
> you guys prefer some sort of interesting response when you examine an
> object, even if that response is irrelevant to the game's solution. Or do
> you think it's better to restrict these to real clues etc.?
You've gotten some good stuff from other people, but if all you want is an
answer to your direct question, here's mine.
I like seeing lots of text to describe any object, with the possible
exception of scenery items that can be described rather broadly (but still
verbosely). If I can pick an item up, I want to read all about it. Here are
three reasons:
First, it always helps to get a sense of what an object actually *is.* If,
for some odd reason, someone doesn't know what a "wireless" is (to take an
example from Curses!), describing it as "It's just a wireless." isn't going
to help. Scads of text, describing its color, size, shape, texture, etc, do
help.
Second, the more writing in your game, the better sense of immersion for me
as a player (qualifier: this is true 95% of the time). It's how I get a feel
for the personality of your writing. Of course, terse descriptions give
their own personality, but "You see nothing special about <the noun>" does
*not.* Writing more gives the author a chance to show off.
Third, and most important to me, more words to read = more fun to play
(again, about 95% of the time). I play text adventures because I like text.
I always set my games to verbose, even when the room descriptions are long.
If you have interesting descriptions of items, I will enjoy the game more.
Well, that's my three cents, anyway. I should mention that it's possible to
go overboard with descriptions: too much of a good thing, etc. :-)
--
Jess K.
Wesley Clifford
"jibi" <ji...@le-kaki.com> wrote in message
news:32b1e61d.03020...@posting.google.com...
> Two Asimov rules :
>
> 1 - Love your work.
> 2 - Love your readers.
3 - Profit!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
To add something concrete to this discussion, my personal favorite 'Fob off'
response is the running gag. If you don't know what a running gag is, here's
an example:
Turn 54: Ex pie
It appears to be a cheese and jalapeno pie. Yuck.
Turn 173: Open box
In the box is a cheese and jalapeno pie.
Turn 590: Wave Magic Wand
The arrow flying at you turns into a cheese and Jalapeno pie! Better start
practicing soon or you'll never become a sorcerer!
---
Basicly, the running gag is something that is anywhere from mildly amusing
to downright difficult, risen to the depths of absurditiy due to simple
repitition. My example lacks something, but you get the idea (I hope)
Neil Cerutti
_Unkulia Underworld_ games are filled with running gags; such
things do eventually get tiresome, but they have a surprising
endurance, in my experience.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Gadget
Good example of a running gag: The Ravenous Bugblatterbeast of Traal.
I consider it a *must* to include running gags in a humorous game. Not
only do I personally love a good running gag, but it also helps to
create consistency in your writing (yes, seriously).
But writing a good running gag is hard. So is humor in general. Don't
make jokes because you think 'serious writing' is more difficult. It's
not. There is nothing worse then a text which wants to be funny but
isn't.
This all my personal opinion... YMMV.
Jaap van der Velde
Hi Moonhaze,
Personally, I like the game to be brief at first, with more
information upon further examination. For example:
>x table
The table is a simple wooden kitchen table. On the table is
a vase.
>x wood
The kitchen table is made of Mexican Pine with a thin wax
layer.
>x wax
The wax has been applied to the table to protect the wood.
>x legs
One of the kitchen table's legs is slightly short than the
other, making it slightly unbalanced.
etc.
That last one might be interpreted as a 'clue' to some sort
of puzzle, depending on the kind of game the object appears
in. You'll want to avoid that, as I think was pointed out
by one of the other posters.
An other aspect that makes the "x legs" response special is
that the legs weren't mentioned anywhere in the previous
descriptions. I like it when a game offers responses for
more than just the objects it sums up itself. On the other
hand, you'll want to avoid 'hiding' plot- or puzzle-critical
objects in this manner.
Although I like the style I described, I do realise it's
usually a lot more work to put together, especially when
the descriptions offer a bit of an exploration. (for
instance, the wax might not be accessible until discovered)
Consider the same kitchen:
>x sideboard
On the marble slate of the sideboard is an opened jar with
a piece of cloth dropped next to it.
>x jar
The jar reads: "Table wax" and judging by the smell, you
think it is.
>x wax
Now I don't want "Which do you mean, the table wax or the
wax on the table". Assuming I have examined the table yet,
the wax on the table should be hidden, so you'd have to do
a lot of moving stuff in and out of scope.
Which brings me to one of my own biggest problem in writing
descriptions: the context in which queries from the player
are interpreted. But I guess that's a different topic
altogether.
Just one more piece of advice on writing descriptions.
Whichever you choose: long or short descriptions, be
consistent in the type of description you use. Don't start
out your game with detailed descriptions which taper off to
"it's a table" as the game progresses. I think the better
games are the games in which I am unable to tell which
piece of it was written first.
Grtz,
JAAP.