Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!librik
From: librik@netcom.com (David Librik)
Subject: Re: Question to if-gamers
Message-ID: <librikD73on9.40z@netcom.com>
Organization: Icy Waters Underground, Inc.
References: <morbeus.309.0028F398@eskimo.com> <3mnlpi$8g2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 23:45:08 GMT
Lines: 48
Sender: librik@netcom17.netcom.com

morbeus@eskimo.com (Philip Dearmore) asks:

>Do you think it would be more enjoyable to have the freedom
>to take the dust bunnies, even though they have no use
>in the game?  Or would you rather that the game print
>something like "you don't have to worry about the 
>dust bunnies", thereby relinquishing you from worry 
>about whether you will have to use them at some time
>(especially if you have limited space in your
>inventory)?

I would say definitely go with the "you don't have to worry about the
dust bunnies" message.  This is a fairly important point in IF design.
If you give people the ability to manipulate something at all, they
naturally assume that they can do reasonable things with that stuff.
If you haven't then coded in dust-bunny manipulation routines, people
will feel surprised when they've "overstepped" the bounds of the game.

All games have inherent limitations and bounds of complexity.  It is
important to pick and enforce these bounds in your IF game.  Players
will quickly pick up, unconsciously, on what sort of things they "can"
and "cannot" do, and won't keep trying to do excessive things.

Look at the level of complexity in the Infocom games and in the
Unnkuulian Unventures.  In Zork, you were in a forest, but that
didn't mean you could pull leaves off the trees.  You couldn't
even examine leaves on trees.  You could tell when things were
important and when they weren't.  I don't remember ever being
annoyed that I couldn't tie something to the grate, or light the
carpet on fire, or examine most details of a room.  The UU games pick
another level of complexity -- in general, you can examine everything
that is mentioned in a room description.  Most of it is decoration,
but it is there.  You get used to looking at everything for keywords,
and doing a lot of EXAMINEs.  Dave Baggett's games are memory hogs
for that reason, but they do pick a certain level and stick faithfully
to it.

Now, when you go from playing UU2 back to Zork, there's a period when
you're really annoyed that you can't examine stuff or do things you
would expect from the later game.  But after not too long, you get used
to the limitations of the specific game, and you don't notice them anymore.
And since players adapt to whatever kind of adventure-world they're in
(people even enjoyed the Scott Adams adventures!) it's not necessarily
always better to just "add more depth."  CONSISTENCY of depth is far more
important!

- David Librik
librik@cs.Berkeley.edu
