Re: 2 hour limit timing


31 May 1995 11:26:25 GMT

In article <3qaflo$qh0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Whizzard2 <whizzard2@aol.com> wrote:
>>I wondering, since we are supposed to have our game solvable in
>>2 hours, what is a good way to tell how long it would take to beat
>>a game? None of my friends/family have any interactive fiction
>>experience, and I'm lousy at telling how hard a puzzle is going to
>>be. Normally I would simply have a couple people test the thing, but
>>since this is a competition I won't really be able to use enough
>>people.
>
>Well, personally, I think that if you write a game that a total IF newbie
>can finish in under 2.5 hours, you're in good shape. Just try to
>guesstimate,
>and if you aren't sure, guess on the low side.

The problem is, of course, that a complete newbie may very well
require 2 hours for a problem that the author may consider trivial...
Still, I like the idea of a time limit. Maybe it would help if the
gentle readers of r.a.i-f could contribute some hints on what they
think makes a game quick to solve?

Of course, we run the risk of the time limit leading to authors
writing trivial games (like the infamous "Detective", where you don't
really have any puzzles to solve :-)), but I think the way to go is
_not_ to make the game an easier version of a traditional adventure game,
but to make it more concentrated and "cleaner". SOme ideas of my own
(which may or may not be totally off the mark):

* Keep the geography simple. Exploring is fun, but takes time.
Twisting passages and rooms with unexepceted geography (such as where
you go north and enter a new room via the eastern exit) have their
uses but will confuse the player.

* DOn't hide information inside long passages of purple prose.
Verbosity and long descriptions are certainly not wrong, but they
should only be necessary to read once; the player should be able to
find any vital information without wading through pages of text. A
good idea is, for example, to end a long room descriptionsby listing
the obvious exits (or perhaps putting them on the status line).

* Avoid unnecessary manipulation of everyday objects. One of my major
gripes with most Infocom games is that you have to explicitly open and
close doors all the time. The default behaviour of the TADS library is
much nicer: trying to walk through a closed door will assume that you
open it first. Also, try to avoid situation where one has to "Open
knapsack. Take wand. Aim wand at wizard. Zap wand. Put wand in
knapsack. Close knapsack." all the time, unless, of course, it's
motivated by the plot.

* Keep the plot simple. In a game this size, a linear plot is more of
an advantage than a liability.

* Don't fill the game with semi-trivial puzzles of the type "find the
hidden key to open the door". These are easy, true, but in most cases
they add absolutely nothing to the game.

* Make it obvious what is a puzzle and what isn't. In a longer game,
you can afford to let the player find out himself (herself) what he's
supposed to do, but in a short game you should at least nudge the
player in the right direction (which is, of course, _not_ the same as
giving anything away).

* Another way of putting the last point is that the player should not
be given a lot of possible roads of action, only one of which is the
correct one, but either only one possible action should be reasonable
(the others being quickly identifiable as false leads) or they should
all be possible solutions to the problem. The topology of the solution
should be kept as simple as the geography, or the player will spend
too much time exploring blind alleys.

* Better to have just one or two moderately difficult puzzles rather
than ahving lots of immediately obvious ones.

* Avoid unnecessary decorations and objects that are there just to provide
atmosphere (this is not to say that there should be no such
devices, just that they should be recognizable as such). Remember
Chekhov's (or was it Gogol's?) words: "If there's a gun hanging on the
wall, it'd better be fired before the end of the story" (quoted from
memory). It goes without saying that you shouldn't deliberately put in
red herrings.

>>Or maybe I'll just say 'heck with it' and let it take as long as it
>>takes. Would anyone _really_ have a problem if it took more than two
>>hours to finish?
>
>No, but the judges will be asked to rate the game after 2 hours have
>passed.

May I suggest a slight modification: the judges are asked not to rate
the game until 2 hours have passed (unless they solve it in less than
that time). After two hours, they may choose to continue, or they may
quit and rate it immediately. It's left to their own discretion if
they want to let the time needed to solve the game be reflected in the
ratings.

Finally, just one more question: it's been suggested that entries be
anonymous. I don't really see any need for that, but if they are to
be, someone must keep track of who submitted what. I don't like
totally anonymous entires; it's better to make them pseudonymous in
that case, i.e. each author writes under a pseudonym and the
pseudonyms are managed by someone. In that case, who should do that?

Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se) / yacc computer club, Lund, Sweden
Work: Innovativ Vision AB, Linkoping (magnus.olsson@ivab.se)
Old adresses (may still work): magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@selund.bitnet
PGP key available via finger (to df.lth.se) or on request.