That's why reasonable containers should be used -- to prevent frustrating
inventory management.
: My suggestion is this: if you have an object which a player needs in
: order to solve a puzzle after passing the point of no return, provide a
: replacemnt object at the destination. If I missed that thimble on Mars,
: then give me an oddly-shaped nutshell on Venus. If I really should have
: picked up that graduated cylinder in Australia, then give me a measuring
: cup in America (hence adding the new puzzle of metric conversion!).
This is a good system in certain circumstances, but...
[WARNING! SPOILER FOR "ENCHANTER" FOLLOWS]
What if you're dealing with a truly unique item, such as the Guncho spell in
Enchanter? You can't very well provide _another_ one right in Krill's tower,
can you?
In my current project, there are a number of unique items, as well as others
that have adequate substitutes. You have to look at each item individually.
: But "You might want to save now?" I say no. Sounds like a cop-out. Put
: that little extra effort into your design and leave frustration to the
: puzzles rather than repetition.
It's only a cop-out if it could be fixed by revising the game, which often
is not the case. For example, in my game, I've got one location that can
only be visited once, since the means of getting there vanishes. This is
necessary for the puzzle to make sense, so I can't just allow another method
of getting in. So I use "warning mode," which allows a player to choose if
he/she wants to be informed of such situations.
-- C.E. Forman ceforma@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Read the I-F e-zine XYZZYnews, at ftp.gmd.de:/if-archive/magazines/xyzzynews! * Interactive Fiction * Beavis and Butt-Head * The X-Files * MST3K * C/C++ *