Re: Superfluous rooms (was: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..)


25 Sep 1995 09:40:50 GMT

In article <DF7EpA.K7K@eskimo.com>, Erik Hermansen <daedulus@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <43mc9m$jds@nic.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson <mol@marvin.df.lth.se> wrote:
>>I think you'll have to think about what you're trying to create:
>
>Really it'd be just a gimmick.
>
>These generated places aren't intended to be visited. But they would be
>just detailed enough that if the player entered into one it might take
>some effort to figure out it was a nowhere place to be. The player would
>be forced to pay attention to clues that would guide him to useful locations.

Well, if that's what you want, fine. My point is that eveyrthing in a
game should serve a purpose (if only to make the player laugh, or feel
ill at ease in a huge, uninhabited world, or whatever). Addidng rooms
to add atmosphere is OK, since they serve a purpose. What you should
avoid is adding rooms just because your game tkaes place in a very
large world.

>No, it wouldn't add much to the game at all. It's just a different way
>of making a game world seem larger than it actually is and handling the
>irrelevant areas of a game.

You may of course want to ask yourself if a game should really contain
any "irrelevant" areas. Or, perhaps, once you start doing something
about them, they cease being irrelevant?