Re: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..


15 Sep 95 23:15:18 GMT

daedulus@eskimo.com (Erik Hermansen) writes:

>In article <4333qe$1fq@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>Adam J. Thornton <adam@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>...
>>A game should not require that every object have a use in the game. I'm
>>all for hideously detailed games that have a great many objects that have
>>no relevance to the game. Don't let the player get away with "I can pick
>>it up--it must be useful".
>...

>Exactly right. I would take it a step further and have more locations
>than should actually be visited. Think of how many locations there are
>in the real world that have absolutely no visitation value. You have to
>think about where you're going in real life to arrive at any place of
>interest.

I'd take a different approach to the same end: give most rooms *multiple*
uses. That takes care of the "checklist" approach to adventuring, and makes
for a much tighter and cohesive game. I think of Ballyhoo, where you were
constantly revisiting places to solve puzzles you didn't realize existed
on your first visit. Nice structure. As for the "realism" of this: if
you're worried about the geography being too densely packed with
relevance, make each location in the game represent a larger area.

I'm beginning to form a theory here, that locations should correspond to
areas of equal conceptual content, rather than equal size. Say, the
Closet and the Parking Lot are equally interesting - each containing two
or three things to poke at - even though the parking lot covers 100 times
the area. If, on the other hand, the parking lot is bare of detail, why
give it its own "room" at all? Just throw it into the description of a
larger area; make it, in essence, furniture. The content is the same,
it's just organized differently.

--
Carl Muckenhoupt | Is it true that Kibo habitually autogreps all of Usenet
baf@tiac.net     | for his name?  If so:  Hi, Kibo.  Like the sig?