Re: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..
Sun, 10 Sep 1995 15:35:59 -0400
owls@interport.net (J. I. Drasner) writes:
> In article <1995Sep8.233605.25903@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Sam Hulick"
> <shulick@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >Let's say you're playing a game, and you explore a place thoroughly (or
> >so you think). Then a few minutes later, you take a ship to another
> >country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
> >country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
> >without a few things? (i.e. a message prints "You get the odd feeling
> >you forgot something") Or would you rather be able to leave anyway, and
> >later find out you forgot an item or two, and restore an older game?
>
> How about a happy medium? Such as you get a warning, but you can choose to
> ignore it if you want, and another try will let you board the ship,
> whether or not you have the object.
Decide what kind of game you want to write, and stick to it.
I prefer games where there are no warnings -- no game-intrusive
warnings, that is. It's quite clear to me that if I get on a
commercial starliner, I may not be able to get off before it leaves;
that's how airplanes work, after all. And I don't mind the even harder
kind of game where you can stumble through one-way actions without any
warning, or even where you don't know until much later that you've
done so. By default, in fact, I assume any given game is of that type.
If you put in lots of warnings, chances are I won't enjoy your game
very much. It's just a matter of what kind of thing I like. If you
have a "warnings off" mode, I'll use it and have a better time.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."