Re: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..


Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:19:35 -0500

In article <4333qe$1fq@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, adam@flagstaff.princeton.edu
(Adam J. Thornton) 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".
>
>This, oddly, is something that works better in a graphical game like
>_Avarice_ than in a text adventure, where the necessity to enumerate each
>object would lead to absolutely unwieldy screens of text.

Or take, for example, the recently violently vilified game "Myst", which I
happened to enjoy immensely. (I didn't realize, by the way, that there was
a contest between Infocom and Myst going on. I happen to enjoy them both
at different times...but I digress...<g>) Very cool thing about that game
was all the totally "useless" little knickknacks lying around, many of
which had purposes -- meaning, you could play with them, but they had
absolutely nothing to do with solving the game. Provided lots of
atmosphere, and was realistic in the sense that, yes, not everything you
encounter is going to help you solve the game.

Loved Deadline's "plate of red herrings" (I first played this game before
I knew what the phrase "Red herring" meant), especially since those early
games had a tendency to make almost every object necessary for some
reason.

****************************************************
All done. Bye bye.
****************************************************
Guildenstern: He's -- melancholy.
Player: Melancholy?
Rosencrantz: Mad.
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can't help that, we're all mad here.
(From "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern in Wonderland")
****************************************************
Johanna "Joey" Drasner: owls@interport.net (Greenwich Village)
****************************************************