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


21 Sep 1995 00:51:56 -0400

In article <43mc9m$jds@nic.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson <mol@marvin.df.lth.se> wrote:
>
>2) Interactive literature. Every author should think about economy.
>The reader doesn't want to bother with pointless complications. The
>reader wants a story, a plot, a mood. Every room and every object in
>your game should have a purpose in advancing the plot, contributing to
>the atmosphere, or whatever.
[...]

>3) A game.
>From the pure game-play viewpoint, your extra rooms might simply be
>considered as red herrings. Put yourself in the player's shoes: do you
>actually think it's enjoyable to examine a lot of empty rooms and
>useless items that the author put there just to make the whole thing
>more realistic?

Absolutely!

>Or would you prefer some action, some actual problems
>to solve?

Not at all. I get the feeling I'm in the minority of IF-players, but
I much prefer the exploring element of the games I've played to the
puzzles. So much so, in fact, that I often find myself giving up a
game as soon as the first really difficult puzzle comes along, because
it has lost its appeal.

I'm glad IF-writers have taken to putting detailed, well-written
descriptions of the rooms in their games; I tried a "Scott Adams" one
once and I couldn't stand it, all one-word descriptions and nothing
for the imagination to go on.

"Empty" rooms, then, are great, as long as they're not literally
empty. If they're clearly put in for atmosphere and are carefully
described, they'll be interesting without being frustratingly
nonproductive. It's a bit irritating playing a game and knowing that
at every stage, something is expected of you -- I enjoy just wandering
around.

- Carrie O'Grady
<wogrady@epas.utoronto.ca>