> I know I'm not the only one who's fed up with 'Violence isn't the answer to
> this one.'
A more apposite message is nicer.
> Why not let players do what they like, and then take the consequences?
Because you could smash anything, and implementing a broken version of
each object isn't fun!
> E.g. in Christminster, one might kill the porter and thus be able to climb
> the fence.
It'd be fun, but... could you kill the porter, anyway, practically speaking?
> Similarly, in Jigsaw, one should be able to knock out Black to prevent
> himher shooting. It would be simple, yet effecient. In fact a slick way of
> solving the problem.
Kinda kills a lot of the rest of the game too though. :-) The problem is that
a major alternative like this would introduce a lot of other problems both for
the player and the author, and the player might well kill Black, then spend
the rest of the game trying to work out what to do to get away with it. It
introduces a major plotline the author didn't want to explore; if we allowed
all of these, no-one would ever finish a game, I fear.
BCNU, AjC