>Casper Kvan Clausen (kvan@diku.dk) wrote:
>> 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!
Of course.
>> 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.
As you may see in another post, I didn't mean to kill Black. Simply knock it
unconscious, which would be a perfectly good solution to the problem. Besides,
it'd allow solving the problem without killing anyone.
What I mean by this whole thing is that most authors simply neglect considering
the uses of violence in one form or another.
Kluf,
Kvan.
-- kvan@diku.dk (Casper Kvan Clausen) | Yes. Thank you, naive human. Now I can | finish taking over the world! | http://www.diku.dk/students/kvan/ | - Purple Tentacle