Re: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..
15 Sep 1995 05:07:53 GMT
In article <DEvDHq.FDD@eskimo.com>, Erik Hermansen <daedulus@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <4333qe$1fq@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>Adam J. Thornton <adam@flagstaff.princeton.edu> 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".
>...
>
>Exactly right. I would take it a step further and have more locations
>than should actually be visited. Think of how many locations there are
>in the real world that have absolutely no visitation value. You have to
>think about where you're going in real life to arrive at any place of
>interest.
Oh dear. Another case of simulation vs storytelling, methinks. IMO, having
the sort of excess rooms you're talking about here would be a big mistake.
Why? Well, this ain't real life. It's a game. Assuming we're trying to do
more than just slap a bunch of puzzles together, the author generaly wants to
create a mood for the game. Putting in excess rooms in a game has the same
effect as putting unnecessary words in a sentence -- the main point of the
thing is lost under the deluge of extras.
[..]
>-----------------------------------------Erik Hermansen (daedulus@eskimo.com)
--
------------------------------------------------+--------------
The Grim Reaper ** scythe@u.washington.edu |
Dan Shiovitz ** shiov@cs.washington.edu | Aude
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Sapere
_Music of the Spheres_ : Coming Nov '95 |
------------------------------------------------+--------------