HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu (Nathan Glasser)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Organization: MIT LCS, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:24:58 GMT

I played a text adventure game within the last few months which had no
score in it. It was called Enchanted Castle. I won't say what I thought of it,
but in the game, you had 3 goals: To escape from the castle, to rescue the
princess, and to destroy the castle. The first was the only real requirement
to end the game, but the other two were required to "win".

In article <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>But here's a more realistic thought:  How about having a score but
>never telling the player what the maximum is?  Then die-hard gamers
>would have the added challenge of actually determining what the maximum
>possible score *is*.  (Even the game author might not know unless s/he
>bothered to check all the score increments for mutual exclusivity!) The
>more I think about this, the more I like it.

This reminds me of the Super-NES game "Super Mario World". (I played this
on a friend's system last month).

I'm not sure whether the game had a score or not, but someone can probably
supply that information. The similarity is that there is a single objective of
the game, which is to kill off a certain creature in order to rescue a
princess, but there are other things going on. There are all these different
"worlds" and "exits" from the worlds. Many of the worlds have alternate
exits which sometimes lead to new worlds (and sometimes not). The alternate
exits are sometimes difficult to find in the worlds where they are located, and
often hard to use once found.

The game keeps a count of all the different exits that are used. The number
that exist is quite a lot more than the number needed to actually complete the
rescue objective. It doesn't tell you how many the maximum is, though I think
it does indicate when you've found all the exits in some way, so the number
is known "on the street" through information passing among players, magazines,
etc. I think it is fair to say that some players, after completing the
objective, continuing playing the game for weeks afterwards just to go
through all the exits.

This seems completely pointless to me. (Please, no flames from NES fans.)
Games, in general, may not have a point from some points of view, but this
really seemed like a waste of time. If a text adventure game had such a
feature... I think it would not be desirable. After completing the objectives
of the game, I can't see any reason to keep playing it when there might not
even be anything more to do... At least a known fixed maximum score lets you
know this. Or a fixed set of objectives known to the player, even if some of
them are minor.
--
				Nathan Glasser
fnord				nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu,mintaka!brokaw!nathan
YP-17				Nate on IRC
Beware the DDG!
Xref: sparky rec.arts.int-fiction:636 rec.games.programmer:3416
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:25:42 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction

dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:

>I'm looking for some input regarding how people think having a score
>affects gameplay.  

There is, IMO, one BIG drawback with scoring:

	It encourages cheating.

        Often, when a "puzzle" is solved, the player might not be aware 
just HOW important it was... or not.  eg. If I get the egg and I get a
score increase of 1000 points, I'm not likely to just eat the egg
straight away, am I!  Also, if I meet a wandering Glimblewop, I'll save
the game, give the egg to the Glimblewop (who will eat it, since I read
earlier in the game "Glimblewops will eat anything and everything, and
never give you anything in return"), if I get some points, I'll be
happy, otherwise, I will think "oh well, that clue was right", and
restore the game.  That's CHEATING.  If I didn't heed the warning, then
serves me right - I shouldn't find out my mistake until the Great
Knoblemairn asks if I have brought the beginings of life into his
Court.  

Of course, I SHOULD find out my mistake (not just wander aimlessly while
the Knoblemairn just ignores me).

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /      void (if removed)
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:34:16 GMT

In article <3972@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> luit1@info.win.tue.nl writes:
>Designing a program to fit this scoring mechanism, would lead to a
>'programmed instruction' type of game in case of (text)adventures. As a
>result most of the program would not be played in a single session.
>This has a certain appeal, right ?

Everyone so far seems to have accepted this without comment.  But the
more I think about it, the more I become skeptical that an
"ultra-realistic" game like that would actually make a good text
adventure.  From an artistic standpoint such a game would actually be a
lot more primitive, since it would (by the descriptions given) be
totally picaresque.  If you (the player) can just wander around
anywhere and do anything then *yeah*, it's more realisitc, but it's
also *plotless* and, some will surely aruge, *pointless*.

I suppose optimally you'd have the best of both worlds:

1. You can wander around anywhere you want in a huge game world.
2. All around there are plotted sequences you can follow.  E.g., you
   can choose to take the northern road into town and explore the old
   haunted mansion (for a whole game), OR you can take the eastern road
   into the wilderness and mess around with the wood sprites (for a
   whole game), OR you can go south an run into Urk the Megaolls' Tower
   of Doom (for a whole game), etc.

The problem here is that the author really has to code N complete
adventures, where N is the number of possible paths that can be taken.
To put it more in perspective, one could fold all the Unnkulian games
into a single, monstrous adventure.  (For that matter, one could
fold all the Infocoms into a single monstrous adventure.) 

I suspect that when it comes down to it people prefer to play a game
that is plotted and has its own settings, characters, and lore.
Computer generation of these things is out of the question (we've got
nowhere near the AI to do that), so were left with a human being doing
all of it; hence the dearth of "go anywhere, do anything" games.

And from a pragmatic standpoint, would you *really* rather wait 5
years for your next (incredibly huge) text adventure, or would you
rather have a new one every six to eight months?

Dave Baggett
-- 
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@wam.umd.edu * Compu$erve: 76440,2671 * GEnie: [coming soon]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
From: roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Roar Foshaug)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:02:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
|> General comments about the thread:
|> 
|> You guys are killing me here!  There have been so many good arguments
|> on all sides of the scoring issue that I'm now even more undecided
|> than before!
|> 

heh heh heh  :-)

|> The theory that having multiple solutions to a single problem makes the
|> game more realistic is interesting.  I don't think it's been really
|> tested to date.  Can anyone think of a text adventure where many
|> puzzles can be solved in several ways?

Well, simply by allowing different tools to be used for the same things, the
player will can choose between different routes though the game collecting
different tools. Mostly, such multi-solutions to puzzles will only be spotted
by the player afterhand, when the game has been played over again with
different choices (ignoring the fact that most players will work on a
number of saved versions of the game, trying new solutions to earlier saved
ones and so on)...

And of course, multi-solutions may be so simple as the player going up
or down at some (one-way ?) point in the 'landscape'.

|> Dave Baggett
|> -- 
|> ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
|> dmb@wam.umd.edu * Compu$erve: 76440,2671 * GEnie: [coming soon]

Roar

-- 
Roar Foshaug                                      (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no)
Department of Computer Science
University of Tromsoe                             'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex
N-9000 TROMSOE, NORWAY                            'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
From: cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.)
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:31:48 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. 
Baggett) writes:
> I've been working on _The Legend Lives!_, a science fiction text
> adventure set in the Unnkulian Universe, and I've come to believe that
> score may not be such a great thing to have in a text adventure.  I'm
> looking for some input regarding how people think having a score
> affects gameplay.

Most of the collect-the-treasure-type games gave points for collecting 
treasures and storing them somewhere, and some bonuses for doing some deeds.
They didn't actually give points for solving the puzzle's themselves. Example:
in adventure you didn't get any points for oiling the rusty gate, just getting 
the trident beyond. Zork 3 used this method. The score was out of seven, one 
point for each of the items you needed to pass the Dungeon Master. You could 
actually have full points and not have solved the entire game.

Infocom's Moonmist for a score stated what the player has done and yet to do.
Example:
      > SCORE
      You have meet all the guests and heard about the treasure hunt but 
      have yet to solve any of the clues or find the ghost.
That would be quite hard to implement in a true non-linear game.

Recognition of progress is important. I personally think that you should award
points for information type puzzles and let the player use that information in 
other plays of the game, thus making it possible to solve the game without all 
the points. You should definitely not say the player cheated in the score 
response as it will alienate the player. However feel free to put a little 
"tongue in cheek" comment in at the time the player uses the information.

Someone else had the idea of an object in the game giving progress "an acme
progress meter". I actually quite like that idea.

Be seeing you,

Brendon Wyber                     Computer Services Centre,
b.wyber@csc.canterbury.ac.nz      University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
From: steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Top Changwatchai)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:03:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.78150
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug17.032907.27439@avernus.com> mgfrank@avernus.com (Marc G. Frank) writes:
>
>This brings up another point.  Does anyone else think mazes in games are
>a Bad Thing?  For me, nothing detracts from my enjoyment of a game more
>than a maze.  Of course, nearly every (or perhaps all of them; I say
>"nearly" in case I've simply forgotten one) text adventure I've played
>has had a maze.
>
>I can play games without mapping them -- except for that damned ObMaze.
>Mazes aren't fun, they're just irritating.
>
>Is there any reason you designers out there keep including mazes except
>tradition?  Does anyone think they add to the playability of a game?
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Marc G. Frank                                  mgfrank@avernus.com |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

I think there was a maze discussion here a while back (though I missed it).
My view (and probably that of lots of people) is that the traditional maze
has been done to death.  A maze should either fit with the theme of the game
or offer a new twist (or preferably both).  A prevalent strategy for
solving the standard all-rooms-alike maze (the method I use, at least) is to
drop objects in the rooms to distinguish between them; this is pretty
mechanical, and thus not very fun.  (In fact, I solve large arbitrary mazes
with a chart of rooms and directions instead of directed graphs.)  A standard
twist on this traditional maze is to not allow players to drop items; for
instance, the maze could be in a swamp where dropped items sink in the mud.

I tend to like the mazes that aren't really mazes, like the one in Zork III
where you move the walls around, or the one in Enchanter where you can change
the passageways.  Right now I'm designing a "maze" where the architecture of
the place is the key to solving it.  Does anybody else have neat maze
variants, or further comments?

Top



-- 
steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"I'm gonna live forever or die trying."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventure
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:00:03 GMT

exuhag@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>>Incidentally, the less linear the game (I feel) the more challenging and fun
>>it is to play, as well as design.
>
>As do most people reading this group, I would assume. Unfortunately, linearity
>seems to be rather popular these days and the buying public doesn't have many
>complaints. (IMO linearity replaces fun with frustration--get to a puzzle, get
>stuck, hit computer, sleep on it, continue.)

Actually one of the biggest criticisms of UU2 has been that it's *not*
totally linear, and hence is much harder.  If you have one puzzle right
after another your "solution space" is much smaller, and on top of that
you alway know exactly which puzzle to work on when.  If you've got
10 puzzles still unsolved, how do you know which to work on next?  Unless
the puzzles are totally independent of one another, there will be some
required solution order.  (Of course, a completely strict ordering
makes the game linear.  Linear but hard.)

My conclusion is that you can't make everyone happy.  (What an insight.)

Dave Baggett
-- 
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@wam.umd.edu * Compu$erve: 76440,2671 * GEnie: [coming soon]
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:41:10 -0400 
From: "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Mazes (was Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
	<1992Aug17.032907.27439@avernus.com>

mgfrank@avernus.com (Marc G. Frank) writes:
> This brings up another point.  Does anyone else think mazes in games are
> a Bad Thing?  For me, nothing detracts from my enjoyment of a game more
> than a maze.  Of course, nearly every (or perhaps all of them; I say
> "nearly" in case I've simply forgotten one) text adventure I've played
> has had a maze.
> 
> I can play games without mapping them -- except for that damned ObMaze.
> Mazes aren't fun, they're just irritating.

It's time once again to quote from the seminal anonymous document,
ADV.DOC (which you can obtain via anonymous FTP from
msdos.archive.umich.edu in the ARC archive msdos/games/textadv/tess.arc)

##########
Locations
---------
- No illogical mazes, mixed-up directions, or un-mappable locations
    - A maze should be a real maze, not a set of impossible-to-map rooms.
    - Even if the adventure consists of independent sets of locations,
      there should still be a logical layout to the map.

- No empty or useless rooms
    - A location just for the sake of completeness may add to the theme,
      but from the player's point of view it is disappointing.
    - This is especially true if the descriptions of the rooms are short,
      since for long descriptions the location can significantly add to the
      mood and feel of the adventrue.
##########

It has been discussed in this group before and decided that the true
complaint is with non-returning exits, meaning situation where you go,
say, west through a door and with no warning are now unable to go east
(the opposite direction) to return to your previous location.

Situations can still be developed that are "mazy" but much more
satisfying by such means as (a) giving accurate warnings when
connectivity becomes confusing, such as the descriptions of how the
hallways curve near the river and dam in Zork I, or (b) having a real
maze which has true returning exits and gives an intellectual challenge
rather than a grunt-work challenge, such as the glass maze in Sorcerer.

It's quite clear that deliberately unmappable mazes are no longer the
state of the art and a sign of Infocom's greatness that they realized so
early that determining the map was not the true puzzle and produced
Suspended to prove it.

--
Jon Ferro		MIT Transportation Modelling Research Center (TMRC)
jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu	"We can hack it!"
SGNTR VRS VRSN 3.1B: Strppd nd cmprssd fr qckr trnsmssn! nfct yrs tdy!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
From: scheyen@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Peter Scheyen)
Subject: Re: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in...
Reply-To: scheyen@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Peter Scheyen)
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:03:03 GMT

The graphic adventure/simulation Dune does this with a twist.  There is a book always at your 
disposal which keeps an updated history of your job so far.  It has chapters outlining the 
history of your progress for different topics (spice production, politics, etc.).  Truely a 
great idea.

Pete

scheyen@csd.uwo.ca
Xref: sparky rec.arts.int-fiction:617 rec.games.programmer:3364
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
From: gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:58:00 GMT
Organization: Contract to CSC, Victoria Uni, Wellington, New Zealand

In article <bsw1du.aqz@wang.com> smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:

   Depends on what you call *win*. Do you win when you meet the friendly
   elves in Adventure? Or do you win when you get that last, blasted point,
   the one that drove you to your wit's end?
				  ^^^^^^^^^

I love it!! :)

Nat.
(gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
From: thoni@ida.liu.se (Thomas Nilsson)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:25:25 GMT

This discussion about scoring in adventure games have been most
interesting, giving many good arguments for keeping scores or at least
a progress indicator to push the player forward and given indication
to when he is on the right track.

A *really* good adventure game should be non-linear (I think we all
agree on this, and would produce that kind of games if it wasn't for
all the implementation and testing involved). In fact I think a good
game should have many parallell paths and situations where the player
makes a choice between one path and others, perhaps leading him
different amounts closer to the ultimate goal. This makes the game
more like a web or a directed graph (because you can't go back in
time) than a linear road with little sideway paths quickly leading
back onto the main track.

As has been said before, in this kind of game a progress indicator
would be very difficult to implement and even more to define, but by
deciding on a (or perhaps a set of) 'correct' path through the game
graph we might be able to define some events, actions or situations
that are crucial to the 'perfect' solution to the game. These events
might be considered as progress points but more important is the use
of them in the end-game.  Because by giving the player indications
that his solution might not have been the most perfect one we also
increase the re-playability of a game (much like the varying endings
in Planetfall, where you might end up saving the planet but not
yourself).  How about for example:


	Congratulations, you managed to throw down the dictator of
	Agrovenia and the people pronounce you a hero. Your future
	might hold much glory and praise from the people of Agrovenia,
	but will the memory of the burnt and mutilated body of your
	dearest comrade Claude ever fade so that you can honestly
	enjoy it?


/Thomas

--
Little languages go a long way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Nilsson				Phone Int.: (+46) 13 12 11 67
Stenbrotsgatan 57			Phone Nat.: 013 - 12 11 67
S-582 47  LINKOPING			Email:	thoni@softlab.se
SWEDEN						Thomas_Nilsson@augs.se
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray)
Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:57:31 GMT

In article <BsxDH9.Mvn@rice.edu> amitp@owlnet.rice.edu ( Amit ) writes:

" In a game, though, it's nice to explore everything --- if you were trying to
  encourage people _not_ to explore everything, then why spend time writing
  those "side dishes"?  "

Wouldn't the point of "side dishes" (SD's) be to make the world seem more 
three-dimensional and realistic?  In real life, you can do whatever 
you want, and not everything you do is going to get you closer to 
solving a particular problem.  

Without SD's, then everything that you are possibly allowed to do 
leads you towards the solution or goal, and where's the challenge of that?
You know you're doing the right thing, simply because you're allowed
to do it.

Personally, I think many games suffer from a lack of SD's which would
give the player a more realistic feel of a complete world.  More thought
would have to be given to what the right thing to do is -- you wouldn't
be so sure just because you were allowed to do it.


Ray  8-)


Xref: sparky rec.arts.int-fiction:665 rec.games.programmer:3559