From: jacobw@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob S. Weinstein)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:09:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>General comments about the thread:
>
>
>
>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?
Yup- as I remember, _Wishbringer_ fit the bill.POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!
As part of the game, one acquired a magic stone. THe stone enabled you
to make a variety of wishes, each of which required a certain object.
For example, given the stone and an umrella, one could wish for rain. I
believe that, for each and every puzzle in the game, there were at least
two possible solutions: one involving making  a wish, and one not. For
example, at one point you stumbled upon a seal stuck in a ditch. You
could extend a stick into the ditch, and the seal would climb out; or
you could wish for rain, filling up the ditch and letting the seal swim
out. The catch was that you didn't get points if you solved the puzzle
with magic-- the explanation was something like, "One ought to depend on
one's own wisdom, not on magic." I enjoyed the game quite a bit, and
generally tried to figure out both ways of solving each puzzle.  

>From the comments so far it seems like keeping some kind of progress
>indicator is important, but it's not clear that "points" are the best
>manifestation of the concept.  I really liked Greg's "Acme Prahgress-O-Metur"
>idea; i.e., an object you carry around that tells you how you're doing.
>But what the meter should tell you is still a little unclear.
>
Agreed. I'm currently working on a text-adventure game that uses a
similar idea. But you'll just have to wait until it comes out.


>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.  You could still have the
>"You have earned XXX points -- this makes you a _____" schtick, though
>you'd just stick in a clause that said if (score > some_high_value)
>then say "veteran gamer," or perhaps have categories that might even be
>impossible to attain (i.e., without worrying about the fact that
>they're unattainable).

I dunno. This would raise a problem with red herrings. (SPOILER FOR UU2)
If you had a system like this in place, I would probably still be
playing UU2, convinced that if I could only figure out how to use that
damn teddy bear, I'd be able to increase my score. Now, granted, one
wants the players to play one's game as long as possible, nbut one wants
them to enjoy it in the process. After a certain point, I'd give up
trying to use the teddy for every conceivable purpose, and I'd quit,
thinking to myself, "What a stupid game! See if I send in my shareware
fee ever again!"

Xref: sparky rec.arts.int-fiction:616 rec.games.programmer:3363