From: mollems@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Subject: Re: The trend in adventure games
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:46:53 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <92273.215150MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> (There may be spoilers for TRINITY in this)
> 
> In article <1992Sep29.120955.2781@wkuvx1.bitnet>, mollems@wkuvx1.bitnet says:
>>imagine a game where the PLAYER and his CHARACTER might be diametric
>>opposites -- the character might have to take actions the player would
>>never do himself, or the player might want to take a course of action
>>that the character would be opposed to.  A main character who would
>>never kill or steal, for example, could be a challenge to play.  The
>>story, in this case, might be told from a first-person point of view,
>>and when the player attempted an "immoral" (from the character's view)
>>action, respond with something along the lines of "I would never do
>>such a thing."  Just a thought...
> 
> Mmm... no offense, but I disagree. IMHO, games where you are prevented
> from doing something because the CHARACTER of you in the game is squeamish
> or too moral or too whatever are all too common -- nearly every IF game
> uses this at some point and I find it terribly annoying. For example, in
> TRINITY, at one point you're stuck in a cave with a horrible monster and
> have to get out. The key to getting out is a tiny hole in the wall. I was
> trying to figure out what the hole was, and would try LOOK THROUGH HOLE or
> PUT FINGER IN HOLE; the game would reply "You're afraid to do that, because
> you might lose your [eye/finger] to something in the hole." Well, big deal!
> All things considered (for example, the slavering monster eyeing me hungrily)
> one would think it's worth the small risk just to find out what the heck this
> hole is supposed to be! (It turns out to be a keyhole, in fact. There was
> never any danger at all.)

That wasn't quite what I meant... I was actually thinking about a
general application of characterization... however, I agree that when
things like that are spottily used in a game, the overall impression
is that the designer didn't really want to write any more text than he
did, so he limited your range of actions.  That's annoying, but a fact
of life, it seems.
 
> Of course, this sort of thing isn't applied _consistently_; it might be
> more acceptible if it were. But generally speaking, I want this to be ME
> in the game, and be able to do anything I want without running up against
> mental barriers that don't exist in reality.

Perhaps you are right... I may be trying to link IF and role-playing
too closely.  Mayhap we should go the OTHER way and try and write an
interactive "world" of sorts, where you can try anything you want, as
long as you're willing to pay the consequences.  That would be a
monumental task indeed, almost a virtual reality issue.

Possibly the REAL challenge for IF is convincing the player that he
really IS inside the novel, instead of sitting in front of a screen
playing a game.  I know that the truly great Infocom games like _A
Mind Forever Voyaging_ gave me a real sense of "presence" in the game.

Then again, games like _Suspended_ force the player to think in a
whole new way.  I like that a lot.  The debate goes on, but I think
that in either case, the winner of discussions like this is really the
player, because IF designers who think about things like this will
write better games (IMO).  Keep up the thread!
 
>                   "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
> [Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
> DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.

-- M. Sean Molley, CS Department, Western Kentucky University
Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction