Absolutely. The thing which IMNSHO which made the original Zork such
a great game was that you ended up in the living room with a mountain
of stuff and a bunch of puzzles.
The alternative (all too common) is that you get a series of puzzles
like:
You enter a bank. There is a large combination vault at one
end. There is a sign on the vault, reading "Through me is the
path to the rest of the game."
There is a stethoscope here.
>
Solve it yet?
OK, so maybe the stethoscope is in the sick-bay adjacent to the vault,
but you get the idea. When you only have a handful of objects and one
puzzle, solving it is easy, no matter how clever the puzzle (unless
the solution just makes no sense at all, which does not make for a
good game. Example: moving the mechanical mouse inside of the maze in
curses (if you want the spoiler, get the cheatsheet)).
I think the puzzle I most enjoyed solving in interactive fiction was
in the original Adventure, killing the dragon (or is it the snake?
Not the one you use the bird on). I had been beating my head against
the problem for days. Finally, I actually answered "yes" to that
damned question and was through. If I only had 10 or so objects to
mess with, and a single puzzle to solve, I would have had the solution
in minutes. Much more fun the way it is.
Ronnie
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie B. Kon | "You couldn't deny that, even if you used both hands" ronnie@cisco.com | (408) 526-4592 | -- The Red Queen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------