Re: Gameplay theory: leaving object behind..


Tue, 19 Sep 95 23:39:27 GMT


In article <1995Sep8.233605.25903@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Sam Hulick"
<shulick@guava.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

> you take a ship to another
> country, but then realize that you needed something back in the other
> country! Would you RATHER have a game not let you board the ship
> without a few things?

I don't know about what I'd prefer - I generally consider myself to
be playing the game, not writing it (or the other way round). I would
simply play it as it lay. If I was warned, I would go back, If not
I wouldn't go back until I was stuck.

Gold Rush had a nice idea, though, where at certain points of
the game you were told you had 'x out of a possible y points' which was
given as a congratulatory message. It also told you if you would be
unable to complete the game from that point.

However, if you included a lot of things that give points but aren't
actually necessary (e.g. witty responses or more complicated solutions)
the player won't know they have missed anything, just that they haven't
got all the points. However this may still prompt them to replay, and
not move on until they have.

In short - It's your game, it's up to you.

-- 
(Don't eat your fridge)
                                                   ___ ,';_,-,__
       Writing is just backwards reading.        /~_ ,','  |O|,:,\,
       Reading is just clever seeing.          /  /,',' /--|_|-;:;|
       Seeing is believing.                   (  )',_) )       ):;)
       To write, you must believe...           >\,(__ /       /:;;|
                                   :...Mark...//~            /:;:;:\