Article 8012 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1526 rec.games.programmer:8012
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet News)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:04:26 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 51

[email protected] (David M. Baggett) starts us thinking:
>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.
>
>Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems.  One is the
>question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game
>without getting the maximum possible score.  Should information puzzles
>just not award points since they can be skipped?  (This would ensure
>that you couldn't win the game without the maximum possible score.)
>
>I can see several ways of dealing with this issue:
>
>       1. Don't award points for information puzzles . .
>       2. Code in clever restrictions that force the player to solve
>          information puzzles even if they already know the information.
>       3. Make sure that all information given at the ends of information
>          puzzles is randomly generated.
>       4. Eliminate scoring.
>       5. Make information puzzles scored, and allow them to be skipped,
>          but award points as soon as the information is *used*.


At a general level - awarding score points is a handy way of letting the
player know he has done something right,  or that he has started down the
path towards solving a puzzle.  If you eliminate scores then you will have
to come up with some other form of reward system.

To adress your particular concern - I think (3) is the optimum solution.
I am pretty sure some of the later Infocom games took this approach -
in fact I know HHGTTG did (geting the right tool to open the hatch).

If you feel that is too much work, then you need solution (6) - keep
scores for information puzzles, but allow the puzzles to be bypassed.
This allows completion with less than a full score - so what?
The obsessive completists among us would still do a complete run-through
so we could finish the game with maximum score.  Those who don't care
about maximum points wouldn't bother.  (Did you get the point for the
dwarven magazine in Adventure?  How about the Don Woods stamp in Zork?)

My feelings about the other proposed solutions:
   1.  I like reward systems. If I do something right, I want praise.
   2.  As you say, hard to do in an unobtrusive fashion.
   4.  I like reward systems. If I do something right, I want praise.
   5.  Aargh!!  Reward *cheating*?
--
John Francis                                [email protected]
The world can be divided into two classes :-
those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.


Article 8014 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1527 rec.games.programmer:8014
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!gmd.de!blasius.gmd.de!blasius
From: [email protected] (Volker Blasius)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: blasius
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:10:40 GMT
Lines: 105

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (David M. Baggett) writes:

>I've been working on _The Legend Lives!_, a science fiction text
>adventure set in the Unnkulian Universe,

Hurra!

>                                         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.

>Adventure (Colossal Cave) set the precedent that text adventures should
>be scored games.  Its "x out y points -- this makes you a ____" format
>appears in almost all its successors, and I wonder if that's just
>because we've all been following a trend somewhat blindly.

>Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems.  One is the
>question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game
>without getting the maximum possible score.  Interestingly enough,
>Adventure did *not* reqiure you to get all the points to win.

Yes, and this plagued us for months, until someone got hold of the source
code and analyzed it until he found that you had to leave the magazine
(Spelunker Today) at Witt's End to get this final point that made you
Adventurer Grandmaster. I always want to have seen all of a game I play,
all the nooks and crannies, and a score is a big help in this direction.
This implies that you should be able to finish without having got all the
points, this fact telling you that you missed something or/and that you
cheated (see below). And if you cheated, it serves you right not to know
whether you missed something.

A game that (in my opinion) overdid this, was Sierra's The Colonel's Bequest.
There were loads of redundant clues you didn't get points for if you didn't
examine each and every item with a magnifying glass and stuff like that, so
I finished the game with many, many points missing. I always read the hint
book afterwards (if there is one, and for my peace of mind there better is),
so I found out what I had overlooked, but it was a bit much for my taste.

>Did Zork?  Did most Infocoms?  I really don't remember.

As far as I remember, you had to have all the points to finish. This is OK
if this is also an indication that you didn't miss anything, i.e. the game
is layed out this way. In fact, I prefer games that are layed out this way,
but if I really missed something, I want to know. (I admit that Witt's End
was just a big teaser, but it served this purpose very well.)

>All the Unnkulian games are written such that you can't win and not have
>gotten all the points (unless you exploit a bug in the game).  This
>creates tricky situations, though, particularly in "information puzzles."
>Consider a puzzle that the player has to solve to get some information
>needed later in the game (e.g., you must get past the troll to get into
>the Wizard's Alcove containing the scroll on which the secret password is
>written).  If this information is the same from game to game (i.e., not
>randomly generated), then the player could conceivably play the game
>once, write down the needed information, and then play again (or, e.g.,
>make a walkthrough) without out ever solving any of the information
>puzzles again.  Should this be allowed?  Should information puzzles
>just not award points since they can be skipped?  (This would ensure
>that you couldn't win the game without the maximum possible score.)

>I can see several ways of dealing with this issue:

> -- argument deleted to save bandwidth --

Yeah, this is difficult. My first thought was:
 If the game contains puzzles of this kind, I think it should
 - give points for obtaining the information the correct way,
 - allow the player to cheat by skipping over the information puzzle and
   finish without all the points, and
 - maybe tell the player, "You finished with x out of y because you
   cheated".
But then I remembered that e.g. I cheated in Spellcasting 201 in exactly
this way by saving, going to the lessons and writing the information down
(or rather let SCRIPT write it down for me), restoring, and using the
information without the tight schedule I'd otherwise have had. The game
didn't punish me for that, and this I liked, because I hate arcade games.

I really don't know. Maybe it depends on the game (attending to the lessons
wasn't actually solving a puzzle to gain some information).

>I've been toying with the idea of replacing the score counter with a
>percentage.  The percentage would give the player a rough idea of how
>much of the whole game he/she has seen (just like current page number
>in a novel).  This could be based on number of locations visited vs.
>the total number of locations, number of items seen versus total number
>of items, etc.

Somehow this idea doesn't appeal to me very much. I like points that tell me
that the thing I just did or got is essential for getting onwards; it sure
increases my motivation to continue. And the number of points you got should
be enough indication as to the percentage of the way that's still ahead -
though in most games the number of points you get for doing things of
equivalent value rises exponentially the farther you get, especially in
games with large scores.

>Thoughts?

Yes, these are my momentary thoughts about that, nothing more.

Volker

--

DingDong Laboratories Ltd., Makers of Fine Eunuchs (TM)


Article 8018 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1529 rec.games.programmer:8018
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet News)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:19:22 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 18

In an earlier article, I write:
>[email protected] (David M. Baggett) starts us thinking:
>>  [ . . . . ]
>>      3. Make sure that all information given at the ends of information
>>         puzzles is randomly generated.
>>  [ . . . . ]
>
>To adress your particular concern - I think (3) is the optimum solution.
>I am pretty sure some of the later Infocom games took this approach -
>in fact I know HHGTTG did (geting the right tool to open the hatch).

On re-reading the origininal article, it occurs to me that what you mean
by "randomly generated" is not what I mean - my interpretation is rather
more like "randomly selected from amongst several pre-generated answers".
--
John Francis                                [email protected]
The world can be divided into two classes :-
those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.


Article 8019 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1530 rec.games.programmer:8019
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com!forbes
From: [email protected] (Scott Forbes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:53:18 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <greg.713641872@duke>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network
Lines: 43

[email protected] (Greg "Maddog" Knauss) writes:
>[email protected] (David M. Baggett) writes:
>>Interestingly enough,
>>Adventure did *not* reqiure you to get all the points to win.  Did
>>Zork?  Did most Infocoms?  I really don't remember.
>
>As far as I can remember, all Infocoms had score and they all required
>you get get all the points to finish the game.

..Nnot quite.  Planetfall, for example, had a number of alternate endings
depending on whether or not you solved certain puzzles -- but you could
"win" (reach the primary goal of saving the planet's population) without
completing some of these puzzles.

Also, it was possible to win Zork II without getting all the points,
depending on certain semi-random actions of the Wizard.

Spoilers ahead for Infocom games:

In Planetfall you could "win" without restoring the Planetary Defense
computers and/or without repairing Communications, but in either case
you would not be rescued from the planet after saving its population
(and would never get to see Ensign Twelfth Class Blather, either :-) ).

In Zork II, if the Wizard cast the "filch" spell on your character,
you would lose one or more treasures and would subsequently be unable
to give them to the demon (which prevented you from scoring all the
points).

Another interesting scoring system was that of Zork III, which had a
seven-point score; you received a point each time you had the opportunity
to obtain one of the seven items required to win the game, regardless
of whether or not you actually got the item.  Your score was then a
measure of how many puzzles you'd *seen*, not how many you'd solved
(and in some cases, how many puzzles you had screwed up beyond hope --
some of Zork III's puzzles led to "you cannot win" outcomes, such as
killing the hooded figure or giving up the book or staff).


-- Scott

P.S.:  The rec.games.int-fiction CFV is in David Lawrence's hands,
and voting should begin shortly....


Article 8020 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1531 rec.games.programmer:8020
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!decwrl!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cctr120
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.)
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:31:48 +1200
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Lines: 39

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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,
[email protected]      University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."


Article 8021 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1532 rec.games.programmer:8021
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!gnat
From: [email protected] (Nathan Torkington)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:58:00 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (News Admin)
Organization: Contract to CSC, Victoria Uni, Wellington, New Zealand
Lines: 11
Nntp-Posting-Host: kauri.vuw.ac.nz
In-Reply-To: [email protected]'s message of Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:39:29 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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.
([email protected])


Article 8022 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1533 rec.games.programmer:8022
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
From: [email protected] (Jim Giles)
Subject: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:38:04 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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? The latter is winning to some folk -
|> it shows they've *completely* plumbed the sordid depths of the game, and
|> the programmer's grungy soul. For that sort of player, score is everything.

The victory condition of the game is up to the programmer.  I prefer
games where the victory condition is the achievement of some objective
- you return to town alive and in possession of "The Lost Widget" for
example.  Expertise is demonstrated by achieving this objective with
the _least_ possible score.  This is more natural to the real world
where the important thing is the achievement, not the irrelevant
side-information you pick up along the way (of course, you don't
know what's irrelevant until you've solved the puzzle).

I really prefer stategic games to puzzles anyway.  So, on that basis,
I would argue to eliminate score entirely  - or change its meaning so
it was a measure of how well you were doing (in terms of time or
resources) rather than how much you've unraveled.  Games of this
latter kind can actually have value in the real world.

--
J. Giles


Article 8038 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1539 rec.games.programmer:8038
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!news.uit.no!stud.cs.uit.no!roarf
From: [email protected] (Roar Foshaug)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
References:  <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:08:44 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 74

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David M. Baggett) writes:
|>
|> Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems.  One is the
|> question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game
|> without getting the maximum possible score....

What about games with alternative paths towards the goal state?
A good adventure game should offer different ways of doing things,
and what then about score calculations?

I don't think explicit scores are such a good idea. The motivation to
go on playing should come from the game itself as hints about how close
you are to solving a problem or eventually finishing the game. Note also
that 'score' can be viewed differently from a number in the upper right
corner of the screen. When the player finds an item that can be used for
protection, weapon, gives skills, has a value, that is also a score. For
the gold-hungry, a good motivation is to find gold. For others, the $$$
<insert favourite money-name> is the means to getting better equipment.
etc.

I also feel that the explicit score may come in the way of real problem
solving : "Oops, there I got ten points, does that mean this thing has
a usage, etc etc". The problem is of course that I don't know the strategy
the programmer uses for handing out scores. Result is that the user may end
up using more brain circuitry figuring out the score-giving strategy in
search of hints than actually applying logic to the gaming situation,
like "hmm, this is a screwdriver; what else can it be used to but
screwing? hmm, hmm...".

    Screwing screws, that is...   :-)


If you absolutely want scores and your game contains several paths,
you must space the scores out on the different paths, so finishing the game
along one (of several) path selections gives 100 % score. To spread the 100 %
over _all_ paths is a bad idea, as you can then finish the game with
far less, and the score looses all meaning. Pointless is a word that comes
to mind... :-)

Of course, by placing scores along the different paths so each path through
the game ends up with 100% opens the possibility for the user to get
more than 100% by moving "sideways" and covering several paths. But
so what?

The score strategy should at any rate be available in text form so the
user knows how it works.


The one reason I see to use scores is that it simplifies the
implementation. It is reasonably simple to attach scores to objects and
actions (saying magic words). It is far less simple to have a game responding
with subtle, and not-so-subtle, hints about advances. For the game to be
able to hand out such messages, the interface between the user and the
game must be more 'detailed' or 'fine-grained' in that the game must understand
more complex commands and produce responses. That leads us to creating a
more complex command parser (my favourite subject, btw :-), and also the
structure on the 'inside' of the game. I have not come up with all solutions
myself, but like speculating on these problems...


|>
|> Thoughts?
|>

Many...  :-)

|> Dave Baggett
|> [email protected]

--
Roar Foshaug                                      ([email protected])
Department of Computer Science
University of Tromsoe                             'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex
N-9000 TROMSOE, NORWAY                            'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex


Article 8040 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1540 rec.games.programmer:8040
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!rice!owlnet.rice.edu!amitp
From: [email protected] (Amit Jayant Patel)
Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (News)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Rice University
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:58:20 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jim Giles) writes:
|>
|> The victory condition of the game is up to the programmer.  I prefer
|> games where the victory condition is the achievement of some objective
|> - you return to town alive and in possession of "The Lost Widget" for
|> example.  Expertise is demonstrated by achieving this objective with
|> the _least_ possible score.  This is more natural to the real world
|> where the important thing is the achievement, not the irrelevant
|> side-information you pick up along the way (of course, you don't
|> know what's irrelevant until you've solved the puzzle).

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"?

       Just my opinions,

       Amit

--
/\\ Amit J Patel, [email protected]
\\/ I think I'm at Rice University


Article 8046 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1542 rec.games.programmer:8046
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!rice!adam
From: [email protected] (Adam Justin Thornton)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (News)
Organization: Milo's Meadow
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:22:56 GMT
Lines: 23

I always kind of liked scores, although back when I was writing
games for my Apple II (Applesoft BASIC, btw, is _not_ a recommended
adventure development platform.  6502 assembler is even worse.),
they usually were of the "Pick up Object X for Y Points" variety.

I don't see why it would be terribly hard to have flags indicating
whether or not you've solved the puzzle for each given puzzle; you're
probably going to have less than 300 such puzzles even in a very large
game; if each flag is set as a bit in a long status string, I don't see
why this is a problem.

One of the better implementations of this I have seen is Infocom's
_Bureaucracy_.  If you give the paranoid the password before legitimately
learning it, he snarls "You're just guessing", you can't see the pillar
(though you can climb it) in the airport before getting the ticket,
and so on.

Adam
--
"Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the
stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.  There is _always_
something." -- Robert Penn Warren | Vote Cthulhu in '92! | [email protected]
If Rice shared my opinions I wouldn't have this disclaimer | 64,928


Article 8051 of rec.games.programmer:
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!davevh
From: [email protected] (Dave Van Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.programmer
Subject: New scoring for text-adv game.
Summary: Two scores, rather than one.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:20:43 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 35


       Hello.  I have another idea for the scoring in a text-adv
game.

       If you were to have two scores, one for `completeness', one for
`number of the _really_ cool puzzles you've solved', it seems to me
that you could have the best of all possible worlds for the player, if
at the expense of some extra proggramming.

       The way I see this, the `completeness' score could be computed
by counting what the minimum number of puzzles left to solve before
finishing, and subtracting this from the number of puzzles needed to
solve the games in the shortest possible route.

       The `number of _really_ cool puzzles you've solved' score, on
the other hand, would be just that: The number of really cool puzzles
the player has solved, perhaps with a brief mention of how many
`_really_ cool' puzzles there are in the game.

       BTW, I mean `_really_ cool' to be defined by the programmer...
It may turn out that the player thinks you're full of it...

                               Have Phun!
                                 --Dave.

|\            /   / |"This is real,        | [email protected]
|  \        /   /   | This is now.         | [email protected]
|  / \    / ~~/     | This is a freak      | [email protected]
|/     \/   /       | show, baby, anyhow." | #include <std_disclaimer.h>

--
|\            /   / |"This is real,        | [email protected]
|  \        /   /   | This is now.         | [email protected]
|  / \    / ~~/     | This is a freak      | [email protected]
|/     \/   /       | show, baby, anyhow." | #include <std_disclaimer.h>


Article 8053 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1547 rec.games.programmer:8053
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uunet!mcsun!sunic!liuida!thoni
From: [email protected] (Thomas Nilsson)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:25:25 GMT
Lines: 46

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:  [email protected]
SWEDEN                                          [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 8058 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1548 rec.games.programmer:8058
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!brokaw!nathan
From: [email protected] (Nathan Glasser)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: MIT LCS, Cambridge, MA
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:24:58 GMT
Lines: 48

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 <[email protected]> [email protected] (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                           [email protected],mintaka!brokaw!nathan
YP-17                           Nate on IRC
Beware the DDG!


Article 8062 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1549 rec.games.programmer:8062
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!exodus!dmaustin
From: [email protected] (Darren Austin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:37:16 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
       <[email protected]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk
In-reply-to: [email protected]'s message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:43:21 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (David M. Baggett) writes:

} [email protected] (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
} >I don't see why it would be terribly hard to have flags indicating
} >whether or not you've solved the puzzle for each given puzzle; you're
} >probably going to have less than 300 such puzzles even in a very large
} >game; if each flag is set as a bit in a long status string, I don't see
} >why this is a problem.

} It's not that it's hard or an implementation problem, it's just that
} it's tedious and a pain.  Also it seems like the time required to come
} up with creative excuses (IMHO "You're just guessing the password!" is
} too lame) could be better spent on other things.

I think the best solution to this problem is the one that Meretzky used in
most of his later games.  That was to have a random choice out of a given
set.  For example the password would be randomly picked out of a set, say
"xyzzy", "plugh", "yoho", "zot".  If the player has never seen the password
in this session, then no matter what he tries for the password it will
fail.  This forces the player to go through the path that reveals the
password.  This falls into the category of trying to hide the "scoring"
problem from the player.  Plus it adds a little variety to the game.  It is
more work to code, but I think it works pretty well.

--Darren

--
Darren Austin          | Enough with safe and sane,
SunTech                | it's time for dumb and dangerous!
[email protected]  |


Article 8068 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1550 rec.games.programmer:8068
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.udel.edu!bach.udel.edu!helie
From: [email protected] (Ray)
Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:57:31 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] ( 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-)




Article 8073 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1551 rec.games.programmer:8073
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!warwick
From: [email protected] (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:25:42 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction
Lines: 32

[email protected] (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
--
 _-_|\      [email protected]            /Disclaimer:
/     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /
\_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /      void (if removed)
     v      Brisbane, Australia.        /


Article 8075 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1552 rec.games.programmer:8075
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!neilg
From: [email protected] (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:35:51 GMT
Lines: 21

[email protected] (Ray) writes:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] ( Amit ) writes:

>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.

I tend to agree with that one. One problem I have with Adams'
Hitch-hiker game, for instance, is that it is extremely constrained
and linear in nature. I'd love the opportunity to, say, roam around
the Heart of Gold and look at things. But you can't. The only
locations that appear are those crucial to solving the game. I'm much
more interested in just mucking around than solving puzzles.
Planetfall was kind of neat in that regard.

Hey, you know what they say about getting there... I just think that
half is underestimating.

- Neil K. ([email protected])


Article 8082 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1553 rec.games.programmer:8082
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!svin02!wsinfo11!luit1
From: [email protected] (Wim Jansen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:26:31 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction
Lines: 25

Really, this thread is getting way long. Ah, what the hell...

Scoring is not that difficult, provided we view the game as a directed
graph, ie. no going back (in time). Each arc represents a road (not) taken
or a puzzle (un)solved. The score for taking that road/solving that puzzle
is the 'weight' of the arc. The hiscore is reached by choosing the the
'optimal' path in the graph. Some choices may lead to death or disaster,
some to completing the game but not necessarily a glorious victory...

I think this can be applied to all sorts of games, though the 'length' of
an arc (ie. playtime) may vary considerably throughout different gametypes.

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 ?
Consequently, developing game would be more tedious, so a game migth end up
costing more... But, hey, it would be worth money !

Just a thought, Wim.
--
======================================================================
=         -- Another Key-bored Genius gets Mouse-trapped --          =
=        [email protected] ( in real life: W.M. Jansen )         =
======================================================================


Article 1556 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!pww
From: [email protected] (Peter Weyhrauch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Points
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:51:40 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet News System)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 12
Originator: [email protected]
Nntp-Posting-Host: a.gp.cs.cmu.edu

Hi, all.

I'm curious to hear from the people who find points to be a good
way to get satisfaction out of a game.  Why are points important
to you?

As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary.  When I watch
a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually
happens.  Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give
me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up.

       Peter Weyhrauch


Article 8108 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1557 rec.games.programmer:8108
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [email protected] (Top Changwatchai)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 16 Aug 92 11:05:38 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 35

If a game is going to be scored, then your option (5) is closest to how I
would handle information puzzles.  That is, award points for when the info
is used.  When the player is solving a particular puzzle for the first time,
she or he will want to have to go around collecting and assembling clues.
However, the seventeenth time around, he won't be as keen to go to the 83th
story of the skyscraper to reprogram the city's power grid to defeat the
alarm system to get into the office to pick the desk lock with a sharpened
kazoo just to find a scrap of paper with the code word "ululating."  By then,
"realism" (in terms of forcing the character to "discover" information before
using it) starts to interfere with game enjoyment.  You don't even really need
to come up with clever comments ("ESP") to enforce this realism (although
these comments don't hurt, either).

In fact, some adventures are better off without a scoring system at all.
Take _Monkey's_Island_, for instance.  It's an animated adventure that's
packed with features that emphasize the storyline and humor, rather than game
mechanics.  Not only does it not have a score, but it's also impossible (as
nearly as I can tell) to do something that you can't recover from.  Even
falling off a cliff or sinking your ship isn't fatal.  And once you figure out
a puzzle (say, threading your way through a complicated maze), the game then
skips over that puzzle when you return (i.e., you don't have to go back through
the maze when it's obvious that there's nothing more to be found there, and
that the route is already mapped).

Since playing MI, I've been thinking about whether a scoring system is
necessary for text adventures, which boast more elaborate puzzles and
situations.  Probably a non-numeric scoring system is better, with a small
number of ranks which indicate how well you're doing.

Incidentally, the less linear the game (I feel) the more challenging and fun
it is to play, as well as design.

Top




Article 8109 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1558 rec.games.programmer:8109
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [email protected] (Top Changwatchai)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 16 Aug 92 11:33:41 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 15

Just a couple more comments on puzzle nonlinearity and completeness:

The Infocom game _Arthur_ included a hints feature.  After completing the game
(without using any hints), I looked through all the hints to see if I had
missed anything.  I guess this is why some people like reading hint books
after solving a game.  Alternatively, some games (like Infocom's _Planetfall_
and Sierra's _Leisure_Suit_Larry_) hint at major puzzles that haven't been
solved (which aren't crucial to finishing the game).

Sometimes this is fun, particularly if solving a non-crucial puzzle ("side
dish") leads to a witty or otherwise satisfying addition to the game.  However,
I don't at all feel the need to get every last point in a game if it involves
simply looking at a room, searching a flowerpot, or something equally dull.

Top


Article 8110 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1559 rec.games.programmer:8110
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [email protected] (Top Changwatchai)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 16 Aug 92 11:54:16 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction
Lines: 39

Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Keywords:

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Amit Jayant Patel) 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"?
>
>Well, I don't.  As I said, I like strategic games rather than puzzles.
>I find those "side dishes" irritating - in my own games or someone
>else's.  This is not a criticism, different people have different
>tastes and mine aren't drawn by arbitrary puzzle games (I've never
>been patient enough to win conventional Zork-type adventure games,
>for example, their arbitrary puzzles don't interest me).
>
>--
>J. Giles

I'm not sure I understand you.  What do you mean by "strategic games"?  I've
always viewed adventure games ("interactive fiction" as Infocom calls it) as
being based on puzzles, as opposed to computer role-playing games (like
Ultima or Wizardry) or war games.

When I refer to "puzzles," though, I don't mean sterile puzzles like the
12-ball problem (which is very interesting in its own right); I refer to
puzzles that take advantage of the adventure game setting:  you have a bunch
of stuff to pick up and use, a bunch of people to talk to, a bunch of skills
to exploit, and goals that may or may not be clearly defined.  Take Zork III,
for example.  While in some ways it was aesthetically pleasing, there simply
wasn't as much atmosphere as, for example, Planetfall.  The puzzles were set
up in linear order (you had to solve one before moving on to the next), which
made them easy and which gave the sense that the player was solving the
puzzles, rather than the adventurer solving them (if that makes any sense).

Top




Article 1564 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!ersys!aph
From: [email protected] (Al Hunt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in...
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 09:20:53 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 38

Netters,

I just got what I think is an original idea that would solve this scoring
problem.  It is a technique used in film and tv.

How about having the adventurer filling out a diary or log book.  This
could be controlled by the player (ie "Update the Diary" command), or
done at a scheduled time (ie Just before the adventurer goes to sleep).

Example:
>Sleep

You find a comfortable spot, and begin to fill out your diary prior to a
much needed rest.

Dear Diary,
I am really pleased with myself today!  Not only did I find the golden
fleece, but managed to solve a puzzle written on the side of a well!  If
I can keep progressing at this rate, I will have the Crown in my grasp in
no time!

---

This sort of idea does not distract from the game.  The feeling of the
adventurer doing the solving is there.  Subtle hints could be given:

Dear Diary,
I finally got the golden fleece.  I am feeling a little uneasy about
throwing in that pit.  I think I should have kept it after all.

---

Well, that is a little blatent, but you get the idea.

Speling is my fort, eh?
Al Hunt

Al Hunt              [email protected]


Article 1566 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sunic!liuida!thoni
From: [email protected] (Thomas Nilsson)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:14:59 GMT
Lines: 54

[email protected] (David M. Baggett) writes:

>...  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*.

[stuff deleted]

>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.

This is not necessarily the case. It is very easy to confuse the two
very different types of movement that occurs during the playing of an
adventure game. One (which is the easy part) is the purely physical or
geographical movement through the map with all its details (objects).
We tend to stick to this when we talk about paths in the game.

But the more interesting movement is through the plot, which can be
viewed as the movement through time and events. This type of movement
is much more interesting because *this* is what makes up the story.

So like a book author the adventure author should create a world as a
stage for the events that makes up the story he is going to tell. Thus
the locations of the game need not be, or rather, shouldn't be mixed
up with the events that are taking place there.

This leads to a methodology that likes like:

- define your world losely, in concept, in time a.s.o
- describe your story as a sequence of events and from this find what
 the main settings and vital locations are
- design and detail the geography of your world

The main idea here is of course to place your story in the locations
necessary for its progress, not the other way around.

Doing this will, I think, give you the best of two worlds, Dave, the
player may freely explore the immediate surroundings until the
conditions arise for the next scene of your plot to carry or sweep the
hero (sorry, player!) forward in the story.

Agreed, this is much more work, both defining a world, a story and
find the good triggering mechanisms. But, what good adventures we
would get....

/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:  [email protected]
SWEDEN                                          [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 1567 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Points
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet News)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:54:15 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 32

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Peter Weyhrauch) writes:
>Hi, all.
>
>I'm curious to hear from the people who find points to be a good
>way to get satisfaction out of a game.  Why are points important
>to you?
>
>As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary.  When I watch
>a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually
>happens.  Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give
>me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up.

You seem to be missing the main difference between a movie and a game -
interaction.  you don't need a `score' for a movie because there isn't
anything you, the watcher, can do to influence the flow of action.

Playing a well-designed game is indeed a joy in itself.  Even then,
however, I feel a score serves a purpose.  Games like those from Infocom
require the solver to perform actions which are not immediately obvious.
A score provides a communication channel from the game designer to the
player, letting the player know that the particular strange action just
performed was not only one that the game designer anticipated, but also
is the action that was intended.  Without that, it is sometimes impossible
to tell when you have really completely solved a puzzle.
Admittedly there are other mechanisms to achieve the same end, but the
score is a convenient, well-accepted technique.   Yes, it is artificial,
but so are most of the alternative proposals I have seen.

--
John Francis                                [email protected]
The world can be divided into two classes :-
those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.


Article 1568 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in...
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet News)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:00:35 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 31

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Al Hunt) writes:
>How about having the adventurer filling out a diary or log book.  This
>could be controlled by the player (ie "Update the Diary" command), or
>done at a scheduled time (ie Just before the adventurer goes to sleep).
>
>Example:
>>Sleep
>
>You find a comfortable spot, and begin to fill out your diary prior to a
>much needed rest.
>
>Dear Diary,
>I am really pleased with myself today!  Not only did I find the golden
>fleece, but managed to solve a puzzle written on the side of a well!  If
>I can keep progressing at this rate, I will have the Crown in my grasp in
>no time!

Brilliant!   Absolutely Brilliant!   Provides feedback & reinforcement from
the game designer to the player.  This could be incorporated with the hints
mentioned by earlier players, rather like:

   Dear Diary,
   I still don't know what to do with the candlestick, the birdcage,
   or the pogo stick.  I think tomorrow I will try to find a way into
   the gingerbread house I found yesterday - maybe I'll find something
   inside that will help me on my way.

--
John Francis                                [email protected]
The world can be divided into two classes :-
those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.


Article 1572 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!daily-planet.concordia.ca!jamesc
From: [email protected] (SCHIDLOWSKY james c.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Points  & Alternatives to scoring...
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:56:23 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Lines: 22

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Peter Weyhrauch) writes:
>As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary.  When I watch
>a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually
>happens.  Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give
>me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up.

Although this thread is long, I find it interesting, but the above reminded
me of something, and that is: how often I forgot to look at the score whilst
playing a game.  I enjoy playing it, seeing what happens and exploring.

Awarding points for puzzle solving can be redundant, since it's often very
obvious when you've solved one.  e.g. HHGTTG: when you get that Babel Fish
in your ear.

However, I just thought of a variation on scoring:
  How about multiple scores:  Wealth Score,  Exploration Score,
  Puzzle-Solving Score... There would be even more fun in the "You have
  X points, you are a Y..".

_-_
</+\:=-- James.                 /\                                          <\
^\:-([email protected])   \/  "These are the dark ages." -- NoMeansNo </


Article 1574 of rec.arts.int-fiction:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca!scheyen
From: [email protected] (Peter Scheyen)
Subject: Re: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in...
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter Scheyen)
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:03:03 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:  <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Lines: 8

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

[email protected]


Article 8139 of rec.games.programmer:
Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1575 rec.games.programmer:8139
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer
Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!news.uit.no!stud.cs.uit.no!roarf
From: [email protected] (Roar Foshaug)
Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:02:41 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 38

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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!
|> [email protected] * Compu$erve: 76440,2671 * GEnie: [coming soon]

Roar

--
Roar Foshaug                                      ([email protected])
Department of Computer Science
University of Tromsoe                             'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex
N-9000 TROMSOE, NORWAY                            'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.661.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.