Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!s.psych.uiuc.edu!amead
From: amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Alan Mead)
Subject: Re: Intelligence Assumptions
References: <1e5mvtINNnlp@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>  <GNAT.92Nov19215055@kauri.kauri.vuw.ac.nz> <dpn2.121.722195016@po.CWRU.Edu> <92324.150831MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <Bxzwpq.AvL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:37:00 GMT
Lines: 24

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>What is the net.opinion on confirms in adventure games, anyway? While they
>do warn the player of some unobvious deaths, on the other hand they can almost
>always be rewritten out [...]
>presented with a message like "It's too dangerous," if the player REALLY
>wants to land in the courtyard, then... Thoughts?

My opinion as player and author is to give people the right to do stupid
things.  For TADS users, v2.0 makes this moot, I believe, with its new undo
feature (supposedly up to 100 levels under "most conditions" whatever that
means).  Somehow this seems the best of all possible worlds.  People are free
to do dumb things (ie, experiment) and yet they won't get hung up saving their
position every five minutes.

I Mean look at the puzzle posted by Russell Bryan a few days ago.  The player 
has to swing 70 feet (on a .5-.6 G world) into a cave.  I might hesitate
because I would feel sure that would be a sure death (or at least I wouldn't
try that first).

My $0.02.

-alan

