Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!gumby!wupost!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!adam
From: adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton)
Subject: Re: A bill of players' rights
Message-ID: <C791n4.6I4@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Milo's Meadow
References: <1993May18.223852.18303@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 01:04:16 GMT
Lines: 109

In article <1993May18.223852.18303@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gan10@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:
>[Graham asked me to post this for him as his posting software is currently
>not distributing his articles correctly.]
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        A Bill of Player's Rights
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Perhaps the most important point about designing a game is to think as a
>player and not a designer.  I think the least a player deserves is:
>
>    1.  Not to be killed without warning
>

Yup, as long as we understand "killed" as "killed through something other 
than gross stupidity."  E.G. "> PLUG MYSELF INTO SPARKING WALL SOCKET"

>    2.  Not to be given horribly unclear hints

What the designer considers obvious may, however, not appear so to the player.

>    3.  To be able to win without experience of past lives

>To take a more concrete example, in "The Lurking Horror" there is
>something which needs cooking for the right length of time.  As far as I can
>tell, the only way to find out the right time is by trial and error.

Actually, my real-world knowledge of microwaves let me get it on the first
try.  That wasn't _really_ an unfair puzzle.  The bomb-in-the-floor would be.

>    4.  To be able to win without knowledge of future events

Yes and no.  Yeah, it sucked having to play HHGTTG all over again paying
attention to the tools.  But to take this to its logical conclusion means that
it turns into a game you can't lose.  More examples in the next "right".

>    5.  Not to have the game closed off without warning

If you can't close the game off, you can't lose it.  If you screw up, you screw
up.  And mechanics may require you to only let the player realize he has made
a serious boo-boo later.  LGOP2 DOESN'T let you screw up.  It's an awful game.

>    6.  Not to need to do unlikely things
>(Less extremely, the problem of the
>hacker's keys in "The Lurking Horror".)

Agreed, but I don't agree with the hacker problem: when you examined him, you
saw the keys.  When you found a locked door...(plus, GUE is MIT: it's common
knowledge that tunneling is a favorite pastime thereabouts)

>    7.  Not to need to do boring things for the sake of it

Absolutely.

>    8.  Not to have to type exactly the right verb

Subcase of 10.

>    9.  To be allowed reasonable synonyms

Likewise.

>    10.  To have a decent parser
>  This goes without saying.  At the very least it should provide for taking
>and dropping multiple objects.

No question.  Luckily, all the modern scripting systems (I think) have this
included.  TADS, my personal preference, is certainly (with a little help to
adv.t) adequate.

>    11.  To have reasonable freedom of action

In other words, puzzles to solve in parallel as well as in series.  Yup.

>    12.  Not to depend much on luck

No question.

>    13.  To be able to understand a problem once it is solved

Hell yes.  I'd disagree with your Bank of Zork analysis.  To us geekish types
it was pretty clearly a state machine.  My vote would go to Witness.  I solved
the game without ever figuring out who did what to whom when and why.  All I
did was the standard adventure things and everything solved itself without me
having to reason out what had happened.  Hated it.

>    14.  Not to be given too many red herrings

I agree.  But then I don't think games should be realistic.  I _want_ a tidy
universe where everything has a function when I play.

>    15.  To have a good reason why something is impossible

Yeah, but it requires a LOT of code and beta-testers...

>    16.  Not to need to be American to understand hints

Sure.  But it's not always obvious what is and what isn't a common referent.

>    17.  To know how the game is getting on

Agreed.  No arguments here.

Interesting, and, I think, mostly accurate.  Anyone else?

Adam
-- 
adam@rice.edu | These?  Rice's opinions?  Yeah, right.  |  "Might there have
been fewer crimes in the name of Jesus, and more mercy in the name of Judas
Iscariot?"--Thomas Pynchon | "This is not an assault."--FBI to David Koresh,
as they broke holes in the wall and began firing in teargas. | 64,928 | Fnord
