Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!ieunet!tcdcs!rwallace
From: rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Subject: Re: Here comes some blasphemy...
Message-ID: <1994Apr28.194136.24988@cs.tcd.ie>
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
References: <2pn7cq$3lj@jake.esu.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 19:41:36 GMT
Lines: 24

derek@esu.edu (Derek S Felton) writes:

>    Now for the blasphemy: was anyone as angry as I was with
>*some* of the puzzles in the Zork trilogy?  Don't burn me yet;
>I think most were well done.  But, for example,  who the HELL
>figured out the "baseball diamond" puzzle in Zork II without
>help?

>    I guess what I'm asking is this: does anyone actually
>*like* puzzles like this--those with few or no clues in the
>adventure itself?  I don't mind requiring some creativity, and
>I don't intend to spoonfeed readers.  But where does the line
>fall between creating a clever puzzle and saying "how obscure
>can I make this one?"

I completely agree with you!  The solutions to puzzles should logically
follow from what one is told about the behaviour of objects and the
motives of the NPCs, not require crossword-puzzle style putting together
of obscure puns or anything similar.

-- 
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie
