Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!goetz
From: goetz@cs.buffalo.edu (Phil Goetz)
Subject: Re: Physics (Choosing your IF setting / genre)
Message-ID: <Cq685I.C5z@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.cs.buffalo.edu
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
References: <2r9t9d$ss7@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> <2rdehhINNg68@life.ai.mit.edu> <1994May19.013111.4382@cs.tcd.ie> <2rjv83$h8p@news.u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 21:10:29 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <2rjv83$h8p@news.u.washington.edu>,
The Grim Reaper <scythe@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994May19.013111.4382@cs.tcd.ie>,
>Russell Wallace <rwallace@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>[Comments about being able to blow things up deleted...]
>>
>[deletia]
>>(even if it was only provided for one puzzle and is only useful there)
>>or cutting things up with an axe (ditto) would do far more to make the
>>game believable, than the ability to type TELL THE ROBOT TO BURN ALL THE
>>BOOKS EXCEPT THE BLACK AND RED ONES or suchlike; if people are prepared
>>to spend huge amounts of effort on the latter, why not the former?  It
>>needn't be *that* difficult... just record what material everything is
>>made of, and have a section of code that says objects made of paper will
>>burn easily (e.g. with a match), objects made of wood will burn with
>>difficulty (e.g. with a flamethrower), metal and stone won't burn at
>>all...
>
>Sheesh, you have got to be kidding.  Implementing any sort of vaguely
>realistic physics into an i-f game is difficult, if not impossible.  Just
>saying that wood objects will burn under certain conditions isn't enough.

It is good enough.  In _Inmate_, if I recall correctly, being "burnt"
was equivalent to being "broken".  A broken object could not be used
in certain ways.  For example, a burnt match could not be lit.
If you burnt or broke an object, that object would acquire the property
"broken" and its name would be prepended by "burnt" or "broken".
I don't remember if I burnt the objects inside a burning object
recursively, but that would be easy.  I didn't go to the trouble of
distinguishing between strengths of fires, which would be a nice
next step.

Physics is hard, but using that as an excuse to avoid even the most
basic aspects, such as broken objects, is being lazy.

Phil Goetz
