Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.m-online.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.online.be!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!not-for-mail
From: buzzard@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: WHICH OF THESE DO YOU PREFER IN IF?
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <Gs3D8s.C12@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:53:15 GMT
References: <a4tkat$8mq$1@helle.btinternet.com> <a55lhe$iin$1@joe.rice.edu> <Gryu3x.3rI@world.std.com> <3C796332.25A6CD8E@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Lines: 20
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:100668

Lewis Raszewski  <rraszews@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sean T Barrett wrote:
>> I can't think of many commercial games that allows making
>> a game unwinnable, except possibly for simulationist reasons
>> (e.g. using up all the ammo intentionally, making it impossible
>> to kill a particular enemy). There may well be some players
>> who are happy with or prefer that philosophy of game design,
>> but I suspect they're in a small minority.
>>
>Scratch head.... Scratch head....
>
>About 95% of commerical adventure produced before 1995 could be made
>unwinnable

Indeed, I meant to type "...of many MODERN commercial games".

With the intended implication "commercial game developers have
gotten past this design mistake at long last; can't we too?"

SeanB
