Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Knowledge through dying (was Re: Trinity: Explanation Please.)
Message-ID: <GGML0o.FtK@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:12:23 GMT
References: <T_o37.266$jB4.84992@news.pacbell.net> <w4Q47.1423$po6.252391@news.pacbell.net> <jd8zhniusq.fsf_-_@login2.phy.duke.edu> <9j1ko1$61f$2@news.panix.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 13
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:64322

Andrew Plotkin  <erkyrath@eblong.com> wrote:
>However, my point is, you have to use a certain amount of split
>judgement when considering Infocom games against that standard. Yes,
>it's worth noting, because the modern IF audience has adopted the
>idea. But Infocom's designers *and players* had not.

Definitely. I thought about bringing this point up a few threads
back when people were complaining about the unfairness of some of
the Infocom mystery games. Clearly, from the authors' points
of view, they were making a hard puzzle for the player, not
for the protagonist.

SeanB
