Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!shale.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newsfeed.online.be!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Trinity: Explanation Please. (HEAVY SPOILERS)
Message-ID: <GGoM8s.GMv@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:34:04 GMT
References: <T_o37.266$jB4.84992@news.pacbell.net> <qkwv5723e3.fsf@finch-staff-1.server.demon.net> <jd66criur7.fsf@login2.phy.duke.edu> <wkd76zr0ar.fsf@turangalila.harmonixmusic.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 11
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:64351

Dan Schmidt  <dfan@harmonixmusic.com> wrote:
>I remember a big deal being made about the design of Loom, in which
>the player could not cause the game to be unwinnable (I'm pretty
>sure).  That's not exactly the same thing, but obviously implies that
>all puzzles are solvable in one session.  Looks like it came out in
>1990.

Was it 'unwinnable', or 'you never die'? I thought all the graphic
adventures of that period generally strived to avoid unwinnability.

SeanB
