Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (
More info?)
Michael wrote:
> >I recently played a game (and have played others, too) that required you
> >to do multiple "search" commands on an object in order to get all the
> >items you needed...
My vote is fair.
While it can contain a bit of frustration, I sometimes like it when
games "hide" things from the PC by not initially giving up all of an
area's secrets the first time one searches that area. I can't think
of any games off the top of my head that make a player go through this
sort of thing, but I know I've played them, and that I've played
enough of them to make multiple searches part of my "game" (just as
I've gotten used the the difference between EXAMINE and SEARCH, and
the difference between SEARCH and LOOK UNDER). If I search a place
twice and get the same response, I assume that I've found out all that
I can; if I get a new response, then I keep repeating that action
until I no longer get a unique reply. That applies not only to
multiple searches, but any command that a PC may do more than once
(think xyzzy).
> >Puzzles that require multiple searches, therefore, seem a bit unfair.
> >Every time I've encountered them, there is no indication at all that I
> >*may* not have found everything, whereas if this truly was the case in
> >real life, I'd know if I didn't search thoroughly enough to find
> >everything there was to be found, i.e. the light was dim, etc.
Let's say, for example, that you're looking for a screwdriver and
you've just opened up the junk drawer in your house. Now, I don't
know about y'all, but the junk drawer in my house lives up to its
name. One could stand there and search for ten minutes before
uncovering a screwdriver, and then it'll be a flathead and you'd have
to conitue the search for a phillips! Not only does the delay
technique add a dash of realism (not much--just a dash) but it can
allow the author "filler space" to work on the tone of the narrator by
making the replies funny, serious, etc. True, if it's a serious game
then perhaps it should cut through all that by giving you all it
contained the first time you searched a drawer. But if it's game
whose tone is a bit more frivolous then it can afford to play with the
PC just a tad (and I like those silly games that end up playing with
me as I play with it).
Graham wrote:
> In a game however, I think it is unfair unless (a) there is some (reasonably)
> clear clue (not *necessarily* at the time of the failed search, it could come
> later so that you return); this clue should direct a "reasonable" player back
> to have another look; and (b) there's a plausible reason as to why you didn't
> find it the first time -- e.g. it wasn't actually there *then*, but through a
> [plausible] mechanism has appeared since; or, you didn't know about (or find)
> the secret compartment behind the flap under lid etc.
Now, as for a "clue" to let the PC know when they need to try that
command again? On one hand, I'm ag'in it, and on the other, I'm fer
it. But just how strong of a clue are we talking about? A blazing
clue to some could be overlooked by others. Here's an example:
> SEARCH DRAWER
You rifle through all that the drawer contains for a few moments
before a bright flash catches your attention. You forget what you
were looking for as you gaze at a few european coins (souvenirs from
the last time you were in Italia), and remember that one night you
went out to the discotech and... well, let's just say you can feel
your cheeks blush brightly as you recall some of the particulars of
that evening.
There the author mentions that the drawer contains a lot of items, and
that you were distracted from your search by a certain item. Is that
a hint that the drawer needs to be searched again? Is it a waste of
the PC's time in the game to delay the discovery of the screwdriver
just to mention a couple euros? Or perhaps will that information be
alluded to later on when the PC is being interrogated by the
evil-doers of the game regarding his/her whereabouts during the summer
of 2002? Who knows?!*
I guess what I've tried to say is that asking if multiple search
puzzles are fair isn't quite fair. It depends upon the game and its
tone, and perhaps the pacing of that particular scene. And sometimes
yes -- the author hasn't the brains to think up a better puzzle than
that!
If there are players out there that haven't learned that
sometimes you'll need to search an area twice to get what you're
needing, then they might think it's completely unfair and would want
to stop all authors from including such things in their games.
Unfortunately, I still suffer from a youthfull affliction of doing the
exact opposite whenever I'm told what not to do.
Peace be with you all...
Jennifer
* -- Answers: yes, perhaps, of course, I do
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram