On Walkthroughs (especially in competition)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

I've probably said some of this in years past, but I'll say it again.

A walkthrough is not a substitute for a hints file.

Unless you have a puzzle that is so incredibly complex that an explanation
of what to do (and an explicit single-line command) in the hints is
insufficient to be sure the puzzle is completed correctly, no one should
ever need to go to the walkthrough to get a puzzle's solution.

Walkthroughs tend to be spoilery. It's hard to look at one and flip through
it trying to find a particular puzzle without encountering all sorts of
other information that confuses you or completely shifts your mindset about
the game.

Most importantly, most walkthroughs are badly written. They often include
the shortest sequence of moves necessary to complete the game... and bear no
resemblance to the moves necessary to actually PLAY the game.

Think of what happens to the poor player who opens the walkthrough file for
'Bellclap' and is immediately faced with a command that they would never
have dreamed of using. There is no explanation of why that command is
useful, or how the player was ever supposed to come up with it. The player
may immediately begin to swear and throw things around and complain about
the author demanding mind-reading. And since that command made no sense at
all, the player now has no confidence that they could ever progress in this
game on eir own. The game is ruined.

A player should not be turning to the walkthrough to solve a puzzle; that's
what hints are for. A player should only be turning to the walkthrough if
they are lazy, bored, or otherwise lack motivation to play your game
properly.

That means your job, in crafting the walkthrough, is to show them how GREAT
your game actually IS. This is where you win them back.

Take the players by the hand and lead them around your little world. Show
them all the pretty things they might otherwise have missed. Show them the
stains on the doorframe that would have indicated that the killer was
wearing clown makeup and had a limp. Show them the clue before you show them
the solution.

The interactive part is missing because they're using the walkthrough. So
play up the fiction!


---
Hanako Games
Anime Games and Screensavers To Download
http://www.hanakogames.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:58:58 -0500, "Glenn P.,"
<C128UserDELETE-THIS@FVI.Net> wrote:

>I absolutely ADORE this narrative style, and absolutely HATE and DETEST
>the unimaginitive and utterly uninspiring "just-list-the-commands" type
>walkthrough so common nowadays. Folks, if you're gonna write a walkthrough,
>please, Please, PLEASE, take the time to Do It Right, and try to make it
>worth reading in its own right! If you can do that for your GAME, you can
>surely do it for the WALKTHROUGH! It deserves no less! Thanks...

There is an advantage with the "type list of commands" walkthrough - it's
much easier to cut-n-paste in order to quickly fastforward to a later point
in the game. It doesn't have as much flavour text, but it is functional.

Square Circle does this style of walkthrough appropriatly. It's simply
lists the commands given to the user, but annotates the listing so that the
user can also know the context of the commands. In fact, it is done almost
perfectly (the preceeding '>' character messes up the parser for a
cut-n-paste.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Glenn P.," <C128UserDELETE-THIS@FVI.Net> wrote:
> I absolutely ADORE this narrative style, and absolutely HATE and DETEST
> the unimaginitive and utterly uninspiring "just-list-the-commands" type
> walkthrough so common nowadays. Folks, if you're gonna write a walkthrough,
> please, Please, PLEASE, take the time to Do It Right, and try to make it
> worth reading in its own right! If you can do that for your GAME, you can
> surely do it for the WALKTHROUGH! It deserves no less! Thanks...

Two things. I, for one, find this type of walkthrough harder to
follow if I am looking for how to get past a particular puzzle.
Things that are self-explanatory to the writer may not be so to me and
having the _exact syntax_ of commands availible can be important.

Secondly, if the walkthrough tells the story why not just read it
rather than playing the game? Authors risk losing players to the
walkthrough if they make it interesting in its own right rather than a
key to open up the game text.

Cirk R. Bejnar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:24:50 -0500, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:58:58 -0500, "Glenn P.,"
><C128UserDELETE-THIS@FVI.Net> wrote:
>
>>I absolutely ADORE this narrative style, and absolutely HATE and DETEST
>>the unimaginitive and utterly uninspiring "just-list-the-commands" type
>>walkthrough so common nowadays. Folks, if you're gonna write a walkthrough,
>>please, Please, PLEASE, take the time to Do It Right, and try to make it
>>worth reading in its own right! If you can do that for your GAME, you can
>>surely do it for the WALKTHROUGH! It deserves no less! Thanks...
>
>There is an advantage with the "type list of commands" walkthrough - it's
>much easier to cut-n-paste in order to quickly fastforward to a later point
>in the game. It doesn't have as much flavour text, but it is functional.

Providing that the walkthrough's commands match where you happen to be.

Many walkthroughs try to use the minimum number of moves to compete the
game, and in many cases could only be constructed with prior knowledge of
the game (in other words, they don't always invoke an in-game reason for
performing some action, they do it because the author knows it needs to be
done).

With this kind of "optimised" walkthrough, it's quite possible to find
yourself in a location (or to have the game in a certain internal state)
that is never encountered in the walkthrough, and as such the command-list
might be of little benefit.

The same _can_ be true of a "prose" style walkthrough, but because it
describes more of the "what", "where" and "why", you've a better chance of
realising how to "backtrack" from where you are to get "back on course".


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message news:<visop09uril6dqmgbnq60um3mu79c4ucg9@4ax.com>...

> Many walkthroughs try to use the minimum number of moves to compete the
> game, and in many cases could only be constructed with prior knowledge of
> the game (in other words, they don't always invoke an in-game reason for
> performing some action, they do it because the author knows it needs to be
> done).

I don't know whether you think this is a good thing or a bad one, but
it's what I was aiming for in the first of the two walkthroughs I
provided in _Bellclap_. I suspect it was that "short route" which was
also the one that made Papillon so upset.

But I have to admit, since reading the reviews I've realised there is
an art to building a good walkthrough that I didn't give much thought
to. I'd rather have an in-built hint system (which I will do for the
second release) and a terse external walkthrough file, but still: I
ought to have avoided using exotic verbs in the list when my game was
capable of handling more common ones. Also, I thought a bit about
arranging the longer list so that it produced a relatively logical
transcript, but I should have thought about it still more. And maybe
I should have included a note on the different philosophies behind the
two routes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Papillon <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com>...
> I've probably said some of this in years past, but I'll say it again.
>
> A walkthrough is not a substitute for a hints file.
>
> Unless you have a puzzle that is so incredibly complex that an explanation
> of what to do (and an explicit single-line command) in the hints is
> insufficient to be sure the puzzle is completed correctly, no one should
> ever need to go to the walkthrough to get a puzzle's solution.
>
> Walkthroughs tend to be spoilery. It's hard to look at one and flip through
> it trying to find a particular puzzle without encountering all sorts of
> other information that confuses you or completely shifts your mindset about
> the game.
>
> Most importantly, most walkthroughs are badly written. They often include
> the shortest sequence of moves necessary to complete the game... and bear no
> resemblance to the moves necessary to actually PLAY the game.
>
> Think of what happens to the poor player who opens the walkthrough file for
> 'Bellclap' and is immediately faced with a command that they would never
> have dreamed of using. There is no explanation of why that command is
> useful, or how the player was ever supposed to come up with it. The player
> may immediately begin to swear and throw things around and complain about
> the author demanding mind-reading. And since that command made no sense at
> all, the player now has no confidence that they could ever progress in this
> game on eir own. The game is ruined.

I agree entirely and this is a serious score-reducer as far as I'm
concerned; evidence that the game either wasn't beta-tested properly,
or the author doesn't care about the player.

I'm amazed at some of the high scores that a few people (many of whom
should know better) have awarded to games that definitely fall under
this category. This is not some insignificant problem that can just be
waved away like it was some one-off spelling error.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

eluchil404@yahoo.com (Cirk R. Bejnar) wrote:

>"Glenn P.," <C128UserDELETE-THIS@FVI.Net> wrote:
>> I absolutely ADORE this narrative style, and absolutely HATE and DETEST
>> the unimaginitive and utterly uninspiring "just-list-the-commands" type
>> walkthrough so common nowadays. Folks, if you're gonna write a walkthrough,
>> please, Please, PLEASE, take the time to Do It Right, and try to make it
>> worth reading in its own right! If you can do that for your GAME, you can
>> surely do it for the WALKTHROUGH! It deserves no less! Thanks...
>
>Two things. I, for one, find this type of walkthrough harder to
>follow if I am looking for how to get past a particular puzzle.
>Things that are self-explanatory to the writer may not be so to me and
>having the _exact syntax_ of commands availible can be important.

If you recall, my first post on this thread included that the player should
almost NEVER have to go to the walkthrough to solve an individual puzzle.
A fully-detailed hint system should have an explicit, exact-syntax solution
as the final entry.

>Secondly, if the walkthrough tells the story why not just read it
>rather than playing the game? Authors risk losing players to the
>walkthrough if they make it interesting in its own right rather than a
>key to open up the game text.

The walkthrough tells you what happens, but you're clearly missing out on
the pretty text. As I was saying, the walkthrough should guide you to where
the pretty text is buried in the game, so that you read the good bits there
and are enthused about continuing to play.

I don't really care whether the walkthrough is in prose format or not...
It's easier to cut and paste if it isn't, sure, but in some ways it's good
to prevent the player from cutting and pasting... if you're trying to get
their interest back, then you want to encourage them to think, type commands
and read the responses, not just paste in the whole shebang and wait for the
ending to pop up. (Which I have done once or twice.)

---
Hanako Games
Anime Games and Screensavers To Download
http://www.hanakogames.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Papillon" <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news😛njpp0d05kcpuu9f8ubmv847161r8nh9dt@4ax.com...
> eluchil404@yahoo.com (Cirk R. Bejnar) wrote:

> The walkthrough tells you what happens, but you're clearly missing out on
> the pretty text. As I was saying, the walkthrough should guide you to
> where
> the pretty text is buried in the game, so that you read the good bits
> there
> and are enthused about continuing to play.


<shameless_plug>

Here is the walkthrough from my COMP99 entry:
http://www.sidneymerk.com/lunatix.txt

Something like this is probably what you're talking about -- a very chatty
"walkthrough" section, but also a command-based solution section. I can't
reference the walkthrough from my COMP04 entry without illustrating the
"bad" way.

</shameless_plug>

---- Mike.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Papillon <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com>...

> Most importantly, most walkthroughs are badly written. They often include
> the shortest sequence of moves necessary to complete the game... and bear no
> resemblance to the moves necessary to actually PLAY the game.

My favorite IF walkthroughs are the ones written by David Welbourn.
They include enough commands to let the player know what's going on,
but underline the required moves so that you can play a minimal
walkthrough if you want; they're organized in clearly-labeled
sections, sometimes with notes to help you determine whether you're
ready for a certain section yet; and some have annotations to explain
any background information that might be confusing. He has quite a
large collection of them now, accessible from

http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/ifindex.html#if1

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Papillon" <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> skrev i melding
news:1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com...

> Walkthroughs tend to be spoilery. It's hard to look at one and flip
> through
> it trying to find a particular puzzle without encountering all sorts of
> other information that confuses you or completely shifts your mindset
> about
> the game.

When reading a walkthrough you should not go looking for the puzzle you are
facing. You should read it from start to finish, to see that you have not
overlooked anything. (Maybe it is impossible to do the current puzzle
without having done something else first). Never look at the walkthrough
before you are stuck on all puzzles. This seems to me to be the only way of
using any kind of help without a big risk of getting unwanted spoilers. I
can't remember ever using a hint system without at least a little bit of
spoiling.



When writing a walkthrough always include all steps that gives the player
information on how to solve a problem before the steps to solve the problem.
If possible have the steps that give information appear just before the
steps that solve the problem, so as not to confuse the player.



When writing a walkthrough try to put the steps that are the solution to one
puzzle as close together as possible. Example: The puzzle is that you have
to eat a cookie and then walk on a bridge, and then the bridge will collapse
because you are so heavy and you will fall into the magical land of Narnia.
Don't write in the walkthrough that the player should eat the cookie right
after you have written how to find the cookie. Write he shall eat it just
before writing he shall walk on the bridge. Otherwise the player may look at
only that bit of the walkthrough that says walk on the bridge and not
understand why it is not working.



When writing a walkthrough don't mix the solution to two puzzles. Always
give all the steps of one puzzle before moving on to the next. Example: The
first puzzle involves hitting buttons in a certain order. Some buttons are
in the living room, some in the kitchen. The second, completely unrelated,
puzzle involves hitting switches in a certain order. Some of the switches
are in the living room, some in the kitchen. The fastest way would be too
hit the buttons and the switches in the living room, then go hit the buttons
and the switches in the kitchen. But if the player is stuck and he reads
that he gets the solution to two puzzles, thereby spoiling one too many.



When writing a walkthrough make sure the player don't see too much of it at
once. One step should be written below the next. Start the walkthrough a bit
down on the page, so that one doesn't see several steps of the walkthrough
when opening the document.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

J. Hall <skeletonitus@supanet.com> wrote:
> I agree entirely and this is a serious score-reducer as far as I'm
> concerned; evidence that the game either wasn't beta-tested properly,
> or the author doesn't care about the player.

> I'm amazed at some of the high scores that a few people (many of whom
> should know better) have awarded to games that definitely fall under
> this category. This is not some insignificant problem that can just be
> waved away like it was some one-off spelling error.

In the case of Bellclap specifically, I hadn't turned to the walkthrough
until I'd figured out two different ways to get the component that first
walkthrough command provided. (Neither of which were that command, mind.)
So my reaction was "Oh, right. This is an unclued shortest-path walkthrough."

If I'm totally stuck and running out of time, I'd run through the
walkthrough, read the text, and if it seemed worth the effort, *then*
play the game again poking around more if it was an unclued shortest-path
one.

I think the walkthrough I appreciated the most was actually Escape From
Auriga's; it was a working walkthrough despite the enormous amount of
randomization in the game mechanics, and included both shortest-path
and total task completion.

--Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Here, J. Hall <skeletonitus@supanet.com> wrote:
> Papillon <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com>...
> >
> > Most importantly, most walkthroughs are badly written. They often include
> > the shortest sequence of moves necessary to complete the game... and bear no
> > resemblance to the moves necessary to actually PLAY the game.
> >
> > Think of what happens to the poor player who opens the walkthrough file for
> > 'Bellclap' and is immediately faced with a command that they would never
> > have dreamed of using. There is no explanation of why that command is
> > useful, or how the player was ever supposed to come up with it. The player
> > may immediately begin to swear and throw things around and complain about
> > the author demanding mind-reading. And since that command made no sense at
> > all, the player now has no confidence that they could ever progress in this
> > game on eir own. The game is ruined.
>
> I agree entirely and this is a serious score-reducer as far as I'm
> concerned; evidence that the game either wasn't beta-tested properly,
> or the author doesn't care about the player.

Wait, wait, you're *not* agreeing with Papillon. He's talking about
badly-written *walkthroughs*. (To wit, a walkthrough that shows a
command but doesn't show the commands whose responses would have clued
you in about that command.)

You're talking about a badly-written *game*. That's a completely
different problem. A good game can have a bad walkthrough, or vice
versa.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On 18 Nov 2004 12:42:27 -0800, cavebloke@excite.com (Tommy Herbert) wrote:

>Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message news:<visop09uril6dqmgbnq60um3mu79c4ucg9@4ax.com>...
>
>> Many walkthroughs try to use the minimum number of moves to compete the
>> game, and in many cases could only be constructed with prior knowledge of
>> the game (in other words, they don't always invoke an in-game reason for
>> performing some action, they do it because the author knows it needs to be
>> done).
>
>I don't know whether you think this is a good thing or a bad one, but
>it's what I was aiming for in the first of the two walkthroughs I
>provided in _Bellclap_. I suspect it was that "short route" which was
>also the one that made Papillon so upset.

It was partially the short walkthrough for Bellcap that I was thinking of.
If it's the _only_ walkthrough, then I would say it's a "Bad Thing". As a
bonus "see how quickly you can complete it" to a "proper" walkthrough I
would see it as a nice touch.

(** spoilers **)

My experience was similar to another respondent; I'd already got past the
bit where "cut finger" is an unclued shortcut, and needed help for
something else. Even so, to have that as the first command of the _first_
walkthrough seemed very odd.

(In passing, and for balance, after a little bit of adjustment, I really
liked the _concept_ that you embodied in Bellcap [especially the X ME and a
couple of other responses]).


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@eblong.com> wrote:

>Here, J. Hall <skeletonitus@supanet.com> wrote:
>> Papillon <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com>...
>> > Think of what happens to the poor player who opens the walkthrough file for
>> > 'Bellclap' and is immediately faced with a command that they would never
>> > have dreamed of using. There is no explanation of why that command is
>> > useful, or how the player was ever supposed to come up with it. The player
>> > may immediately begin to swear and throw things around and complain about
>> > the author demanding mind-reading. And since that command made no sense at
>> > all, the player now has no confidence that they could ever progress in this
>> > game on eir own. The game is ruined.
>>
>> I agree entirely and this is a serious score-reducer as far as I'm
>> concerned; evidence that the game either wasn't beta-tested properly,
>> or the author doesn't care about the player.
>
>Wait, wait, you're *not* agreeing with Papillon. He's talking about
>badly-written *walkthroughs*. (To wit, a walkthrough that shows a
>command but doesn't show the commands whose responses would have clued
>you in about that command.)

She. And yes, I'm only talking about the walkthrough. I had luckily
already taken enough of a liking to the game that the blow to my confidence
created by looking at the walkthrough didn't actually make me give up on it,
and was eventually able to discover clues for at least some of the
solutions. I liked the game and gave it a pretty good score. The walkthrough
thing was still upsetting, though, and therefore something I'd like to
encourage future comp authors not to do.

I'm not good at solving puzzles. I'm a lazy player. I mostly want to read
the story. I will go to a walkthrough very quickly, particularly if I'm in a
rut of boring games at the time. So it's important to think about the
impression of your game that the walkthrough creates.


---
Hanako Games
Anime Games and Screensavers To Download
http://www.hanakogames.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message news:<9amrp0dh9p98081k0s7amhtl8d7lbin67d@4ax.com>...

> My experience was similar to another respondent; I'd already got past the
> bit where "cut finger" is an unclued shortcut, and needed help for
> something else. Even so, to have that as the first command of the _first_
> walkthrough seemed very odd.

Good point.

> (In passing, and for balance, after a little bit of adjustment, I really
> liked the _concept_ that you embodied in Bellcap [especially the X ME and a
> couple of other responses]).

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

emshort@mindspring.com (emshort@mindspring.com) wrote in message news:<a69830de.0411181712.2c0e07cb@posting.google.com>...
> Papillon <papillon_hentai@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<1apmp0hukh7v2ntr5asjgg0mru0gg2dca5@4ax.com>...
>
> > Most importantly, most walkthroughs are badly written. They often include
> > the shortest sequence of moves necessary to complete the game... and bear no
> > resemblance to the moves necessary to actually PLAY the game.
>
> My favorite IF walkthroughs are the ones written by David Welbourn.
> They include enough commands to let the player know what's going on,
> but underline the required moves so that you can play a minimal
> walkthrough if you want; they're organized in clearly-labeled
> sections, sometimes with notes to help you determine whether you're
> ready for a certain section yet; and some have annotations to explain
> any background information that might be confusing. He has quite a
> large collection of them now, accessible from
>
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/ifindex.html#if1

Though old, Gareth Rees's walkthroughs for Balances and Jigsaw are
also excellent at explaining puzzles and pointing out clues. You can
find them at

http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/solutions/Balances.solve
http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/solutions/Jigsaw.step

His walkthroughs inspired my walkthrough for Unnkulia 1, which is at

http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/solutions/unnkulian1.step

although my interspersing of parenthesized comments throughout the
command list was taken from Paul J. Godfrey's walkthroughs, such as
the one at

http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/solutions/SoFar.sol

The biggest problem with walkthroughs in the style of the "Electronic
Gamer" one quoted above is that you can't easily copy lists of
movement commands from the file to your game. For instance,

so go south, south, and southeast to the back of the house

would be more convenient if it were written as

s, s, se (to Behind House)

--
MSC