rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (02/11/85)
In article <296@ist.UUCP> pat@ist.UUCP (Patrick Place) writes: <someone else's quote: > ##Speaking of dogs, I have modified my version of Hack so the dog ##doesn't automatically go wild if you leave him behind on a level. >Well, why don't you continue to modify the source, you could >stop all monsters from hitting you.... >If I modified a game to make it easier, I certainly wouldn't >want anyone else to know. Sure, play the modified game but >don't expect any respect if you do finally get the amulet out >of the dungeon. What's missing here is why we play games. I play games to be amused; altho games need to be difficult to keep my interest up, there is a point beyond which difficulty ceases to interest me. I'd just as soon be able to save games of Rogue & backtrack to correct tactical errors (a la Zork). Suppose I modified a copy of Rogue and played it? Does it hurt anyone if I do this? No. Would it interest me, in as much as I'd waste much less time playing thru the opening sequence of the dungeon over and over again? Yes. So I think that playing your privately modified forms of games is just spiffy. After all, your game won't post to the system-wide score file; and anyone who you beat at your form of the game is playing with the same handicap/advantage you are. In the words of the New Games Movement (from memory...) "Play hard. Play fair. Everybody wins." -- "1985: Why 1985 isn't like 1984" Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (02/15/85)
My two cents:
There is more than one kind of difficulty in a game. A game can
be difficult when it makes you think, or exercises some skill. A
game can also be difficult by requiring so much patience on the part
of the player that he loses when he gives up. Like seeing how many
times one can do a repetitive task. This is not fun, in my opinion.
The strong suits in Hack (and rogue, et. al.) are complexity, and the
level of problem solving. That is, there are many ways around a particular
problem, even those not considered by the original author. Repetitive
tasks that a) do not add to the realism of the game, and b) require
no brains or stratagy, should be designed out when possible.
Now: It's not realistic to assume a tame dog will go wild if I leave
it for a moment, just because my elevation has changed. This 'feature'
disallows the stratagy of ducking down trap doors or down/up stairs
to escape nasties, which adds to the complexity and enjoyment of the
game. The random factor seems a bit unfair as well, as the damn dog
often steps on a trap door and ultimately turns on you. Bah. Take
it out. Perhaps a time limit to be off the same level before he goes
wild, but forget it. Easier to just comment out the code. You know
what? People started to actually take their dogs along, instead of
killing them off right away.
Now, as to making the game easier, I don't think I changed that
much. It *did* make the game less tedious by a whole bunch, which
is what I was after. I have had as many as five tame animals at
a time. Try to get them all down the stairs at once!
BTW: On my machine the two-handed-sword is tops in the weapon
department, just like old rogue. It still has the disadvantage
of not allowing you to wear a shield, so there! I plan to
make it a whole lot less effective in corridors, as opposed to
wide open spaces. This adds to realism. "Your sword clangs off
the corridor wall. The Dragon hits!"
In my version there is a remote chance that something ugly will
happen if you wield an unknown two-hander. You see, I'm a Michael
Moorcock fan......
--
Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix}!wjvax!ronrobert@gitpyr.UUCP (Robert Viduya) (02/17/85)
>< Posted from ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) > In my version there is a remote chance that something ugly will > happen if you wield an unknown two-hander. You see, I'm a Michael > Moorcock fan...... > -- Interesting concept. However, to make the game interesting, there ought to be a advantage to wielding such a sword. The sword in Michael Moorcock's stories had the advantage of making the wielder almost inv- incible in battle. However, said swords were rather hungry and were not picky as to who they killed ("Your sword twitches and slices your dog's head off. _-_-_M_o_r_e_-_-"). Then there's always rings of invisibilty to muck around with (I'm also a Tolkien fan). robert -- Robert Viduya Georgia Institute of Technology ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!robert