Re: An embarrassment of riches?

[jeffmill@ix.netcom.com (JEFFREY MILLER )]

In <4j4jd7$ba8@new-news.cc.brandeis.edu> ian@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias
Gladius) writes: 

>There are lots of us out here who really like puzzles in general, as
>well as plot and characterization.
>
>The only question is whether a particular puzzle adds to the plot
>("Christminister"), is a fun enough puzzle in itself to "break even"
>-- it doesn't add anything to the plot, but it fits into the world,
>and you get to play with a puzzle (the windcats in "SpiritWrak"), or
>detracts from the plot, because the main character has no *reason* to
>solve the puzzle (possibly the park ranger in "Lost New York").

This is a very insightful categorization, I think.

 [snip]


>So, which of those three has "gratuitous" puzzles?
>
>SpiritWrak exists for puzzles -- they're not gratuitious.
>Christminister's puzzles advance the plot.
>
>Lot New York has at least *one* gratuitous puzzle, which I feel
>detracts from it.
>
>Nonetheless, I agree, we shouldn't *dismiss* it -- it's still a great
>game.  But I wonder if it wouldn't be better without it.

This is an excellent point -- some games do exist for puzzles.  It all
depends on the genre in which one is writing.  My taste leans toward
plot driven puzzles rather than a collection of puzzles tied together
with a theme, but there certainly is a place for puzzle driven i-f.


Just not on my hard drive.   :-)  

[just joking, actually.  If its witty or especially well written  
I'll play it with glee]

                Jeff Miller
                jeffmill@ix.netcom.com