Re: Why so little Puzzleless IF?

[marsh@nettally.com (Steven Marsh)]

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:01:30 -0800, "Mike Berlyn"
<mberlyn@cascadepublishing.com> wrote:

<snip>

Good post, Mike.  


>In essence, I have found the experience an order of magnitude more
>difficult than, say, writing Suspended was.

See, that's odd.  I've always admired Suspended for being
quasi-puzzle-less, in the sense that the "puzzles" were so seemlessly
integrated into the game.  It's not a puzzle (in my mind) if you can't
figure something out (like interpreting the robots' responses);
otherwise, mystery novels are "puzzles" (which, I suppose they are,
when looked at from the right angle).

I guess I admire games where the puzzles are honestly (transparently)
a part of the game; I've recently gained an appreciation of Plundered
Hearts, which had so many solutions to the few "puzzles" that it was
difficult -to- get stuck.  Likewise, I consider the Infocom mysteries
to be (for the most part) puzzleless (sans Ballyhoo).  Sure, you need
to poke around and investigate, but that's just a simulation... much
like Suspended is.

All told, then, I suppose I'd rather have a game with an object but
transparent puzzles, than true "puzzleless" IF.  Otherwise, I'd just
stick to Choose-your-own-adventures (not that there's anything wrong
with that; I'm greatly saddened that my Steve Jackson books were
destroyed in a flood).

My 2 cents' worth.

Steven Marsh
marsh@nettally.com