Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!news.gnac.net!uunet!sac.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: you people are masochists: on quitting
Message-ID: <G474nE.ILJ@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:11:38 GMT
References: <G45vtz.791@world.std.com> <I3jR5.18082$0X4.2979453@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 334
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:58611

Greg Berry <gberry@mgfairfax.rr.com> wrote:
>I have received varying criticisms about my game
>(Enlisted) but yours was the first that indicated extreme frustration about
>not being able to get out of the first room.

Let me start with an analogy.  Reviewers of commercial computer
games often report on the degree to which they encounter bugs in
particular games.

The fact that a particular reviewer encountered a bug is beyond
irrelevant in determining the quality of that game.  All games
have bugs.  These days, many bugs are due to driver conflicts,
which are nearly impossible for developers to predict; some
people will have driver problems, and others won't.

As such, I always find it worrisome when reviewers mention in
such contexts mention bugs, *especially in mainstream media*.

That's because in mainstream media, few people will ever read
more than one review.

While the fact of a single reviewer encountering a bug is
essentially valueless, the bugginess of a given game can be
be evaluated by determining the degree of bugginess reported
across a large number of reviews.

Ok?  End of analogy.

The "review" to which you are responding was in no way a review.
I happen to collect data about how long I play games.  I thought
it might be interesting to present that data in some forms (such
as the scatterplots I just posted).  One thing that struck me
was the degree to which I *am* impatient and *am* unwilling to
put up with a game that starts me off on the wrong foot.  So I
thought authors *in general* might appreciate getting to see how
*just one player* reacts to these sorts of situations.  Is it
scientific?  No, not unless a lot of players posted similar data
(see my analogy).  Is it intended as advice for other players about
whether they might want to play the game (i.e. is it a review)?  No.

>As an author I willingly accept full blame for those who gave my game a
>sincere effort but didn't like it enough to get more than 1/2 way through.
>But to complain about the fact that it took you 5 lines of typing to solve a
>"puzzle" that could be solved in many ways shows me that as a player you
>don't want to contribute anything to the game  I am not overly sad that you
>gave up in  5 minutes.

*That* is fine.  If, looking over my comments for other games, you
can see, "huh, this is a guy who I really don't care about what his
experience with my game is", that's awesome, because that's sort of
the point of my post.  If, on the other hand, an author were to look
at it and go, "huh, i can see why he stopped on that game... oh and
on this other game... oh shit he stopped on mine", that would also be
fine.  But if, on the third hand, an author just takes my comments
about his or her game out of context, that's not quite fine.

>Possible clues to get the form include
>
>1.  The LED display (which you eventually found)

This spells out the necessary command, yes.  It eventually spells
it out after you eventually find it.  Eventually.

>2.  Going NE or NW receives a reply of, "whoa there trooper you need to give
>me a completed enlistment form before leaving this room"

And this helps me solve the puzzle how?

  >NW
  The sergeant stops you.  He says, 'Whoa there trooper, you need to give
  me a completed enlistment form before leaving this room.'

  >ASK SERGEANT FOR FORM
  You do not see such a thing.

[it turns out you must "ASK SERGEANT ABOUT FORM".]

Mind you, it seemed fairly inappropriate in that situation
for me to go NE or NW; it was obvious I needed to deal with
the sergeant first.  So why would I?  I guess I would have
eventually if I hadn't found the other thing.

>3.  Reading the card in your inventory notes that you have an appointment.

Which helps you get the form how?

  >X CARD
  Sergeant Bilko
  ...
  ... 'Thursday, 8:15 appointment'

  >SHOW CARD TO SERGEANT

  The sergeant takes the card and quickly looks at it.  'It's my business
  card, with what appears to be your writing reminding you to be here right
  about now.'  He hands it back to you saying,  'I assume you are here to
  join up?'

  >SERGEANT, YES
  "If there are orders to be followed, I'll give them, not you!"
or
  >SAY "YES" TO SERGEANT
  The recruiter acknowledges your comment with a cough.

>4.  Using common sense and asking the man behind the recruiters desk about
>enlistment (the game is entitled "enlisted" after all)\

Sure, but then he's a RECRUITER and he's in a RECRUITMENT OFFICE, and those
are the words that are sitting there visibly on the screen.  So we can
debate what's "obvious" all day long.

>5.  Giving the recruiter the card that was the SINGLE item in your inventory
>where the recruiter reads it and replies "... I assume you are here to join
>up"

Er, this is different from #3 how?  Ok, wait:

  >SHOW CARD TO SERGEANT

  The sergeant takes the card and quickly looks at it.  'It's my business
  card, with what appears to be your writing reminding you to be here right
  about now.'  He hands it back to you saying,  'I assume you are here to
  join up?'

  >JOIN
  That's against Space Force Regulation 1796.

  >JOIN UP
  That's against Space Force Regulation 349.

Nope, I'm still not seeing how this clues me in in any way on
an action that advances the plot (e.g. gets me the form).

So, to sum up, I see you saying:
   #1: (which I will criticize in my review below)
   #2: a single alternative command, of which the first
       variant I thought of didn't work, all of which is
       predicated on a clue for an action I (at least)
       would be unlikely to take since it would obviously fail
   #3: mucking with the card which doesn't seem to relate at all
   #4: read your mind
   #5: #3 again

I'm sure you must have meant something specific by #3 and #5,
but as a naive player who doesn't know anything about the solution
in advance, I'm not seeing it.

>Now it may seem I am being harsh but your review (along with several others)
>have been very harsh so take some time to look in the mirror before writing
>a review that reveals your weaknesses of character (patience and
>determination) and not just the games weaknesses (a missing verb).

Oh dear, I didn't realize that my unwillingness to play a game that
just wasn't looking very appealing due to some obvious flaws in the
responses to *my* play attempt (remember what I said about needing
to aggregate experiences across multiple players) was indicative of
a character weakness on my part.  Well, ok.

>post comp release of the game.  Not playing games, and ranting, about it
>because one possible verb isn't provided is a different matter.  I question
>the quality of your reviews.

As I noted, it wasn't a review.

So.

Here is a review of the five minutes I spent on Enlistment,
in the form of a description of my thought processes, so
chosen to make it absolutely clear where the fault lies in
the game and where the fault lies in my character weaknesses.

  Ok, it's another Inform game.  Launch it, it runs fine.

  First paragraph.  Second sentence is a sentence fragment,
  probably ok in this context but sets up a warning light.

  Uh oh, last sentence of the FIRST PARAGRAPH is an unwieldy
  simile which I'm not even sure I get: "as if a drummer from
  a speed metal band used your head as a snare drum during a
  power ballad."  Why a "speed metal band"?  If speed metal is
  characterized by being speedy, wouldn't a speed metal drummer
  hit the snare drum more often?  But then wouldn't a power ballad
  be slower?  Do those cancel out?  If it's a "power ballad"
  not just a "ballad" does that mean the drummer uses more
  power when he hits the snare?  Well, nevermind, but this
  is the first paragraph, so not a good sign.

  "At least The divorce proceedings were simple" -- oops,
  a capitalized "The" and missing a double space at the
  beginning of the sentence, and we're still in the introductory
  text, lack of proofreading, ALARMS ARE GOING OFF.

  Ok, the premise sounds reasonable, a wacky sci-fi game,
  and there haven't been any other gratuitous errors (but
  those were in the INTRO TEXT, *sigh*), so let's give it
  the benefit of the doubt.

  Ok, examine a few things, and then I have this sequence:

    >TALK TO SERGEANT
    That's against Space Force Regulation 803.

  [Ok, in hindsight, that means "your command wasn't understood".
  As a new-to-this-game naive player, does it mean to me "your
  command wasn't understood"?  No, it means "you can't do that".]

  Wait, I can't talk to the sergeant?  That's insane.  Ok, let
  me try it differently just in case.

    >SERGEANT, HELLO
    "If there are orders to be followed, I'll give them, not you!"

  Ok, I guess that means the sergeant really doesn't want me to
  talk to him, it must not be a speech thing.

    >ENLIST
    That's against Space Force Regulation 1261.

  Ok, wait, I must not be ready to enlist yet.  Shit, what else
  can I do at this point other than enlist.

  After trying a few things, I decide to ask him, even though
  I've seemingly already been told that communication will be
  fruitless.  What the heck, I'm a masochist.

    >ASK SERGEANT ABOUT RECRUITMENT
    "Show some initiative, find your own answer!"

  Ok, well, nevermind, clearly this is a generic response: he
  will NEVER answer questions.  I really DO have to give up on
  this whole communication thing.  Well, let's look around the
  place, there sure is a lot of stuff.

    >X DISPLAY
    You're looking at a wall mounted 1980s style LED Display device.
    the scrolling red LEDs are currently spelling out ... Welcome to the
    Space Force Recruiting Center

  Ugh, missing capitalization, a missing hyphen, those alarms from
  before are getting louder...

    >X DISPLAY
    [blah blah] ... We hope you have a pleasant stay

    >X DISPLAY
    [blah blah] ... Welcome to the Space Force Recruiting Center

    >X DISPLAY
    [blah blah] ... Welcome to the Space Force Recruiting Center

  Ok, enough of that, what else is there here?

    >X DESK
    ...

    >X PAMPHLET
    Trooper, which did you mean, the pamphlet holder or the recruitment
    pamphlet?

  Sigh.  Why even bother with the holder if it's just going to cause
  this disambiguation question?

    >RECRUITMENT
    ... description with no clues ...

  Ok, who knows, maybe I missed an important message on the display,
  and the author didn't consider the fact that by hiding an important
  message in a random display which has THREE messages would result
  in 20% of people not seeing the important message after four tries.

    >X DISPLAY
    [blah blah] ... We hope you have a pleasant stay

  Ok, 14% of people after five tries.  [It was at least five, I didn't
  write it down precisely.]

    >X DISPLAY
    [blah blah] ... Have you asked your recruiter about 'enlistment' today?

  ASK the recruiter about ENLISTMENT?  After just telling me to answer
  my own questions?  And the only clue to it is in a random signboard
  that might or might not deign to give you the clue?

  Between that guess the verb and all the punctuation/capitalization
  problems, no thanks.  I'll come back to it after I've played everything
  else in the comp.  [Note: there was never time.]

Come on, really.  Stop for a second and forget what you know as
the author and really look at what your game is saying to the
player.  Your answers to "incorrect" solutions should be chosen,
ideally, to hint the player in the right direction to go.  "ASKING,
yes, ASKING is GOOD but you need to ASK the RIGHT THING."  Not
discourage the player from that line of pursuit.

I've tried to clarify with the annotated transcript above (the
exact same transcript from my previous not-review with some made up
stuff in the middle where I know I did something else in the middle),
almost every single response I got DISCOURAGED me from pursuing the
correct course of action.

To spell out some stuff not spelled out completely in the above,
here are the first three commands again:

   >TALK TO SERGEANT

By changing the "I don't know that word" message (something I and
some others complain about frequently) you run the risk of misleading
the player by making him or her think the command issued was understood
but refused.

   >SERGEANT, HELLO

Since my command was not an "order", the use of the term "orders"
in the response made me *suspect* that the author didn't realize
there were things that might come through that weren't exactly
order like.  On the other hand, it seemed to offer confirming
evidence that talking to the NPC was just not the solution.

   >ENLIST

Again the "I don't know that word message", but it was DIFFERENT
this time because you used a random number generator.  So what do
I see?  A different response.  Only slightly different, sure, but
it looks to me like this is yet another recognized command which
is disallowed for some reason, since it drew a different response
(the difference being for humorous effect, no doubt).  So it looked
to me like I was BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE; I wasn't really supposed
to enlist yet.

Ok, I think I've explained this whole "seeing it from the point
of view of the player" well enough by now.

SeanB
(Over-explanation is definitely one of my character weaknesses)
