I have picked up the gauntlet one again, and am continuing on a quest to write my first IF game.

Real life is a right PITA.

Anyway.

One of the puzzles I wish to implement is a variation on the measuring jugs...

E.g. - You have a 3 pint pot and a 5 pint pot. Neither pot has any graduation markings. You need to accurately measure 4 pints using only these pots.

Now to my dilemma.

In my game I am going to have the player measure out 3 different ingredients.

If I do this accurately, then by volume 2 of the ingredients will require exactly the same amount. However, due to densities, by weight they all require different amounts.

Ideally I would like the player to have to measure 3 different amounts, otherwise s/he just had to blindly repeat the steps for the other ingredient.

The problem I am facing is, in my head at least, using weights over volumes is adding increasing complexity and numerous steps for the player to jump through.

Example.

If I use volumes I can easily use multiple containers which are distinct from each other (cup, bowl, jug, etc...). From there it is just a matter of using "fill X from Y" until you have the correct amounts.

Using weights I have to decide if I want to use 1 set of balances with multiple counterweights; or multiple balances, each with a fixed counter weight.

The second option is the easiest for the player as it still allows, to a certain extent, "fill X from Y". The problem is that our could easily lead to confusion and I would like to avoid constant "which balance" questions or the player typing in-immersive prose such as "pour red into green", and colour is the only real way I can think to wait distinguish separate balances.

But then, I also find it unrealistic that there would be several balances as opposed to one balance with several counter weight.

The simple solution to all this is to either stomach the fact that 2 of the volumes are identical, or use artistic licence and get the player to measure volumes, but using the weight values instead.

The ratio by volume is 7:5:5
The ratio by weight, however, is 15:3:2.

What are your thoughts.

Following comments after the last IF comp, I get the general impression that measuring cup puzzles are seen as a bit of a cliche nowadays.

Silver wrote:Following comments after the last IF comp, I get the general impression that measuring cup puzzles are seen as a bit of a cliche nowadays.

That's as maybe, but there are a limited number of puzzles you can easily implement into a command line interface.

Once you go graphical and introduce a cursor, choices just open up.

As such, cliché or not, I'm having one - so my question still stands.

Using weights is not as intuitive. For volumes, just type FILL JUG WITH FLOUR. Two verbs, and it is clear what is going on. Would you expect the player to WEIGHT JUG WITH FLOUR or MEASURE FLOUR INTO JUG USING BALANCE or what? It is not at all obvious, you would have to try to cover everything.

I wondered why the scales would be so restricted; it kind of makes more sense with volume. However, if you had to build a basic balance as part of the puzzle, that would make it more reasonable and give a novel slant on the puzzle.

Also, how accurately does the player really need to be? When I was in college, I baked a cake without using any scales at all (and in a casserole dish), and it turned out fine.

I personally wouldn't sacrifice game play for realism, unless the realism actually has bearing on the game play (if you know what I mean). In other words, realism for the sake of realism can be a pointless goal. So I wouldn't bother with densities. But that's me.

The Pixie wrote:Using weights is not as intuitive. For volumes, just type FILL JUG WITH FLOUR. Two verbs, and it is clear what is going on. Would you expect the player to WEIGHT JUG WITH FLOUR or MEASURE FLOUR INTO JUG USING BALANCE or what? It is not at all obvious, you would have to try to cover everything.

I wondered why the scales would be so restricted; it kind of makes more sense with volume. However, if you had to build a basic balance as part of the puzzle, that would make it more reasonable and give a novel slant on the puzzle.

Also, how accurately does the player really need to be? When I was in college, I baked a cake without using any scales at all (and in a casserole dish), and it turned out fine.

This is what I was strugling with. Volumes in this instance are far more intuitive for the player, and easier to implement for me. I just can't see a non-convoluted way of using weights. But it was the "realism" that was holding me back.

jaynabonne wrote:I personally wouldn't sacrifice game play for realism, unless the realism actually has bearing on the game play (if you know what I mean). In other words, realism for the sake of realism can be a pointless goal. So I wouldn't bother with densities. But that's me.

Thank you. I was leaning in this direction, I just needed the push.

For the sake of the player, I think I'll take artistic licence and convert weights into volumes so I get the all the puzzle steps I want, without making it overly complex or a repetitive chore.

Thanks.

Suspension of disbelief is important, realism not so much. Imagine how unexciting Skyrim would be if you died and then couldn't restart on account of you being dead.

The wiki entry for suspension of disbelief is quite interesting. There's things that an audience will accept and other things they will question. I guess consistency is key here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Cheers guys.