Objects mentioned in location descriptions not being recognised

I am always disappointed when a game doesn't recognise something it has just told me about.

For example:

You are in a forest by a large rock with a river flowing to the East.

EXAMINE ROCK
You can't see that.

EXAMINE RIVER
You can't see that.

I know it is a bit more work to add objects so that they are recognised but it makes a big difference to the experience of playing the game. Even the classic text adventures have the same issue but often they were written with limited RAM and that is no longer the case these days.


Hello.

I agree.

Good luck convincing all the authors!

If you'd like to see some of the authors' reasoning/defenses, read through this thread:
http://textadventures.co.uk/forum/games/topic/vxrep4hi-emaovlngrde0w/is-there-a-reason-that-basilica-de-sangre-has-been-classified-as-incomplete


Sorry I did try to search for a similar thread before posting but didn't find that one.

I presume that the validation process is no longer done for new games as a lot of the ones I have tried (even the highly rated ones) don't meet the criteria mentioned in the thread.

I have been trying to make my game have descriptions for everything mentioned in the descriptions at least.

Thanks for the reply

Simon


I presume that the validation process is no longer done for new games as a lot of the ones I have tried (even the highly rated ones) don't meet the criteria mentioned in the thread.

Well, a few of the people arguing on our side in that thread are site moderators, and that conversation would have discouraged me if I were a site moderator . . .

The authors who (for whatever reason) don't wish to create scenery objects have now expressed how oppressing it is to have to create a game which meets such standards. "How dare anyone dictate art?" This is basically their argument, and it's hard to find solid ground there . . . I mean, I truly believe that all objects mentioned should exist in the game world and that an author who mentions something without creating it is being inconsiderate, but there probably wouldn't be any new games if the moderators rejected all the technically incomplete games.

Anyway... I've always imagined most moderators mentally and spiritually deflating while testing out newly published games, but carrying on in the hopes that they'll come across something good. (The majority of the games are misspelled, grammatically incorrect, pointless, puzzle-less, and grueling, but great games do pop up now and then.)


Log in to post a reply.

Support

Forums