🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct2.171920.14307@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, vputz@nyx.cs.du.edu (Victor Putz) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> ..I tend to agree.
|> 
|> Nowadays, there is simply a tendency for more flash, less thought; Ultima
|> 7, which sold 50,000 copies day 1 of sales, is FUNDAMENTALLY no different
|> than it was several years ago.  It just looks better and the player
|> interface is all nice and pretty.  
|> The Sierra adventures rea no different;
|> I will no longer play any of them, since every puzzle seems to be of the
|> "put tab a into slot b" variety.

I agree about the Sierra adventures, but not about Ultima -- U6 and U7 are
object-oriented, and there's a lot more you can do in them.  Richard Garriot
told me a story about the beta testing of U6:  he had designed some place
that you couldn't pass unless you brought down a drawbridge, but the 
crank was on the other side of the chasm.  He had intended the players to 
use telekinesis to activate the lever; one of the testers killed a character,
threw the body over the chasm to the other side, and then cast Reincarnation
and took control of the character and turned the crank!

In the older Ultimas, the only way to solve a puzzle was a way that was 
thought of by the designers of the game.  (The same with every Sierra
game I've seen... :(  )  With the new Ultimas, there is sometimes more
than one way of doing something, which is more realistic.


		Amit

-- 
/\\ Amit J Patel, amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
\\/ I think I'm at Rice University