Creating a *very specific* riddle game with a "linear map".

[Tigger31337]

@Laroquod

In CYOA the player is given simple choice points, in which they know that one of two things will happen, or one of three things will happen, like that.

Not quite, but I get what you’re driving at. I agree with the former part of your definition (players gets to choose “simple choice points”) but not the latter (“in which they know that xxx will happen”). It does not follow that, simply because a player makes a choice, he knows the next plot twist. Indeed, the best crafted CYOA avoid just that. In any case, none of this applies to my game, because with my game you get exactly ZERO choice points. And choosing from ZERO options, is hardly a choice at all, now is it? No choosing, hence, not a CYOA.

@Laroquod

In IF the player is given a sandbox to play in, where the number of possible narrative choices is disguised: it isn’t immediately apparent.

Also agreed.

@Laroquod

Achieving these two different effects for the player is a lot of the difference between a CYOA design system and an IF design system. Your idea is closer to CYOA on that level.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of other game genres besides “CYOA” and “IF”. Take, oh I dunno, a simple riddle-solving game, for example.

@Laroquod

BTW I was trying to help you.

Paul.

I’ll offer a “thanks” for the effort.

[Laroquod]

To me, zero options means literally zero options. If there are types of media that offer even fewer options than a riddle-game (and there are: like books, movies, etc), then it’s hard for me to see a riddle-game as zero options, because zero is the lowest whole number. How can you have fewer options than zero? You can’t, so there must be options in a riddle game, but they are just the simplest options possible – so simple that they bear the closest possible resemblance to being zero options without actually being zero options. That’s what makes it a borderline case.

Regarding the false dichotomy comment – yes I agree; logic shouldn’t force you to choose one category or another when they are not mutually exclusive. Depending on your viewpoint you can belong to both, one, or neither. This is my whole point.

Paul.

[matt_weiner (matt w)]

@Tigger31337

If it doesn’t sound like CYOA to you, then why the hell are you giving me such a hard time when I am agreeing with you?! I have been saying the same thing all along: my game is NOT a CYOA! It’s really not that hard an argument to follow.

Because I think you’re being rude to people who are trying to be helpful to you and who haven’t done anything to deserve your rudeness.

@matt w

Yours is that the player can affect the plot/outcome.

sigh
No, in my game you can NOT affect the plot/outcome.

facepalm I was saying, quite clearly, that your definition of CYOA is that a CYOA is a game in which the player can affect the plot/outcome. Your game is not a CYOA because it doesn’t fit your definition of a CYOA.

Look, it’s your privilege to react the way you want to when people offer a definition of CYOA that’s different than yours, but if you’re going to get hyper-argumentative about it you may find people less willing to engage with you. Which also means that they’ll be less willing to help you with your code.

Of course I do not always engage in the most constructive internet interaction strategies myself, and I’m no I7 pro, so there’s no reason for me to get up on a high horse. Best to live and let live, I suppose.

[Trumgottist (Rikard Peterson)]

@Laroquod

I did answer your question with exactly my opinion on the issue, and I wasn’t talking about if/then statements. I was talking about the implementation of player choices. Your implementation of player choices resembles the implementation of player choices in CYOA more than it does IF. In CYOA the player is given simple choice points, in which they know that one of two things will happen, or one of three things will happen, like that. In IF the player is given a sandbox to play in, where the number of possible narrative choices is disguised: it isn’t immediately apparent. Achieving these two different effects for the player is a lot of the difference between a CYOA design system and an IF design system. Your idea is closer to CYOA on that level. However, on the level of 'what do people expect to happen when they play a CYOA (extensive branching) it obviously is not a CYOA. I know you don’t want to accept that as an answer, but it’s reality as I see it. I believe some things genuinely don’t fit squarely into the appointed categories – these categories are man-made, I know you realise that: but do you believe they’re perfect? No overlap whatsoever? It isn’t a yes/no question. And your idea, in my opinion, is one of those things that can’t be squarely put in either camp. So what am I supposed to do, invent another opinion other than what I believe? You’ll have to accept it or not accept it as you see fit but that’s my answer.

BTW I was trying to help you.

Paul.

Well said.

[tove]

@Tigger31337

You have made the subtle move of shifting the label of CYOA from my game to the actual code itself. That is a totally arbitrary move which does not help your original argument one iota.

This is clearly where we’re talking past each other – I thought we were talking about writing code the whole time:

@Tigger31337

Any ideas on how I would get started?

@Ron Newcomb

Sounds like you’re making a choose-your-own-adventure. I believe there’s an extension or two on the Inform site that makes that easy.

@tove

it has more in common structurally with CYOA than it does with world-modeled IF.

Your initial post was asking for code advice, Ron’s post was a suggestion for extension you could use to write code, and I agreed that the extension in question might be more useful to you, in writing code, than you might have thought. Sometimes it helps to reframe a problem in terms of a known solution (for example, using a conversational system as an attack system, even though conversation and attacking are two different things, because structurally they may show similarities in the context of IF).

Anyway, of course I don’t care what you call your work. When you get right down to it, I don’t care how you program your work either, any more than any of the other helpful people on this thread who’ve given more concrete answers than I have.

@Tigger31337

Now, he got very defensive, and insisted that he was right, and I was wrong.

Assuming you’re talking about me and not some dude, well, if my words really came across as that insistent or insulting (my “I just thought that it sounds structurally similar” vs your “It seems that you, too, have misunderstood the objective of my game. In no way, whatever, is it accurate[…]does not help your original argument one iota[…]I know perfectly well that you are mistaken.”), then I apologize. I have no interest in making you sad or angry – I’m sure there would be easier ways to troll this group if I wanted to do so. We’ll clearly have to agree to disagree on the question of what constitutes branching or narrative choices, but that’s fine by me, and shouldn’t affect the happiness of either of us.

@mattw

tove’s definition, if I’ve got it right, is that it doesn’t have a parser or underlying world model (which doesn’t look like it’s true for your game, anyway, since it sounds like you can examine objects in the rules).

Yep, you’ve got it right, though the more I look into it, the more the explicit choice listing is clearly part of most people’s expectations as well – consider my opinion updated. Since I’m being a horrible meanie that is trying to force poor unsuspecting games into labels they don’t feel comfortable with, though, I’ll point out that the initial spec, along with all this [b]one move to make[/b] business does not make it sound like the game supports examining objects, but instead gives the pertinent information all in one dump. But the spec is inconsistent through the thread, so what do I know?

@Laroquod

BTW I was trying to help you.

I know, right?

[Tigger31337]

Sure, I’m all for flogging a dead horse:

From Tigger’s First Post:

@Tigger

I want each room to be logically connected to the next in a linear fashion. By that, I mean the player follows a straight path from one room to the next.

I’m developing a sort of children’s riddle game.

The primary objective is to solve one puzzle before you can proceed to the next room.

Users can’t skip rooms along the path.

If, and only if, the player provides the correct answer to the current room’s puzzle, he may proceed to the next room.

(…and so on)

Ron Newcomb’s first reply:

@Ron

Sounds like you’re making a choose-your-own-adventure.

Tigger’s FIRST reply back to Ron (verbatim):

@Tigger

Not quite. Remember that my story path is completely linear. There will be no forking or choosing of paths.

You appear in “Room 1”. The only way to get to “Room 2” is to solve Room 1’s riddle. For argument’s sake, let’s say there are 10 rooms until you end. To “win” the game, each and every room must be completed in order.

Ron’s reply (he still thinks, for some reason, that Tigger is making a CYOA):

@Ron

Eh? One path goes forward, the other loops back with a hint…

Tigger’s 2nd attempt (3rd overall) to explain his game concept. Directed at Ron:

@Tigger

Hehe. Nice try, but no.
That’s not what most people refer to when they say “CYOA”.
My “plot-line” (if you can call it that) cannot get any more linear. I am not looking to choose-your-own-anything. In case my first post wasn’t clear, the player is to flow from one room to the next. The outcome of the game is fixed.

Displaying a 1-line hint (which is not a requirement, by the way) while within a room does not count as “looping back”. Looping back implies that you have already left the room.

Sensing that Ron needs help with his failed CYOA argument, tove steps in and thinks he can lend a helping hand:

@tove

Your objective may not be exactly what most people mean when they say CYOA (no spaceships or pirates), but it has more in common structurally with CYOA than it does with world-modeled IF. In any given room – which cannot be re-visited after exiting, even – there is a “choice”: the correct answer, or any of the wrong ones. This is true even if you haven’t listed the answers out (“1. Banana 2. Apple 3. Orangutan”). The correct answer takes you forward, and the wrong answer keeps you in place (or “loops back” to… exactly where you are). Without that loop, you’d have a game that allows the player to progress regardless of what answer they give, and that doesn’t sound like what you’re thinking of.

Notice the number of mistakes tove makes here. #1. Since “CYOA” doesn’t apply to my GAME (and he knows it) he is going to try to start up another argument (for reasons known only to him) by saying that my CODE has similarities to CYOA. Unfortunately, for reasons I’ve already outlined, describing CODE as CYOA is not very helpful, nor is it descriptive. CYOA describes gameplay, not source code. #2. He actually believes (or wants you to believe) that since my code is not similar to IF, then it must be similar to CYOA. False dichotomy. #3. (This is my favourite). tove thinks that “guessing the correct answer to a riddle” counts as Choosing Your Own Adventure because “there is a choice: the correct answer, or any of the wrong ones”. Not only is tove’s definition of CYOA mistaken, but clearly his definition of “choice” is out of whack, too. Recall my example from my FIRST POST: if I ask you “what does 2+2 equal?” you do NOT have a choice of answers. Good try, though. #4. He believes that staying still is the same as looping back. I’m not really sure what the hell he’s driving at here, but it’s obviously false. I was crystal clear in my descriptions: you REMAIN in the room until you answer the riddle. There is no looping back, because you’ve never left your starting point. You really put on your thinking cap for that one. Bravo.

I won’t quote the rest of the posts, since they’re all pretty much the same - weak arguments that are actually trying to defend (but fail at) describing my game as a CYOA.

Seriously folks, thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

[Laroquod]

@tove

@Laroquod

BTW I was trying to help you.

I know, right?

Yes it was clearly a mistake and I won’t make it again.