Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.frii.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Wumpus
Message-ID: <G0nDxD.7yK@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:39:10 GMT
References: <8om532$jjp$9@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> <L1%t5.1072$Aq4.18480@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <39B8E82A.44BD50C9@hotmail.com> <39B9CEB9.F872F0B2@spam.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:78406

W. Top Changwatchai <no@spam.com> wrote:
>and "Camel"... well, "Camel" was just fun to play.  It was outrageous
>ly difficult and yet its silliness and humor kept me playing again an
>d again.  Even after typing in the source, I still couldn't stop play
>ing, trying to get farther and farther into the desert.  (I don't thi
>nk I ever won, but I came *darn* close.)

>Hmm, I wonder whether there's a lesson here for IF.  What makes a gam
>e playable or not?  For example, repeated, arbitrary deaths might not
> be so bad if the player doesn't really lose any ground, and if there
>'s a sense of the absurd.

This sounds to me LESS like Camel and MORE like Shrapnel, actually.

But maybe Adam has never been truthful about its inspiration.

Sean
