Re: Only a game? Merely symbols? (was: Amoral behvaiour in IF)


21 Jun 1995 13:42:32 GMT

In article <gek-2006951450270001@198.180.141.67>,
Greg Koster <gek@maclaw.law.cuny.edu> wrote:
>Return to Zork did try to address the amorality issue of the earlier Zork
>games. The game has an explicit set of moral rules, which are pretty
>close to real-world morality (no stealing, for example)--and if you break
>the rules, you are punished.
>Most of the discussion on this newsgroup about Return to Zork as a game
>has been negative.
>Is there a relationship between these two paragraphs?

I don't think so.

RTZ got negative reviews mostly because the plot was shallow, the mazes
were annoying, and some of the puzzles were illogical.

Plus, we all got _REALLY REALLY_ sick of "Want some rye? 'Course you do!"

Even the Guardian's enforcement of the "no stealing" rule was inconsistent.
Spoiler alert.

You need the shield from Bel Naire temple to perform the ritual.

I don't remember being told by the Priestess that I could take it. (Maybe
I wasn't listening, which invalidates my objection.)

Yet, you can take it and nothing bad happens, although it is clear that it
belongs to the temple.

Adam

-- 
adam@io.com | adam@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad!
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep" : Pynchon
64,928 | TEAM OS/2 |   "Ich habe einen Bierbauch!"   |  Linux  | Fnord
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.