🚀 go-pugleaf

Raymond Pat <rpha...@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote:

>Matthew Murray wrote:

>> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:

>> > What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
>> > stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
>> > if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
>> > DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.

>>         Yes, it DOES.  Whether you need the lamp or not is irrelevant.
>> You are using information obtained as the player to solve a puzzle as
>> >Alexander<.  Whether or not you need the lamp to finish the game, that is
>> >poor< puzzle design.

>Great.  Now he goes and offers NO proof as to why one DOES need the lamp.  Since,
>the oh-so-mighty Matthew can't seem to get it, I'll tell you how.  You DON'T NEED
>THE LAMP because there are two other ways to finish the game.  You can either give
>the mint to the Genie at the end (instead of using the lamp on him) to conquer him,
>them follow the same procedures.  Or you can disguise yourself in Beauty's costume
>and go inside.

Ah... The peril of the ellipsis... I interpreted Matthew's sentence to
mean: "Yes, it [the design flaw] DOES [exist]." If you read the very
next sentence, you see that Matthew does not care whether or not you
need the lamp. His beef is with the game designer's (IMO poor) decision
to base a puzzle on what the player knows as opposed to what the
player's character knows. (It strikes one as silly or unrealistic, and
weakens one's suspension of disbelief.)

>> > I wouldn't say either were lousy...although I think Monkey Island II was
>> > nowhere near as good as the original.  That damn
>> > monocle-asd-replacement-for-eye-that-sees-the-world puzzle STILLL
>> > infuriates me.  Now THAT was an example of an obscure puzzle.

>>         <shakes head>
>>         To think that people like >this< are playing computer games today.
>> <sigh

>With THIS inane comment.  I feel sorry for you, mister, for being so deluded in
>your own grandeur of self-led importance and supposed intelligence.  You have posed
>NO logic to your conclusions, have not EVEN provided satisfactory debate against my
>claims, and is definitely OBSESSED with one particular puzzle which very few other
>people have had problems with.  I believe the problem is, you , and not me.  No
>wonder you could solve those illogical puzzles so well.

Personally, I interpreted Matthew's comment as facetious, though it is
ambiguous enough.... Though for the record I didn't much like that
puzzle either.


--
"It's a magical world, Hobbes, 'ol buddy... Let's go exploring!"
     -Calvin, "Calvin and Hobbes"