🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>No, that's YOUR ARGUMENT.
>
>The ORIGINAL topic raised by the original post was about how ONE CAN'T FINISH KQ6 WITHOUT THE
>LAMP!!!!!!!  YOU changed the subject, and then focused on that damn omniscience thing.  I
>have said MANY that if YOU find it unfair, that's your perogative.  But that WASN'T even the
>argument!!!!  So who wasn't listening?

My attempt at being a voice of reason:

Thyagosm wrote in response to a poster's enthusiastic post about KQ8:
> Not really. It'll take some serious recommendation from friends before I
>contemplate buying it. Especially if I won't be able to finish it because I
>failed to get a tiny coin in a maze room I didn't even had to visit to
>proceed. Or if I have to choose a lamp from five being offered by a merchant
>and if I get the wrong one... well, you can always start over.

He thus pointed out examples of what he feels has been poor puzzle
design from the KQ series. He did imply (though he didn't directly
state) that choosing the wrong one leads to a dead end.

In another branch of the thread, Thyagosm referred to the "design
faults" he had pointed out. You responded with:
>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.  

You pointed out that the player does not need the lamp to finish the
game. In your opinion, that means that the puzzle is not an example of a
design flaw.

Matthew Murray then responded:
>	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.

He believes that the puzzle is a design flaw, though not for the same
reason that the first poster does. Evidently, his contention is that
even though solving the puzzle is not necessary, it is still an example
of poor design because its solution defies logic and what many view as
good story-telling form.

Strictly speaking, Matthew changed the then focus of the argument: that
the lamp was necessary to complete the game and obtaining the lamp
involves random chance. You corrected that assumption, but then Matthew
contributed his own point of view on why the puzzle is poor. In a more
general sense, he did not change the subject of the thread: whether or
not Roberta Williams' games have merit.


--
"When I was a young man I vowed never to marry until I found the ideal
 woman. Well, I found her -- but, alas, she was waiting for the
 perfect man."
     -Robert Schuman