Posted by The Arcane(VIP) on October 16, 2000 at 06:35:08:
In Reply to: Agreed. (Good Mazes v. Bad Mazes) posted by The Arcane(VIP) on October 16, 2000 at 06:23:08:
I can just hear Scarabaeus saying now :"But Hell is SUPPOSED to be sadistic." Yes, but it should be sadistic to the characters who explore it, not the players who are playing the game. A key quality to a good area is that it should be fun to explore. "Fun" should be a consideration. Lots of things can add fun, including challenge, good rewards, eloquent descriptions, immersiveness, cool progs, etc. But things that serve no function other than to decrease "fun" should not be put into an area. Wandering in a randomized maze is never fun. Reaching a point where groupmates take turns mashing the keyboard hoping to get lucky is not fun. When you finally make it out, all you get is a sense of relief, not one of accomplishment. Because you haven't accomplished anything. And if being stumped by X, succeeding in X, and the process of trying to succeed in X are ALL unpleasant experiences, then why the hell is X in a game? This is the same mentality that's led to a decrease in random deathtraps that plague stock ROM and certain areas in CF that begin with Yg.... "look e" "You see a path." "e" "In Mid-Air" is never fun, so it's consciously avoided. The same logic should apply to randomized mazes.
This doesn't mean areas shouldn't be challenging. Dying because you're trapped and are stumped by a riddle that's been posed to you is frustrating, but it's well worth it when you finally solve the riddle. Having to always stay on your toes because of dangerous and pseudo-intelligent mobs will be fun, despite the occurrence of un-fun deaths.