2 ms·

At first blush it might seem that simplifying the interface loses this element. But really as you allude to having "fun finding out what you can do" is just a d

At first blush it might seem that simplifying the interface loses this element. But really as you allude to having "fun finding out what you can do" is just a design goal that can be accomplished even with a simpler interface. For example crafting systems or other forms of modifiers. I combine water with my sticks and get wet sticks then use those to make a camp fire which makes it extra smokey. Which leads to more introducing more systemic interactions and the beauty of those is that systems that interact have great potential for emergent behavior. Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery.

kbenson 7y ago
> Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery. Sure. That's what I was trying to say in the second paragraph. It's not a matter one being better than the other in general, or even for roguelikes. It's that there are things to consider about how you interact with the system in every case, so it deserves some attention. For Nethack, I think the game is better for the interface not giving you clues what you can and cannot do. For other games, that likely isn't the case (very few support both the breadth of unique actions and make discovering those part of the draw of the game).