Originally Posted by mr_a500
How about "Heart of the Dragon".
The advertisements showed faked screens and bragged about being a HAM game with amazing graphics. In real life it was an ugly unplayable piece of shit.
oh yeah that too.
this makes me wonder on a particular problem. about heart of China, not of the dragon
i figure that when you start designing a game or, i think any kind of interactions, you have to, at an early point, decide where to seth the path in an array of possibilities between two extreemes:
on one side 1) the user proceeded in a path of trial and errors that excludes any reasonative or intuitive thinking, and he pass any single step by chance when he stumble in the right move; this choice gives you the longest time to reach the end, expecially if you make the correct moves seemingly or effectively unreasonable and if the consecution of events seems to take a pee on causes and effects concatenation. also if you make the solution misleading, you can make the user to follow a path that sooner or later will have a dead end, even if it is no better or worse than the correct one.
on the other side 2) the story is so reasonable that the user has no chance for lateral thinking, he is practically forced to follow the mechanical structure of the play, where every choice is consequent to the last, with no possibility of wrong ones because these simply don't make you advance, but differently from the other path, here logic is apparent and it invades your enjoyment of the interaction.
of course both makes a frustrating experience; i would say that the Heart of China game is in the former of the two path, prolly Dragon's Lair too. many textual adventures were like that too.