On one side you have the players who will complain if they can't examine or interact with every object mentioned in the text, claiming that you can't see that (But it's right there!) or the frustrating response: You can't do that / I don't know what you want to do with "object" (indicating that it's possible to interact with said object but you are just not doing the right thing.David Whyld wrote:A lot of what appeals to me about it is cutting out the boring parts of game writing. Nothing is more tedious than providing descriptions for 15 different items the player can see, then all the other various things they might try with said items. Use a limited parser, strip out item descriptions and you get rid of a lot of that, leaving you to concentrate on the parts that actually matter.
I know it's been considered the done thing for years now that every item the player can see should carry a description and the player can interact with. I've even made this point myself a few times. But why? Why does every item need a description? Most are just scenery and don't serve any purpose. What difference does it make if the player can examine a wall he's just come across? It's not going to change the way the game plays. Aside from anything, from the player's viewpoint examining every single item they can see is boring. I don't enjoy doing it but I have to in case something important is hidden here.
And on the other the authors finding it immensely irritating having to write descriptions for every little thing.
A solution could be a default response: This is just scenery / the "object" can't be manipulated, or something in those lines. How it could be implemented I have no idea, but it's a thought.