|
spock
Purpose: raise one eyebrow, at a person, thing, or the situation in general.
Synonyms: none
| SYNTAX |
EXAMPLES |
| 1. spock |
1. spock |
| 2. spock <thing> |
2. spock statue |
| 3. spock <thing> <qualifier> |
3. spock statue red |
| 4. spock <qualifier> <thing> |
4. spock red statue |
| 5. spock <n>.<thing> |
5. spock 2.statue |
USE:
- Use form one to raise one eyebrow.
- Use form two when there's no possible ambiguity. In the example, there's only one statue present.
- Use form three or four when more information is needed to interpret the command - that is, there's more than one possible target by the same name to which the command could be applied. In the example, there's a blue statue, a red statue, etc.
- Use form three or four when more information is needed to interpret the command - that is, there's more than one possible target by the same name to which the command could be applied. In the example, there's a blue statue, a red statue, etc.
- Use form five when there are many instances of <target> present, and you want to spock one of them in particular.
As is typical of most TriadCity commands, Spock searches for <thing>
in a specific order, starting with the room you're in, then your worn or wielded equipment,
then your inventory. So, if there's a box in the room, and a box in your inventory, the command
"spock box" will refer to the one in the room, not your inventory. You'd need to use
"spock 2.box" for the latter.
Unlike certain other social commands,
Spock
cannot be parameterized.
|
|
"Two of the most common approaches [to academic study of] adventure games seem to be apologetics and trivialization. Both generally fail to grasp the intrinsic qualities of the genre, because they both privilege the aesthetic ideals of another genre, that of narrative literature, typically the novel. For the apologists, adventure games may one day -- when their Cervantes or Dickens comes along -- reach their true potential, produce works of literary value that rival the current narrative masterpieces, and claim their place in the canon. For the trivialists, this will never happen; adventure games are games, they cannot possibly be taken seriously as literature nor attain the level of sophistication of a good novel. Although the trivialists are right -- adventure games will never become good novels -- they are also making an irrelevant point, because adventure games are not novels at all. The adventure game is an artistic genre of its own, a unique aesthetic field of possibilities, which must be judged on its own terms. And while the apologists certainly are wrong, in that the games will never be considered good novels, they are right in insisting that the genre may improve and eventually turn out something rich and wonderful. This may or may not happen, so the only way to understand the genre is to study the various works that already exist and how they are played."
-- Espen J. Aarseth,
Cybertext (info)
|
|
