> > The second one, definitely. The world of Zork was unbelievably fantastic for me because I had it all in my head. I have played a few text based games with extensive art, and found that the boundaries they set on my imagination were not worth the benefit of having an actual image right there for me.
> >
> > The AGL games which include images are a mixed blessing. I love the map in FQ and a lot of the item images in GOAT but there were a few things in some of the games where I thought, "Hey, that's cool--but I kinda liked what I had imagined before."

[snip]

> > Don "As you might have guessed, I tend to prefer table-top RPGs over CRPGs, though I love a good CRPG--just not for the graphics. :-)" Monkey
>
> I'd say it really depends. I *love* to see graphics, as long as they're good graphics. However (and I don't think I'm alone in this), no graphics at all are definitely better than bad graphics. (And I personally have a fairly high standard for good graphics.)
>
> I like maps, and diagrams for things that would be confusing to depict in text, and graphics that are cool Easter eggs, but I personally think AGL is a medium that works better in text. My two cents would be to use them sparingly, and only when the author feels it's necessary. (That's what it all boils down to in the end, doesn't it? Only the author can really say whether the thing works as a whole or not...)

Hmm. I had a thought... (Uh oh...)

* graph Play this game with all graphics.
/ / / / / / / / v 1 = 2
* mingraph Play this game with minimal graphics, except for maps, etc.
/ / / / / / / / v 1 = 1
* nograph Play this game without graphics.
/ / / / / / / / / / v 1 = 0

Then, when it comes to an area with a graphic, it tests v 1 to see if it should display the graphic or not.

> Ar"If anybody knows what I was talking about in that last paragraph, I'd like to hear their input"thur

Nyper"Just the ASCII"old