On 23 Feb, 02:37, henrih...@gmail.com wrote:

Thinking about it, I don't think there's much of an argument for why I
should have persistent items. Any monsters which are left alive could
either run off or follow the player to the new level, and any items
which are left behind have presumably been left because the player
doesn't want/need them. But at the same time, I can't think of any
reasons why I shouldn't have persistent levels and items. Having fully
persistent levels and items will certainly place some restrictions on
the game, but I'd rather try working within those restrictions only to
find it's impossible rather than take the easy route and throw all the
old data away without even trying.

If my ideas don't work - then fine, I'll start cutting them back. But
at least we'll have some concrete evidence of them not working,
instead of (what appears to me to be) a load of people running around
claiming the sky is falling :)

The whole idea of me writing it for a BBC is to find out exactly
what's possible within the limitations of the machine - so I'm going
to want to be pushing against and challenging those limits, not
running away from them.