Absolute EASIEST Game System???
Glenn P.,
to program in???
-- ==================================================================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Glenn P.," <C128...@FVI.Net> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
==================================================================
_____
{~._.~} "The man in the wilderness said to me,
_( Y )_ 'How many strawberries grow in the sea?'
(:_~*~_:) I answered him as I thought good --
(_)-(_) 'As many red herrings as grow in the wood.'"
==================================================================
POTTER, Beatrix: The Fourth Riddle, "The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin".
==================================================================
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Harry
made the world a better place by saying:
>What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless Newbie
>to program in???
>
>
AAS.
Just kidding. The easiest might be ADRIFT or ALAN, which are supposed
to be 'newbie friendly'.
But if you have any programming skills (including BASIC) then it isn't
all that hard to get into 'the big three' systems: Inform, Tads and
Hugo.
An excellent place to start (and to see which environment suits you
best) is:
http://www.firthworks.com/roger/index.html
Cheers,
Harry
-------------------------
"Hey, aren't you Gadget?"
"I was."
http://www.haha.demon.nl
(To send e-mail, remove SPAMBLOCK from address)
Jim Aikin
> all that hard to get into 'the big three' systems: Inform, Tads and
> Hugo.
...and if you have no programming skills, you'll probably have a tough time
doing anything interesting, no matter what system you try to use.
For newbies, the question of documentation is vital. I've used both Inform
and TADS, and I'd have to say the Inform manual is superior. I kind of like
TADS better as a language, but the manual is a little scattered.
--JA
davidw
of programming skills myself and I figured out how to use ADRIFT five
minutes after downloading it.
Of course, you could always go and download TADS and spend the next
two months studying the manual then the next year programming your
first game. Or you could just write the exact same game in a tenth of
the time with ADRIFT. Completely your choice...
Alex Warren
> What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless Newbie
> to program in???
Quest is designed with ease-of-use in mind, and you can create games entirely
using the visual editor, QDK, so there's no need to learn any programming
language at all. Everything about your game is displayed in plain English.
It doesn't sacrifice power though, and there's a full scripting language behind
it so you won't be limited in what you can do. So, you can start making games
really easily, and you know you won't have to choose a different system later on
if you ever want to try something a bit more complex.
The new version 3.5 beta features a Wizard to get you started making games
quickly. You can download the beta version now from
http://www.axeuk.com/quest/beta/ , or you can download the current stable
version 3.12 from http://www.axeuk.com/quest/ .
If you have any questions then please post here, email me at al...@axeuk.com or
drop by the forums at http://www.axeuk.com/phpBB2/
Alex
--
alex at axeuk, and add .com for email address.
Make adventure games easily with Quest - http://www.axeuk.com/quest/
Analyse web site log files for free with Xlogan - http://www.xlogan.com/
L. Ross Raszewski
By 'exactly the same game', do you mean 'exactly the same game' or 'a
much worse game with a similar story'
The thing about adrift is that it lets you create a game before you've
learned enough to create a game that's actually good.
Louie Hannen
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
news:LGeVa.17673$FP5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> By 'exactly the same game', do you mean 'exactly the same game' or 'a
> much worse game with a similar story'
>
> The thing about adrift is that it lets you create a game before you've
> learned enough to create a game that's actually good.
Is that supposed to be a good or a bad thing? I can't tell which from what
you're saying, though I'd probably have reason to disagree with it either
way.
To me there seems to be a trade-off between learning the game mechanics and
learning good story-writing. Finding the balance that's right for me would
be more important than anything else.
Louie
davidw
news:LGeVa.17673$FP5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >ADRIFT is the easiest system by far to manage. I don't have any kind
> >of programming skills myself and I figured out how to use ADRIFT five
> >minutes after downloading it.
> >
> >Of course, you could always go and download TADS and spend the next
> >two months studying the manual then the next year programming your
> >first game. Or you could just write the exact same game in a tenth of
> >the time with ADRIFT. Completely your choice...
>
> By 'exactly the same game', do you mean 'exactly the same game' or 'a
> much worse game with a similar story'
>
I mean "exactly the same game". You can pretty much write the same game in
any system because what it boils down to more than anything is the writing
skill of the writer than what system they're using. A good game will be good
whether it's written with ADRIFT, TADS, HUGO or on the back of a matchbox.
Same with a bad game. A bad game doesn't automatically become good just
because you're using a harder system to write it with. Conversely a good
game doesn't automatically become bad if you're using an easier system.
As far as I can tell from the TADS games I've played, TADS seems to have a
lot of advanced features that ADRIFT doesn't but I don't consider that any
big deal because 99% of TADS games never seem to utilise these features
anyway. And are they really so great? I remember playing text adventures
back in the 80's when they written for the Spectrum and Commodore and I
don't remember sitting there thinking they were bad games because they
lacked advanced features.
> The thing about adrift is that it lets you create a game before you've
> learned enough to create a game that's actually good.
The same could apply to any system. Assuming you're reasonably intelligent
and have a good idea of what you're doing (and if you're not then what the
hell are you writing text adventures for in the first place?) then you can
write a decent game with whatever system you happen to use. I use ADRIFT
because A) I don't have any programming skills and lack the desire to learn
TADS for something I consider a "hobby" and B) it lets me write the games I
want without having to spend hours poring over tedious code. I enjoy writing
games with ADRIFT. Writing them with TADS seems like too much hard work for
my liking...
True, there are bad ADRIFT games but then there are bad TADS games, bad HUGO
games, bad games written in every single system ever created. Pick any
system you like and I bet you don't have to look far to find a really dire
game for it.
Which doesn't have a damn thing to do with what this thread is all about of
course - the easier system. Which would be ADRIFT hands down.
David Kinder
> lot of advanced features that ADRIFT doesn't but I don't consider that any
> big deal because 99% of TADS games never seem to utilise these features
> anyway. And are they really so great?
Yes. What TADS3 and Inform really have that Adrift doesn't is that nothing
is hard coded: if I don't like a bit of the parser or the world model I
can modify it, or even rip it out and write my own. It isn't about "features"
in the sense of allowing the user to do specific tricks that the writer of
the system thought of, it's about giving the user enough general control to
do things that the system writer didn't imagine.
David
Andrew Plotkin
> To me there seems to be a trade-off between learning the game
> mechanics and learning good story-writing. Finding the balance
> that's right for me would be more important than anything else.
That seems like the wrong way to look at it. You're only going to
learning mechanics for a short time, right? No matter which system you
pick, at some point you'll have learned most of it. (There are always
more tricks and special features, but I mean enough to write most of
what you need.)
After that, a different balance applies: between *using* the mechanics
and *writing* good stories. The latter will always be a learning
process, but the former isn't.
This is why I (and a lot of other designers) are leery of systems that
are easy to learn, but which get in your way once you try to go past a
novice level of design complexity. You won't be a novice for long.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Richard Bos
> "L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
> news:LGeVa.17673$FP5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > On 28 Jul 2003 10:43:13 -0700, davidw <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
> > >Of course, you could always go and download TADS and spend the next
> > >two months studying the manual then the next year programming your
> > >first game. Or you could just write the exact same game in a tenth of
> > >the time with ADRIFT. Completely your choice...
> >
> > By 'exactly the same game', do you mean 'exactly the same game' or 'a
> > much worse game with a similar story'
>
> I mean "exactly the same game".
Then you're exactly wrong. I play my IF on an old MS-DOS machine. I can
play TADS games; I cannot play ADRIFT games.
Richard
J. J. Guest
> is hard coded: if I don't like a bit of the parser or the world model I
> can modify it, or even rip it out and write my own. It isn't about "features"
> in the sense of allowing the user to do specific tricks that the writer of
> the system thought of, it's about giving the user enough general control to
> do things that the system writer didn't imagine.
>
> David
The great advantage of ADRIFT is that, because so much of it is hard
coded, it makes the very basic things very simple. I used ADRIFT very
happily for two years, and produced two games that I was quite
satisfied with. (My first game was even nominated for a XYZZY award,
to my great surprise!) But by the same token, ADRIFT makes the more
complex things more difficult. There's no real IF-THEN-ELSE structure
for example, though you can simulate one using duplicate tasks. There
is no simple way to move a static object(fixed item) and they cannot
be attached to moveable items. After I while it began to feel like I
wasn't so much working with the system as working around it, at which
point I turned to TADS2, which is a lot more flexible. But ADRIFT is a
great system for a beginner, and I disagree that a simple-to-use
system necessarily produces bad games, or that the learning curve
involved in using TADS or INFORM teaches you anything about good game
structure or playability. In fact you can probably learn as much about
that from playing games as from writing them.
davidw
"Richard Bos" <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:3f262126....@news.nl.net...
You seem to be completely missing the point.
You can write exactly the same game with whatever system you're using, be it
ADRIFT, TADS, Inform or whatever. Some systems make it easier - ADRIFT -
whereas others make it harder - TADS - but in essence what you have is the
same game just written by different systems.
Your comment that you can't play ADRIFT games on an old MS-DOS machine has
no bearing on my point at all. I can't play TADS games on my calculator -
you think I should complain to the creater of TADS about this?
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>"Richard Bos" <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
>news:3f262126....@news.nl.net...
>> "davidw" <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:LGeVa.17673$FP5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> > > On 28 Jul 2003 10:43:13 -0700, davidw <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
>> > > >Of course, you could always go and download TADS and spend the next
>> > > >two months studying the manual then the next year programming your
>> > > >first game. Or you could just write the exact same game in a tenth of
>> > > >the time with ADRIFT. Completely your choice...
>> > >
>> > > By 'exactly the same game', do you mean 'exactly the same game' or 'a
>> > > much worse game with a similar story'
>> >
>> > I mean "exactly the same game".
>>
>> Then you're exactly wrong. I play my IF on an old MS-DOS machine. I can
>> play TADS games; I cannot play ADRIFT games.
>>
>> Richard
>
>You seem to be completely missing the point.
>
>You can write exactly the same game with whatever system you're using, be it
>ADRIFT, TADS, Inform or whatever. Some systems make it easier - ADRIFT -
>whereas others make it harder - TADS - but in essence what you have is the
>same game just written by different systems.
You've got this the wrong way around, though. If the game is of
sufficient complexity, it'll be much harder to write in Adrift than in
TADS. That's the whole reason for this argument: the 'easier' the
system, the 'easier' it is to write bad games. In a good 'beginner'
system it would be no harder to write a good game than it is to write
the same game in, say, TADS. But this isn't the case with Adrift (or
AGT, for that matter); as soon as you start using behavior that the
designer of the system hadn't anticipated, it becomes exponentially
harder to write the game.
>
>Your comment that you can't play ADRIFT games on an old MS-DOS machine has
>no bearing on my point at all. I can't play TADS games on my calculator -
>you think I should complain to the creater of TADS about this?
>
>
Yes.
David Kinder
> ADRIFT, TADS, Inform or whatever.
That's the catch though: Is the above really true? I'm pretty sure you can in
TADS/Inform/Hugo because they've got a complete programming language and an
extensible and replaceable world model. In Adrift, I'm not convinced. When I
experimented with Adrift it seemed to me that pretty soon I was banging up
against the limitations of the system. Sure, there did seem to be workarounds
involving tasks, but that wasn't what I was looking for: When I have to use
workarounds I'm finding it harder to do what I want, not easier.
Of course, you could just say you can produce "pretty much" the same game,
removing whatever features and puzzles of the game didn't fit. But that's
adjusting your painting to fit the limitations of your easel, which isn't
(IMHO) the right way round.
David
David Kinder
Well, that wasn't exactly what I said though! :) People have produced good
games in AGT, a system much more limited than Adrift. The point seems to me
to be that with the best games produced in simple systems the authors have
often had to work really hard to get around the limitations of the system.
If you're constantly struggling with limitations, it's not really simple-
to-use any more!
David
Mark J. Tilford
First, a few things that can be done in a relatively straightforward
manner in Inform, but would be rather tedious in ADRIFT; for example, the
first three require separate tasks for each object / room.
1: the Thief from Zork I, specifically the part that he steals a random
item from the player on certain occasions.
Just write a function that will pick one random item from the player's
inventory, print "The thief steals the (whatever)." and move that item to
the thief's possessions.
2: a weak bridge that will collapse if the player tries to cross carrying
more than 3 items
Be sure to count indirect children of the player. (If the player has a
bucket which contains three apples, collapse.)
3: the Martian surface from Photopia
It's doable, but it would take numerous tasks to handle it; to get all of
them right, you'd probably end up writing a program to write out the code.
I was able to do a simple implementation (3 rooms plus the base camp, each
additional room would require only a few lines more) in 60 lines of
Inform; TADS would probably be of similar difficulty.
4: most disambiguation problems
In Inform, TADS, disambiguation problems are handled for you by the
parser. In ADRIFT, they'll be handled only for commands you let ADRIFT
handle. If you override any of them, you'll have to handle the
disambiguation yourself.
And for a final problem, try handling the robots from Suspended. For
starters, allow taking & dropping objects, simple movement, and
pathfinding.
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
davidw
"David Kinder" <d.ki...@btinternetspamnothankyou.com> wrote in message
news:bg6dm3$8vr$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
I guess the point will only be settled when someone goes and writes the
exact same game in two different systems. I'm certainly not going to learn
TADS just to prove a point (and who knows, I could spend months mastering
the thing then find myself proved wrong anyway!)
My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which system is
better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier than it is with
TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no programming skills at all;
the same doesn't apply to TADS. Maybe more advanced games are harder in
ADRIFT than they would be in TADS but then I'm quite happy writing
non-advanced games.
Each to their own.
Louie Hannen
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:bg4ptn$7ll$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Here, Louie Hannen <lo...@rps.net> wrote:
> > To me there seems to be a trade-off between learning the game
> > mechanics and learning good story-writing. Finding the balance
> > that's right for me would be more important than anything else.
>
> That seems like the wrong way to look at it. You're only going to
> learning mechanics for a short time, right? No matter which system you
> pick, at some point you'll have learned most of it. (There are always
> more tricks and special features, but I mean enough to write most of
> what you need.)
>
> After that, a different balance applies: between *using* the mechanics
> and *writing* good stories. The latter will always be a learning
> process, but the former isn't.
>
> This is why I (and a lot of other designers) are leery of systems that
> are easy to learn, but which get in your way once you try to go past a
> novice level of design complexity. You won't be a novice for long.
>
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a
clear, thoughtful response. I can see the reasoning behind the reaction
ADRIFT received a lot better now.
I still think ADRIFT has its place for those who only need the level of
complexity it offers; However, I can see the logic in pointing out the
options available and ADRIFT's limitations when compared with those options
so that they can make an (pun noted) informed choice.
Louie
Olaf Bickern
> What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless Newbie
> to program in???
That entirely depends on what you want to write.
a) If you want to write something simple, a traditional "text adventure", i.e.
rooms and objects to pick up, go for Inform[*]. After half an hour you can do
it - technically, the design is another matter. Inform is mostly copy and
past and fill out the blanks.
b) If you have in mind something more advanced (if..then, not...until,
only...if), Inform[*) can handle that as well, if you spend a couple
of hours to get aquainted with it.
c) If you have something in mind that is even more advanced, then you have to
do learn how to *program*. Then it matters little what language you use.
A well designed *application* (not a programming language) could make writing
interactive fiction easier. Inform does this by supplying a library. It might
be the most newbie friendly system as you mostly write
topic "[what In want to display"]
Easy.
The problem with most "newbie systems" is that they tend to make easier what
is already easy, and make the advanced stuff *more* difficult.
That said, most systems enforce (or encourage) an object/room game model.
A system that would employ another game *paradigm* would be very interesting.
Gareth Rees once wrote about a plot calculator, which would be a very
interesting idea to implement. The main problem with the existing system is
that they lure authors into simulation.
--
flo
{*] The same applies probably to TADS and Hugo, but I don't know them.
David Thornley
davidw <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
>
>I guess the point will only be settled when someone goes and writes the
>exact same game in two different systems. I'm certainly not going to learn
>TADS just to prove a point (and who knows, I could spend months mastering
>the thing then find myself proved wrong anyway!)
>
Adrift; it's already been written in TADS 2 and some other languages.
You can use the already existing versions as some sort of specification
(it's a *lot* easier to read computer languages than to write them).
>
>My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which system is
>better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier than it is with
>TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no programming skills at all;
>the same doesn't apply to TADS.
This is true.
Maybe more advanced games are harder in
>ADRIFT than they would be in TADS
They are, by every test I've been able to apply.
but then I'm quite happy writing
>non-advanced games.
>
This will not necessarily be so forever. If you want to get
innovative, there's an excellent chance that your best move will
be to learn TADS 3 or some such system from scratch and write your
game in it rather than even attempt in in Adrift.
>Each to their own.
>
Yup.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Bob Newell
Very interesting debate, and if I may summarize a bit, adding in my own
observations: why is an "easy" language "easy" or more precisely, what
makes it "easy"? The general answer is that it has few options because
the language creator imposes a fairly rigid paradigm of what an adventure
is "supposed" to be. This generally means rooms and objects which can be
used in a fairly simplistic manner.
I recently added an entry (LADS) to Roger Firth's Cloak of Darkness page.
That page is extremely instructive in that it shows how the exact same game
would be coded in a variety of authoring systems. (There is no imprecision
here with the term "exact.") Cloak of Darkness contains some unique
features, which seem carefully chosen to test how an authoring language
handles situations which don't quite fit the simple paradigm (room, object,
manipulation).
For instance, the game requires that there be a room which is either
light or dark depending on the absence or presence of a particular object.
No other rooms are ever dark, even if the object in question is present.
This is a trivial problem in Inform or TADS but turns out to be not quite
so simple in Alan or AGT (not to mention LADS), which are "simple" languages
by comparison. This underscores the final conclusion that simplicity in
syntax (or the presence of a GUI driver or what-have-you) does not imply
simplicity in use once the underlying paradigm driving that simplicity no
longer holds true.
So, somewhere there is a balance. In pure programming terms, assembler
language is very, very powerful and flexible but extremely tedious to use.
Pascal is reasonably powerful and considerably less tedious. As we increase
the level of abstraction, to some extent we remove tedium (providing ease
of use or perhaps "simplicity") but we sacrifice flexibility and often power
as well.
In the end, learning TADS or Inform or Hugo is a worthwhile investment for
the serious I-F writer (as opposed to an occasional dabbler who just wants
to turn something out quickly -- which often implies stories that are not
well planned and do not have particular depth of realization). As shown
by Cloak of Darkness, reaching the design limits of "simple" authoring
systems takes place rather quickly, and then the author needs skills akin
to programming skills in any event, to design workarounds to the system
limitations.
In conclusion, I don't believe there is a way for a serious author to avoid
serious effort and real work, and part of that effort and work is an up-front
investment in learning the tools of the trade.
Bob Newell
Santa Fe, New Mexico
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which system is
>better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier than it is with
>TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no programming skills at all;
>the same doesn't apply to TADS. Maybe more advanced games are harder in
>ADRIFT than they would be in TADS but then I'm quite happy writing
>non-advanced games.
>
True, but missing the point. You can produce a game in Adrift withotu
knowing how to program. You cannot produce a game in TADS/Inform/Hugo
without knowing how to program.
You *should* not produce a game *in any system* without knowing how to
program. The game will suck.
Eric Mayer
news:caAVa.50741$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net:
>
> "David Kinder" <d.ki...@btinternetspamnothankyou.com> wrote in
> message news:bg6dm3$8vr$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>> > You can write exactly the same game with whatever system you're
>> > using,
> be it
>> > ADRIFT, TADS, Inform or whatever.
>>
>> That's the catch though: Is the above really true? I'm pretty sure
>> you can
> in
>> TADS/Inform/Hugo because they've got a complete programming language
>> and
> an
>> extensible and replaceable world model. In Adrift, I'm not convinced.
>> When
> I
>
>> Of course, you could just say you can produce "pretty much" the same
>> game, removing whatever features and puzzles of the game didn't fit.
>> But that's adjusting your painting to fit the limitations of your
>> easel, which isn't (IMHO) the right way round.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
> I guess the point will only be settled when someone goes and writes
> the exact same game in two different systems. I'm certainly not going
> to learn TADS just to prove a point (and who knows, I could spend
> months mastering the thing then find myself proved wrong anyway!)
>
>
After I wrote a tiny Adrift game - The Thorn -- for davidw's recent comp
for Adrift games no more than 15 kb in size I rewrote it in Inform. Except
that I added a couple touches on further reflection I can't discern how it
is any different from the Adrift version. Took about four times as long to
write in Inform, however. Please understand, as a nonprogrammer I enjoy
tinkering with very simplistic programming. I like playing with code, which
is why I'm learning some Inform. But also I like to see what I can
accomplish using the simplest methods possible so had I written the game
in Inform first it would've been no different. For someone like me, who
will never have time, talent or inclination to go beyond the basics of a
language, Adrift (or Alan) can, as davidw says, produce the same games as
Inform or Tads. Not classics perhaps, but, potentially, very good,
enjoyable games.
--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/
===========================================================================
=================
"Who does not see that I have taken a road, in which, incessantly and
without labor, I shall proceed so long as there shall be ink and paper in
the world? I can give no account of my life by my actions; fortune has
placed them too low; I must do it by my fancies." Michel de Montaigne
===========================================================================
=================
Richard Bos
> "Richard Bos" <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> news:3f262126....@news.nl.net...
> > "davidw" <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I mean "exactly the same game".
> >
> > Then you're exactly wrong. I play my IF on an old MS-DOS machine. I can
> > play TADS games; I cannot play ADRIFT games.
>
> You seem to be completely missing the point.
No, I'm making a different, IME related point.
All the so-called "easy program-creating systems" I've ever seen,
whether they be IF, other games, or indeed "simple general programming
languages for which you don't need to program", focus on one system, and
one system only. And usually that system is the latest fashionable
system.
It is my firm opinion that this is _not_ accidental. The mindset that
makes people think that it should be possible to write real programs
without really programming is the same mindset that makes people think
that other systems than their own are immaterial. It's an over-
simplifying, unrealistic POV - and, IYAM, typically a beginning
programmer's POV.
IME, the kind of tool that is good enough to write really good games -
as opposed to so-so, just about good enough games - is also good enough
to write for all kinds of platforms.
Richard
davidw
> You *should* not produce a game *in any system* without knowing how to
> program. The game will suck.
Completely disagree. Why should I learn to program if I'm intending to
write games in ADRIFT which doesn't require me to be a programmer?
I can get a decent idea of what separates a good game from a bad game
by playing games written by others. I don't need to be a programmer
myself to judge what's good and bad and, therefore, I don't need to be
a programmer to write a decent game with a system like ADRIFT.
John Colagioia
news:caAVa.50741$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net: [...]
> My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which
> system is better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier
> than it is with TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no
> programming skills at all; the same doesn't apply to TADS.
Can I ask a potentially-stupid question, here? What, exactly, do you
consider "programming skills" to be?
In my experience (biased, obviously, by the fact that I've been
programming in one form or another since around kindergarten, when
some fool taught me LOGO so many years ago), writing IF requires that
you sequence events, and turn input into output at each of these
internal states.
This *is* programming, whether you type pages of gibberish, or drag
and drop icons to do it.
> Maybe
> more advanced games are harder in ADRIFT than they would be in TADS
Actually, those times people have described to me how they made their
ADRIFT game "go" makes me think that even some otherwise-easy things
(I'm using Inform as a benchmark, since that's what I use) are what I
would consider "hard" in ADRIFT.
Specifying any kind of complex input structure (i.e., anything more
than a simple verb-object command) seems annoyingly complicated, to
me.
> but then I'm quite happy writing non-advanced games.
That'll change, I'm sure. From your writing style, I get the
impression that this'll happen sooner than later, too. Or, more
specifically, your definition of "advanced" will probably change as
you work. ADRIFT's, alas, won't.
[...]
Eric Mayer
news:be995286e8028747...@free.teranews.com:
> "davidw" <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote in
> news:caAVa.50741$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net: [...]
>> My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which
>> system is better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier
>> than it is with TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no
>> programming skills at all; the same doesn't apply to TADS.
>
> Can I ask a potentially-stupid question, here? What, exactly, do you
> consider "programming skills" to be?
>
Interesting question. L. Ross Raszewski's statement above to the effect
that any game written by someone who doesn't know how to program will suck
can really only be evaluated if you can define both "programming"-- as you
point out -- and "suck."
I think that Adrift requires some programming type thinking, which can be
quite complicated (even mind boggling) but doesn't rise to the level of
real programming. In fact, when I write small games using the most basic
capabilities of an If language like Inform or Tads or Alan I do not delude
myself that I'm doing actual programming, of the sort a lot of you here
make a living at. Writing a novel involves writing sentences, but being
able to write a sentence doesn't make one a novelist. In the Alan manual
Thomas Nilsson specifically says Alan is not a programing language. Yet
Alan does all the basic things Inform and Tads do.
I would say that many, if not most games produced in the If community do
not go much beyond calling upon what the languages do for the writer more
or less automaticaly and don't therefore involve programming in any
significant sense.
And I also don't think that most If games suck. A couple of my games rise
to the level of mediocrity, I would estimate. Barely in the top half of
the annual Comp isn't a masterpiece, but I wouldn't say it sucks either.
Games garning some good reviews here and there don't, I think suck. And as
I said, I cannot program. So I think Ross is wrong there. Especially
considering the emphasis on writing in this community. In If what is the
programming for except to deliver the writing? I am pretty sure if an
excellent writer, who couldn't do any more with If languages than I can,
had time to pour into a well written game it certainly wouldn't suck.
Of course, I add the caveat that if what someone values in a game is not
the writing or story but puzzles or world simulation then a writer who
can't program might not be able to produce an acceptable game for such a
player.
--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/
===========================================================================
Harry
the world a better place by saying:
>
>I would say that many, if not most games produced in the If community do
>not go much beyond calling upon what the languages do for the writer more
>or less automaticaly and don't therefore involve programming in any
>significant sense.
>
I don't agree with this. Even though the IF libraries that come with
Inform et al make life easier in the sense that you don't have to
build a parser from scratch, there is still a lot of low and
medium-level coding to do if the game is to make any sort of sense.
You seem to imply (and I don't mean this in anger or flame or
anything) that most IF games are basically a matter of 'filling the
database with locations and objects' but there is a lot more to it.
Any sort of puzzle will require actual coding, not just ad-hoc
scripting. Foreseeing interaction with objects and each other
definitively constitutes 'programming' in my book.
-------------------------
"Hey, aren't you Gadget?"
"I was."
http://www.haha.demon.nl
(To send e-mail, remove SPAMBLOCK from address)
J. W. McCall
> sufficient complexity, it'll be much harder to write in Adrift than in
> TADS. That's the whole reason for this argument: the 'easier' the
> system, the 'easier' it is to write bad games. In a good 'beginner'
> system it would be no harder to write a good game than it is to write
> the same game in, say, TADS. But this isn't the case with Adrift (or
> AGT, for that matter); as soon as you start using behavior that the
> designer of the system hadn't anticipated, it becomes exponentially
> harder to write the game.
This is true of many things. Anything worth doing is worth taking the
time to learn. Easy, simple things that make a concession to being easy
to use usually aren't as powerful or efficient as things that take a
little while to learn, but reward you once you do learn them.
J. W. McCall
davidw
"John Colagioia" <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:be995286e8028747...@free.teranews.com...
> Can I ask a potentially-stupid question, here? What, exactly, do you
> consider "programming skills" to be?
I guess I'd consider "programming skills" to be the sort of thing whereby
you can look at several hundred pages of complicated code and see how it all
fits together. I can't do that. I'm not even sure I'd want to.
>
> > but then I'm quite happy writing non-advanced games.
>
> That'll change, I'm sure. From your writing style, I get the
> impression that this'll happen sooner than later, too. Or, more
> specifically, your definition of "advanced" will probably change as
> you work. ADRIFT's, alas, won't.
>
I've been using ADRIFT for 2 years and I've written 13 games. I've got 2
others that I'm working on now and at least another half dozen planned. So I
don't see much changing.
davidw
I still don't see the relevance of this. So ADRIFT only (currently) works on
Windows - so what? Now if Windows was a minor system that only a small
percentage of the world's population used I'd agree this was a major
problem. In fact I probably wouldn't be using ADRIFT at all because I
certainly wouldn't buy a computer that 99% of the world's software wasn't
compatible with. But Windows is the most widely used computer system in the
world by far. I don't know what the actual figures are but just a casual
glance into any computer store tells me straightaway that Windows
dominates - you tend to see endless rows of pretty much identical Windows
systems and precious little else.
So that ADRIFT "only" works on a system that 99% of the world's population
uses I don't consider any major disadvantage.
Michael
> >You seem to be completely missing the point.
> >
> >You can write exactly the same game with whatever system you're using, be it
> >ADRIFT, TADS, Inform or whatever. Some systems make it easier - ADRIFT -
> >whereas others make it harder - TADS - but in essence what you have is the
> >same game just written by different systems.
>
> You've got this the wrong way around, though. If the game is of
> sufficient complexity, it'll be much harder to write in Adrift than in
> TADS. That's the whole reason for this argument: the 'easier' the
> system, the 'easier' it is to write bad games. In a good 'beginner'
> system it would be no harder to write a good game than it is to write
> the same game in, say, TADS. But this isn't the case with Adrift (or
> AGT, for that matter); as soon as you start using behavior that the
> designer of the system hadn't anticipated, it becomes exponentially
> harder to write the game.
>
You're equating complexity with quality, which doesn't always stick.
There are and will continue to be very good games with simple object
interactivity. Sometimes less is more.
Jonathan Penton
news:W3TVa.53274$xd5.3...@stones.force9.net...
David,
This is an old, old argument, and I know better to get involved, but your
assertation that 99% of the world's population uses Windows is... odd, even
if you were trying to say that 99% of the world's computer users use
Windows. I've read recently that 90% of home systems are Windows, but many
businesses run on other OSes, as do many universities. And it's
well-established in this newsgroup that many IFers play at businesses and
universities. Furthermore, it's evident to anyone who reads r*if that a
significant portion of IFers use Linux; a far greater portion than you will
find in the general population. A quick glance at the newsgroup shows that
many IFers are playing IF on their Palm devices, as well. If r*if denziens
are not your target audience, that's fine, but then why do you spend so much
time trying to convince them to use ADRIFT?
I'm not suggesting you stop using ADRIFT, but I think you might consider
trying to convince Campbell to allow non-Windows versions.
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
Jonathan Penton
news:e984b78f.03073...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. Two ADRIFT games, "The PK Girl" and "Unraveling God," did well in
the last Comp. "The PK Girl" was very complex, but "Unraveling God" scored
12th, and could have been made with no programming skills whatsoever.
Compare that to the Inform simulation of Hell, which did poorly (though it's
hard to tell how it would have done if it were bug-free).
I'm not necessarily endorsing ADRIFT, but it's clear that one can make an
interesting and well-received game with it, without using its more esoteric
or difficult features.
Eric Mayer
news:acmfivcmgqbs5ich0...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:40:50 GMT, Eric Mayer <emay...@epix.net> made
> the world a better place by saying:
>
>>
>>I would say that many, if not most games produced in the If community
>>do not go much beyond calling upon what the languages do for the
>>writer more or less automaticaly and don't therefore involve
>>programming in any significant sense.
>>
> I don't agree with this. Even though the IF libraries that come with
> Inform et al make life easier in the sense that you don't have to
> build a parser from scratch, there is still a lot of low and
> medium-level coding to do if the game is to make any sort of sense.
> You seem to imply (and I don't mean this in anger or flame or
> anything) that most IF games are basically a matter of 'filling the
> database with locations and objects' but there is a lot more to it.
> Any sort of puzzle will require actual coding, not just ad-hoc
> scripting. Foreseeing interaction with objects and each other
> definitively constitutes 'programming' in my book.
>
Well, I'm genuinely interested in what people consider real programming.
The only "programming" I've ever seen is that used for If and what I've
done, for my games, just doesn't strike me as amounting to much. I have
seen stuff in much better and more complex games, in the source code, that
is a lot more complex. Yet my games are playable and I think there are a
lot of games out there like mine.
So if someone wants to insist I'm programming then I'll feel complimented!
But I would think a professional programmer might be offended by the
comparison.
--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/
===========================================================================
=================
"Who does not see that I have taken a road, in which, incessantly and
without labor, I shall proceed so long as there shall be ink and paper in
the world? I can give no account of my life by my actions; fortune has
placed them too low; I must do it by my fancies." Michel de Montaigne
===========================================================================
=================
Eric Mayer
news:GKTVa.2763$eF3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:
Is there an Inform library that'll bring up a fake spreadsheet with a
single keystroke?
--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/
===========================================================================
John Colagioia
news:H_SVa.53273$xd5.3...@stones.force9.net:
> news:be995286e8028747...@free.teranews.com...
>> you consider "programming skills" to be?
> I guess I'd consider "programming skills" to be the sort of thing
> whereby you can look at several hundred pages of complicated code
> and see how it all fits together. I can't do that. I'm not even sure
> I'd want to.
Yeah, funny thing is, when someone "programs" like that, it usually
means something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, and that person is
lost. At least, it does these days, typically.
On a small scale, though, yes. But, you have to do that with ADRIFT,
too, as far as I can tell. You have objects that interact. If you
want a bug-free game, then you darn well *better* know how they
interact, when you make changes.
Really, though, if you can organize sequences of events and not lose
sight of the overall effect, then you have more than sufficient
skills.
Here's the test I tend to apply, which (not ironically, I suppose)
comes right from an old Infocom article: Suppose you have a game with
a lake on the landscape. You want to add a raft, to make the lake
something other than useless scenery. The article details the
problems with doing this in Zork I, but I would say that, if you can
come up with a plan to integrate this raft into the game, accounting
for most of the problems this will cause, then you have "programming
skills," whether or not you understand any particular syntax.
[...]
Pelle Nilsson
> This is an old, old argument, and I know better to get involved, but your
> assertation that 99% of the world's population uses Windows is... odd, even
> if you were trying to say that 99% of the world's computer users use
> Windows. I've read recently that 90% of home systems are Windows, but many
> businesses run on other OSes, as do many universities. And it's
> well-established in this newsgroup that many IFers play at businesses and
> universities. Furthermore, it's evident to anyone who reads r*if that a
> significant portion of IFers use Linux; a far greater portion than you will
> find in the general population. A quick glance at the newsgroup shows that
> many IFers are playing IF on their Palm devices, as well. If r*if denziens
> are not your target audience, that's fine, but then why do you spend so much
> time trying to convince them to use ADRIFT?
>
> I'm not suggesting you stop using ADRIFT, but I think you might consider
> trying to convince Campbell to allow non-Windows versions.
>
Hi
An old XYZZY News poll on http://www.xyzzynews.com/poll1.html suggests
you are correct (the poll however doesn't have date and yes i know
reliability of web polls aren't very high and that 81 votes
aren't that many).
8<---- quote from xyzzy news begins---
I always play under Win32. (39)***************************** 48%
I sometimes play under Win32. (11)******* 13%
I can play under Win32, but I currently don't. (11)******* 13%
I can play under Win32, but I'd rather give up playing than use (10)******* 12%
I can't play under Win32. (10)******* 12%
Number of votes: 81.
8<---- quote from xyzzy news ends---
Ok, so only 12 % can't play under Win32, but the poll also hints on
the number of people that could use Win32 but doesn't for some
reason. I would't for instance even though I could do it if I
really wanted to (very, very unlikely).
/Pelle
Gene Wirchenko
>> You've got this the wrong way around, though. If the game is of
>> sufficient complexity, it'll be much harder to write in Adrift than in
>> TADS. That's the whole reason for this argument: the 'easier' the
>> system, the 'easier' it is to write bad games. In a good 'beginner'
>> system it would be no harder to write a good game than it is to write
>> the same game in, say, TADS. But this isn't the case with Adrift (or
>> AGT, for that matter); as soon as you start using behavior that the
>> designer of the system hadn't anticipated, it becomes exponentially
>> harder to write the game.
>
>This is true of many things. Anything worth doing is worth taking the
>time to learn. Easy, simple things that make a concession to being easy
Maybe.
Someone who was wondering if writing IF would be worthwhile might
take the easy route to start. It gets him doing IF right away. If he
decides that it is not for him after all, he has lost little time. If
he decides that it is worthwhile, he has an appreciation of some of
the issues, and this will help him select a higher-power language.
>to use usually aren't as powerful or efficient as things that take a
>little while to learn, but reward you once you do learn them.
Sure about the rewards, but power and efficiency might not be
what is required. Going cheaper is sometimes the way to go to get
something adequate.
Trade-offs: make *your* best choice.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>Harry <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in
>news:acmfivcmgqbs5ich0...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:40:50 GMT, Eric Mayer <emay...@epix.net> made
>> the world a better place by saying:
>>>I would say that many, if not most games produced in the If community
>>>do not go much beyond calling upon what the languages do for the
>>>writer more or less automaticaly and don't therefore involve
>>>programming in any significant sense.
>>>
>> I don't agree with this. Even though the IF libraries that come with
>> Inform et al make life easier in the sense that you don't have to
>> build a parser from scratch, there is still a lot of low and
>> medium-level coding to do if the game is to make any sort of sense.
>> You seem to imply (and I don't mean this in anger or flame or
>> anything) that most IF games are basically a matter of 'filling the
>> database with locations and objects' but there is a lot more to it.
>> Any sort of puzzle will require actual coding, not just ad-hoc
>> scripting. Foreseeing interaction with objects and each other
>> definitively constitutes 'programming' in my book.
It is not. That foreseeing (planning) of a design is systems
analysis. Programming is the detail level where you make the plan
happen.
Note that an author of an IF could totally an IF and hand it to a
programmer to implement. In that case, the author would be a systems
analyst but not a programmer (at least, no on that project).
>Well, I'm genuinely interested in what people consider real programming.
>The only "programming" I've ever seen is that used for If and what I've
>done, for my games, just doesn't strike me as amounting to much. I have
>seen stuff in much better and more complex games, in the source code, that
>is a lot more complex. Yet my games are playable and I think there are a
>lot of games out there like mine.
>
>So if someone wants to insist I'm programming then I'll feel complimented!
>But I would think a professional programmer might be offended by the
>comparison.
You are programming at a fairly low level of expertise, but you
are programming. I see programming as a continuum. There are easy
bits, and there are more involved bits. It is like reading. If
someone is reading at a grade three level, do you claim that person is
not really reading because there are professional readers who function
at a much higher level?
I am a professional programmer. I would not be offended by an
accurate statement. If you were to claim to be as good as a
professional on your limited ability, yes, you would be in for a
toasting, but to claim that you are programming when you are
programming IF is accurate.
I once had to dig into a Symphony--think of it as Lotus 1-2-3
Plus--spreadsheet and write some code for copying nonblank lines to an
invoice area. In order to do this, I had to use a bit of tricky
programming. A non-programmer could not have done what I did. If he
had, he would have become a programmer.
If you start to feel constrained, it might be time to move up to
tools requiring a higher level of programming skill. If not, stay
where you are. Enjoy doing what you are doing at whatever level you
are at.
Mark J. Tilford
>
> As far as I can tell from the TADS games I've played, TADS seems to have a
> lot of advanced features that ADRIFT doesn't but I don't consider that any
> big deal because 99% of TADS games never seem to utilise these features
> anyway. And are they really so great? I remember playing text adventures
> back in the 80's when they written for the Spectrum and Commodore and I
> don't remember sitting there thinking they were bad games because they
> lacked advanced features.
>
I think the central advanced feature to TADS and Inform is this:
"You shouldn't do the same thing in more than one place. If you find
yourself doing that, you should be able to put the shared code in one
place, and call that code from everywhere else you need to do it."
This is possible to a limited extend in ADRIFT, by having tasks call other
tasks; if you have a curse which can be triggered in a number of ways,
it's easy to put all the effects in a single place.
On the other hand, take the thief who steals one object from the player.
In Inform, this would be done something like:
if (child(player)) {
obj = child(player);
move obj to thief;
print_ret "The thief grabs ", (the) obj, ".";
}
As far as this code goes, all objects are equal. There's no need to treat
them individually.
In ADRIFT, would take:
#Thief steals item
- Unset task #Thief stole item
- Run task #Thief steals crowbar
- Run task #Thief steals rope
- Run task #Thief steals sword
(and so on for each item)
#Thief stole item
- (no restrictions, no actions, used to keep thief from taking more than
one item per go)
#Thief steals crowbar
- crowbar must be held by player
then
- Print "The thief grabs the crowbar."
- move crowbar to thief
- Run task #Thief stole item
#Thief steals rope
- rope must be held by player
- Task #Thief stole item is incomplete
then
- Print "The thief grabs the rope."
- move rope to thief
- Run task #Thief stole item
(and so on for each item the thief can steal)
ADRIFT keeps track of plenty of things which the user can't look at; on
one occasion, I was attempting to print the room where a particular NPC
was located; I had to go through quite a bit of annoyance to do so.
ADRIFT keeps track of whether objects have been seen and moved, but the
author isn't allowed to set or view those values. ADRIFT has a
pathfinding system, but it can only be used by player in a "GOTO (room)"
command. If I wanted to put in an NPC who chased the player and had to be
lured into traps, I couldn't use his pathfinding system to control him.
Instead, I'd end up duplicating the map in a number of tasks.
Glenn P.,
in any of the more hostile newsgroups -- in one of THEM I'd be sure to be
labelled a troll! Yeesh!
I've followed this thread with interest (not unmixed with astonishment),
but it seems to me that we've wandered from my original question: Which
game system is the easiest? So far the only names I've seen are Alan,
Quest, and Adrift. (What's the URL for Alan?) Any other candidates???
On 30-Jul-03 at 8:34pm -0000, <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
> Someone who was wondering if writing IF would be worthwhile might
> take the easy route to start. It gets him doing IF right away. If he
> decides that it is not for him after all, he has lost little time. If
> he decides that it is worthwhile, he has an appreciation of some of
> the issues...
This is more or less precisely what I had in mind when I issued my query.
I have NO idea (yet) what writing "IF" really involves, and would rather
NOT jump in at the deep end of the pool from a 60-foot diving board,
particularly as I don't yet know how to swim! The kiddie wading pool
will do me just fine for the moment -- something to dip my big toe in,
as it were.
Any other suggestions for a good "easy" game system?
Please mind: I'm asking for a direct, FACTUAL response here. The answers
to date, as interesting as they are, have really been more in the nature
of DEBATE. I don't actually mind -- I find all the discussion very
stimulating -- but it doesn't actually *help* me any -- you're giving
me philosophy, when what I actually asked for was a LIST! :(
-- %%%%%%%%%%%%% "Glenn P.," <C128...@FVI.Net> %%%%%%%%%%%%%
==========================================================
"Cirrus... Socrates... Particle... Decibel... Hurricane...
Dolphin... Tulip... Monica... David... Monica."
----------------------------------
--David's Imprinting Protocol,
"A.I.: Artificial Intelligence".
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Marnie Parker
>From: "Glenn P.," C128...@FVI.Net
>Date: 7/30/2003 2:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>Any other suggestions for a good "easy" game system?
There aren't any. Not in the way you mean.
I used Inform for years and have now switched to TADS. They are more high level
programming languages than some. Which means you can "stretch" them to do some
complicated things by evolving your own code. And people have been trying to
tell you that even in a newbie game at least one complicated object can come
up. So rather quickly you can get into complicated programming that an "easier"
system may not be ABLE to do.
Based on my experience and my years as a professional programmer, I think
Inform is good for the beginner because it has such a good manual and is very
English-like (although I liked DM3 much better than DM4). TADS is probably
better for someone with some previous programming experience because it is
quite OO, and some non-programmers can't quite get that. Although
non-programmers have learned it too, just plan on taking a while to learn it.
One can, however, write a one-room game in Inform rather quickly by following
the manual.
But with any system, starting out, if you have NEVER programmed, it will be
somewhat difficult. You have to structure your thinking for programming --
write how a computer thinks, not how you think. That cannot be avoided.
I am unfamiliar with Adrift and Quest, but already know they are too limited
for me.
You might check out Hugo, which is one you haven't mentioned. And do look at
Roger Firth's Cloak of Darkness page where the different programming styles are
displayed.
In other words, sorry, it takes a lot of work to write a game, regardless of
the system.
Doe :-)
doea...@aol.com
IF http://members.aol.com/doepage/intfict.htm
(An Iffy Theory | Glulx/Glk for Duncies | unglklib | Inform Primer)
IF Art Gallery http://members.aol.com/iffyart/
IF Review Conspiracy http://zork.plover.net/~textfire/conspiracy/
Mad Monk
>
> I'm not suggesting you stop using ADRIFT, but I think you might consider
> trying to convince Campbell to allow non-Windows versions.
We're trying; we are most definitely trying. I, personally, would love
a Palm-ADRIFT-Runner. Of course, I'd love a Palm too, so yeah.
Jonathan Penton
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030730...@Oswego.FoxValley.net...
Yes, we have begun to discuss philosophy. Many of us are interested in the
philosophy of choosing a game system. It is fortunate that you do not mind,
since we'd discuss it anyway.
The direct response (a factual response is impossible, since opinion is
inherently involved) is ADRIFT. Note that it is however shareware, and
Quest, last I heard, was very easy to use and freeware. Hope that helps.
dreamfarmer
> http://www.firthworks.com/roger/index.html
>
Since the topic has sort of indirectly come up, I find myself very
curious about Hugo all of the sudden. The Cloak of Darkness looked
very clean and straightforward (I can't really wrap my brain around
GUI interfaces to text game design like ADRIFT) but I haven't been
able to find a whole lot of information on who the target audience for
Hugo is. I understand that it does graphics and sound well... but
that's not very meaningful to me because I don't know how TADS and
Inform handle graphics. I've gotten the vague impression it was
designed to be an easy system to learn (perhaps because of the lack of
arbitrary punctuation-- nothing like endless compile errors to make
you tear your hair out).
--Chrysoula
Eric Mayer
> I'm the one who originally started this thread, and I'm VERY glad I'm not
> in any of the more hostile newsgroups -- in one of THEM I'd be sure to be
> labelled a troll! Yeesh!
>
> I've followed this thread with interest (not unmixed with astonishment),
> but it seems to me that we've wandered from my original question: Which
> game system is the easiest? So far the only names I've seen are Alan,
> Quest, and Adrift. (What's the URL for Alan?) Any other candidates???
>
>My thought, if you know any programming start with Inform or Tads. If you
know absolutely nothing about programming, which was my case, and you're
interested in the process of writing If, Alan will teach you most of the
basic concepts. If you can use Alan, then you can pretty easily pick up
Inform or Tads at a basic level. You can proceed from there if you wish. If
you mainly want to produce a game, never mind how, then you can start out
with Adrift but what you learn won't transfer very well to Alan, Tads,
Inform etc. Although you will learn how to break down a game into
locations, objects, things to be accomplished etc.
Once you try out Alan or any of the other languages you might decide your
concepts are such that they can be produced more quickly in Adrift, or that
an individual project lends itself to being made in Adrift. (I have no
experience of other systems so I can't mention them) I do think all these
are just text delivery systems and it is what the player sees which is most
important.
Alan: http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13207378/alan/index.html
David Kinder
> but it seems to me that we've wandered from my original question:
Isn't that the joy of Usenet? You never know exactly what the topic is
from one post to the next ...
> game system is the easiest? So far the only names I've seen are Alan,
> Quest, and Adrift. (What's the URL for Alan?) Any other candidates???
The only systems that seem to be in active use these days are TADS,
Inform, Hugo, Alan and Adrift, as far as I'm aware. Someone very
occasionally releases an AGT game, but that's about it, if you're looking
for recommendations from anyone other than the system's author.
Alan home page:
http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13207378/alan/index.html
David
Jonathan Blask
limitations that will become frustrating later on. As far as ADRIFT goes,
in my playing experience, when authors don't put all sorts of work into
the game that would be comparable to the work put into a game in any of
the "programming" languages, the parser is usually a chore to deal with.
So it's like, sure, someone can win the game when they do what you want
them to do, but it's easy to get the parser confused by what you type and
get frustrated.
That said, I'm all for authors working with a system's limitations
and trying to create a good game. I thought that the Roman game written
in SUDS was good fun until it lost me halfway through and would love to
see more people try to make some gems with this system. Gameplay is all
mouse-driven. It used to be shareware, but now it's freeware.
You can check it out at http://www.sudslore.com/html/programs.html
although there seems to be wacky HTML so not all links work when you click
on them (but will work if you copy and paste the link to the location
bar).
- jon
Charles A. Smith
news:Pine.WNT.4.53.030...@snamley.wi.rr.com...
SUDS is an incredible system that allows for extremely complex dialogues, a
feature I used extensively in a game I titled "Forces of Nature." You can
see my Forces of Nature page at my website:
http://www.ksu.edu/wwparent/story/nature/
I think there are two different groups interested in IF: programmers who
enjoy storytelling and storytellers interested in creating interactive
fiction. I am in the latter category. I liked SUDS because the frustration
of word guessing is nonexistent. For me, the story is the important thing. I
love the challenge of assembling the logical progression of events that
allows a reader to interact with my imagination. Of course, the ideal is a
magnificent storyteller who is an incredibly great programmer with LOTS of
free time. That's a tall order for most of us.
I think the programmer camp tends to be a little snobby here, looking down
on the literary types who are not interested in spending a year learning
horrendously difficult IF syntax. I downloaded many of the IF languages and
printed out the manuals and spent a month trying to learn how to program the
simplest things. Then I found SUDS and my storytelling went into overdrive.
I drifted away for a while with other projects, but the lure of creation
with IF is drawing me back. I'm going to take a look at QUEST and ADRIFT.
Maybe I'll go back to SUDS, though I think that program is no longer being
updated by its creator.
SUDS has its limitations, of course. But it allows for incredibly complex
story events created within a simple windows-based interface. You do not
have to be a programmer. But you do have to have an extremely logical brain
that can handle multiple variables operating simultanously. Nothing has
challenged my brain as much as the IF I created. Several years later it
still hurts. 8^)**
Chuck Smith
Marnie Parker
>Date: 7/30/2003 4:18 PM Pacific
>Since the topic has sort of indirectly come up, I find myself very
>curious about Hugo all of the sudden. The Cloak of Darkness looked
>very clean and straightforward (I can't really wrap my brain around
>GUI
>--Chrysoula
>
Kent is the best one to answer that, but I've always thought of Hugo sort of as
"Inform lite," (though he might not like that). But a lot of the syntax is
similar. Hugo does offer greater multimedia capabilities than many other
systems, but it can be used to write straight text games as well.
Inform does no graphics or sounds (although L. Ross has stretched it for
sounds). Glulx Inform does, but the learning curve is quite high, which is why
Html/Hyper TADS is so nice. Easy does it.
I guess for a newbie I'd recommend Alan or Hugo. Many who have chosen Alan stay
with it. But both have are regular programming langugaes, but easier, that
would enable one to easily transfer over their learning later Inform or TADS.
As scripting language or a point and shoot GUI system wouldn't do that. They
wouldn't help decrease the learning curve. So why waste time learning something
you will have to totally unlearn if you get so you want more later -- want more
of a programmable language? Which does happen with most people.
But as I said before I am unfamiliar with most of those systems, and have only
looked briefly at Alan and Hugo too. All I can really discuss is Inform or
TADS.
L. Ross Raszewski
>I think the programmer camp tends to be a little snobby here, looking down
>on the literary types who are not interested in spending a year learning
>horrendously difficult IF syntax. I downloaded many of the IF languages and
Not at all. I don't care if you find the syntax difficult or don't
want to spend a year learning to program.
What I can't stand is piss-poor games. And if your mind is so oriented
against programming that you find IF languages "horrendously
difficult", and the concept of learning one fills you with that much
terror, then *you* *do* *not* *have* *the* *sort* *of* *mind* *needed*
*to* *think* *the* *way* *you* *have* *to* *think* *in* *order* *to*
*write* *a* *game* *that* *doesn't* *suck*.
(Takes the keyboard away from his pet dalek)
I learned inform in about three weeks, with no previous programming
experience beyond a smattering of BASIC. It's not 'horrendously
difficult'.
I realize that there are some people whose brains are just not wired
for that kind of thinking (I'm trying very hard not to say "these
people are stupid". It's just a skill that your brain either is or is
not designed to pick up. My brain isn't designed to pick up the skill
of writing with my right hand. I'd like to think that this doesn't
make me stupid or my brain inferior). The problem is, the impediment you may
have to the kind of thinking needed to learn a programming languge is
also an impediment to the kind of thinking needed to write a good
game. It doesn't *matter* how good a storyteller you are. *Both*
skills are necessary to produce good IF. (No matter how fast you can
run, if you can't jump as well, you'll never be any good at the 300m
hurdles).
I fully accept that some people are capable of this kind of thinking,
and simply don't want to learn a programming language. Well, fine, use
Adrift -- but you'll find yourself doing *more* work, not less. And
you're not using adrift because it's "too hard" to learn a programming
language, or because inform is "horrendously difficult", you're using
it because you're under some misconceptions about what it means to
program.
You probably can write IF in Adrift that is every bit as good as IF
written in a mainstream language -- and the PK girl is a fair example
of this. But anyone who *could* do this is perfectly capable of
learning a real IF language, and would save a lot of work by doing it
(And indeed, this is the reason that so few good games come out of
"easy" systems; most people who have the kind of brain it takes to
produce a good game learn a real language, because it's *easier* to
use a real language when you're doing real programming.)
Andrew Plotkin
> I think there are two different groups interested in IF: programmers who
> enjoy storytelling and storytellers interested in creating interactive
> fiction.
Why?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Jonathan Penton
news:Xm0Wa.9859$jB5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:45:27 -0500, Charles A. Smith <cas...@ksu.edu>
wrote:
> >I think the programmer camp tends to be a little snobby here, looking
down
> >on the literary types who are not interested in spending a year learning
> >horrendously difficult IF syntax. I downloaded many of the IF languages
and
>
> Not at all. I don't care if you find the syntax difficult or don't
> want to spend a year learning to program.
>
> What I can't stand is piss-poor games. And if your mind is so oriented
> against programming that you find IF languages "horrendously
> difficult", and the concept of learning one fills you with that much
> terror, then *you* *do* *not* *have* *the* *sort* *of* *mind* *needed*
> *to* *think* *the* *way* *you* *have* *to* *think* *in* *order* *to*
> *write* *a* *game* *that* *doesn't* *suck*.
<snip>
Could you offer some sort of evidence in support of this statement?
Seebs
>on the literary types who are not interested in spending a year learning
>horrendously difficult IF syntax. I downloaded many of the IF languages and
>printed out the manuals and spent a month trying to learn how to program the
>simplest things. Then I found SUDS and my storytelling went into overdrive.
>I drifted away for a while with other projects, but the lure of creation
>with IF is drawing me back. I'm going to take a look at QUEST and ADRIFT.
>Maybe I'll go back to SUDS, though I think that program is no longer being
>updated by its creator.
Huh. I can't imagine it taking a year to learn Inform - but then, I'm used
to programming.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Rob Steggles
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:bga6hr$40l$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Here, Charles A. Smith <cas...@ksu.edu> wrote:
> > I think there are two different groups interested in IF: programmers who
> > enjoy storytelling and storytellers interested in creating interactive
> > fiction.
>
> Why?
Could be that it's another case of "Artists vs Scientists": an arbitrary
fixture wherein the participants attempt to prove that the world is either
black or white when one look at the sky will tell you it's grey (you can
tell I'm from London). This fixture has been played out several times in
various fields over the last few thousand years or so, I believe, with no
conclusive result.
I'll leave you all to figure out which ones are the artists and which are
the scientists in this particular tournament.
Rob Steggles
Richard Bos
> "Richard Bos" <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> news:3f27ada4....@news.nl.net...
> > It is my firm opinion that this is _not_ accidental. The mindset that
> > makes people think that it should be possible to write real programs
> > without really programming is the same mindset that makes people think
> > that other systems than their own are immaterial. It's an over-
> > simplifying, unrealistic POV - and, IYAM, typically a beginning
> > programmer's POV.
>
> I still don't see the relevance of this. So ADRIFT only (currently) works on
> Windows - so what?
> So that ADRIFT "only" works on a system that 99% of the world's population
> uses I don't consider any major disadvantage.
Yes, that is _exactly_ the attitude I was talking about above: "It's
good enough for my limited POV, so it's good, period".
Richard
Roger Firth
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030730...@Oswego.FoxValley.net...
>
> I've followed this thread with interest (not unmixed with astonishment),
> but it seems to me that we've wandered from my original question: Which
> game system is the easiest? So far the only names I've seen are Alan,
> Quest, and Adrift. (What's the URL for Alan?) Any other candidates???
What exactly do you want, Glenn? Surely by now you've grasped the basic
information: (a) there is no absolute and universal answer to your question,
and (b) the three systems listed above sound like they might be worth
looking at first. If that's not enough for you, tough. We don't make
house calls round here -- you actually have to Do Some Of
The Work Yourself (like, er, discovering the Alan URL). So pick one
of the three and try it. You don't need a list of more than three; indeed,
I'd be astonished if you experimented with all of those.
davidw has said "I don't have any kind of programming skills myself
and I figured out how to use ADRIFT five minutes after downloading it"
and "I've been using ADRIFT for 2 years and I've written 13 games. I've got
2
others that I'm working on now and at least another half dozen planned".
Now, if that sounds like you, ADRIFT will clearly fit like a glove.
Cheers, Roger
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
You'll find my Cloak of Darkness, Parsifal, Informary
and more at http://www.firthworks.com/roger/
davidw
> What I can't stand is piss-poor games. And if your mind is so oriented
> against programming that you find IF languages "horrendously
> difficult", and the concept of learning one fills you with that much
> terror, then *you* *do* *not* *have* *the* *sort* *of* *mind* *needed*
> *to* *think* *the* *way* *you* *have* *to* *think* *in* *order* *to*
> *write* *a* *game* *that* *doesn't* *suck*.
>
Why exactly?
As I said before, if you're planning to write your game using a
non-programmer's system why waste your time learning a programming
language? The point you seem to be making is that it's impossible for
someone with no programming skill to write a decent game which strikes
me as a strange notion. It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
Bob Newell
some time learning the tools of the trade. Think about it: a writer needs
to know how to use a word processor, or a typewriter, or at least pen and
paper. How long did it take to learn to use any of those implements? I
would guess it was about, or at least, as long as it might take to learn
one of the I-F languages such as TADS or Inform.
As another poster mentioned, I-F has two components, story and realization
of the story. There is no magic road. Someone may indeed have written a
dozen games with ADRIFT and maybe they were good games in their own right,
but they will all look and feel very much the same because ADRIFT's game
world paradigm is very circumscribed. It's almost like "choose your own
adventure" books compared with novels. CYOA is just fine but the paradigm
greatly limits the range of output.
Bob Newell
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Roger Firth
> lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote in message
news:<Xm0Wa.9859$jB5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
> > What I can't stand is piss-poor games. And if your mind is so oriented
> > against programming that you find IF languages "horrendously
> > difficult", and the concept of learning one fills you with that much
> > terror, then *you* *do* *not* *have* *the* *sort* *of* *mind* *needed*
> > *to* *think* *the* *way* *you* *have* *to* *think* *in* *order* *to*
> > *write* *a* *game* *that* *doesn't* *suck*.
> >
>
> Why exactly?
>
> As I said before, if you're planning to write your game using a
> non-programmer's system why waste your time learning a programming
> language? The point you seem to be making is that it's impossible for
> someone with no programming skill to write a decent game which strikes
> me as a strange notion.
I don't think LRR was saying that you have to possess formal
programming skills, rather that you have to be comfortable with
thinking in a logical programmer-like way, of planning for the
possibilities and putting appropriate defences in place.
> It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
> passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
No, it's like saying that somebody with no grasp of the /basics/ --
grammar, spelling, story-telling -- will never write a decent novel.
Jeffrey Archer stands as evidence.
davidw
> The direct response (a factual response is impossible, since opinion is
> inherently involved) is ADRIFT. Note that it is however shareware, and
> Quest, last I heard, was very easy to use and freeware. Hope that helps.
The latest version of ADRIFT (V4) is shareware but the older version
(V3.9) is still available as freeware. It lacks some of V4's features
but is still very easy to use.
Charles A. Smith
news:bgb38j$n6v5j$1...@ID-62041.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I don't think LRR was saying that you have to possess formal
> programming skills, rather that you have to be comfortable with
> thinking in a logical programmer-like way, of planning for the
> possibilities and putting appropriate defences in place.
>
> > It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
> > passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
>
> No, it's like saying that somebody with no grasp of the /basics/ --
> grammar, spelling, story-telling -- will never write a decent novel.
> Jeffrey Archer stands as evidence.
>
> Cheers, Roger
> --
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> You'll find my Cloak of Darkness, Parsifal, Informary
> and more at http://www.firthworks.com/roger/
>
there are two different mindsets in operation here. The programmer types
(the clear majority in this newsgroup) assume that only complex IF languages
are capable of creating intricate and detailed stories. My bet is that no
one here with a programmer mindset has ever examined SUDS. My bet is that
most dismiss it as superficial because it's too easy to use. But easy =
TRUE; superfical = UNTRUE. The conversation trees and complex if...then
rules, and the presence of multiple variables that can be changed by
different procedures make can create great stories. I absolutely love the
conversation trees that can be created. Complex dialogues can be linked to
procedures that can change anything in the story. Yes, the program is NOT
esoteric. To use SUDS effectively, though, the writer must be capable of
handling extremely complex logic.
I think those who program great IF in the more complex programming languages
LIKE the way it shuts out those who are more interested in storytelling.
Just because a program like SUDS is "IF for the masses" does NOT mean that
it is simplistic and only useful to dimwits.
I want to bring IF into the classroom so children can begin creating their
own interactive stories. I am more interested in challenging them with
storytelling logic than getting them to learn esoteric programming. Sure,
some will want to learn the arcane... more power to them.
As I said in my previous posts, I'm sure there are many who embrace both
mindsets. I have great admiration for those who have displayed the
dedication to learn INFORM and TADS and other IF languages. Yet some of us
are more interesting in creating sophisticated stories without having to
wade through the underlying language. I don't need to know the language used
to create a word processing program in order to use the word processor. I
have a pretty good grasp of HTML but love the WSWYG of Dreamweaver.
IF will never spread as long as it remains unreachable by the vast majority
of writers. Is this exactly what the high priests of IF want?
Great thread.
Chuck Smith
Charles A. Smith
news:3f28c16f$0$21125$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
here. 8^)**
Chuck Smith
Charles A. Smith
news:3f28b182$0$1094$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
Some of us can put in only a few hours a week to this effort (jobs and
family, you know). By the time four months went by, I'd forget what I
learned the first day. So then I'd have to start over. Hell, it would
probably take me a lifetime to be proficient. 8^)**
Chuck Smith
Charles A. Smith
Adrift V4 can be downloaded and used without registration. All features are
enabled except it will not save adventures over a certain size.
Chuck Smith
Roger Firth
news:bgb787$nd$1...@cnn.cns.ksu.edu...
> Ok, I think this will help me clarify my "snobby" comment upthread. I
think
> there are two different mindsets in operation here. The programmer types
> (the clear majority in this newsgroup) assume that only complex IF
languages
> are capable of creating intricate and detailed stories. My bet is that no
> one here with a programmer mindset has ever examined SUDS. My bet is that
> most dismiss it as superficial because it's too easy to use. But easy =
> TRUE; superfical = UNTRUE. The conversation trees and complex if...then
> rules, and the presence of multiple variables that can be changed by
> different procedures make can create great stories. I absolutely love the
> conversation trees that can be created. Complex dialogues can be linked to
> procedures that can change anything in the story. Yes, the program is NOT
> esoteric. To use SUDS effectively, though, the writer must be capable of
> handling extremely complex logic.
Actually, you lose both bets ;-) I've examined SUDS -- I did the Cloak of
Darkness implementation in it. And I dismissed it, not for ease of use,
but for the opposite reason. I felt I was battling against the system,
which constrained me to look at my game through tiny little peepholes.
To select from cumbersome menus something which I could type
far quicker. To push my efforts into a closed proprietary database,
knowing that I could never get it out again. To type the same stuff
again and again, because there's no import or export, no copy
and paste (beyond the level of a simple string), no way of bringing
in common modules from outside. Being a programmer type,
I like to /read/ my code, and SUDS is as close as I've ever
come to a write-only language.
But, hey, horses for courses.
Boluc Papuccuoglu
wrote:
>John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote in
>news:be995286e8028747...@free.teranews.com:
>
>> "davidw" <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote in
>> news:caAVa.50741$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net: [...]
>>> My basic point before I got way sidetracked into the old "which
>>> system is better" debate is that writing games with ADRIFT is easier
>>> than it is with TADS. You can write a game with ADRIFT with no
>>> programming skills at all; the same doesn't apply to TADS.
>>
>> Can I ask a potentially-stupid question, here? What, exactly, do you
>> consider "programming skills" to be?
>>
>
>Interesting question. L. Ross Raszewski's statement above to the effect
>that any game written by someone who doesn't know how to program will suck
>can really only be evaluated if you can define both "programming"-- as you
>point out -- and "suck."
>
>I think that Adrift requires some programming type thinking, which can be
>quite complicated (even mind boggling) but doesn't rise to the level of
>real programming. In fact, when I write small games using the most basic
>capabilities of an If language like Inform or Tads or Alan I do not delude
>myself that I'm doing actual programming, of the sort a lot of you here
>make a living at. Writing a novel involves writing sentences, but being
>able to write a sentence doesn't make one a novelist. In the Alan manual
>Thomas Nilsson specifically says Alan is not a programing language. Yet
>Alan does all the basic things Inform and Tads do.
>
>I would say that many, if not most games produced in the If community do
>not go much beyond calling upon what the languages do for the writer more
>or less automaticaly and don't therefore involve programming in any
>significant sense.
>
>And I also don't think that most If games suck. A couple of my games rise
>to the level of mediocrity, I would estimate. Barely in the top half of
>the annual Comp isn't a masterpiece, but I wouldn't say it sucks either.
>Games garning some good reviews here and there don't, I think suck. And as
>I said, I cannot program. So I think Ross is wrong there. Especially
>considering the emphasis on writing in this community. In If what is the
>programming for except to deliver the writing? I am pretty sure if an
>excellent writer, who couldn't do any more with If languages than I can,
>had time to pour into a well written game it certainly wouldn't suck.
>
>Of course, I add the caveat that if what someone values in a game is not
>the writing or story but puzzles or world simulation then a writer who
>can't program might not be able to produce an acceptable game for such a
>player.
I think a measurable way of judging a language or system's IF worth
can be proposed as this:
Go through the exercises in Inform Designer's Manual. With each
exercise:
1-Say: Can this be implemented in ADRIGT, AGT, Hugo, etc? (insert your
system/language here)
2-Ask: How difficult is it to implement it in the given
system/language? Does the skill required to do it compare favourably
to the skill level one would need in Inform?
3-Judge: How important is the implementation to a potential game?
Would a game "suck" if you couldn't write on featureless white cubes?
I doubt it. Would a game "suck" if you could not implement a simple
wooden bridge which would collapse with you carrying too much? I think
so.
I don't know much about ADRIFT or ALAN. How do you think it fares with
those criteria?
Enforced Exile
> the scientists in this particular tournament.
The artist has complete control over their canvas; the scientist only
works with what one has striving to discover, to improve but always
working within limitations.
Rob Steggles
"Charles A. Smith" <cas...@ksu.edu> wrote in message
news:bgb7cd$ne$1...@cnn.cns.ksu.edu...
I suppose the point is that there is a vast range of mindsets, all of which
mix various degrees of black/white, art/science, comedy/tragedy,
programmer/writer, past/future. That's partly why I think it's fun. Vive
la différence. Where opinions bump and crash together like this the result
is often increased creativity.
Or something....
Rob Steggles
David Thornley
Eric Mayer <emay...@epix.net> wrote:
>"davidw" <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote in
>news:caAVa.50741$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net:
>
>> the exact same game in two different systems. I'm certainly not going
>
>After I wrote a tiny Adrift game - The Thorn -- for davidw's recent comp
>for Adrift games no more than 15 kb in size I rewrote it in Inform. Except
>that I added a couple touches on further reflection I can't discern how it
>is any different from the Adrift version. Took about four times as long to
>write in Inform, however.
I don't think this is a really useful comparison, though. The question
is not whether Adrift is the best tool for writing games that can be
easily written in Adrift. It's sort of like doing something in a
spreadsheet and then trying to rewrite it in Java: of *course*
the general-purpose solution is going to take longer.
A more meaningful test would be to write a game in Inform or TADS,
and then try to duplicate it in Adrift.
The most meaningful test would be to take an existing standard,
like Cloak of Darkness or Colossal Cave, and write it in Adrift
and some other language.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Cedric Knight
> Glenn P., wrote:
> > What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless
Newbie
> > to program in???
If you are content to tell a story through a Choose You Own Adventure
interface, something that hasn't been mentioned yet is Jon Ingold's
Adventure Book
http://www.ingold.fsnet.co.uk/adbook.htm
CYOAs are usually not considered to be proper Interactive Fiction due to the
lack of a parser, but because of this constraint the systems will be easier.
The files resulting from Adventure Book have the advantage of being in
Z-code and thus very portable, although the creation system itself is
Windows only. IMHO it is easier than either ALAN or ADRIFT.
> a) If you want to write something simple, a traditional "text adventure",
i.e.
> rooms and objects to pick up, go for Inform[*]. After half an hour you can
do
> it - technically, the design is another matter. Inform is mostly copy and
> past and fill out the blanks.
It certainly can be that simple - a sample game like Ruins
http://www.inform-fiction.org/examples/index.html
actually covers both beginner and intermediate topics; probably the Alice
tutorial is easier than any of Graham's examples. The Inform Beginner's
Guide is useful because the games worked through there are restricted to
beginner topics, or at least the learning curve is much shallower.
http://www.inform-fiction.org/manual/download_ibg.html
> The problem with most "newbie systems" is that they tend to make easier
what
> is already easy, and make the advanced stuff *more* difficult.
I agree. Although I've never really used ALAN ('not a programming
language'), it has the reputation that authors often have to use hacks never
conceived of by Nilsson et al. I have read the same of ADRIFT. Inform and
TADS 3 have the advantage of really being general-purpose programming
languages for console I/O with IF-oriented libraries.
All the same, the syntax of such a language may be off-putting for
non-programmers. I do think that making easy-to-use systems (or making
existing systems more accessible) for those with an arts background (and in
the UK, like Rob Steggles implies, maybe technophobia or a pro-arts
prejudice) is a worthy aim.
One other possibility is simply for such people to team up with a
programmer, either to produce a work or to be coached in an IF language
themselves (are there any examples of this happening?). See
http://www.ltlink.com/~newsguy/ifcollab.html
> That said, most systems enforce (or encourage) an object/room game model.
> A system that would employ another game *paradigm* would be very
interesting.
> Gareth Rees once wrote about a plot calculator, which would be a very
> interesting idea to implement. The main problem with the existing system
is
> that they lure authors into simulation.
Now this is a very interesting point. I would personally feel the
object/room/containment model equally hard to resist on either ADRIFT or
Inform. My own attempt at an easy new system for non-programmers is more
state-based, like Adventure Book, and encourages the author to use a minimal
number of global flags. The specification included all the easy things, but
again makes general programming cumbersome.
CK
Cedric Knight
> Not at all. I don't care if you find the syntax difficult or don't
> want to spend a year learning to program.
>
> What I can't stand is piss-poor games. And if your mind is so oriented
> against programming that you find IF languages "horrendously
> difficult", and the concept of learning one fills you with that much
> terror, then *you* *do* *not* *have* *the* *sort* *of* *mind* *needed*
> *to* *think* *the* *way* *you* *have* *to* *think* *in* *order* *to*
> *write* *a* *game* *that* *doesn't* *suck*.
>
> (Takes the keyboard away from his pet dalek)
But if all pieces of IF had to be coded in machine code in binary, you would
still see bad games.
>
> I learned inform in about three weeks, with no previous programming
> experience beyond a smattering of BASIC. It's not 'horrendously
> difficult'.
Certainly the difficulty of Inform, TADS or Hugo can be overestimated by
newbies.
CK
Marnie Parker
>Date: 7/31/2003 7:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>I think artistic scientists and scientific artists describe the two mindsets
>here. 8^)**
>
>Chuck Smith
Maybe. :-) I tend to think of myself as an artist first, because I started out
life as an artist. I am also a programmer, but I learned and did that second
and much later.
So drawing boundaries between two groups isn't that easy and certainly can only
be a broad generalization at best.
As a friend of mine has said many times, the thing about IF is that it draws on
both sides of the brain, the creative right side, and the logical left side.
Ergo, it is very challenging and definitely not boring -- the artistic
scientists and the scientific artists. :-) Although any artist worth their salt
learns the techniques of their craft first -- whether it be oil, watercolor,
musical notes, words, or programming.
OTOH, people with no programming experience at all have been complaining for
years that there is no easy system for the non-programmer. Well, Quest and
Adrift have come along. And a few others. But anyone with a bit of programming
experience will be looking for more. However, the options are definitley
greater than they were just eight years ago.
The thing is, it's difficult creating/writing a game writing system, so only a
handful have taken it on. It's also very time consuming. Most who have done it
"volunteered" and did it completely for free, but some, not. Also, not all
programmers COULD do it.
Despite problems, the spectrum of game writing systems is much broader than
before and that can only be a good thing -- giving artists more mediums to
choose from. But don't be surprised if some game "artists" who have been around
longer and know more of the craft recommend specific things. They may know some
of what they are talking about and not trying to be snobby at all.
David Thornley
Charles A. Smith <cas...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>"Roger Firth" <ro...@firthworks.com> wrote in message
>news:bgb38j$n6v5j$1...@ID-62041.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> I don't think LRR was saying that you have to possess formal
>> programming skills, rather that you have to be comfortable with
>> thinking in a logical programmer-like way, of planning for the
>> possibilities and putting appropriate defences in place.
>>
Suppose we have a puzzle, shall we say a door. The author has to
make sure that the door can be opened when and only when the PC
does the necessary things. That will normally be programming,
particularly if it isn't a simple lock/key thing.
Simply, there will be complexities that come up. If the lion's
paw has to be lifted to open the door, there are a lot of things
that have to be true. The lion has to be at the door, the PC has
to be at the door, the PC has to have the paw lifter, and there
has to be some reason why the lion doesn't just eat the PC.
There's a lot of details to get right. Adrift's take on this is
to write something like "lift [lion's] paw" to trigger a task
to open the door, and provide assorted restrictions on it.
Get the restrictions wrong and something is going to suffer.
>> > It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
>> > passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
>>
Degrees are meaningless here. It's the knowledge and skills that
count. A person who has a degree in computer science can be presumed
to have certain knowledge and skills, but there's no reason why
somebody can't acquire those without the help of a college.
>Ok, I think this will help me clarify my "snobby" comment upthread. I think
>there are two different mindsets in operation here. The programmer types
>(the clear majority in this newsgroup) assume that only complex IF languages
>are capable of creating intricate and detailed stories.
Speaking as a programmer type:
You're wrong.
What you call complex IF languages make it as easy as possible* to
create intricate and detailed stories. The software field has
decades of experience with trying to manage complex specifications,
including specifications that sure look like they shouldn't be
complex but turn out to be.
This means that, if you want to write intricate and detailed stories,
the best thing to do is to learn a language that supports such,
rather than find something easier to learn and then push it as far
as you can. It takes some time to learn to use industrial machine
tools well, but they're a lot more productive than my Swiss Army
knife.
*As easy as we know how to make, anyway. The tools available
today are significantly better than they used to be, and there will
be better tools. TADS 3 is intended to be easier to use than either
Inform or TADS 2, but it isn't ready for general use yet.
My bet is that no
>one here with a programmer mindset has ever examined SUDS. My bet is that
>most dismiss it as superficial because it's too easy to use. But easy =
>TRUE; superfical = UNTRUE. The conversation trees and complex if...then
>rules, and the presence of multiple variables that can be changed by
>different procedures make can create great stories.
I have no doubt of that.
What I do doubt is that using conversation trees, complex if/then
rules, and multiple global variables is any easier than learning a
real language. My experience with limited, domain-specific languages
is that their facilities to do such are awkward to use. I often
see them using constructs that were common in the early years of
computer languages, and have been dropped, discouraged, or largely
replaced since.
>esoteric. To use SUDS effectively, though, the writer must be capable of
>handling extremely complex logic.
>
Bingo.
What you have just said is pretty much that TADS and Inform are
good languages for anything SUDS can do effectively, since if the
writer is capable of handling extremely complex logic, learning
TADS or Inform is not going to be that difficult.
The problem here is that you're focussing on the form solutions
take rather than what is needed for
>I think those who program great IF in the more complex programming languages
>LIKE the way it shuts out those who are more interested in storytelling.
Wrong.
>Just because a program like SUDS is "IF for the masses" does NOT mean that
>it is simplistic and only useful to dimwits.
>
It may, however, be less useful than other tools to those writing
good games.
>I want to bring IF into the classroom so children can begin creating their
>own interactive stories. I am more interested in challenging them with
>storytelling logic than getting them to learn esoteric programming. Sure,
>some will want to learn the arcane... more power to them.
>
I like this idea, and obviously you're going to have to present some
sort of limited system to them.
>As I said in my previous posts, I'm sure there are many who embrace both
>mindsets. I have great admiration for those who have displayed the
>dedication to learn INFORM and TADS and other IF languages. Yet some of us
>are more interesting in creating sophisticated stories without having to
>wade through the underlying language.
You're swallowing camels and straining at gnats here.
If you can create a sophisticated IF game, you are dealing with
complicated logic. If you can create one that isn't horribly
buggy, you are doing good programming, in whatever system you are
using.
If you can program well enough to do that, you can learn the more
complete languages without a great deal of determination, and you
will find them easier to use for the purpose.
If you are admiring the dedication necessary to learn a computer
language, and referring to wading through it, then you very likely
do not have the ability to produce a high-quality sophisticated
game.
I don't need to know the language used
>to create a word processing program in order to use the word processor.
Nor do you have to know much of anything about compiler internals to
use TADS or Inform.
However, if you want to create anything beautiful in a word processor,
you really do need to know your language very well. It isn't going
to make it easy for you; all it will do is make the mechanics of
writing easier (or maybe not, depending on the word processor and
how well you know it - you have to do a lot of menu-diving to make
Microsoft Word accept exactly what you type sometimes).
>IF will never spread as long as it remains unreachable by the vast majority
>of writers. Is this exactly what the high priests of IF want?
>
Nope.
However, the vast majority of writers are incapable of producing
good IF in any form. The skills are seriously different.
John W. Kennedy
> As I said before, if you're planning to write your game using a
> non-programmer's system why waste your time learning a programming
> language? The point you seem to be making is that it's impossible for
> someone with no programming skill to write a decent game which strikes
> me as a strange notion. It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
> passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
Because if you can't construct a large and thorough system of "If this,
then that, but if the other thing, then that instead, unless...," then
you're not going to be able to handle complex situations, beyond the
specific complexities that the creator of ADRIFT (or whatever) has
already thought of and done for you -- which, by definition, is always
the "Been there, done that" stuff.
Packages like TADS and Inform have done a great deal to simplify the
task, but it remains the fact that really good IF programming is
intrinsically hard, and always will be. Building a universe from
scratch simply isn't simple.
Now, it's pretty well understood that all programming languages can, if
you work hard enough, do everything, the only important exception being
when the language has no way of touching a particular part of the
computer. (For example, it is absolutely impossible in Inform to remove
a directory.) So, with enough effort, you can probably do anything in
ADRIFT that you can do in Inform. In the same way, anything that you
can say in English, you can probably say in sentences of one syllable.
(There's a decent beginner's explanation of the Theory of Relativity
entirely in words of four or fewer letters at
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html) But it's a lot easier
to use real English.
> It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
> passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
More like someone who hasn't mastered grammar, I'm afraid.
The real world is complicated. So is an interesting fictional world.
Nothing can change that.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like
That. ...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not
because it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because
it is violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Charles A. Smith
really appreciate David's thoughtful response to my post and enjoyed reading
his thoughts below. I'd love to sit down at our local cafe with everyone
posting to this thread to discuss (argue?) this issue. Despite some minor
nitpicking, we certainly have more commonalities than differences. I think
we all want the same thing but see different routes to the goal.
I'm going to give Quest a go because it appears to be a good compromise
between a complex IF language and an easier-to-use program like ADRIFT.
Chuck Smith
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f29440f$0$158$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
Rob Steggles
"Enforced Exile" <takeahi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8c559ff.03073...@posting.google.com...
paradigm shift anyone?
Rob Steggles
davidw
"Bob Newell" <bne...@linux.chungkuo.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbii345....@linux.chungkuo.org...
> Someone may indeed have written a
> dozen games with ADRIFT and maybe they were good games in their own right,
> but they will all look and feel very much the same because ADRIFT's game
> world paradigm is very circumscribed.
>
> Bob Newell
> Santa Fe, New Mexico
Strange idea. I played literally hundreds of text adventures back in the
80's that were written for very basic operating systems (the Spectrum 48 and
Commodore 64) and the variety of games was quite breath-taking. If my own
games seem similar in look and feel that's because I tend to write the sort
of games I enjoy playing (wildly OTT comedies) and not because of any
drawbacks in ADRIFT itself.
Check out the three ADRIFT games in the IFComp last year: The PK Girl,
Unraveling God and A Party To Murder. Three games written using the same
system but all completely different.
John Colagioia
[...]
> The programmer types
> (the clear majority in this newsgroup) assume that only complex IF languages
> are capable of creating intricate and detailed stories.
Stories alone do not make good IF, just as a good plot (or character,
or setting, or whatever), by itself, does not make for a good story.
But, regardless, no. What is being said is that, if you're using a
"programming wizard" (there really isn't *much* conceptual
difference, after all, between ADRIFT and its friends and MS-Word's
letter wizard), then you're limited in what you can create, but
you're still programming. If you can't manage programming, then you
can't manage ADRIFT.
> My bet is that no
> one here with a programmer mindset has ever examined SUDS. My bet is that
> most dismiss it as superficial because it's too easy to use. But easy =
> TRUE; superfical = UNTRUE.
Nope. I've both been there and done that (I've dabbled in just about
every IF system on the archive for at least a couple of hours each,
to see if there were interesting features I hadn't yet seen--there
weren't, in case anyone is curious).
I agree that most will dismiss SUDS outright, but I disagree in
calling it "easy." Oh, sure, if you want a couple of rooms and some
flotsam to examine, then you're golden. Anything past that, and I
was in pain trying to make it work.
Plus, the programming was done by menu-and-mouse, which is about as
complex to me as using, say, ancient Egyptian.
I put the same challenge to you: Have you tried writing in Inform,
say, starting with an example program and making modifications? What
problems did you encounter?
[...]
> To use SUDS effectively, though, the writer must be capable of
> handling extremely complex logic.
Yep. That's about the size of it.
> I think those who program great IF in the more complex programming languages
> LIKE the way it shuts out those who are more interested in storytelling.
I question why you would say that, when everyone who has spoken up,
here, has explained that you're *all* programmers, and that you're
very well capable of learning these "complex" languages (which are
less complex, in my opinion, than your example of SUDS).
> Just because a program like SUDS is "IF for the masses" does NOT mean that
> it is simplistic and only useful to dimwits.
Similarly, I don't think anyone has said that. I've come the
closest, and what I said was that such "wizard-based" development
systems are inherently limited by definition. That's what makes
them easier, after all.
And a good storyteller will often try to push the limitations.
Inform, TADS, Hugo, Alan, and the other "big" languages do this
gracefully, while the other systems...don't.
My experience with SUDS is that there was a light learning curve,
followed immediately by a brick wall. My experience with ADRIFT was
that there was a steeper learning curve, followed by a very steep
learning curve, followed by a brick wall. My experiences with the
other "light" systems have been very similar.
The "complex" languages, as you call them, though, have a reasonable
learning curve (earlier languages are steeper, since the designers
have learned from each others' mistakes) which is pretty much
constant, throughout.
> I want to bring IF into the classroom so children can begin creating their
> own interactive stories. I am more interested in challenging them with
> storytelling logic than getting them to learn esoteric programming. Sure,
> some will want to learn the arcane... more power to them.
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, try testing this outside
the main class, if you can. I understand the sentiment, but the kids
may surprise you and find a "real" language easier--particularly
something like Inform, where you can say things like "move box to
player" (yes, there's a danger that they'll overgeneralize and assume
that Inform is English--sorry about that...).
Also, as a few data points, I and my...second grade, I believe, class
were taught LOGO (a relatively "real" programming language whose
output was primarily a little triangular "turtle" on the screen who
drew pictures based on the commands) in about two afternoons. Eight
years later, my younger sister was taught a similar system, but...
uhm...more "Spirograph"-based than "Etch-A-Sketch," and it took them
several weeks to be able to do anything useful.
I also teach graduate programming courses, where, after some
experimentation, I use Inform for the IF section (actually, it's an
object-oriented programming section, and IF gives near-instant
gratification, but that's inapplicable to this discussion). The
other systems were deemed too tedious or hard by my students.
At the other end of the spectrum, Dr. Jerz (who frequents these
parts, if the name is unfamiliar to you) has been using Inform in
his classes (literature, so he's not dealing with programmers) for IF
work. I assume (though I can't speak for him, and don't actually
know) that he went through a similar evaluation.
> As I said in my previous posts, I'm sure there are many who embrace both
> mindsets. I have great admiration for those who have displayed the
> dedication to learn INFORM and TADS and other IF languages. Yet some of us
> are more interesting in creating sophisticated stories without having to
> wade through the underlying language.
I think a major problem, here, is that you're looking up to "us" (the
folks who admit to programming) as if we're somehow gifted or
superior. This is not the case, any more than someone who drives is
more gifted than a pedestrian.
> I don't need to know the language used
> to create a word processing program in order to use the word processor. I
> have a pretty good grasp of HTML but love the WSWYG of Dreamweaver.
Well, that's because you're doing the same thing, just with different
hand muscles. There's no conceptual difference between typing "<b>A
bold subject</b>" and "[moves mouse to bolded B button and clicks]A
bold subject[moves mouse back to button and clicks it off]."
Personally, every time I do HTML work, I find myself opening Notepad
(or vi, depending on what machine I'm using), because having to poke
buttons on the screen while I'm typing pisses me off on a level you
might not even be able to grasp...
> IF will never spread as long as it remains unreachable by the vast majority
> of writers. Is this exactly what the high priests of IF want?
There's really no such thing. Unless, of course, you think the hours
of helping errant people and explaining that you're programming are
just a smokescreen for the--I've already said too much! Go. Run,
and get away before the barricades are erected!
> Great thread.
>
> Chuck Smith
Alex Warren
> The direct response (a factual response is impossible, since opinion is
> inherently involved) is ADRIFT. Note that it is however shareware, and
> Quest, last I heard, was very easy to use and freeware. Hope that helps.
Half right - Quest is very easy to use and shareware <g>
The only limitation of the free version, however, is that you can't "compile"
your games to stop them from being edited by others.
Alex
--
alex at axeuk, and add .com for email address.
Make adventure games easily with Quest - http://www.axeuk.com/quest/
Analyse web site log files for free with Xlogan - http://www.xlogan.com/
John Colagioia
[...]
> Well, I'm genuinely interested in what people consider real programming.
> The only "programming" I've ever seen is that used for If and what I've
> done, for my games, just doesn't strike me as amounting to much.
The same can be said of the work I'm employed to do. A little poke,
here, another minor modification, there. Individual tasks are small,
partly because most of the work is done already (just like the basic
world model is already given to you in Inform, TADS, ADRIFT, et al),
and partly because doing too much in one shot tends to encourage
bugs.
> I have
> seen stuff in much better and more complex games, in the source code, that
> is a lot more complex. Yet my games are playable and I think there are a
> lot of games out there like mine.
Oh, you might be a *lousy* programmer, but the same can be said of
various coworkers I've had over the years (and, maybe, even myself).
An important thing to remember, though, is that complexity doesn't
always relate to improvement, just like big words and complex
sentences don't always relate to clearer or "better" English. I cite
the previous sentence as a prime example, though it lacks big words.
> So if someone wants to insist I'm programming then I'll feel complimented!
> But I would think a professional programmer might be offended by the
> comparison.
Nah. It's not like we're unionized or something. I've worked with
middle school kids a few times, who had a far better grasp on their
jobs than the salaried folks. The people who can organize their
thoughts and predict the effects of changes they make are
programmers (or, at least are clearly capable of doing it), whether
or not they have degrees or salaries in the field.
Alex Warren
> I'm going to give Quest a go because it appears to be a good compromise
> between a complex IF language and an easier-to-use program like ADRIFT.
Excellent - please let me know how you get on. I really love to get feedback,
and especially some feedback from a new user would be really useful (it's quite
hard for me to pretend that I don't know how to use it!).
Seebs
Yeah, that's about the context I'm in, but I just made the DM4 my "reading
over lunch" book for a couple of weeks, and it mostly fit.
Seebs
davidw <dav...@shadowvault.net> wrote:
>Why exactly?
Because it turns out that scripting an interactive story *IS* programming.
>The point you seem to be making is that it's impossible for
>someone with no programming skill to write a decent game which strikes
>me as a strange notion.
Seems normal to me.
>It's a bit like saying that someone who hasn't
>passed got a degree in writing will never write a decent novel.
No, it's like saying that someone who can't tell a story will never write
a decent novel.
To express a concept such as "the door can only be opened if you have
the right keycode for the keypad for the electronic lock; entering an invalid
code generates a message" is to program.
If you can do that, you can learn any programming language. If you can't,
you can't write a good IF story.
Jessica Knoch
> Also, as a few data points, I and my...second grade, I believe,
> class
> were taught LOGO (a relatively "real" programming language whose
> output was primarily a little triangular "turtle" on the screen
> who
> drew pictures based on the commands) in about two afternoons.
Dang! Cool! Is *that* what it was called? This completely makes
up for not being able to remember the name of that old IF game
with a map of islands. I think I was in third grade when we did
stuff with the turtle drawing designs. Maybe fourth.
--
Jess K., my life is almost complete, now.
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>I don't think LRR was saying that you have to possess formal
>programming skills, rather that you have to be comfortable with
>thinking in a logical programmer-like way, of planning for the
>possibilities and putting appropriate defences in place.
Yes. I would go on to add that if you are capable of doing this, then
you can learn a programming language without too much trouble. I could
be wrong on this. Maybe it really *is* just where the semicolons go
that make learning a programming language hard. But I doubt it. My
experience, as someone who's learned a lot of programming languages,
and as someone who's tutored a lot of people at learning to program,
is that syntax is *trivial* if you can think in a 'programmer-like'
way.
Michael Vondung
>Huh. I can't imagine it taking a year to learn Inform - but then, I'm used
>to programming.
Inform isn't nearly as trivial to a non-programmer as it may seem to
someone who is already familiar with concepts used in most -- perhaps
all -- computer languages. I know a fair number of authors and writers
who would love to create a piece of IF, but simply lack the interest
to deal with a programming language (I actually find Ruby easier than
Inform). They are wordsmiths, not coders, and what is perhaps more
crucial: they don't *wish* to be programmers. There are only few
people who are skilled at both writing and coding, and they aren't the
rule.
-M.
Quintin Stone
> IF will never spread as long as it remains unreachable by the vast
> majority of writers. Is this exactly what the high priests of IF want?
Excuse me... it's called The Cabal, thankyouverymuchgoodbye!
/====================================================================\
|| Quintin Stone O- > "You speak of necessary evil? One ||
|| Code Monkey < of those necessities is that if ||
|| Rebel Programmers Society > innocents must suffer, the guilty must ||
|| st...@rps.net < suffer more." -- Mackenzie Calhoun ||
|| http://www.rps.net/ > "Once Burned" by Peter David ||
\====================================================================/
Quintin Stone
> You probably can write IF in Adrift that is every bit as good as IF
> written in a mainstream language -- and the PK girl is a fair example of
> this. But anyone who *could* do this is perfectly capable of learning a
> real IF language, and would save a lot of work by doing it
The PK Girl got 6th place in 2002. I've played it... and I grate at the
assertion that "no programming" went into it. Because it's not a plain
and simple game. Any designer can see that a lot of custom work went into
it. I've never used Adrift; the most I've done is look at the Cloak of
Darkness implemention in Adrift. It kind of gives me nightmares, and the
thought of doing something like PK Girl in Adrift makes me want to curl
into a ball and cry for my mommy.
As some people have touched on, there are 2 primary parts to programming.
I'll refer to them as syntax and structure. Syntax is the rigid grammar
of putting thoughts into something the computer/compiler can read. It
involves either memorizing it or constantly referring to the supporting
documentation. This is obviously something that Adrift-style scripting
does away with. There's no need to memorize syntax, because everything is
window/menu based.
But the structure is still there. You have to think both linearly at
times and symmetrically at others. There is no game without restrictions
on the player and understanding how each thing flows into the next. Every
player action must lead into a reaction from the game, even if it's naught
but a message of "no can do". (Apologies, I've been reading Shakespeare
this week.) And so even looking at the simple Cloak of Darkness game, you
can see that such a game is impossible to code if you don't have a grasp
on the concepts of restrictions and consequences. Adrift hides the fact
that it has a syntax by making it look like English: "Move a velvet cloak
onto object the small brass hook".
Most people I've dealt with who complain about "programming" do not have
problems with structure. But it really grates on them that they have to
confine themselves to such a rigid syntax, one that has to be memorized in
order to prevent constant referrals to the user manual. Adrift is no
different. It just presents user entry *so* *rigidly* that you can't help
but get the proper syntax. It seems a lot like StarCraft map scripting,
which I've done once or twice. The drawback of a system like this is that
it gets progressively harder to maintain a large code base. Does every
single "Task" go into that Tasks window? Is the parser really no more
clever than "put *cloak* hook*"?
davidw insists that a good game is a good game no matter which system it's
written in. We seem to have years of IF Comp results that suggest
differently. The best Adrift has done, as far as I know, is #6 (followed
by #12) in 2002. And before that year, I haven't seen a results list that
put an Adrift game in the top 20. So why is this? Might it simply be
because it's hard to do an exceptional piece of modern IF in such a
system?
Dan Shiovitz
Glenn P., <C128...@FVI.Net> wrote:
>What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless Newbie
>to program in???
I don't have much to add on any of the sub-threads this has spawned,
but it's interesting to me that none of the discussion has touched on
the issue of "Which is the easiest IF system for the player?"
Some people seem to want to make it a writers-vs-programmers showdown --
system X is for people that don't know anything about programming and
just want to write a story, and system Y is for the programming
whizkids. But as far as I can tell the crucial distinction is
writers-vs-players: some systems produce much more playable games than
others systems.
Engine things like undo, adjectives, annoying typeahead, and a map all
make a big difference to my experience as a player, as do more subtle
things like whether the game system encourages authors to hard-code
specific strings the player has to type, or whether it has a large
library of built-in verbs and a grammar system that leads naturally to
supporting multiple phrasings.
If you're not interested in people playing your game, of course, none
of this matters. But even if you're "just interested in writing"
thinking about the player experience and choosing an appropriate
system is important if you want an audience.
--
Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
Rob Steggles
"Dan Shiovitz" <d...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgd2br$a7k$1...@drizzle.com...
> In article
<Pine.LNX.4.44.030727...@Oswego.FoxValley.net>,
> Glenn P., <C128...@FVI.Net> wrote:
> >What is the ABSOLUTELY EASIEST adventure game system for a Clewless
Newbie
> >to program in???
>
> I don't have much to add on any of the sub-threads this has spawned,
> but it's interesting to me that none of the discussion has touched on
> the issue of "Which is the easiest IF system for the player?"
I say, what a thoroughly excellent point. Especially if (like me) you are
(a) thinking of doing a commercial IF game (well, considering thepossibility
at least and (b) are at the very point of choosing a system to write on.
I'd received a few suggestions saying that TADS was the closest thing to
'fit for purpose' for general consumption by 'le grand public' mainly
because of the HTML bit making output flexible, it has a decent parser, is
flexible enough languageto allow some convoluted puzzles andit allows you to
generate run time versions. Any comments from others? Support for other
languages?
Rob Steggles
Daniel Dawson
<Pine.LNX.4.44.03080...@yes.rps.net>, written by Quintin Stone
<st...@rps.net>. It says:
>on the player and understanding how each thing flows into the next. Every
>player action must lead into a reaction from the game, even if it's naught
>but a message of "no can do". (Apologies, I've been reading Shakespeare
>this week.) And so even looking at the simple Cloak of Darkness game, you
Apologies? Just because you used the word 'naught'? I wouldn't have known
whether you were even aware of Shakespeare if you hadn't mentioned him (but my,
how English has changed in that amount of time!), as use of 'naught' doesn't
bother me.
--
| Email: Daniel Dawson <ddawson at icehouse.net> ifMUD: DanDawson |
| Web: http://www.icehouse.net/ddawson/ X-Blank: intentionally blank |
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bernhard B
> of writers. Is this exactly what the high priests of IF want?
Well, there are good movies although directors might
not be skilled cameramen or script writers.
So it is a question sharing responsibilities. For hobby IF I'd say,
if you don't care for programming, why would you want to make
a computer game yourself?
The problem is that the complexity of the world inherently contradicts
the simplicity of tools which simulate it, the more aspects of the
world you want to simulate.
Bernhard (by no means a high or even low preast of IF)
davidw
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
>
> davidw insists that a good game is a good game no matter which system it's
> written in. We seem to have years of IF Comp results that suggest
> differently. The best Adrift has done, as far as I know, is #6 (followed
> by #12) in 2002. And before that year, I haven't seen a results list that
> put an Adrift game in the top 20. So why is this? Might it simply be
> because it's hard to do an exceptional piece of modern IF in such a
> system?
Hardly. The finest piece of interactive fiction I've ever played is a
game called The Hobbit. It came out 20 years ago for the Spectrum and
is still superior to anything I've played since, no matter whether the
system in question is ADRIFT, TADS, Hugo or whatever. And the Spectrum
was a far more basic computing system than anything on the market
today (48 KB of memory, 3.5 Mhz processor) but The Hobbit was still a
remarkable game and for all the advances in computer technology since
then no one has yet come out with a better game.
So in answer to your question:
> Might it simply be
> because it's hard to do an exceptional piece of modern IF in such a
> system?
You can write an exceptional piece of modern IF in "any" system. And
yes, I mean any system at all.
As for why ADRIFT fared less well than other systems in the IFComp, is
this because the ADRIFT games were of inferior quality? Or, more
likely, is it because of the general bias there seems to be against
ADRIFT as a whole? Several reviews I read of the comp games seemed to
suggest the reviewers weren't reviewing the game but the system which
struck me as a peculiar way to judge how good a game is. Like the old
saying "don't judge a book by its cover" you can also have "don't
judge a game by its authoring system" which is what the majority of
people seemed to be doing.
For certain there were quite a few games that did better than the
ADRIFT games but weren't half as good.
Rexx Magnus
> Completely disagree. Why should I learn to program if I'm intending to
> write games in ADRIFT which doesn't require me to be a programmer?
>
> I can get a decent idea of what separates a good game from a bad game
> by playing games written by others. I don't need to be a programmer
> myself to judge what's good and bad and, therefore, I don't need to be
> a programmer to write a decent game with a system like ADRIFT.
Not many art critics can paint. :)
--
UO & AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal
To email me, visit the site.
Rexx Magnus
> An important thing to remember, though, is that complexity doesn't
> always relate to improvement, just like big words and complex
> sentences don't always relate to clearer or "better" English. I cite
> the previous sentence as a prime example, though it lacks big words.
Usually the other way around, in my programming experience (and even
moreso when relating it to learning Inform) the less skill you have, the
more complex (or should I say muddled) the structures you create will be.
As you increase in skill, you'll seem to strive for greater simplicity.
From the other side of the viewpoint, a common view is that the simpler
the tool you have, the harder it is to do something good with it. The more
complex the tool, the easier it gets. Shooting accurately with a bow made
from a string and a stick is going to be a lot more difficult to master
than shooting using the most up-to-date compound bow.
Rexx Magnus
> Dang! Cool! Is *that* what it was called? This completely makes
> up for not being able to remember the name of that old IF game
> with a map of islands. I think I was in third grade when we did
> stuff with the turtle drawing designs. Maybe fourth.
I actually *have* two of those little turtle things, and managed to get
the original dome type to work with a PC. Wasn't able to do anything
useful with it though, other than make it move around when you pressed a
key in qbasic! :)
Mark J Musante
> Inform does no graphics or sounds (although L. Ross has stretched it for
> sounds).
This is untrue. Jay Penney's V6lib provides a nice api for both
graphics and sounds.
http://www.jczorkmid.net/V6Lib/
-markm