[IfComp97] Bugged games? Plus: Cry for Help!
Richard Stamp
In article <61ti6c$1kes$1...@alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
Gunther Schmidl <sot...@xxx.usa.net> wrote:
>
>I wasn't even able to get started in Tempest (by G. Nelson? Seems so...)
After the Sherbet experience, I suggest "Spot the Graham Nelson Game"
as an amusing contest sideline. Though my bet is that there isn't one.
Richard
(also lost at sea in Tempest, I'm afraid)
Kenneth Fair
In article <61tkmk$cus$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg...@cam.ac.uk (Richard
Stamp) wrote:
(Same here. I can't unbatten the hatches, or do anything put pour the
oil on the deck of the ship. Maybe I need to get a copy of the play.)
I don't think GN has an entry this year. I quickly flipped through the
entries to see if I could spot his work, but the entries were either by
someone I knew to be not Graham, or else obviously not his work.
Of course, that could just be his fiendish ploy . . .
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Isn't it amazing with all of the post presented by creationist in these
newsgroups were wrong 100% of the time?" - ks...@fast.net
Stephen Robert Norris
In article <61ti6c$1kes$1...@alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
"Gunther Schmidl" <sot...@xxx.usa.net> intoned:
> There seem to be a lot of games out there that don't seem to be
> finishable -- even with their own walkthroughs -- and/or bugged:
>
> Pintown crashes on me, as does A Bear's Night Out. The latter was lucky as
> the two hours were not up, and I played with another interpreter, but
> Pintown... well, not my problem.
>
> Zombie!, Temple of the Orc Mage, A Good Breakfast -- all these I could not
> win even with the included walkthroughs (which all seem to be wrong).
>
> I wasn't even able to get started in Tempest (by G. Nelson? Seems so...)
>
I didn't manage to finish "Temple of the Orc Mage" either - I got to the
end bit, and then couldn't figure it out, looked at the walkthrough, and
discovered it didn't work. It's two hours were just about up, so I fiddled
for a bit longer and then rated it.
I couldn't get anywhere much in the Tempest, either - just to the ship.
Bears Night Out crashed, and I only have one interpreter.
This raises a question - how much can we discuss Comp97 games in raif?
Stephen
Gunther Schmidl
There seem to be a lot of games out there that don't seem to be
finishable -- even with their own walkthroughs -- and/or bugged:
Pintown crashes on me, as does A Bear's Night Out. The latter was lucky as
the two hours were not up, and I played with another interpreter, but
Pintown... well, not my problem.
Zombie!, Temple of the Orc Mage, A Good Breakfast -- all these I could not
win even with the included walkthroughs (which all seem to be wrong).
I wasn't even able to get started in Tempest (by G. Nelson? Seems so...)
Also, I wasn't able to finish Zero Sum Game...
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What about the Recombubulation spell? What must I cast it on, Chippy? The
Troll? Help!
--
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
+ Gunther Schmidl + "I couldn't help it. I can resist everything +
+ Ferd.-Markl-Str. 39/16 + except temptation" -- Oscar Wilde +
+ A-4040 LINZ +----------------------------------------------+
+ Tel: 0732 25 28 57 + http://oberon.home.ml.org - german homepage! +
+------------------------+---+------------------------------------------+
+ sothoth (at) usa (dot) net + please remove the "xxx." before replying +
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Bugged games? Plus: Cry for Help!
>From: s...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Robert Norris)
>Date: Mon, Oct 13, 1997 17:11
>This raises a question - how much can we discuss Comp97 games in raif?
>
> Stephen
I think we aren't supposed to at all - so not we won't influence each other's
votes. But maybe bug reports (compliants) are different, I don't really know.
I wonder too.
FD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Femal...@aol.com The Tame Computer
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or
freed a human soul." Mark Twain (or won a game)
Andrew Plotkin
FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
> >This raises a question - how much can we discuss Comp97 games in raif?
> I think we aren't supposed to at all - so not we won't influence each other's
> votes. But maybe bug reports (compliants) are different, I don't really know.
> I wonder too.
There's no mandatory rule. Last year there was a general agreement not to
discuss the entries until the voting was over.
That's going to be a long time, this year -- the voting runs until New
Year's, unless I misread the rules. So I'm not going to hold back; *but*,
I'm not going to discuss *any* of the entries until I've played *all* of
them, and sent in my final votes. Then I'll be posting with
"[comp97-spoilers]" in the subject line. And I'll avoid reading such posts
until I've played all the entries.
Bug reports are a little different. If it's a bug that prevents you from
winning, and there's a way to avoid it -- say, by using a particular
interpreter -- then it may be worth posting about, so that other people
can work around the bug.
(If you find a non-critical bug, of course, it's better to email the
author privately.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Stuart Adair
In article <61ti6c$1kes$1...@alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>, sot...@xxx.usa.net
says...
>
>There seem to be a lot of games out there that don't seem to be
>finishable -- even with their own walkthroughs -- and/or bugged:
>
>Pintown crashes on me, as does A Bear's Night Out. The latter was lucky as
>the two hours were not up, and I played with another interpreter, but
>Pintown... well, not my problem.
>
>Zombie!, Temple of the Orc Mage, A Good Breakfast -- all these I could not
>win even with the included walkthroughs (which all seem to be wrong).
As the author of AGB, I've received a number of emails about its apparent
bugginess. I'm afraid that there isn't a lot I can do at the moment, as I don't
actually have access to a computer of my own. Hopefully I'll be able to
'borrow' a friend's and try and get the source emailed to me from home. It
should be a simple fix, it's just actually doing it that's causing problems.
I'd also like to apologise to my beta-testers, as I feel that I've let them
down by realising a buggy game. This bug was not present in any of the versions
sent to them, so it isn't their fault.
As for the walkthrough, it should be accurate -- it's taken from a transcript
(with a couple of bits snipped) -- and for the record, my interpreter of choice
is WinFrotz (although I've had reports that it doesn't work on that either).
Stuart
Dylan O'Donnell
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> >This raises a question - how much can we discuss Comp97 games in raif?
>
>> I think we aren't supposed to at all - so not we won't influence each
>> other's votes. But maybe bug reports (compliants) are different, I
>> don't really know.
>> I wonder too.
>
>There's no mandatory rule. Last year there was a general agreement not to
The way I interpret the rules, competition _authors_ are disbarred from
discussing the entries on Usenet; anyone else (ie, everyone eligible to
vote) is free to do so. Whizzard?
Another rules query. Is "The Tempest" in breach of rule 2 (the one
requiring each entry to be original to the author)? I _like_ it (though
I'm only about halfway through the play), but I'm uneasy about giving
it a high vote when it seems to have broken one of the competition
rules.
--
: Dylan O'Donnell : "This particularly rapid, unintelligible :
: Southend Slave Deck, : patter / Isn't generally heard, and :
: Demon Internet Ltd : if it is it doesn't matter!" :
: http://www.fysh.org/~psmith/ : -- W.S. Gilbert, "Ruddigore" :
Magnus Olsson
In article <621m4h$ps3$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
Dylan O'Donnell <psm...@fysh.org> wrote:
>Another rules query. Is "The Tempest" in breach of rule 2 (the one
>requiring each entry to be original to the author)? I _like_ it (though
>I'm only about halfway through the play), but I'm uneasy about giving
>it a high vote when it seems to have broken one of the competition
>rules.
The following is just my personal opinion, nothing else:
You should not let such considerations enter your scoring. The game
doesn't become less good if it violates the rules (not that I'm saying
it does, this is a hypothetical case).
If a game breaks the rules, it should IMO be disqualified, not punished
with low scores.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Not officially connected to LU or LTH.
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Bugged games? Plus: Cry for Help!
>Date: Wed, Oct 15, 1997 01:59 EDT
>Tempest" in breach of rule 2 (the one
>requiring each entry to be original to the author)? I _like_ it (though
>I'm only about halfway through the play), but I'm uneasy about giving
>it a high vote when it seems to have broken one of the competition
>rules.
Give. How on earth can you be 1/2 way through? I never could unbatten the
hatches so I gave up.
So?
Paul O'Brian
On 15 Oct 1997, Matthew Crosby wrote:
> In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >That's going to be a long time, this year -- the voting runs until New
> >Year's, unless I misread the rules. So I'm not going to hold back; *but*,
> >I'm not going to discuss *any* of the entries until I've played *all* of
> >them, and sent in my final votes. Then I'll be posting with
> >"[comp97-spoilers]" in the subject line. And I'll avoid reading such posts
> >until I've played all the entries.
> >
> How about we set up a mailing list, say comp97-discuss and make it a
> prerequisite that those subscribing
> a) Have played all the games
> and b) have sent in their final votes and agree not to change them.
I like this idea a lot, but if it happens I'd hope that someone archives
the posts to the mailing list. I'd be disappointed to miss out on
someone's insightful reviews just because they happened to finish the
games earlier than I did. Of course, I suppose I could just subscribe and
save all the messages unread until I finish all the games...
Are there so many people that are going to finish all those games a long
time before Dec. 31? They must have a lot more spare time on their hands
than I do!
Paul O'Brian obr...@ucsu.colorado.edu
"I think it's important to remember that no one falls into a simple set of
labels. Even more important is to learn from your mistakes, and to fight
for the positive choice." -- Lindsey Buckingham
Andrew Plotkin
> > How about we set up a mailing list, say comp97-discuss
>
> I like this idea a lot, but if it happens I'd hope that someone archives
> the posts to the mailing list.
My storage constraints are such that I really can't afford to subscribe
to another mailing list.
> Are there so many people that are going to finish all those games a long
> time before Dec. 31? They must have a lot more spare time on their hands
> than I do!
I've played seventeen of them. It helps to be unemployed. :)
Andrew Plotkin
Magnus Olsson (m...@bartlet.df.lth.se) wrote:
> >Another rules query. Is "The Tempest" in breach of rule 2 (the one
> >requiring each entry to be original to the author)? I _like_ it (though
> >I'm only about halfway through the play), but I'm uneasy about giving
> >it a high vote when it seems to have broken one of the competition
> >rules.
> The following is just my personal opinion, nothing else:
> You should not let such considerations enter your scoring. The game
> doesn't become less good if it violates the rules (not that I'm saying
> it does, this is a hypothetical case).
> If a game breaks the rules, it should IMO be disqualified, not punished
> with low scores.
I agree with this.
The administrator -- sorry to keep harping on this theme, but it keeps
things simple -- the administrator accepted "The Tempest" as an entry.
He's the one to withdraw it if he thinks the rules have been
violated. (Well, him or the anonymous author.)
Until that happens, we should assume it's a completely valid entry, and
vote on it the same way we vote on all the other entries.
Matthew Crosby
>
>> >This raises a question - how much can we discuss Comp97 games in raif?
>
>> I think we aren't supposed to at all - so not we won't influence each other's
>> votes. But maybe bug reports (compliants) are different, I don't really know.
>> I wonder too.
>
>There's no mandatory rule. Last year there was a general agreement not to
>
>Year's, unless I misread the rules. So I'm not going to hold back; *but*,
>I'm not going to discuss *any* of the entries until I've played *all* of
>them, and sent in my final votes. Then I'll be posting with
>"[comp97-spoilers]" in the subject line. And I'll avoid reading such posts
>until I've played all the entries.
>
How about we set up a mailing list, say comp97-discuss and make it a
prerequisite that those subscribing
a) Have played all the games
and b) have sent in their final votes and agree not to change them.
That way we can discuss it to our hearts content.
--
Matthew Crosby cro...@cs.colorado.edu
Disclaimer: It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.
Kenneth Fair
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew
Plotkin) wrote:
As I understand it, the purpose of rule 2 was primarily to avoid copyright
infringement problems more than anything else, which of course isn't a
problem with Shakespeare, which is in the public domain.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Nick
On 15 Oct 1997, FemaleDeer wrote:
> >Tempest" in breach of rule 2 (the one
> >requiring each entry to be original to the author)? I _like_ it (though
> >I'm only about halfway through the play), but I'm uneasy about giving
> >it a high vote when it seems to have broken one of the competition
> >rules.
> hatches so I gave up.
> So?
> FD
Spoiler space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't do anything with the phial, I have tried various ways to put the
crew to sleep but can't.
Any help please?
Nick
Stephen Robert Norris
Some small help may come from:
http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
Stephen
dcorn...@placet.com
Without commenting on whether Tempest is a good game, I'd say that the
rule should be based on legal issues (copying Infocom characters or
ideas), but at the same time, The Tempest loses value inherently because
anyone can open up a classic and create a beautiful game.
The contest should accept only wholly original works, allowing for minor
and occasional usage of classical fiction. In other words, using a
portion of The Tempest for a puzzle would be considered genuinely
original (if it meshed with the context of the story), while COPYING The
Tempest entirely or basing your game on The Tempest implies a lack of
effort on the story itself.
I would say that this lacks a good faith effort on the part of the author
to create something new, which I thought was the point of the contest.
I love the Infocom games and I love Shakespeare. The Tempest "may" be a
beautiful game. But without the man to write the story originally, where
does the game's author stand?
He stands on a ship made of someone else's varnish and sweat.
My opinion. I DO have a game in the contest and maybe I'm not supposed to
comment on these things...so be it. My game is not the issue. I know
where I stand in the contest because I've played several of the other
games. But I had to speak out about this.
A final note. If people want to copy ideas from famous works....please
feel free to do so. You add to the value of interactive fiction. But
don't have the audacity to enter it into a contest of original works.
David Cornelson
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Bugged games? Plus: Cry for Help!
>Date: Mon, Oct 13, 1997 20:54 EDT
>That's going to be a long time, this year -- the voting runs >until New
Year's, unless I misread the rules. So I'm not >going to hold back; *but*, I'm
not going to discuss *any* of >the entries until I've played *all* of them,
and sent in my final >votes. Then I'll be posting with "[comp97-spoilers]" in
the >subject line. And I'll avoid reading such posts
>until I've played all the entries.
>-Z
Taking my cue from Andrew (Mr. Plotkin), I am going to do the same. I will post
my own reviews in raif when I am done with all the games. I think three months
is a long time for authors to wait to get some feedback (when I was still an
entrant, this bothered me a lot.)
Then I will retreat for a month or two (well, maybe a week or three) until the
flames die down. Or maybe I will never be able to show my face in raif again.
Hmmm, screen name change time?
FD :-)
Andrew Plotkin
Mikko P Vuorinen (mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
> In <87703741...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au> s...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Robert Norris) writes:
> >Some small help may come from:
> >http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
> But shouldn't everyone have a paperback copy of Shakespeare's complete
> works?
I would, for the sake of argument, agree that everyone *should*...
Stephen Granade
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 dcorn...@placet.com wrote:
> Without commenting on whether Tempest is a good game, I'd say that the
> rule should be based on legal issues (copying Infocom characters or
> ideas), but at the same time, The Tempest loses value inherently because
> anyone can open up a classic and create a beautiful game.
I completely disagree. I think anyone can open up a classic and create a
horrible hash of the original. "Translating" a work such as "The Tempest"
to IF is no small undertaking.
> The contest should accept only wholly original works, allowing for minor
> and occasional usage of classical fiction.
[snip]
> A final note. If people want to copy ideas from famous works....please
> feel free to do so. You add to the value of interactive fiction. But
> don't have the audacity to enter it into a contest of original works.
I don't see this as an audacious flaunting of the rules at all. Are you
saying that a derivative or translated work is completely lacking in
originality? If so, do you have the same concerns about Andrew's "Lists
and Lists" from last year's competition? It was just a Scheme port.
I suspect that this entry will be much like Chris Forman's MST3K entry in
the first competition: hotly debated, yet in no way indicating a future
trend in competition games.
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Check out
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
Richard Stamp
In article <627v2i$o1b$1...@calvin.skidmore.edu>,
Jonathan Fry <jf...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>
>This is exactly my complaint. I don't think it's fair to place the
>prose of the other games' authors against the prose of William
>Shakespeare. In fact, why would anyone dare to use their own writing
>when he/she can just submit some great author's prose instead?
I think the readers of this group (hence likely judgers of the games)
are a fairly sophisticated bunch. Why not just trust ourselves to
take these factors into account when scoring the games? We know that
Tempest's text isn't original, so we have to judge the game on its
playability and how well the play has been converted to the IF form.
Cheers,
Richard
Jeff Pack
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:54:55 GMT, Kenneth Fair
<kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME> wrote:
>In article <87703741...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au>, s...@fn.com.au wrote:
>
>>Some small help may come from:
>>http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
>
>Project, and it *still* hasn't helped me!
Heck, I've studied him for years and I can't even get beyond the freaking
ship. There is no logical reason why a spirit like Ariel should be impeded
by a bit of waterproofed canvas.
--
Jeff Pack (book...@brown.edu) "Here I am, up on the podium,
Brown University, Class of 1999 Here I am, up on the dais;
English and American Literature There I go, playing with words again,
St. Anthony Hall, K'96 There I go... turn the phrase."
Jeff Pack
On 17 Oct 1997 16:54:44 GMT, Richard Stamp <rg...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think the readers of this group (hence likely judgers of the games)
>are a fairly sophisticated bunch. Why not just trust ourselves to
>take these factors into account when scoring the games? We know that
>Tempest's text isn't original, so we have to judge the game on its
>playability and how well the play has been converted to the IF form.
One of the factors I took into consideration was how well the author's
own pseudo-Elizabethan iambs meshed with the Bard's...
Neil Brown
At 05:31:28 on Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>Mikko P Vuorinen (mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
>> In <87703741...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au> s...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu
>.au (Stephen Robert Norris) writes:
>
>> >http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
>
>> works?
>
>I would, for the sake of argument, agree that everyone *should*...
Some people might not like Shakespeare. I personally think that I'm too
young to appreciate it fully.
- NJB
J. Holder
In a fit of lunacy, Jonathan Fry <jf...@saims.skidmore.edu> escribed:
: The key here is his use of the words "a contest of original works".
: The rules specifically state
:
: "2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You may parody
: established works, but you may not, for example, write a game
: based on Sherlock Holmes. This avoids the entire issue of
: copyright and the ethics involved."
: The point in my mind is simple. The author seems to have broken one
: of the very basic rules of the competition. I'm not commenting on the
: quality of the work itself (which I cannot do under the rules, anyway)
: but more pointing out an obvious violation of the rules.
Not really - it is obvious from the wording of the rule that the intent
of the rule is to avoid "copyright and the ethics involved." Not to
speak at all about ethics (I'll leave that to someone else, or perhaps wait
until I've played the game so I can better judge), but Shakespeare is
certainly well known to be in the public domain - I certainly have downloaded
a free copy of the complete works.
: Though I'm really considering a port of "Hound of
: the Baskervilles" next year if "The Tempest" is allowed to stay; I'm
: curious as to how far these rules can be broken.
I believe that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate still strongly defends his
copyrights. Not so for the Bard...
--
John Holder (jho...@frii.com) http://www.frii.com/~jholder/
Sr. Programmer Analyst, J.D.Edwards World Source Company, Denver, CO
http://www.jdedwards.com/
Stephen Granade
On 17 Oct 1997, Jonathan Fry wrote:
> The key here is his use of the words "a contest of original works".
> The rules specifically state
>
> "2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You may parody
> established works, but you may not, for example, write a game
> based on Sherlock Holmes. This avoids the entire issue of
> copyright and the ethics involved."
>
> The point in my mind is simple. The author seems to have broken one
> of the very basic rules of the competition. I'm not commenting on the
> quality of the work itself (which I cannot do under the rules, anyway)
> but more pointing out an obvious violation of the rules.
I'd say that Tempest violates the letter of this law rather than its
spirit. The intent of rule 2 was to prevent copyright problems. As
Shakespeare's works are PD, this is not a problem.
At any rate, I agree w/Andrew's statement: rule judgements are up to
Kevin. Whether we agree with his decisions or not is immaterial. After he
has made a decision, all we are required to do is judge the game on its
own merits.
Stephen
Neil Brown
At 15:09:06 on Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Jonathan Fry wrote:
>dcorn...@placet.com wrote:
>: Without commenting on whether Tempest is a good game, I'd say that the
>: rule should be based on legal issues (copying Infocom characters or
>: ideas), but at the same time, The Tempest loses value inherently because
>: anyone can open up a classic and create a beautiful game.
>
>prose of the other games' authors against the prose of William
>Shakespeare. In fact, why would anyone dare to use their own writing
>when he/she can just submit some great author's prose instead?
>
> identity is known to all of the other authors; it is unclear
> whether this was a mistake or not] or William Shakespeare?)
Um, sorry to stick my oar in (well, I'm not really, but I like to
pretend that I'm a nice person :), but this kind of discussion about a
contest entry could influence the decision of some of the voters, and is
not allowed under the rules. Unless we hear otherwise from Whizzard, we
should take the game in question to be as valid as any other entry, and
wait till the new year before analysing further.
(In case anyone takes that the wrong way, I'm not trying to be nasty or
stroppy or anything. Here's an extra smiley face just to prove it. :)
- NJB
Stephen van Egmond
Jonathan Fry <jf...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>The key here is his use of the words "a contest of original works".
>The rules specifically state
>
> "2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You may parody
> established works, but you may not, for example, write a game
> based on Sherlock Holmes. This avoids the entire issue of
> copyright and the ethics involved."
It seems that Tempest, the play, is not subject to Copyright. Tempest, the
game, thus falls in a crack of this rule, which provides mainly legal
motivation for itself. This rule serves mainly as a (valid) legalism, and
tangentially as a creative urge to do something new.
I would really hate it if next year's contest rules have a zillion
Whereas clauses.
>Let's hope so. :) Though I'm really considering a port of "Hound of
>the Baskervilles" next year if "The Tempest" is allowed to stay; I'm
>curious as to how far these rules can be broken.
The MST3K analogy is apt. It's only neat the first time someone does
it. The idea of placing a play in an IF context is a creative one, it's
not illegal, and it's novel here. As someone said upthread, we are
intelligent enough to judge reasonably.
/Steve
Mikko P Vuorinen
In <87703741...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au> s...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Robert Norris) writes:
>Some small help may come from:
>http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
But shouldn't everyone have a paperback copy of Shakespeare's complete
works?
--
)))) (((( + Mikko Vuorinen + mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi
)) OO `oo'((( + Dilbon@IRC + http://www.helsinki.fi/~mvuorine/
6 (_) ( ((( + GSM 050-5859733 +
`____c 8__/((( + + I made this.
Jonathan Fry
dcorn...@placet.com wrote:
: Without commenting on whether Tempest is a good game, I'd say that the
: rule should be based on legal issues (copying Infocom characters or
: ideas), but at the same time, The Tempest loses value inherently because
: anyone can open up a classic and create a beautiful game.
This is exactly my complaint. I don't think it's fair to place the
prose of the other games' authors against the prose of William
Shakespeare. In fact, why would anyone dare to use their own writing
when he/she can just submit some great author's prose instead?
(Also, who gets the prize in this instance? The programmer [whose
identity is known to all of the other authors; it is unclear
whether this was a mistake or not] or William Shakespeare?)
--Jon
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Jonathan Fry jf...@skidmore.edu |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Steve McKinney
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:31:28 GMT, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
wrote:
>Mikko P Vuorinen (mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
>> In <87703741...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au> s...@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Robert Norris) writes:
>
>> But shouldn't everyone have a paperback copy of Shakespeare's complete
>> works?
>
>I would, for the sake of argument, agree that everyone *should*...
>
I disagree. I believe that one *should* have a paperback copy of
Shakespeare's complete works if and only if one *wants* to have a
paperback copy of Shakespeare's complete works, and is willing and
able to *obtain* a paperback copy of Shakespeare's complete works.
But I could be wrong.
--
Steve McKinney <sj...@avana.net>
"Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right."
--Isaac Asimov
Jason Compton
Stephen Granade (sgra...@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
: > Without commenting on whether Tempest is a good game, I'd say that the
: > rule should be based on legal issues (copying Infocom characters or
: > ideas), but at the same time, The Tempest loses value inherently because
: > anyone can open up a classic and create a beautiful game.
: I completely disagree. I think anyone can open up a classic and create a
: horrible hash of the original. "Translating" a work such as "The Tempest"
Totally agreed. It's been shown time and time again, especially where
games are concerned, that drawing on a classic or a blockbuster are often
guarantees for abject failure. I have not yet played the Tempest so I
can't make judgement on it, but I think that to presume it would be good
(or to credit whatever qualities it might have) to the quality of
Shakespeare is not valid.
: > A final note. If people want to copy ideas from famous works....please
: > feel free to do so. You add to the value of interactive fiction. But
: > don't have the audacity to enter it into a contest of original works.
:
: I don't see this as an audacious flaunting of the rules at all. Are you
: saying that a derivative or translated work is completely lacking in
: originality? If so, do you have the same concerns about Andrew's "Lists
: and Lists" from last year's competition? It was just a Scheme port.
And, again, is it an affront to sensibilities for a company (like even
Infocom) to sell games based on books or movies as "original" creations?
I don't think so.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Editor-in-Chief, Amiga Report Magazine Anchor, Amiga Legacy
http://www.cucug.org/ar/ http://www.xnet.com/~jcompton/
There are only dreams... ...like any other.
Jonathan Fry
Stephen Granade (sgra...@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
: I completely disagree. I think anyone can open up a classic and create a
: horrible hash of the original. "Translating" a work such as "The Tempest"
: to IF is no small undertaking.
This may be true, but I don't think the quality of the game is the
issue here (see below).
: > A final note. If people want to copy ideas from famous works....please
: > feel free to do so. You add to the value of interactive fiction. But
: > don't have the audacity to enter it into a contest of original works.
: I don't see this as an audacious flaunting of the rules at all. Are you
: saying that a derivative or translated work is completely lacking in
: originality? If so, do you have the same concerns about Andrew's "Lists
: and Lists" from last year's competition? It was just a Scheme port.
The key here is his use of the words "a contest of original works".
The rules specifically state
"2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You may parody
established works, but you may not, for example, write a game
based on Sherlock Holmes. This avoids the entire issue of
copyright and the ethics involved."
The point in my mind is simple. The author seems to have broken one
of the very basic rules of the competition. I'm not commenting on the
quality of the work itself (which I cannot do under the rules, anyway)
but more pointing out an obvious violation of the rules.
: I suspect that this entry will be much like Chris Forman's MST3K entry in
: the first competition: hotly debated, yet in no way indicating a future
: trend in competition games.
Let's hope so. :) Though I'm really considering a port of "Hound of
the Baskervilles" next year if "The Tempest" is allowed to stay; I'm
curious as to how far these rules can be broken.
--Jon
Kenneth Fair
>Some small help may come from:
>http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/texts/comedies/tempest.html
Hell, I downloaded the Complete Works of Shakespeare from the Gutenberg
Project, and it *still* hasn't helped me!
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Next to being witty yourself, the best thing is to quote
another's wit." - C.N. Bovee
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>From: svan...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen van Egmond)
>Date: Fri, Oct 17, 1997 18:25 EDT
> "2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You
> may parody established works, but you may not, for
> example, write a game based on Sherlock Holmes. This > avoids the entire
issue of
> copyright and the ethics involved."
>As someone said upthread, we are
>intelligent enough to judge reasonably.
Yes, I think there are other issues involved with Tempest, other than just this
rule. One concerning the guessing about who wrote it. Another concerning it's
"playability" , which I will not go into because of the consensus in raif
about not discussing entries. And I would highly dispute that we are all
familiar with Shakespeare.
But I am going to dump in my two cents about the rule, itself.
1. HOW did Whizzard really know what the game was like when he accepted it? I
never really told him anything about mine and it was accepted. As far as I
could tell, he had very, very little time to preview them.
2. The way I read the above rule differs than how some others have read it. The
word ETHICS jumped out at me. Ethics as in "plagiarism", as in competiting
against original works with a non-original work. But maybe that was just me.
I do know that Hitchhiker, for instance, was adapted by THE AUTHOR (along with
an infocomer) for IF. And because he was the author, he could change what he
wanted in order to adapt it. So that is another ethical issue I have not seen
raised. How would each one of us like it, if someone took the source code of
one of our games and CHANGED it?
So the other ethical consideration is, changing an existing work by an author
who can no longer protest the change. Think about it. Yes, I know Shakespear
has been restaged in various ways and I think in the theatre this has also
been a hotly contested issue. I personally think an original art work should
not be altered by someone else. But, again, that may just be me and my own
sense of ownership as concerns my own works of fiction, painting and whatever.
As I remember, Infocom's Sherlock, used the character but not an existing
Sherlock Holmes story. I guess what I am saying is, should ANYONE mess with
some one else's art? Use the characters maybe, but not change an original
story. The changes may end up being what the original author would NEVER have
intended. Just as in the art world, people do not copy an "old master", except
for their own painting practice and amusement. But to try to sell their copy
or distribute it is called something starting with f.
FD Well, two cents is worth two cents. I guess I felt stronger about this than
I thought. Flame away.
Steve Bernard
In article <19971018025...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
>
> So the other ethical consideration is, changing an existing work by an author
> who can no longer protest the change. Think about it. Yes, I know Shakespear
> has been restaged in various ways and I think in the theatre this has also
> been a hotly contested issue. I personally think an original art work should
> not be altered by someone else. But, again, that may just be me and my own
> sense of ownership as concerns my own works of fiction, painting and
whatever.
Of course, if we all worked this way, Leonard Bernstein never would have
adapted "Romeo and Juliet" into "West Side Story", "Madame Butterfly"
would have never received the new relavence "Miss Saigon" gave to it,
and...uh...Procul Harem never would have used that Bach melody for "A
Whiter Shade of Pale".:)
Aren't Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes a part of our culture, our
environment? That's kinda the spirit of the public domain. A work in the
public domain belongs to everybody and we are at least LEGALLY allowed to
use it. As for the morality of it, I personally would say "Anything
goes. Do whatever you want." But look at how the game in question has
used "The Tempest" and adapted it. I haven't got very far myself, but I
think it's a fairly reverential adaptation of the original. I think the
author simply wanted to make an interactive version of the play. This, I
believe, is along the same lines as adapting a novel for a film.
But moreover, suppose that this wasn't a faithful adaptation. Suppose it
was a parody of the original work. I think that's okay, too. Even our
oppressive copyright law is with me here (at least for the time being);
we have the right to parody any work of privately OR publically owned
art. You don't have to look too far to see how much parody there is in
the world around us. What if, say, The Simpsons hadn't done all those
hilarious Halloween specials over the years? I mean, think about the
parody of "The Shining" from a couple years back or their hilarious
version of "The Raven". I think that these are art in and of themselves.
The fact that they poke fun at a movie and a poem that I'm fond of
doesn't really change it.
There are many other examples where the work of others is used very
effectively and strikingly to convey a very different message. Early
Cubism and Dadaism spring to mind. True folk music has traditionally
been a process of incorporating old melodies and lyrics into constantly
evolving songs. This isn't possible in world where every scrap of art is
pinned down and privately owned and charged for. Defending the right of
a long-dead man to keep his plays in a completely unchanged state after
hundreds of years is as ridiculous as telling me how I can use "Jingle
Bells" (Traditional) or "Oh Susanna" (Stephen Foster, though it's so
common in our lives, many assume it's a folk tune). Things like that are
a part of our environment and they're as much mine as they are yours or
the late William Shakespeare's.
Just as in the art world, people do not copy an "old master",
except
> for their own painting practice and amusement. But to try to sell their copy
> or distribute it is called something starting with f.
>
Not entirely true. I've got a poster of the "Birth of Man". I doubt
Michaelangelo ever intended his work to be printed on a piece of paper
and hung on my wall. Countless reproductions of artworks are sold
legally all the time, it's just that the people who buy them know full
well that they're not getting the original Mona Lisa. I doubt many
people who play "The Tempest" will mistake it for the play. In the
visual arts there is a long tradition of found-image collages, from
Schwitters and Braque to Warhol and Rauschenberg. Maybe you don't think
that's art, but I do.
You're probably asking "Who is this guy? Why is he bothering me with
this nonsense?" Well, I'm Steve and I'm a lurker ("Hi Steve") and this
just happened to strike a nerve in me much the same as it did you. I
thought it might be nice to contribute to an actual conversation for a
change. Am I wrong? Possibly.
This has been my long-winded artsy-fartsyness for the day. Thank you.
-Steve Bernard Jr.
Chris Marriott
In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>,
Kenneth Fair <kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME> writes
>Please don't. Arthur Conan Doyle's works are still in copyright, from what
>I understand.
Most of the Sherlock Holmes stories are now in the public domain. Take a
look, for example, at the "Project Gutenberg" archives.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, Microsoft Certified Solution Developer.
SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Jonathan Fry
FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
: 2. I think the Tempest discussion is complicated by the fact that a lot of us
: think we know who wrote it. I think it is honest to admit this.
You and the rest of the authors _do_ know who wrote it. Check out the headers
on that e-mail Whizzard sent out to all of us--it reads
"William Shakespeare" with a clearly recognizable e-mail address after
it. As I said before, it is unclear whether this revelation was a
mistake or not.
Ruth Nestvold
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
>So the other ethical consideration is, changing an existing work by an author
> who can no longer protest the change. Think about it. Yes, I know Shakespear
> has been restaged in various ways and I think in the theatre this has also
> been a hotly contested issue. I personally think an original art work should
> not be altered by someone else. But, again, that may just be me and my own
> sense of ownership as concerns my own works of fiction, painting and whatever.
I have the sneaking suspicion that there is no such thing as absolute ownership
in the world of creative endeavors. Just as you have no control over how people
will view your creative efforts, what interpretation they will give them,
neither can you control how they're used once you're gone from here. It's a bit
like letting loose a child on the world. You've done your best, but once it's
out of there, it doesn't make much sense to try to maintain your power over it.
Ruth
Ruth Nestvold, r...@lit-arts.com
Cutting Edges: Or, a Web of Women
www.lit-arts.com/cutting_edges
Andrew Plotkin
FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
> 3. However, I want to make clear that it wasn't just the Tempest which got me
> going in my last post. It was someone saying they wanted to do the Hound of
> the Baskervilles too (let's leave aside the estate issues and whether it COULD
> be done). Tampering with someone else's original work (although it may be in
> the public domain and they are dead) is something that does really bother me.
Like anything else, it can be done well or badly. That doesn't mean that
it's a bad thing to try.
> What if someone took the Hound and made it a comedy? The whole original intent
> and feel of what Arthur Conan Doyle had intended would be changed. This is a
> tricky, multilayered issue but I think it should be seriously thought about.
> Sure they are T.V. remakes of the Hound, but I have never seen any that really
> changed the essential story.
Well, someone took _Hamlet_ and made it a comedy. And drastically changed
the intent and feel of what Shakespeare intended. _Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead_ is one of my very favorite works; frankly I enjoy
it much more than _Hamlet_, although that's just me.
You can't damage the original text. It's always still going to be there.
Chris [Steve] Piuma
In article <19971018065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
> What if someone took the Hound and made it a comedy? The whole original
intent
> and feel of what Arthur Conan Doyle had intended would be changed.
Exactly. This is why the prize would go to, say, Graham Nelson, instead of
to Arthur Conan Doyle. It would be Nelson's work, not Doyle's.
Although the work would say "based on the writings of A.C. Doyle", it would
clearly say "by Graham Nelson", and he would be the one to blame if we
didn't care for the work (or if we loved it). No one would blame Doyle for
a lousy "reinterpretation".
--
Chris [Steve] Piuma, etc. Nothing is at: http://www.brainlink.com/~cafard
[Editor of _flim_, Keeper of the R.E.M. Lyric Annotations FAQ, MST3K #43136]
....this message brought to you by the letters N and W and the number 36....
I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry. -- John Cage.
FemaleDeer
Okay, everyone has very good points. But I am not sure you are getting what I
am saying. I really meant someone that was basically trying to adhere to the
original plot line, whether in a serious mode or not, not a parody or collage
that lifted out several major elements. Maybe painting is different and it is
a media I am more familiar with. Possibly ownership of writing is "given up",
it is not somethng I had given a lot of thought to before, because I have
never really considered myself a writer.
However, I feel games are basically rather silly (which is why I like them) and
that some writing was never intended by the creator to be silly. Although I
may not be able to explain what I mean clearly and despite the fact others may
always disagree with me, this issue bothers me a lot and will continue to do
so.
FD
Steven Howard
In <19971018065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 10/18/97
> What if someone took the Hound and made it a comedy?
God help us all, they did. It starred Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, who
were absolutely wonderful in "Bedazzled" and that comedy troupe they were
in (was it called Beyond the Edge?), but man did it stink on ice.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Gerry Kevin Wilson
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.97101...@tower.york.ac.uk>
Nick <npm...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> Competion rules aside, I cannot see any ethical or legal issues in staging
> a play that is out of copyright. Admittedly the staging is rather more
> experimental here than usual but worse things have been done to the Bard
> without any lasting damage.
> The clause in the rules about origionality always seemed to me to be about
> avoiding plageurism rather than prohibiting reworkings of texts, but I may
> be wrong.
> Nick
Okay, just to make that rule clear: It is there to protect the contest legally.
I don't know if the contest and its organizer can be included in a lawsuit
against someone who blatantly plaigerized something for a game, but I'm
taking no chances, after all, I live in the US, where some patently silly
lawsuits have been awarded large sums of money.
So, anything based off a work still in copyright, or even sometimes
defended (Sherlock Holmes is still defended, as Star Trek fans know, as
is JRR Tolkien's stuff.) won't be allowed. As I stated on rgif, I allowed
Tempest because there are no copyright issues with it, the Bard isn't
about to sue either me or the author, and neither is his estate.
[Oh, and before you fantasy authors panic, JRR Tolkien's stuff entails
the world of Middle Earth and its specific characters as far as I'm
concerned. I think we're small enough to get by with mentions of
'hobbits', no problem. :) ]
So there you have the legal side, now what did I mean by ethical?
I was referring to MiSTings, which the rule was also designed to
cover. There's a fine line in a MiSTing between poking fun and
blatantly just insulting the author, and I doubt that many people
could walk that line. And hey, who's more likely to sue, a big author's
estate that's never heard of IF, or a badly disgruntled author?
So really, I'm not all THAT worried about the rule, it's just there to cover
our collective butts.
G. Kevin Wilson: Freelance Writer and Game Designer. Resumes on demand.
dcorn...@placet.com
What a wonderful discussion. I'm beginning to believe we've been had. I
believe the author intended this exact discussion and is silently amused
over it's progress.
To the author....aka William Shakespeare, what hath thou wrought?
To all......The contest should be ORIGINAL works. Period. We should
change the rule for next year to be extremelely clear about this....
I withdraw my complaint and feel The Tempest should be allowed, in
support of the contest rules, which I interpret as "Don't use 'protected'
materials".
David Cornelson
John Wood
FemaleDeer <femal...@aol.com> writes
>2. The way I read the above rule differs than how some others have read it. The
> word ETHICS jumped out at me. Ethics as in "plagiarism", as in competiting
> against original works with a non-original work. But maybe that was just me.
This debate is interesting, because I used to work for a software house
which wrote a commercial text adventure based on a Shakespeare play - the
Scottish one. It won at least one award in the UK, and (naturally) sank like
a stone in the marketplace.
This was before I joined, but I think the play was treated with respect - and
a copy of the script was included with the game.
I have no problem comparing a work like this with an entirely original one.
Maybe the author has a "leg-up"from the original author when it comes to
the writing; this is counterbalanced in the judging by a need to live up to the
feel of the original. Comparing (say) _Lists and Lists_ with _Piece of
Mind_ already calls to mind a certain simile involving chalk and cheese -
this just adds one more ingredient to the pot.
John
Kenneth Fair
In article <6286ft$sla$1...@calvin.skidmore.edu>, jf...@saims.skidmore.edu
(Jonathan Fry) wrote:
>Let's hope so. :) Though I'm really considering a port of "Hound of
>the Baskervilles" next year if "The Tempest" is allowed to stay; I'm
>curious as to how far these rules can be broken.
Please don't. Arthur Conan Doyle's works are still in copyright, from what
I understand.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Our Mother Goose who art in the henhouse, hallowed be thy name. Thy roast-
ing come. Thy meat be done in earth as it is in heaven." - Riley Sinder
FemaleDeer
I am appended my pervious post. Since I stuck my foot in my mouth I am going to
jam it firmly in.
1. I don't think competition always brings out the best in people (including
myself). I would prefer yearly awards rather than the heat and fury of a year
end competition. I didn't like what the competition was doing to my own
feelings about the other games. Once I withdrew I discovered I could look at
them again without envy and just enjoy the effort and creativity of other
people.
2. I think the Tempest discussion is complicated by the fact that a lot of us
think we know who wrote it. I think it is honest to admit this.
3. However, I want to make clear that it wasn't just the Tempest which got me
going in my last post. It was someone saying they wanted to do the Hound of
the Baskervilles too (let's leave aside the estate issues and whether it COULD
be done). Tampering with someone else's original work (although it may be in
the public domain and they are dead) is something that does really bother me.
What if someone took the Hound and made it a comedy? The whole original intent
and feel of what Arthur Conan Doyle had intended would be changed. This is a
tricky, multilayered issue but I think it should be seriously thought about.
Sure they are T.V. remakes of the Hound, but I have never seen any that really
changed the essential story.
I am not saying that is what this person intended to do, but it could happen in
the future with someone else. Anyway, draw your own conclusions about how much
IF authors should get into the grey realm of converting other authors' works
to games. If the author is alive and gives their consent, then there is no
issue. Otherwise it really becomes one big, sticky ethical mess.
Okay, I am putting my soap box away.
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>Date: Sat, Oct 18, 1997 17:51 EDT
>Message-id: <8772076...@dejanews.com>
>
>What a wonderful discussion. I'm beginning to believe we've been had. I
>believe the author intended this exact discussion and is silently amused
>over it's progress.
>David Cornelson
Exactly. But that does not mean this issues involved shouldn't be discussed.
I agree and have thought that for sometime.
Graham Nelson
In article <cafard-ya02408000...@snews.zippo.com>,
<URL:mailto:caf...@brainlink.com> wrote:
> In article <19971018065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
> intent
> > and feel of what Arthur Conan Doyle had intended would be changed.
>
> to Arthur Conan Doyle. It would be Nelson's work, not Doyle's.
No, no, it would be my brother Mycroft's.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
HarryH
In article <8771725...@dejanews.com>, x96be...@wmich.edu says...
>Aren't Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes a part of our culture, our
>environment? That's kinda the spirit of the public domain. A work in the
>public domain belongs to everybody and we are at least LEGALLY allowed to
>use it. As for the morality of it, I personally would say "Anything
>goes. Do whatever you want." But look at how the game in question has
>used "The Tempest" and adapted it. I haven't got very far myself, but I
>think it's a fairly reverential adaptation of the original. I think the
>author simply wanted to make an interactive version of the play. This, I
>believe, is along the same lines as adapting a novel for a film.
>
[snip]
Hi Steve,
Excellent post, I should say.
Normally, it is legal. However, for this contest, there's a rule that says:
: "2.All games must be entirely your own creations. You may parody
: established works, but you may not, for example, write a game
: based on Sherlock Holmes. This avoids the entire issue of
: copyright and the ethics involved."
Parodying Moby Dick (The One That Got Away) is fine. Writing a game based on
Sherlock Holmes, William Shakespeare, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or some other
famous writer is not. The rule says so.
If you want to write games based on famous authors, you can. But it can't be
an entry on this contest.
-------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'll work on weekends without pay!
- successful applicant
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>Date: Sun, Oct 19, 1997 12:03 EDT
>f you want to write games based on famous authors, you >can. But it can't be
>an entry on this contest.
I think a game loosely "based on" and using an author's actual words (and maybe
most of the plot in the author's actual words) are two different things. It is
true all stories are somewhat derivative. It's the actual words and actual
plot part that bothers me. I am glad we are discussing this.
Jon Petersen
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> Well, someone took _Hamlet_ and made it a comedy. And drastically changed
> the intent and feel of what Shakespeare intended. _Rosencrantz and
> Guildenstern Are Dead_ is one of my very favorite works; frankly I enjoy
> it much more than _Hamlet_, although that's just me.
>
Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
Hamlet, _Strange Brew_. (Personally, I thought the flying dog was a
marvellous addition.) -Jon
Steve Bernard
In article <19971019171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
> I think a game loosely "based on" and using an author's actual words (and
maybe
> most of the plot in the author's actual words) are two different things. It
is
> true all stories are somewhat derivative. It's the actual words and actual
> plot part that bothers me. I am glad we are discussing this.
Of course, this is a different point than taking one of "our"
(discounting me, as I have no game)games' source code and changing it.
Nor is it really related to taking _The_Hound_of_the_Baskervilles_ and
making it a comedy. And it doesn't seem to be about putting
Shakespeare's play in a "silly" context.
But as for taking the words of the author verbatim, I don't see the
problem. I don't know, maybe taking and adapting a novel or play written
recently would be a different thing, but we are talking about a play
written hundreds of years ago! Again, I think that Shakespeare is a part
of our culture, that he belongs to me and to you, whether or not you want
to accept it. It's not just that he isn't around to say anything about
it, it's that I can use my own property (the public domain) any way I
want to. That's my right.
But what's even the problem here? The game isn't being charged for. It
isn't, according to Kevin Wilson himself, a violation of the rules. It's
not going to come across as a forgery. Is the problem the fact that Mr.
Nelson's game, adhering to the rules of the competition by judgement of
the man who wrote said rules, submitted as freeware for the competition
in hope of possibly winning maybe a hundred bucks, uses prose and plot
that already belong to him? I don't see where ethics have been violated.
As for Shakespeare's original intent: so what? He ISN'T around to say
anything. If he was, "The Tempest" wouldn't belong to us and it would be
a completely different issue.
I guess this is an issue of Intellectual Property. Such issues interest
me greatly and I tend to expound on them. At the same time though, feel
free to be bothered by "The Tempest" as a game. I'm not here to tell
anyone else what to think, just adding my two cents, as it were.
-Steve Bernard Jr.
-- The following text will serve as an insight into the quality of the
Western Michigan University news server:
Mordacai
Tempests in teapots...or the virtual equivalent thereof. I'm sorry, the pun
was just SO easy ;)
Ian Finley
Laurel Halbany
erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin) wrote:
>I would, for the sake of argument, agree that everyone *should*...
Unless one already has a hardcover edition, which is less likely to
dissolve or to be creamed by small children.
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Halbany
mythago@twisty_little_maze.com
(Substitute dashes for underscores to remove spamblock)
Laurel Halbany
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
>However, I feel games are basically rather silly (which is why I like them) and
> that some writing was never intended by the creator to be silly. Although I
> may not be able to explain what I mean clearly and despite the fact others may
> always disagree with me, this issue bothers me a lot and will continue to do
> so.
I agree with your second point--that attempts to make a serious work
funny often fall flat (anybody else remember "Elephant!"), but not
your first--that "games are basically rather silly." Why are games
silly? Because they don't affect the Middle East situation, or you
could be building dams in Guatemala instead of playing Curses?
Magnus Olsson
In article <1997101922...@d248.b64.cmb.ma.ultra.net>,
mathew <me...@pobox.com> wrote:
>FemaleDeer <femal...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 2. The way I read the above rule differs than how some others have read
>> it. The word ETHICS jumped out at me. Ethics as in "plagiarism", as in
>> competiting against original works with a non-original work. But maybe
>> that was just me.
>>
>> with an infocomer) for IF. And because he was the author, he could change
>> what he wanted in order to adapt it. So that is another ethical issue I
>> have not seen raised. How would each one of us like it, if someone took
>> the source code of one of our games and CHANGED it?
>
>And in Shakespeare's time, copyright and commerce did not determine the
>bounds of artistic expression to quite the same degree. It was quite
>common for authors to base entire plays on other similar stories,
>re-writing and changing them.
As an example, Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" is more or less a
straight re-write of an ancient Roman comedy. Today, that would be
frowned upon as plagiarism; in Shakespeare's time, it was quite OK.
As for the case where somebody took the source code of my game and
rewrote it. Well, I would be upset. Doing so would also be illegal -
we have copyright law to protect us from exactly that.
This was also exactly what happened last year: "MST3k1" took the
text of "Detective" and used it, verbatim. This year's rule against
derivative works was put in place to prevent this from happening
again.
But Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and have, in a
sense, always been so (since there wasn't any copyright in
Shakespeare's time).
>The line to me is whether the act of appropriation and transformation
>makes the resulting work a valid artistic creation in its own right --
>not just a copy of the original. I admit that this can be a fuzzy line,
>but I'm happy to let the courts decide particularly tricky cases.
>
>I haven't played The Tempest, but it seems clear to me that the author
>must have put in a huge amount of work; and the result must go way
>beyond anything Shakespeare could ever have imagined. As far as I'm
>concerned, that makes it valid art in its own right -- and concerns over
>copyright or respect should not be used to attempt to stifle it.
I think there are *three* issues here, and we shouldn't confuse them:
1) Artistic "depth". Where is the dividing line between plagiarism
and derivative works? It's a difficult question. But if you make a film
of "Hamlet", you're adding something of your own, and the film
will (probably justly) be known as "Director-so-and-so's _Hamlet_", not
as "Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, as filemd by director-so-and-so".
Likewise, "MST3k1" *adds* a lot to "Detective". Playing "MST3k1" is
quite a different experience from playing "Detective". And I _assume_
(since I haven't played it) that playing the interactive version of
_Tempest_ is a different experience from reading (or watching) the play.
There is of course plagiarism as well, which is distinguished by two
things: that you try to pass someone else's work off as your own, and
that you don't add anything significant.
2) Intellectual property issues. Even if a derivative work is "right"
by the artistic definition above, it may still be legally and morally
wrong to use someone else's work in a way of which they don't approve,
and perhaps in a way that robs them of income (not very likely int he
case of IF, perhaps). If Conan Doyle were alive, he might object to
the adaptation of _The Hound of the Baskervilles_ as a comedy about
homosexuality, not only because he didn'tlike the subject (he probably
wouldn't have), but also because it would limit his own artistic
expression - people would get the "wrong" ideas of his characters,
meaning that he couldn't use them in the way he intended.
3) Ethical issues *apart* from intellectual property. Even if you
think that misting a particularly bad game adds alot artistically, and
even if you don't think that intellectual property is worth a damn,
you still have the ethical issue that you're using another person's
works to ridicule him. I'm not saying that this is always wrong (using
a pompous politician's own words to show how absurd he is may be a
service to democracy), only that it's an ethical consideration you
have to make.
In the case of Shakespeare, point 2) is moot, and as for point 3),
people have done the strangest things to Shakespeare already...
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Not officially connected to LU or LTH.
FemaleDeer
I am not going to make myself clearer than I already have, because there were a
lot of things I could have said and did not want to get into because they
could have sounded like slams. But I think now that this discussion has taken
place I have come to realize two things:
1. I think most painters would view this differently than most writers, because
writers are much more able to freely and easily use someone else's words,
plots and concepts. And in some cases, because of that fact, they might be
very defensive about it. This has been an interesting discovery for me because
I had never really thought about how much the concept of "creative ownership"
could differ so radically from one media to another.
2. That competitions are more a "male thing" than a female thing. Which a lot
would probably disagree with, but I must conclude this viewpoint has some
validity just from the obvious facts. At least, I know PESONALLY, several
aspects about this competition some of the discussions surrounding it have
really turned me off. Nevertheless I am still enjoying the games.
So I have learned something. It is always nice to learn things.
Andrew Plotkin
Jon Petersen (en...@ucla.edu) wrote:
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >
> > Well, someone took _Hamlet_ and made it a comedy. And drastically changed
> > the intent and feel of what Shakespeare intended. _Rosencrantz and
> > Guildenstern Are Dead_ is one of my very favorite works; frankly I enjoy
> > it much more than _Hamlet_, although that's just me.
> >
> Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
> Hamlet, _Strange Brew_.
Heh. I'd forgotten _Strange Brew_.
I liked that too, although not nearly as much as _R&G'r'dead_.
tv's Spatch
Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard: dead! Joe Mason:
> In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
> >> Hamlet, _Strange Brew_.
> >
> >Heh. I'd forgotten _Strange Brew_.
> >
> >I liked that too, although not nearly as much as _R&G'r'dead_.
>
> Mackenzie? I'd missed the connection to Hamlet in that...
Oh, the Elsinore Brewery, the dead owner who turns up as a ghost to aid
his child, a flying dog, that sort of thing.
--
spa...@javanet.com.andbacon is but one of many Spatula tentacles. Rar.
More fun than watching paint dry in an extremely humid clime -- PUTPBAD!
Let http://www.javanet.com/~spatula/booth.html show you how it's done.
"Passengers will refrain from KILLING MY SOUL!" - Stu the Bus Driver
Magnus Olsson
In article <19971020185...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,>>From: m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson)
>>Date: Mon, Oct 20, 1997 13:21 EDT
>
>>Which obvious facts? (Not being snide, really, it's just that I >can't see any
> "obvious" evidence that women are >inherenty non-competitive).
>
>i.e. Check the number of REAL women who entered the contest.
Well, that's obvious, but I don't think the statistics are good enough
to draw any general conclusions - after all, how many women write adventure
games?
Magnus Olsson
In article <19971020125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
FemaleDeer <femal...@aol.com> wrote:
>1. I think most painters would view this differently than most writers, because
> writers are much more able to freely and easily use someone else's words,
> plots and concepts.
I don't think that's truenowadays, what with photocopiers and
Photoshop. And, as Hollywood has demonstrated lately, filmmakers
aren't "safe" either.
>2. That competitions are more a "male thing" than a female thing.
Maybe. On the other hand, I know of - and know - many _extremely_
competitive women.
> Which a lot
> would probably disagree with, but I must conclude this viewpoint has some
> validity just from the obvious facts.
Which obvious facts? (Not being snide, really, it's just that I can't
see any "obvious" evidence that women are inherenty non-competitive).
> At least, I know PESONALLY, several
> aspects about this competition some of the discussions surrounding it have
> really turned me off.
Here we're in agreement, gender differences notwithstanding :-).
Jason Compton
FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson)
:
: >Which obvious facts? (Not being snide, really, it's just that I >can't see any
: "obvious" evidence that women are >inherenty non-competitive).
: i.e. Check the number of REAL women who entered the contest.
Hardly proves anything except that not a lot of women are interested in
writing IF. Check the number of "REAL" women who have authored games on
GMD (or for that matter in the commercial world--Roberta Williams is about
the first and only one who comes to mind, and her games are not shining
stars of brilliance). The ratio is probably about the same.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Editor-in-Chief, Amiga Report Magazine Anchor, Amiga Legacy
http://www.cucug.org/ar/ http://www.xnet.com/~jcompton/
There are only dreams... ...like any other.
Kenneth Fair
In article <EICww...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
jcm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
>In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
>>> Hamlet, _Strange Brew_.
>>
>>Heh. I'd forgotten _Strange Brew_.
>>
>>I liked that too, although not nearly as much as _R&G'r'dead_.
>
>Eh? Are we talking about the same _Strange Brew_? The one with Bob and Doug
>Mackenzie? I'd missed the connection to Hamlet in that...
Me too, though I suspect my own intoxication was a large factor . . .
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
The Internet was not created for companies to make money from.
FemaleDeer
>Well, that's obvious, but I don't think the statistics are good >enough to
draw any general conclusions - after all, how >many women write adventure
>games?
Fewer women write adventure games then men by far, but going from that to
reasoning that this is also why almost no women enter the contest (this is
the first year any did, right?) is leaping to conclusions.
Anyway, I believe I said MORE a "male thing" not exclusively a male thing. And
I believe I also said PAINTERS not photographers, graphic computer artists and
photocopiers. Painters rarely copy (paint) a well-known piece of art work
except for practice, collages and some sort of surrealism. The art image may
be in the public domain, but painters don't copy very often because it would
be blatantly obvious if they did. Words seems to be quite a different thing
with a lot more gray areas, so I think that makes for a lot more tricky
ethical (and other problems).
Don't take it that I was trying to be insulting, I wasn't.
Paul O'Brian
On 20 Oct 1997, FemaleDeer wrote:
> Painters rarely copy (paint) a well-known piece of art work
> except for practice, collages and some sort of surrealism. The art image may
> be in the public domain, but painters don't copy very often because it would
> be blatantly obvious if they did.
<initial_disclaimers>
1. I haven't played "Tempest" yet.
2. I am neither a painter nor an art historian.
3. This is not a flame.
</initial_disclaimers>
I think the analogy is flawed, FD. You seem to be talking about a painter
making an exact replica of another painting -- in other words, a direct
copy remaining within the same medium. It's my understanding that
"Tempest" is a piece of IF based on (and using sections of) a play. The
simple fact that it is IF precludes the notion of "copying" you use above.
The IF "Tempest" *cannot* be the same as the play unless it's simply a
copy of the text and the interactivity is limited to "[Press SPACE to
continue reading]". Now, I haven't played the game yet, but I know enough
to know that it's a lot more interactive than that.
I would suggest a better analogy might be a painter painting a scene from
a book, or a moment of a dance or play, or maybe even an image from a
movie. In other words, painting a piece that uses the images or ideas from
another medium altogether. Does this happen? Is it considered stealing or
infringement if it does?
Paul O'Brian obr...@ucsu.colorado.edu
"I think it's important to remember that no one falls into a simple set of
labels. Even more important is to learn from your mistakes, and to fight
for the positive choice." -- Lindsey Buckingham
Andrew Plotkin
Joe Mason (jcm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
> >> Hamlet, _Strange Brew_.
> >
> >Heh. I'd forgotten _Strange Brew_.
> >
> >I liked that too, although not nearly as much as _R&G'r'dead_.
> Eh? Are we talking about the same _Strange Brew_? The one with Bob and Doug
> Mackenzie? I'd missed the connection to Hamlet in that...
Or maybe it was Macbeth, or a drunken conflation of both. Been a while.
But it was definitely there.
Adam Cadre
Magnus Olsson wrote:
> But if you make a film of "Hamlet", you're adding something of your
> own, and the film will (probably justly) be known as
> "Director-so-and-so's _Hamlet_", not as "Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, as
> filemd by director-so-and-so".
Just wanted to point out that Baz Luhrmann's 1996 film of "Romeo and
Juliet," complete with Hawaiian shirts, automatic weapons, trailer
parks and a gospel rendition of Prince's "When Doves Cry," was
officially titled "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet."
-----
Adam Cadre, Durham, NC
http://www.duke.edu/~adamc
http://www.retina.net/~grignr
Adam Cadre
Magnus Olsson wrote:
> It seems unlikley that it would have an unfair advantage because the
> Bard's immortal writing will be compared to prose hurriedly thrown
> together by amateurs.
I would argue that Shakespeare's verse was, if anything, even more
hurriedly thrown together than the prose you'll find in most good IF.
Steve Bernard
In article <62f4jh$bt7$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
> As an example, Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" is more or less a
> straight re-write of an ancient Roman comedy. Today, that would be
> frowned upon as plagiarism; in Shakespeare's time, it was quite OK.
What I'm about to say has little to do with anything, but I once read
paper in which the author considered "The Honeymooners" to be a rip off
of _Don_Quixote_.
>
> As for the case where somebody took the source code of my game and
> rewrote it. Well, I would be upset. Doing so would also be illegal -
> we have copyright law to protect us from exactly that.
>
> This was also exactly what happened last year: "MST3k1" took the
> text of "Detective" and used it, verbatim. This year's rule against
> derivative works was put in place to prevent this from happening
> again.
I think a lot of it has to do with Chris Foreman's game being extremely
hilarious. It was not only a rewrite of someone's code, he also took
characters from an established show and put words in their mouths. But I
wouldn't really want to play another MiSTed game. It's funnier (and yes,
humor is art) because it's an anomoly; also, "Detective" was such a
god-awful game that it HAD to be done. The great Spirit of Comedy deemed
it so.
But to take, for example, one of your (Magnus') games, you'd need a good
reason. "Uncle Zebulon's Will" and "Aaleya(sp?)" were not sins against
this earth, like good ol' Matt Barringer's game. But if someone took an
NPC from your game and pulled a "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"
with him, it might be a very meaningful story and you'd enjoy it so much
for the artistic spin it put on your game and its own original message,
you'd forget to call your lawyer.
[big ol' snip]
> I think there are *three* issues here, and we shouldn't confuse them:
>
> 1) Artistic "depth". Where is the dividing line between plagiarism
> and derivative works? It's a difficult question. But if you make a film
> of "Hamlet", you're adding something of your own, and the film
> will (probably justly) be known as "Director-so-and-so's _Hamlet_", not
> as "Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, as filemd by director-so-and-so".
> Likewise, "MST3k1" *adds* a lot to "Detective". Playing "MST3k1" is
> quite a different experience from playing "Detective". And I _assume_
> (since I haven't played it) that playing the interactive version of
> _Tempest_ is a different experience from reading (or watching) the play.
>
> There is of course plagiarism as well, which is distinguished by two
> things: that you try to pass someone else's work off as your own, and
> that you don't add anything significant.
Artistic statement is of the utmost concern here (for gaming's sake,
playability and NPCs and whatever are part of the art). I wish it could
be separated from legality, but forces greater than all of us (no, not
Frank Sinatra) have married the two.
>
> 2) Intellectual property issues. Even if a derivative work is "right"
> by the artistic definition above, it may still be legally and morally
> wrong to use someone else's work in a way of which they don't approve,
> and perhaps in a way that robs them of income (not very likely int he
> case of IF, perhaps). If Conan Doyle were alive, he might object to
> the adaptation of _The Hound of the Baskervilles_ as a comedy about
> homosexuality, not only because he didn'tlike the subject (he probably
> wouldn't have), but also because it would limit his own artistic
> expression - people would get the "wrong" ideas of his characters,
> meaning that he couldn't use them in the way he intended.
No no no, BUGGER A.C. Doyle! BUGGER W. Shakespeare! And especially,
BUGGER Matt Barringer! <pauses to use the carbolic soap which has
mysteriously appeared in his inventory>.
Forget about their intent, their works still exist, there's just a new
piece of work to go along with them. Rewriting _Hound_ as a gay comedy
would probably be considered a parody anyway and therefore allowed. It
does not limit someone's artistic expression to parody or ridicule them
or their works. They can be as creative as they want. Some people
actually LIKE Godzilla movies, but when MST3K did "Godzilla vs. Megalon",
I bet at least one of them still laughed.
In this country we have a new law called the "Trademark Dilution Act"
it's a draconian, unfair bill that disallows anyone from making a mention
of a registered trademark in a way that would make the trademark less
effective (ie making fun of it). Trademark law doesn't even have the
same concept of "Fair Use" as copyright law. I would hate to see a
"Copyright Dilution Act" keeping people from making statements about
other people's work.
>
> 3) Ethical issues *apart* from intellectual property. Even if you
> think that misting a particularly bad game adds alot artistically, and
> even if you don't think that intellectual property is worth a damn,
> you still have the ethical issue that you're using another person's
> works to ridicule him. I'm not saying that this is always wrong (using
> a pompous politician's own words to show how absurd he is may be a
> service to democracy), only that it's an ethical consideration you
> have to make.
I agree completely on the politician, but I think there is no better way
to ridicule someone than to use their own words. I think it's never
wrong. We can't take everything so damn seriously all the time. If
someone said or wrote something worthy of ridicule, so be it. Make fun
of this post, make fun of my fiction or poetry. Heck, I wrote a poem
recently after digging up my old high school work and it was MEAN!
> In the case of Shakespeare, point 2) is moot, and as for point 3),
> people have done the strangest things to Shakespeare already...
See above point about buggering.:)
-Steve Bernard Jr.
Boy, some people hafta make fun of DejaNews every time they use it:
Magnus Olsson
In article <19971020194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
FemaleDeer <femal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Well, that's obvious, but I don't think the statistics are good >enough to
> draw any general conclusions - after all, how >many women write adventure
>>games?
>
>Fewer women write adventure games then men by far, but going from that to
> reasoning that this is also why almost no women enter the contest (this is
> the first year any did, right?) is leaping to conclusions.
Indeed. Which was actually my point.
>Anyway, I believe I said MORE a "male thing" not exclusively a male thing.
Now _that_ seems to be in line with my humble experience.
>And
> I believe I also said PAINTERS not photographers, graphic computer artists and
> photocopiers. Painters rarely copy (paint) a well-known piece of art work
> except for practice, collages and some sort of surrealism.
If you limit yourself to painters-in-oil (or watercolour, or pastels, or
similar techniques), well, yes, but modern pictorial artists rarely seem
to limit themselves to a single technique like that.
Anyway, I think we've left the original point far behind somewhere.
>Don't take it that I was trying to be insulting, I wasn't.
And I didn't think you were.
John Francis
In article <8773104...@dejanews.com>,
Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>[snip, snip]
>But what's even the problem here? The game isn't being charged for.
Which makes absolutely no difference. An ethical or copyright violation
exists independent of whether the violator is making money from same.
The only place where charging makes a difference is in the (US) courts,
where money being charged can increase the severity of the penalty.
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Unsolicited electronic mail will be subject to a $100 handling fee.
Steve Bernard
In article <19971021013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
femal...@aol.com (FemaleDeer) wrote:
>
> I wish people would stop thinking I meant Tempest in particular and stop
trying
> to just flame me as a total idiot.
>
> But I imagine this is why a lot of lurkers lurk.
>
[snip]
> And I am just as entitled to my opinion as anyone and no amount of
intellectual
> posturing is going to intimidate me.
Ouch. I'm sorry that I really came out of the woodwork on this issue, if
that's how I come across. I didn't mean to be rude or to make anyone
look foolish. I'm not a mean guy, really. Maybe I've been wordy, but I'm
not trying to intellectually intimidate anyone. C'mon, I'm a nineteen
year old college undergrad with a free internet account. I just happen
to have some strong opinions on intellectual property. It's like a pet
issue for me, you know?
>
> But it never hurts to discuss things, because in the discussion new ideas
> usually emerge.
I think it's a good discussion. I'm glad other people think about this
stuff, too.
> FD Hey, folks these are GAMES!
But, as mentioned elsewhere, who says games can't be serious? Plenty of
games deal with serious themes (Trinity, Jigsaw, Mercy, SoFar). Out of
this year's entries, "Sunset Over Savannah" comes to mind. Things are
only as trivial as you make them. I-F, in my opinion is just as serious
as film or literature or just as silly. My point is, the same sort of
criticisms are valid.
Again, I don't know if you were targeting me, but the "Lurking" reference
made me feel bad. So I'll apologize for making you feel attacked.
-Steve Bernard Jr.
--
It's kinda like a .signature, but the last part's always the same:
Adam Cadre
FemaleDeer wrote:
> I like the deadline for people who need it and I like seeing the
> games, but I would still prefer a yearly contest.
A yearly contest? As in, one that looks back at all the games
released in a given calendar year and gives out awards for things
like Best NPC and Best Puzzle? Great idea! Lucky for us, someone
already thought of it a long time ago. That's why we have the
XYZZY Awards.
Joe Mason
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Oh. For a minute there I thought you meant that other adaptation of
>> Hamlet, _Strange Brew_.
>
>Heh. I'd forgotten _Strange Brew_.
>
>I liked that too, although not nearly as much as _R&G'r'dead_.
Eh? Are we talking about the same _Strange Brew_? The one with Bob and Doug
Mackenzie? I'd missed the connection to Hamlet in that...
Joe
FemaleDeer
I wish people would stop thinking I meant Tempest in particular and stop trying
to just flame me as a total idiot.
But I imagine this is why a lot of lurkers lurk.
I personally, in the future, don't want to see a lot of badly written pieces of
IF of what I consider fictional classics. I think in lot of cases, since most
people are not professors, grad students and scholars, this might be a
person's only exposure to some "classic".
And they would make me wince.
On the whole I have found this a polite and fun newsgroup, but sometimes
competition DOES not bring out the best in people. Despite Whizzard's original
intentions, I feel, from just what I have read, that this competition has
brought up a lot of negative feelings over the last couple of years. I like
the deadline for people who need it and I like seeing the games, but I would
still prefer a yearly contest.
And I am just as entitled to my opinion as anyone and no amount of intellectual
posturing is going to intimidate me.
But it never hurts to discuss things, because in the discussion new ideas
usually emerge.
FD Hey, folks these are GAMES!
Steve Bernard
In article <62gem8$35...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com (John Francis) wrote:
>
> In article <8773104...@dejanews.com>,
> Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> wrote:
> >[snip, snip]
> >But what's even the problem here? The game isn't being charged for.
>
> Which makes absolutely no difference. An ethical or copyright violation
> exists independent of whether the violator is making money from same.
>
> The only place where charging makes a difference is in the (US) courts,
> where money being charged can increase the severity of the penalty.
The only place *copyright* makes a difference is in the (US) courts.
It's a legal issue, and one I disagree with. Copyright was originally
set up, like patent laws, to prevent people from stealing an artist's
ideas and making money off of them. The spirit of copyright is to ensure
that the artist can make money off of her own creation and not somebody
else. There has always been a concept of "Fair Use". Whether or not
money is being made IS a consideration in judging fair use.
Only recently have the government and the large copyright owning
corporations begun to effectively cut out fair use from our copyright
law. Look at how Paramount has been strongarming the maintainers of the
various Star Trek websites. Many of them don't make any money at all
from their pages, but have posted them as a tribute. Paramount, however,
sees these sights as taking business away from their own MSN site. Since
you need an MSN account and Internet Explorer to even ACCESS their site,
they figure that they need to stop people from seeing anything Trek
related for free on the web. This is a very different interpretation of
copyright than was originally intended.
But in the quote above, I was asking what those among us who have a
problem with "the Tempest" or any hypothetical "derivative game" find
objectionable. I wasn't asking what the government thought about since I
think they're completely in the wrong about intellectual property.
Whether or not money is being made is quite definitely an ethical
consideration for me. For a related example, think of the game on GMD
entitled "2112" after the Rush song of the same name. Despite the fact
that the game is a horrible piece of trash, I see no problem with it
being distributed on the net for people to freely use. But if it had
been sold, it's a different issue. I can't see Rush being upset about
this silly little game hanging around for free, but I couldn't imagine
them sitting back while a game based on their song was sold on the
marketplace (btw, the song was modelled after Ayn Rand's _Anthem_, how's
that for derivative?).
Anywho, that's where I think charging money makes a difference, legally
and ethically. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.
-Steve Bernard Jr.
It wasn't posted by me it was...
Laurel Halbany
jcm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
>Eh? Are we talking about the same _Strange Brew_? The one with Bob and Doug
>Mackenzie? I'd missed the connection to Hamlet in that...
Oh, yes, it's _Hamlet_ alright. (They weren't subtle about it,
either--the Elsinore Brewery?)
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>Date: Tue, Oct 21, 1997 01:52 EDT
>Again, I don't know if you were targeting me, but the "Lurking" reference
>made me feel bad. So I'll apologize for making you feel attacked.
>-Steve Bernard Jr.
Thanks, not sure if it was you, but I did end up feeling rather jumped on. I
have never considered some of these issues before and I am rather inarticulate
and tend to share my thoughts before they are fully formed, as I speculate and
work my way mentally through an issue.
As others have said before, typing does not convey enough, the facial cues and
vocal tones are missing so it is easy to take things wrong.
FD
Magnus Olsson
In article <344BDB...@acpub.duke.edu>,
Adam Cadre <ad...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Magnus Olsson wrote:
>> It seems unlikley that it would have an unfair advantage because the
>> Bard's immortal writing will be compared to prose hurriedly thrown
>> together by amateurs.
>
>I would argue that Shakespeare's verse was, if anything, even more
>hurriedly thrown together than the prose you'll find in most good IF.
Very probably; but Shakespeare was a genius, while most IF authors
aren't. I suppose the average Mozart symphony took a shorter time to
write than most pop songs.
Mackay / Katherine Amanda (COM)
Jason Compton <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
>writing IF. Check the number of "REAL" women who have authored games on
>GMD (or for that matter in the commercial world--Roberta Williams is about
>the first and only one who comes to mind, and her games are not shining
<ahem>
Anita Sinclair, of Magnetic Scrolls (Hmm .. She did write stuff, didn't
she?)
--OH.
Christi Alice Scarborough
> "obvious" evidence that women are >inherenty non-competitive).
Do bear in mind that we're less inclined to write IF in the first place,
so that isn't necessarily a good indicator of how competitive we are.
Christi
(Game development on hold at the moment whilst I sort other things out.)
--
Christi Alice Scarborough - http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ccs95 Caffeine is NOT
PhD student, Maths Dept., University of Wales Aberystwyth a substitute
"Taken out of context I must seem so strange" Ani DiFranco for sheep.
Julian Arnold
In article <62i17h$c9g$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson
<URL:mailto:m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
> Very probably; but Shakespeare was a genius, while most IF authors
Go on then, which ones are? :)
Jools
--
"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me
from ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Dennis....@transquest.com
In article <8774151...@dejanews.com>,
Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>>snip<<
>
> Only recently have the government and the large copyright owning
> corporations begun to effectively cut out fair use from our copyright
> law. Look at how Paramount has been strongarming the maintainers of the
> various Star Trek websites. Many of them don't make any money at all
> from their pages, but have posted them as a tribute. Paramount, however,
> sees these sights as taking business away from their own MSN site. Since
> you need an MSN account and Internet Explorer to even ACCESS their site,
> they figure that they need to stop people from seeing anything Trek
> related for free on the web. This is a very different interpretation of
> copyright than was originally intended.
This is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. Suppose an entity
(Individual, Corporation, Institution, whatever) owns a trademarked logo,
symbol, character or whatever. Entity A owns the trademark. Entity B
starts using the trademark. If Entity A becomes aware of Entity B's use
of the trademark (whether for profit or not) and does not take action to
limit Entity B's use, then Entity A is considered by the trademark courts
to have given up their trademark. Entity C (and D and E and..) can now
start using Entity A's former trademarks at will, for profit, or for any
other use they desire.
(Please note, I am not supporting the method Paramount is using. There
are ways for them to protect their trademarks without shutting down the
sites in question. (For example, they could simply require that
appropriate ownership notices be placed on the web sites in question.
This is the method used by Babylonian productions and Babylon 5 sites.)
Just pointing out that the rules regarding copyright and trademark are
not the same.)
Magnus Olsson
In article <ant21124...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <62i17h$c9g$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson
><URL:mailto:m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
>> Very probably; but Shakespeare was a genius, while most IF authors
>> aren't[...] ^^^^
>
>Go on then, which ones are? :)
I haven't noticed any, yet, but I didn't want to be rude by excluding
the possibility.
Brad O`Donnell
FemaleDeer wrote:
> But I imagine this is why a lot of lurkers lurk.
You're probably right.
>
> On the whole I have found this a polite and fun newsgroup, but sometimes
> competition DOES not bring out the best in people.
> Despite Whizzard's original
> intentions, I feel, from just what I have read, that this competition has
> brought up a lot of negative feelings over the last couple of years.
I can see how it would look that way. Over the last few years, there
seem to
be several stages of "bad" posting before and during the contest. This
stems mostly from our frustrations about not being able to talk about
the
entries in any meaningful way until we fufill self-imposed conditions
(for
me, it's "playing all the games", for others, it's different) and then
post our opinions with a [comp97-spoilers] in the subject line.
Like most self-imposed conditions, we're just sitting around,
waiting for someone to crack. As soon as someone does, you can bet
I'll be posting hot on their heels. (I can't remember who cracked
last year, but I'm glad somebody did.) If I'm lucky, I might crack
first :)
So, even after all the "rule violation" posts, the "we shouldn't let
people update their entries" posts, the "the contest is chauvanist,
elitist, unfair, etc" posts and the "I'm giving up on IF for good, you
rotten bastards!" posts, ra-gif survives. Heck, our numbers are
actually
*growing*, as I see it.
>
> And I am just as entitled to my opinion as anyone and no amount of intellectual
> posturing is going to intimidate me.
Good. I don't think anyone is trying to rob you of your opinion;
they're just convinced that it is wrong :) For instance, even though
you withdrew your game from the contest, I intend to play and
comment on it. ( I won't assign a score, though. In fact assigning
scores is one of the harder things to this contest bit. ) But I
haven't
played it yet, and will delete it from my hard drive if you want. (one
less game to play gets the "good" posting going faster.)
--
Brad O'Donnell
"A story is a string of moments, held together by memory."
Jason M Tucker
Jon Petersen (en...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: Ophelia (everyone even thinks he drowned at one point). I think the guy who
: murdered the former owner and usurped the plant--not Brewmeister Smith but the new
: plant owner--has the same name (Claudius?) as in the play. There's probably
His character name is Claude Elsinore, I think. He plays the girl's
uncle and he marries her mother, his sister-in-law, right after the
father's funeral. How's that for a parallel?
______________________________________________________________________________
Jason Marc Tucker University of Minnesota
P.O.Box 13226 Frontier Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55414 701 Fulton SE
pager: (612) 818-3555 Minneapolis, MN 55455
e-mail: tuck...@tc.umn.edu IRC nick: TikiBoy
Web: http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m010/tuck0052
______________________________________________________________________________
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "S" =3D=3D Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> writes:
S> Only recently have the government and the large copyright owning
S> corporations begun to effectively cut out fair use from our
S> copyright law. Look at how Paramount has been strongarming the
S> maintainers of the various Star Trek websites.
That's not copyright. That's (usually) trademark defense. =
Since trademarks _must_ be defended for a company to keep them, they
only have a choice in terms of magnitude, not direction. Fair use in
terms of trademarks has nothing to do with profitability. According
to http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/trademarks/tm5.html:
Fair Use involves several factors: (1) the product or service in
question must be one not readily identifiable without using the
mark; (2) only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is
reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and (3)
the user must do nothing that suggests endorsement or sponsorship
by the mark owner.
Since much of the fan web sites use a whole bunch of trademarked Star
Trek (my use of trademark falls under above fair use) items, Paramount
has a legal case to shut them down.
Copyright would come into the picture for sites which have pictures,
scripts, and sounds duplicated from Star Trek shows. Here, fair use
is different. From http://www.benedict.com/fund.htm#fund:
=A7107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include -
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work; =
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole;
and =
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. =
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
Looking at that, it's pretty clear that Paramount has a right to shut
down site with copyrighted materials. They are non-profit, but not
educational. They duplicate the whole of copyrighted works, rather
than a small, necessary subset. And it has a real harm on the
potential market of the original copyrighted works, since people will
often choose to download scripts and pictures rather than purchasing
them.
Simply being non-profit isn't enough to help you on copyright, and it
doesn't matter at all for trademarks.
That said, most of the Trek web sites are only in violation of
trademarks, not copyright. Whether you agree with it or not,
Paramount has legal ground to stand on.
-- =
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
Power tools for power losers.
Andrew Plotkin
FemaleDeer (femal...@aol.com) wrote:
> I personally, in the future, don't want to see a lot of badly written pieces of
> IF of what I consider fictional classics. I think in lot of cases, since most
> people are not professors, grad students and scholars, this might be a
> person's only exposure to some "classic".
My point of view is -- I *want* to see *everything* tried. This includes
brilliantly written IF based on fictional classics. Unfortunately, we
can't prohibit only the badly-written ones. All we can do is encourage
people to try, and see what comes out.
> And they would make me wince.
I read a lot of SF. A lot of it makes me wince.
Julian Arnold
In article <344c9...@herald.canberra.edu.au>, Mackay / Katherine Amanda
Well if we're playing that game let's put Amy Briggs in her rightful
place at the head of the list.
Steve Bernard
Blah blah...the Star Trek thing. Okay, okay! You're absolutely right!
The Trek thing was a horrible example. I was trying to come up with a
relavent example and it was late and a wire got crossed and....Well, that
IS a trademark issue, not copyright. Sorry. That was my fault.
Of course, the rest of the post I think is still relavent. I wasn't
really talking about the government when I asked what the problem was.
But I will say that one hundred years ago, the government and publishing
houses weren't jumping on the backs of folk singers for incorporating
bits of melody into new songs and ASCAP wasn't trying to stop summer
camps from singing copyrighted songs around the campfire. And we
definitely wouldn't see anything like what happened to John Oswald's
freely distributed "Plunderphonics". The financial concerns brought up
by copyright infringement used to be about protecting the artist from
being bootlegged and stolen from for others' profit. Now it's about ANY
use, whether the "thief" makes any money or not.
-Steve Bernard Jr.
--
I cannot tell a lie. This article was...
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>Date: Tue, Oct 21, 1997 05:10 EDT
>Might I say that, taking your points as altogether >hypothetical,
>I for one think you have a legitimate case?
>Whew. Thanks. I am not saying I had it all well-reasoned >out, but I thought I
had a valid viewpoint and one that >needed to be raised. And I am sure the
author of
>Tempest.z5 also gave it a lot of thought before he even >wrote his game.
Sheesh, I never seem to get it right the first time. For people who might
misread this -- amend the author of Tempest.z, to the author of Tempest.z, IN
PARTICULAR, (rest of line). And my above comment did not also mean that I
thought the responder was AGREEING with me.
FD :-)
Stephen Granade
On 21 Oct 1997, Zey Guy wrote:
> I can't believe that nobody has mentioned "Forbidden Planet" once in this
> entire discussion...
Hmm, I'd forgotten that one. "Beware the ids that march" and all that.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Check out
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.miningco.com
Graham Nelson
In article <62i17h$c9g$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson
<URL:mailto:m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
> >
> >hurriedly thrown together than the prose you'll find in most good IF.
I recall Peter Levi calculating that, placing the Sonnets between
the most plausible dates of composition, he must have written about
two every week. And I forget which other two plays he wrote in the
same year as "Hamlet"... on the other hand, in the 16th century,
verbiage was in, and Shakespeare was its foremost exponent. He was
famous and even to some extent parodied for it.
> Very probably; but Shakespeare was a genius, while most IF authors
> aren't. I suppose the average Mozart symphony took a shorter time to
> write than most pop songs.
If only it took a shorter time to play... I'm sorry, but calling
Mozart a genius just leaves me cold. I'd rather acclaim Stiffy
Makane as an important new work of IF.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
John Francis
In article <8774684...@dejanews.com>,
Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>In article <8774151...@dejanews.com>,
> Steve Bernard <x96be...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>
>Blah blah...the Star Trek thing. Okay, okay! You're absolutely right!
>The Trek thing was a horrible example. I was trying to come up with a
>relavent example and it was late and a wire got crossed and....Well, that
>IS a trademark issue, not copyright. Sorry. That was my fault.
>
>Of course, the rest of the post I think is still relavent. I wasn't
>really talking about the government when I asked what the problem was.
>But I will say that one hundred years ago, the government and publishing
>houses weren't jumping on the backs of folk singers for incorporating
>bits of melody into new songs and ASCAP wasn't trying to stop summer
>camps from singing copyrighted songs around the campfire. And we
>definitely wouldn't see anything like what happened to John Oswald's
>freely distributed "Plunderphonics". The financial concerns brought up
>by copyright infringement used to be about protecting the artist from
>being bootlegged and stolen from for others' profit. Now it's about ANY
>use, whether the "thief" makes any money or not.
OK. I promise I'll shut up after this, but....
It really, really doesn't matter if the "thief" makes money - he is still
removing a potential source of income from the copyright owner.
If I want to, I can take a copy of PhotoShop on CD and make 100 duplicates.
Total cost to me - maybe $50, plus the time it took to feed the CDs into
the writer and click the button. Then I could hand those CDs out to 100
people interested in digital photo processing.
I'm not making money (in fact I'm losing money, because I'm not charging
for the CD). But somehow I feel that Adobe would probably think that I
was violating their copyright and come after me. So would the Rolling
Stones if I started giving away bootleg CDs recorded at a live concert.
And that is their right. It's nice when groups like the Grateful Dead
give explicit permission for the DeadHeads to distribute material, but
that's only OK when the copyright holder gives explicit permission.
Claiming that none of the people I gave a copy to would ever have bought
a full-price copy (because they were all starving students) doesn't work
as a defence, either.
See the point? Of course you could take the Stallman viewpoint that
nobody should charge $500 for a piece of software - it should be given
away for media costs. But then we'd never have something like PhotoShop.
Why all the lawsuits? Probably because the pondscum^Hlawyers see a way
to make money. That, or total cluelessness.
Incidentally ASCAP were forced into a humiliating public admission that
they were wrong about the campfire songs. And that wasn't entirely a
copyright issue - it was about public performance licensing fees.
FemaleDeer
>Subject: Re: [IfComp97] Derivative games (Tempest)
>From: Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Tue, Oct 21, 1997 05:10 EDT
>Might I say that, taking your points as altogether >hypothetical,
>I for one think you have a legitimate case?
Whew. Thanks. I am not saying I had it all well-reasoned out, but I thought I
had a valid viewpoint and one that needed to be raised. And I am sure the
author of Tempest.z5 also gave it a lot of thought before he even wrote his
game.
I am also sure this issue will be raised again.
Mark J Musante
Graham Nelson (gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > Very probably; but Shakespeare was a genius, while most IF authors
> > aren't. I suppose the average Mozart symphony took a shorter time to
> > write than most pop songs.
>
> If only it took a shorter time to play... I'm sorry, but calling
> Mozart a genius just leaves me cold.
I prefer to make a distinction between Mozart-the-composer and
Mozart-the-man. The former was a genius (how many other eight-year-olds
have managed to write a symphony?), whereas the latter was a boor.
> I'd rather acclaim Stiffy Makane as an important new work of IF.
It's certainly getting a lot of mention of late... :-)
-=- Mark -=-