Inform games list
Neil Brown
I've almost finished updating the IF archive's inform gameslist now, the
last update being in January 96. I have attempted to write descriptions
for games released after that date, but they're not as detailed and
enthusiastic as they would be if they'd been written by the game authors
concerned, so I am appealing now to Inform authors - please send me
descriptions of your games (two to three paragraphs) for inclusion
within the list.
I've also categorised the games for the first time. In some cases, a
game is a mixture of various genres - for examine 'Frozen', which seems
to be part college game, part science fiction and part fantasy. It has
been placed under the 'College games' header, but in the list itself,
it's entry states that it is also fantasy and science fiction.
'Christminster' could also go under 'modern day', but I decided that it
is predominantly a college game. Anyway, the categorisation is below -
and if anyone disagrees with my decisions, please tell me so, with a
brief justification.
_________
- ARCADE GAMES (not interactive fiction, but using Inform format)
Freefall
Robots
- COLLEGE / UNIVERSITY GAMES
All Quiet on the Library Front
Busted
Christminster
Ditch Day Drifter * source code only. Translation, not finished.
Frozen: A Night at the Lab
Night at the Computer Center
Paper Chase
- COMEDY / HUMOROUS / PARODY
BSE
Detective
Inhumane
Phlegm
Ralph
Tube Trouble
The Wedding
- DETECTIVE
Gumshoe
- FANTASY / MAGIC / YE OLDE DAYES (not necessarily all of those)
Adventure
Adventureland
Balances
Curses
Liquid, a Viking's Funeral(PQ1)
The Meteor, the Stone and a
Long Glass of Sherbet
Mini-Zork I
Odieus Quest...
Of Forms Unknown
The Path To Fortune
Piece of Mind
Quest 4 the Magic Healing Plant
So Far
SpAdventure
SpiritWrak
Stargazer: Prologue
Theatre
Wearing the Claw
- HORROR
Fear
The House of the Stalker
Rippled Flesh
- MODERN DAY - games involving tasks possible in the modern day
I-0
Looking For Godot
Nine Points
Reverberations
Vindaloo
- ODDITY
Cheater
Lists and Lists
The Magic Toyshop
Toyshop * source code only
- REAL LIFE - games that try to capture a 'real-life' experience
A Change in the Weather
In The End
Tapestry
- SCIENCE FICTION
Delusions
Jigsaw
Jigsaw_Game
Jigsaw_Footnote
Mind Electric
Return To Karn
Time: All Things Come To An End
Time Killer#1: Claustrophobia
__________
Note: 'real life' and 'modern day' have a subtle difference - 'real
life' tends to be more about feelings or a special experience, whereas
'modern day' games don't particularly try for this.
What is Time Killer meant to be? Science fiction (time travel) or
fantasy?
__________
Neil James Brown
Andrew Plotkin
Neil Brown (ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> I've also categorised the games for the first time. In some cases, a
> game is a mixture of various genres - for examine 'Frozen', which seems
> to be part college game, part science fiction and part fantasy. It has
> been placed under the 'College games' header, but in the list itself,
> it's entry states that it is also fantasy and science fiction.
> 'Christminster' could also go under 'modern day', but I decided that it
> is predominantly a college game. Anyway, the categorisation is below -
> and if anyone disagrees with my decisions, please tell me so, with a
> brief justification.
> _________
> - MODERN DAY - games involving tasks possible in the modern day
> I-0
> Looking For Godot
> Nine Points
> Reverberations
> Vindaloo
> - REAL LIFE - games that try to capture a 'real-life' experience
> A Change in the Weather
> In The End
> Tapestry
> __________
> Note: 'real life' and 'modern day' have a subtle difference - 'real
> life' tends to be more about feelings or a special experience, whereas
> 'modern day' games don't particularly try for this.
Well, "In The End" takes place in the future, with rejuvenation
treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and other
mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic element in it.
I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
it up to me, I'd have a broader "Unclassifiable" category which
encompasses both of those (and a few of the other games, too.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Neil Brown
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
<erky...@netcom.com> writes
>Neil Brown (ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> Note: 'real life' and 'modern day' have a subtle difference - 'real
>> life' tends to be more about feelings or a special experience, whereas
>> 'modern day' games don't particularly try for this.
>
>Well, "In The End" takes place in the future, with rejuvenation
>treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and other
>mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic element in it.
>
>I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
>deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
>it up to me, I'd have a broader "Unclassifiable" category which
>encompasses both of those (and a few of the other games, too.)
Maybe 'Real life' was a misleading title - I was refering to games that
tend to be more emotional than others. In The End seemed to be about
depression; Tapestry had upsetting moral dilemmas; Weather had the
player getting very emotional about a bridge. Maybe "Unclassifiable"
would be better, though - what do other people think?
__________
Neil James Brown
Andrew Plotkin
Neil Brown (ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@netcom.com> writes
> >Neil Brown (ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >> Note: 'real life' and 'modern day' have a subtle difference - 'real
> >> life' tends to be more about feelings or a special experience, whereas
> >> 'modern day' games don't particularly try for this.
> >
> >Well, "In The End" takes place in the future, with rejuvenation
> >treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and other
> >mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic element in it.
> >
> >I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
> >deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
> >it up to me, I'd have a broader "Unclassifiable" category which
> >encompasses both of those (and a few of the other games, too.)
> Maybe 'Real life' was a misleading title - I was refering to games that
> tend to be more emotional than others.
Surely this can be done in any category... anyway, who decides? Emotional
involvement is going to be even more subjective than any other
categorization; I think the discussion about those three games (and
others) shows what a wide range of opinion there is about what they
*are*.
As I said in the "fantasy IF" thread, there is no acceptable distinction
between genres anyway (it's a perennial topic on rec.arts.sf.written,
distinguishing between fantasy and SF. It *always* ends with half the
participants agreeing that there can be no agreement, and the other half
not even agreeing with that much.) If you stick with the most
superficial definitions (Are there spaceships? Are there elves? Does the
protagonist talk like Sam Spade?) you can get the list divided up, more
or less (with a few knotty decisions worked out by coin flip.) But
emotional focus is never going to be superficial.
> In The End seemed to be about
> depression; Tapestry had upsetting moral dilemmas; Weather had the
> player getting very emotional about a bridge. Maybe "Unclassifiable"
> would be better, though - what do other people think?
--Z
Drone
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> Neil Brown (ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > I've also categorised the games for the first time. In some cases, a
> > game is a mixture of various genres - for examine 'Frozen', which seems
> > to be part college game, part science fiction and part fantasy. It has
> > been placed under the 'College games' header, but in the list itself,
> > it's entry states that it is also fantasy and science fiction.
> > 'Christminster' could also go under 'modern day', but I decided that it
> > is predominantly a college game. Anyway, the categorisation is below -
> > and if anyone disagrees with my decisions, please tell me so, with a
> > brief justification.
>
> treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and other
> mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic element in it.
>
> I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
> deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
>
If you leave something open to question, you have to expect someone to attempt
an answer.
Drome.
--
"Esse est percipi."
foxg...@globalserve.net
Julian Arnold
I mostly agree with Andrew in this thread. Certainly "Unclassifiable"
is better than "Real life". OTOH, "Unclassifiable" is a loaded word in
this context, and people reading the list may go down it thinking
"Fantasy? Nah... College games? Nah... Unclassifiable? Oooo!" IOW
this title makes the games sound more interesting (ie, unknown
quantities) than the known genres, so people are more likely to download
the unclassified games. Which may be considered to be bias. Which may
or may not be desirable, depending on which game you wrote.
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"
Nulldogma
Um, why have categories at all? If you're having descriptions of the
games, isn't that enough for players to go by?
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------
Neil deMause ne...@echonyc.com
http://www.echonyc.com/~wham/neild.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Magnus Olsson
In article <32F28A...@globalserve.net>,
Drone <foxg...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>>
>> Well, "In The End" takes place in the future, with rejuvenation
>> treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and other
>> mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic element in it.
>>
>> I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
>> deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
>>
>
>If you leave something open to question, you have to expect someone to attempt
>an answer.
But he doesn't have to like that answer, does he?
Personally, I think that it's the same thing as in non-interactive
literatute: some works are written within a genre, and categorizing
them as such only re-affirms the author's intentions. Saying that, for
example, Eddings' "Belgariad" is epic fanasy takes nothing away from the
books.
Other works aren't easily categorized, and forcibly stuffing them into
a pigeonhole requires either ignoring some qualities of the work or
overemphasizing others. Suppose I label "The Name of The Rose" as a
detective story - what do I gain? Not very much (except that I might
get some hard-core mystery fans to read what they might otherwise
ignore as a stuffy historical novel :-)), but I lose a lot by
deliberately ignoring all the non-mystery aspects of the book.
This doesn't mean that "Name of the Rose" *isn't* a mystery, just that
it's so much more than a mystery.
In the case of IF, there are still relatively few games around and most
of them are genre pieces that are easily categorized. Why not let the
rest remain "uncategorized"?
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
Neil Brown
In article <19970201053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Nulldogma
<null...@aol.com> writes
>Um, why have categories at all? If you're having descriptions of the
>games, isn't that enough for players to go by?
Well, if you're after a certain type of game, it would be easier to
examine the descriptions of the games in that particular list rather
than read through every single description. It also helps to break the
list down and make it less daunting to read through.
Anyway, there aren't that many detailed descriptions in the list. Most
of them have been written by myself - and a few of these were written
only after a few minutes playing time. That's why I was appealing for
descriptions, or perhaps more appropriately, 'blurbs'.
__________
Neil James Brown
Joe Mason
"Re: Inform games list", declared Andrew Plotkin from the Vogon ship:
AP>> - REAL LIFE - games that try to capture a 'real-life' experience
AP>> A Change in the Weather
AP>> In The End
AP>> Tapestry
AP>> __________
AP>Well, "In The End" takes place in the future, with rejuvenation
AP>treatments and computer-controlled cars; "Tapestry" has angels and
AP>other mythologic figures; "Weather" has, mmm, there's a fantastic
AP>element in it.
AP>I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the
AP>author deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my
AP>case. Were it up to me, I'd have a broader "Unclassifiable" category
AP>which encompasses both of those (and a few of the other games, too.)
Well, I'm perfectly happy having "In The End" in this category, but I
think that in the long run it'll be too much of a bother. I'd put "In
The End" in Science Fiction, "Tapestry" in fantasy, and "A Change in the
Weather" in Modern Day, and take out the Real Life category altogether.
I think an "Unclassified" category would probably be a good idea, as
well, since you never know what'll come up next...
Joe
ş CMPQwk 1.42 9550 şTwo most common elements: Hydrogen & Stupidity
Edan Harel
Personally, I think that a list, in order, with a brief paragraph description
(perhaps written by the author/s) might be a better way to organize this list.
But that's just me. :)
--
*********Edan Harel******edh...@remus.rutgers.edu*****AKA Bozzie************
Math & CS Major * http://remus.rutgers.edu/~edharel * Computer Consultant
"Structure is the essence of matter, and the essence of structure
is mathematics." - The Monitor [_Doctor Who: Logopolis_]
Drone
Magnus Olsson wrote:
>
> In article <32F28A...@globalserve.net>,
> Drone <foxg...@globalserve.net> wrote:
> >Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this distinction winds up pre-judging a point which the author
> >> deliberately left open to question. I know that's true in my case. Were
> >>
> >
> >If you leave something open to question, you have to expect someone to attempt
> >an answer.
>
> But he doesn't have to like that answer, does he?
>
> Personally, I think that it's the same thing as in non-interactive
> literatute: some works are written within a genre, and categorizing
> them as such only re-affirms the author's intentions. Saying that, for
> example, Eddings' "Belgariad" is epic fanasy takes nothing away from the
> books.
>
> Other works aren't easily categorized, and forcibly stuffing them into
> a pigeonhole requires either ignoring some qualities of the work or
> overemphasizing others. Suppose I label "The Name of The Rose" as a
> detective story - what do I gain? Not very much (except that I might
That's fair enough. I don't mean that the "popular" classification that might
emerge is correct. Only that an author has to expect there to be a popular
classification, since popular culture thinks in genres. I don't agree with this
either, but if you leave a vacuum as far as classification goes, people are going
to try to fill that vacuum.
So, if you want to leave the question open, you have to expect that only some
people "get it" and are willing to leave it open. Expect to be annoyed by being
put "unsensitively" into a category, because many people do not think about the
"genre" issue that subtly. I'm not condemning them. Maybe it's just not their
concern.
I'm not saying the author doesn't have the right to go around setting people
straight. It's just that personally I would find that exhausting and pointless. I
would either just give it a genre I can live with or make a point of letting
"incorrect" characterisations roll off my back. I know -- not as easy as it
sounds. But that's probably what Umberto Eco had to do, because a lot of people
*did* call "The Name of the Rose" a detective story.
Drone.
Andrew Plotkin
Drone (foxg...@globalserve.net) wrote:
> So, if you want to leave the question open, you have to expect that only some
> people "get it" and are willing to leave it open. Expect to be annoyed by being
> put "unsensitively" into a category, because many people do not think about the
> "genre" issue that subtly. I'm not condemning them. Maybe it's just not their
> concern.
> I'm not saying the author doesn't have the right to go around setting people
> straight. It's just that personally I would find that exhausting and pointless.
Heh. In this case (remember this case? :-) I was correcting (or
"correcting) just one person -- the compiler of the Inform games list.
This is efficient use of my whining effort. When mere mortal players are
discussing my games, I let them make up their own minds; it's only when a
label is going to be promulgated as official-ish-like that I want to make
sure it doesn't prejudge anything.
Robert Paige Rendell
In article <NgMZABAP...@highmount.demon.co.uk>,
Neil Brown <ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk> writes:
} In article <19970201053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Nulldogma
} <null...@aol.com> writes
} >Um, why have categories at all? If you're having descriptions of the
} >games, isn't that enough for players to go by?
}
} Well, if you're after a certain type of game, it would be easier to
} examine the descriptions of the games in that particular list rather
} than read through every single description. It also helps to break the
} list down and make it less daunting to read through.
Why not have any game that fits into more than one category appear several
times, in *every* applicable category? Since the aim of the excercise
isn't to actually pigeonhole the games, it wouldn't matter if the game
appeared more than once in the list...
If a game is, for example, SF, but also a Mystery, then it shouldn't be
put into one category or 'tother by fiat - a person doing what Neil
suggested above, and looking through their favourite genre for a game to
play, would have a 50% chance of missing it.
You could preface the blurb of a game appearing under more than one
category with a list of what other categories it also appears under, so
there's no surprise when you see a game appear more than once while reading
through the entire list.
Mystery
The Mythical Example [also appears under "Science Fiction"]
A truly remarkable effort, totally defying description.
..
Science Fiction
The Mythical Example [also appears under "Mystery"]
(see description under "Mystery")
..
--
Robert Rendell \((/
ren...@cs.monash.edu.au ~oo~
What do you know about Tweetle beetles? Well... /))\
Neil Brown
In article <5d3pck$ijr$1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, Robert Paige
Rendell <ren...@molly.cs.monash.edu.au> writes
>Why not have any game that fits into more than one category appear several
>times, in *every* applicable category? Since the aim of the excercise
>isn't to actually pigeonhole the games, it wouldn't matter if the game
>appeared more than once in the list...
>
>If a game is, for example, SF, but also a Mystery, then it shouldn't be
>put into one category or 'tother by fiat - a person doing what Neil
>suggested above, and looking through their favourite genre for a game to
>play, would have a 50% chance of missing it.
>
>You could preface the blurb of a game appearing under more than one
>category with a list of what other categories it also appears under, so
>there's no surprise when you see a game appear more than once while reading
>through the entire list.
>
>Mystery
> The Mythical Example [also appears under "Science Fiction"]
> A truly remarkable effort, totally defying description.
>..
>
>Science Fiction
> The Mythical Example [also appears under "Mystery"]
> (see description under "Mystery")
>..
That sounds a good idea. I've already got an 'also' section for each
entry, giving other genres the games fit into, but it wouldn't hurt to
have a 'see also...' list at the end of each grouping.
__________
Neil James Brown
Neil Brown
>Drone (foxg...@globalserve.net) wrote:
>> So, if you want to leave the question open, you have to expect that only some
>> people "get it" and are willing to leave it open. Expect to be annoyed by
>being
>> put "unsensitively" into a category, because many people do not think about
>the
>> "genre" issue that subtly. I'm not condemning them. Maybe it's just not their
>> concern.
>
>> I'm not saying the author doesn't have the right to go around setting people
>> straight. It's just that personally I would find that exhausting and
>pointless.
>
>Heh. In this case (remember this case? :-) I was correcting (or
>"correcting) just one person -- the compiler of the Inform games list.
Yes, and I have been thoroughly corrected (and what an enjoyable
experience it was :-).
>This is efficient use of my whining effort. When mere mortal players are
>discussing my games, I let them make up their own minds; it's only when a
>label is going to be promulgated as official-ish-like that I want to make
>sure it doesn't prejudge anything.
My intention wasn't to play God and say 'this is the definitive version,
mortals, and you'd better accept it or else'... rather to have a stab at
categorisation as a starting point and then see what other people
thought. I'm sure that if I hadn't shown that list in the original
posting, there wouldn't have been half the responses that there have
been.
Also... has anyone got any more blurbs for their Inform games? At the
moment, I have the blurbs from the original Inform games list plus the
following: Jigsaw, The Meteor, the Stone and a Long Glass of Sherbet,
Piece of Mind, Wearing the Claw and The Wedding.
__________
Neil James Brown
Carl Muckenhoupt
ren...@molly.cs.monash.edu.au (Robert Paige Rendell) writes:
>In article <NgMZABAP...@highmount.demon.co.uk>,
> Neil Brown <ne...@highmount.demon.co.uk> writes:
>} In article <19970201053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Nulldogma
>} <null...@aol.com> writes
>} >Um, why have categories at all? If you're having descriptions of the
>} >games, isn't that enough for players to go by?
>}
>} Well, if you're after a certain type of game, it would be easier to
>} examine the descriptions of the games in that particular list rather
>} than read through every single description. It also helps to break the
>} list down and make it less daunting to read through.
>Why not have any game that fits into more than one category appear several
>times, in *every* applicable category? Since the aim of the excercise
>isn't to actually pigeonhole the games, it wouldn't matter if the game
>appeared more than once in the list...
That's what I do in Baf's Guide. It's *still* inadequate. It helps
for games that really are genre works for multiple genres, but doesn't
help at all for those that simply aren't genre works. Consider "Curses!".
--
Carl Muckenhoupt | Text Adventures are not dead!
b...@tiac.net | Read rec.[arts|games].int-fiction to see
http://www.tiac.net/users/baf | what you're missing!
Joe Mason
"Re: Inform games list", declared Julian Arnold from the Vogon ship:
JA>I mostly agree with Andrew in this thread. Certainly
JA>"Unclassifiable" is better than "Real life". OTOH, "Unclassifiable"
JA>is a loaded word in this context, and people reading the list may go
JA>down it thinking "Fantasy? Nah... College games? Nah...
JA>Unclassifiable? Oooo!" IOW this title makes the games sound more
JA>interesting (ie, unknown quantities) than the known genres, so people
JA>are more likely to download the unclassified games. Which may be
JA>considered to be bias. Which may or may not be desirable, depending
JA>on which game you wrote.
I would call it Unclassified, rather then Unclassifiable.
^^^ ^^^^^
Two reasons. First, just because we can't come up with a category
easily, doesn't mean it *can't* be classified. And, as I mentioned,
there IS a category that these games would ALMOST fit - it's a judgement
call, and if you put them in Unclassifiable, some people would wonder
why you didn't just put them in, say, Science Fiction.
Also, Unclassified sounds more like a grab bag. It COULD just mean that
nobody's gotten around to deciding where to put them yet. So it
wouldn't have the same loaded meaning - I'd certainly look at them, but
I wouldn't think they were special just by being in this category.
Joe
ş CMPQwk 1.42 9550 şA good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years.
Drone
> >
> >Heh. In this case (remember this case? :-) I was correcting (or
> >"correcting) just one person -- the compiler of the Inform games list.
Huh? <head snapping around at the tug on my leash> Oh, sorry. I thought I smelled
something interested in that tangle of bushes there.
Julian Arnold
In article <66.712...@tabb.com>, Joe Mason
<URL:mailto:joe....@tabb.com> wrote:
>
> I would call it Unclassified, rather then Unclassifiable.
> ^^^ ^^^^^
Uh, me too? (Same reasons.)
Edan Harel
joe....@tabb.com (Joe Mason) writes:
>"Re: Inform games list", declared Julian Arnold from the Vogon ship:
>JA>I mostly agree with Andrew in this thread. Certainly
>JA>"Unclassifiable" is better than "Real life". OTOH, "Unclassifiable"
Ummm... If they're Unclassifiable, why are you classifying them with
a class? (And how?)
Oh well. If I had an Index File, I could look up Index File in the Index
File. I am lying. If I had time to finish this sent-*
*sigh*
Word games are fun :)