Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

IF and iTunes Paradigm

5 views
Skip to first unread message

ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:53:14 PM7/28/06
to
On another thread there has been discussion about how to make IF more
easily available to people with very low tolerances for technology. One
of the ideas surrounds an architecture of an iTunes-like interface that
can do all the work of cataloging, retrieving, and playing IF games
from either the if-archive or Baf's Guide or both.

I'd like to play devil's advocate here for a moment and compare iTunes
with a proposed IFPlayer.

People download music using iTunes because it's easy.
People would probably download IF games using IFPlayer because it would
be easy.

People play music in iTunes, but are also likely to copy the music to
their iPod, burn CD's, or pump them through a stereo system.
There is no equivalent nature to an IF Player.

People will play their music over and over.
People are unlikely to play IF games more than once or twice, after
which the game becomes disposable.

Music available from the iTunes Music Store is all of a relatively high
quality and continuously added to.
The IF-Archive has a lot of games of varying quality with very few
games added on a regular basis.

* * * * *

I appreciate the novelty that a universal IF player would add to the IF
world and might even bring in a few more game players, but I do not
think this will solve the problem of engaging a wider audience.

Don't misunderstand me. I believe the ease of use factor is a large
barrier to entry.

But unlike music, there's no easy way to guage the content of an IF
game without playing it for awhile. In order to get the right games to
the right people, more effort is needed on the "marketing" aspects of
our games. We need to sell people on what our games are about and not
just make it easy for them to grab a thousand games and expect them to
sift through them all in a day.

The Babel project is an excellent start, but I contend that a universal
player is _not_ the answer to engaging a wider audience. The answer is
to market each and every game _separately_ as its own entity. This
would require far more work than a simple universal player and
bibliography, but without the extra effort, I don't see our hobby
getting anywhere outside of its current audience.

Reviews help a lot. The feelies that some have put together for their
own games helps tremendously. I think this is the right direction to
go.

We should take the better games (subjective, but doable) and help the
author put together an entire package for that game. Pictures, a web
page, a fancy introduction to the game, and then give the game it's own
installation. Inform 7 does a bit of the packaging website work for
you, but the feelies are still something that has to be created on
their own.

We should design some sort of artwork paradigm for all Interactive
Fiction. Textfire was a great name and unfortunately that's gone. But
something _like_ that as a sort of "central theme" to all IF would be
great to develop into all of the marketing web pages.

I propose the IF Marketing Project. The intent would be to select a
game on the archive and build a moderately professional marketing web
page including graphics specifically designed for the game.

But I also would recommend that a stand-alone executable/installation
be made available so that the potentional gamer doesn't need to know
about interpreters or game files. They download a game. That's it.

To that end, it would be nice to see the interpreters have the option
of turning off all multi-game features. If the game is executed from a
command line prompt (i.e. winfrotz /borderless=true /g=mygame.z8) then
the user doesn't get the title bar or menu.

Summary
I think the proposed IFPlayer idea is great. But I also think there
will be a sizable amount of disappointment in the IF community if it
fails to attract any outside attention. There are just too many things
"to do" on the Internet. People need to be told to play a game, not
asked. That's what marketing does. It tells you that you really really
need to play this game. It's exciting! It's important. It will make you
laugh! It will make you cry! Get this game NOW! Tell your friends! Tell
your enemies! They'll love it!

Now _that_ will get people to play the games.

David C.

chev...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 5:18:35 PM7/28/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:

> On another thread there has been discussion about how to make IF more
> easily available to people with very low tolerances for technology. One
> of the ideas surrounds an architecture of an iTunes-like interface that
> can do all the work of cataloging, retrieving, and playing IF games
> from either the if-archive or Baf's Guide or both.

Zoom is already very similar to iTunes in terms of ease of use and
functionality. From my limited understanding of MacOS X programming I
think it would be a semi-trivial task to add support for playing games
hosted online. My only concern would be the increased demands on the if
archive's servers.

Poster

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 5:31:08 PM7/28/06
to

I agree with virtually everything you said. I'm also willing to help.
Graphics design, marketing text, web site design, blogging stuff, I can
do. But I am getting tired of just talking about marketing/promo
activities. By all means, let's do it already. :)

-- Poster

www.intaligo.com Building, Doom metal, and Seasons (upcoming).

Taz

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 2:53:44 AM7/29/06
to
Does anyone else remember 'Adventure Blaster?'

That kind of front end would be awesome. I would still use it to
introduce people to IF if the installer worked on XP (even though it is
about 7 years old). It is how I was re-introduced to text-adventures
(even then called IF). You can play the game from within it, and it
even accesses hint files and walkthroughs from within the program.

Surely if something like this were made available then writers would
write their walkthroughs and hints to suit?

PS I'm new, this is my first post *waves* I've never been a part of a
newsgroup before so if I make any blunders in ettiquite please let me know.

Peter Mattsson

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 1:38:37 PM7/29/06
to
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:53 -0700, ChicagoDave wrote:
> People play music in iTunes, but are also likely to copy the music to
> their iPod, burn CD's, or pump them through a stereo system.
> There is no equivalent nature to an IF Player.

What about copying IF to mobile devices (e.g. pdas, mobile phones)? One
thing that I'd like to offer is the facility to copy IF from a PC to
such devices and sync up save files. That way, you could take your IF
with you, even if you were in the middle of a game.

> People will play their music over and over.
> People are unlikely to play IF games more than once or twice, after
> which the game becomes disposable.

While I take your point, it's not quite that way for me. A piece of IF
is closer in spirit to a novel or short story than a piece of music but,
as with novels, there are a number of titles that I am happy to play
over and over (admittedly with a lapse of time between). I have a
fairish library of books, and approach IF in the same spirit.

> Reviews help a lot. The feelies that some have put together for their
> own games helps tremendously. I think this is the right direction to
> go.

I agree that it's crucial to give people (especially those new to IF)
some way of picking out the gems from the rubbish. For that reason, I'd
like to find ways to incorporate ratings and reviews into any IF player
we come up with. (One way, for example, would be to ask sites that
provide ratings and/or reviews to start serving them up automatically,
in the same way as the babel server is to serve up metadata etc.)

> We should take the better games (subjective, but doable) and help the
> author put together an entire package for that game. Pictures, a web
> page, a fancy introduction to the game, and then give the game it's own
> installation. Inform 7 does a bit of the packaging website work for
> you, but the feelies are still something that has to be created on
> their own.

The idea of turning the best IF into a full-scale production,
reminiscent of the commercial IF of old, is great. However, I'd be
against demanding that each game be completely independent: personally,
I like the idea of a local IF library that I can browse. As a Linux
user, I use applications like ScummVM and Cedega to play other games,
both of which take this approach, and have grown to prefer it. If you
only have a few games installed, it's feasible to have them stand alone,
but as the numbers rise it becomes more comfortable to use an
intermediate browser, I feel.

As a compromise, how about offering people both options? Either they can
download a single game as a standalone, complete with its own
interpreter and installer, or they can use an IF browser to download
just the storyfile (and feelies etc.) into a library?

> I propose the IF Marketing Project. The intent would be to select a
> game on the archive and build a moderately professional marketing web
> page including graphics specifically designed for the game.

Sounds like a great idea; I'd be interested in helping in any way I can.

> But I also would recommend that a stand-alone executable/installation
> be made available so that the potentional gamer doesn't need to know
> about interpreters or game files. They download a game. That's it.

This makes sense for people new to IF, but see above. Also, I feel that
using a browser/library approach might help to foster a feeling that IF
is an ongoing thing, rather than a one-off. If people just download a
game, there's a risk that they won't come back for more, even if they
quite liked it. For example, a browser could be used to display IF news
(via an RSS feed, say) to help hook the player in to IF as a community.

> To that end, it would be nice to see the interpreters have the option
> of turning off all multi-game features. If the game is executed from a
> command line prompt (i.e. winfrotz /borderless=true /g=mygame.z8) then
> the user doesn't get the title bar or menu.

Absolutely not. Speaking as an ex-editor, this would give people the
ugliest possible experience of IF. These days, I use Gargoyle whenever
possible, simply because it does such a brilliant job of typesetting. If
you want to improve the image of IF, give people Gargoyle/Spatterlight.

> Summary
> I think the proposed IFPlayer idea is great. But I also think there
> will be a sizable amount of disappointment in the IF community if it
> fails to attract any outside attention. There are just too many things
> "to do" on the Internet. People need to be told to play a game, not
> asked. That's what marketing does. It tells you that you really really
> need to play this game. It's exciting! It's important. It will make you
> laugh! It will make you cry! Get this game NOW! Tell your friends! Tell
> your enemies! They'll love it!

Absolutely. I think we need a two-pronged attack: a glamorous 'A-list'
of titles to hook people in, combined with reviews/ratings of the rest
of the Archive to encourage people to stay with it when they've finished
the 'A' titles.

Cheers,

Peter

Peter Mattsson

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 1:47:32 PM7/29/06
to
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 16:23 +0930, Taz wrote:
> Does anyone else remember 'Adventure Blaster?'
>
> That kind of front end would be awesome. I would still use it to
> introduce people to IF if the installer worked on XP (even though it is
> about 7 years old). It is how I was re-introduced to text-adventures
> (even then called IF). You can play the game from within it, and it
> even accesses hint files and walkthroughs from within the program.
>
> Surely if something like this were made available then writers would
> write their walkthroughs and hints to suit?

I think you've got something. How about bundling an IF browser, a set of
'terps, and some carefully-chosen introductory games in one neat
package? Once they'd played the included games, people could open up the
rest of the Archive with a single click, right into the same browser. IF
made easy!

> PS I'm new, this is my first post *waves* I've never been a part of a
> newsgroup before so if I make any blunders in ettiquite please let me know.

Welcome!

Cheers,

Peter

ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 2:32:17 PM7/29/06
to
> Peter Mattsson wrote:
> What about copying IF to mobile devices (e.g. pdas, mobile phones)? One
> thing that I'd like to offer is the facility to copy IF from a PC to
> such devices and sync up save files. That way, you could take your IF
> with you, even if you were in the middle of a game.

I don't currently buy into the idea that people will play IF on a
portable. When the larger screen portables become common I might change
my mind, but I personally find playing IF on a handheld anything but
enjoyable. Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I wouldn't focus a whole
lot of attention here. I also think one of the main target audiences is
a younger crowd, such as middle-school kids. They're not likely to have
access to such devices.

> > To that end, it would be nice to see the interpreters have the option
> > of turning off all multi-game features. If the game is executed from a
> > command line prompt (i.e. winfrotz /borderless=true /g=mygame.z8) then
> > the user doesn't get the title bar or menu.
>
> Absolutely not. Speaking as an ex-editor, this would give people the
> ugliest possible experience of IF. These days, I use Gargoyle whenever
> possible, simply because it does such a brilliant job of typesetting. If
> you want to improve the image of IF, give people Gargoyle/Spatterlight.
>

Well, I guess leaving the menu there for fonts would be good, but I
think removing the File menu and allowing the author to make the terp
look like its specifically for that one game is a "good thing".

David C.

Peter Mattsson

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:03:27 PM7/29/06
to
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 11:32 -0700, ChicagoDave wrote:
> Well, I guess leaving the menu there for fonts would be good, but I
> think removing the File menu and allowing the author to make the terp
> look like its specifically for that one game is a "good thing".

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Gargoyle has no menus at all
by default (configuration is handled by editing an external preferences
file, and you supply the storyfile name as an argument when you launch
the terp). At the moment, the window title is e.g. 'Frotz 2.43 -
storyfile.z5', but I'm sure this could easily be tweaked to be simply
the title of the game with the addition of Babel support. If this was
done, there'd be no obvious indication that the game didn't stand
alone.

If this is what you mean by making the terp look like it's specifically
for a given game, then I probably agree that it's a "good thing". From
your original post, though, I thought you were also wanting the game to
run fullscreen, like many graphical games do, which I think would be
very much a bad thing. Apart from the fact that such a display would
give uncomfortably long lines, it's also less flexible. (What if someone
wants to have a text editor open to take notes, for example?)

Finally, if you meant that the terp should be customised (with regards
to fonts, colours etc.) on a game-by-game basis, I'd also be solidly
against that without a good reason. With printed books, I find the
chosen font etc. to be part of the experience, and books that get it
wrong can be quite jarring. A handful of standard, carefully chosen,
'looks' to fit different genres of IF would look a lot more
professional. (For this reason, I'm also comfortable with the fact that
Gargoyle isn't obviously customisable: if we take pains to present a
polished look, it's no bad thing that people can't blithely switch the
font to Comic Sans.)

Cheers,

Peter


ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:43:29 PM7/29/06
to

> Peter Mattsson wrote:
> If this is what you mean by making the terp look like it's specifically
> for a given game, then I probably agree that it's a "good thing".

We seem to be voilently agreeing with each other. Your clarifications
are my feelings exactly.

David C.

Al

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 10:58:36 AM7/30/06
to

Peter Mattsson wrote:

>
> > People will play their music over and over.
> > People are unlikely to play IF games more than once or twice, after
> > which the game becomes disposable.


The games from Malinche have several endings. Maybe if the player was
advised at the begining or end of the game that a finite number other
options existed then the playabilty might be increased and thus spark a
lot more replay of the same game.

L. Ross Raszewski

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 1:09:28 PM7/30/06
to

I disagree on several levels. I want the file menu there, I want the
window handlebars there, and I don't want the terp to look like it was
made for one game.

I don't approach IF the way I do other games, nor do I approach it
like I do a book. Lots of things about books are accidents of
historical convenience, not the One True Way To Make Your Experience
Pleasant.

If I wrote a web page which insisted on redesigning your web browser's
UI, being viewed at full screen, and hiding the toolbars, I think a
lot of people would quite rightly fail to be amused (You hear me
commercial web designers?).

Also, and I admit that I am completely alone in this, I find gargoyle
really ugly.

Reiko

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 5:12:56 PM7/30/06
to

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> Also, and I admit that I am completely alone in this, I find gargoyle
> really ugly.

Aren't gargoyles supposed to be ugly? I mean, if you call a program
Gargoyle and then someone finds it ugly, what do you expect?

ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 8:06:14 PM7/30/06
to
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
>
> I disagree on several levels. I want the file menu there, I want the
> window handlebars there, and I don't want the terp to look like it was
> made for one game.
>
> I don't approach IF the way I do other games, nor do I approach it
> like I do a book. Lots of things about books are accidents of
> historical convenience, not the One True Way To Make Your Experience
> Pleasant.
>
> If I wrote a web page which insisted on redesigning your web browser's
> UI, being viewed at full screen, and hiding the toolbars, I think a
> lot of people would quite rightly fail to be amused (You hear me
> commercial web designers?).

I guess I'm comparing what I see has a viable IF "product" similar to
how video games and books are delivered. I agree that eventually the
concepts of an IF "Player" freely downloadable and an IF Game as
separate items will take hold, but I don't think the consumer
understands IF well enough to see that as a benefit.

If some day IF has a strong niche market, then the delivery methods can
be simplified into player and game.

Until then I don't think you could catch any non-IF persons eye without
strong marketing and a very low technical threshold. To me this means
providing the same exact experience that they're already used to, which
for games is a single installed product with a menu item or desktop
icon.

I'll give you an example of an attempt at the player/game model in the
real world. The Reader Rabbit series of educational software will
install a central launch program and then let you choose a game from
within. My kids hate it. Maybe it's poorly designed, I don't know. On
the other hand, when I put an icon with a picture of Nemo, Crazy
Machines, or I Spy on the desktop, they have yet to fail to start and
play those games.

I'm not discussing _personal_ preferences. I personally love Zoom and
Gargoyle. I love the idea of a launch pad program for all the IF I have
on my PC. I use Zoom on my mac-mini.

This is about what non-IF people will feel comfortable with. The
average user. The _lowest_ common denominator.

David C.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 10:46:28 PM7/30/06
to

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> If I wrote a web page which insisted on redesigning your web browser's
> UI, being viewed at full screen, and hiding the toolbars, I think a
> lot of people would quite rightly fail to be amused (You hear me
> commercial web designers?).

YES! Exactly. This is why Flash must die.


> Also, and I admit that I am completely alone in this, I find gargoyle
> really ugly.

I actually rather like it - except that you can't select and copy text
from the window (at least on Linux). But I am still nostalgic for good
old 80x25 fixed-width white on blue.

Adam Thornton

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 1:37:43 AM7/31/06
to
In article <1154304374....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

ChicagoDave <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is about what non-IF people will feel comfortable with. The
>average user. The _lowest_ common denominator.

Dude, the lowest common denominator is never going to be interested in
IF. You have to both read and think. You've lost about 95% of the
potential market right there.

Adam

Adam Thornton

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 1:39:27 AM7/31/06
to
In article <1154313988.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

<na...@natecull.org> wrote:
>I actually rather like it - except that you can't select and copy text
>from the window (at least on Linux). But I am still nostalgic for good
>old 80x25 fixed-width white on blue.

Go play with your new-fangled NES, newbie. "Good old" 80x25 indeed.

40x25, green phosphor, 6x5 character cell, upper case only, TYVM.

Adam


Peter Mattsson

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 7:19:11 AM7/31/06
to
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 17:09 +0000, L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> I disagree on several levels. I want the file menu there, I want the
> window handlebars there, and I don't want the terp to look like it was
> made for one game.

Just out of curiosity, why? I agree with you about the handlebars, but
why does the file menu matter to you? Personally, I tend to double-click
on the storyfile to start playing and shut the terp down when I'm done
(even if my next act will be to double-click on another storyfile). As a
result, I never have a use for the file menu. Do you start the terp
first and load in the storyfile using the file menu? If not, what
functions of the menu do you find useful? (Whatever you do, I'm not
meaning to knock it, but I'd kind of assumed that most people did what I
do and I'd be interested to know if that's simply egocentrism on my
part.)

> I don't approach IF the way I do other games, nor do I approach it
> like I do a book. Lots of things about books are accidents of
> historical convenience, not the One True Way To Make Your Experience
> Pleasant.

Again, I'm curious. What things about books do you feel are accidents of
convenience? To my way of thinking, most things about books are either
dictated by the limitations of the medium, or are indeed -- after many
years of trial and error -- considered the best way to do things.

> If I wrote a web page which insisted on redesigning your web browser's
> UI, being viewed at full screen, and hiding the toolbars, I think a
> lot of people would quite rightly fail to be amused (You hear me
> commercial web designers?).

For once I'm absolutely with you. The same goes for a lot of application
software, particularly media-related apps, which feel that the default
OS look is too bland. Consistency is very much a good thing.

> Also, and I admit that I am completely alone in this, I find gargoyle
> really ugly.

Whether or not you're alone in this, you're first person -- that I know
of -- who's voiced that opinion here. As such, I'd be interested to know
what your ideal terp would look like, assuming you were given a free
hand and the resources to design anything you wanted. What features of
gargoyle do you most dislike?

Cheers,

Peter

Peter Mattsson

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 7:41:56 AM7/31/06
to

I think what Dave is talking about is the lowest common denominator as
regards IT proficiency. There are a lot of people out there who both
read and think but don't have much skill with, or interest in,
computers. Anything we can do to lower the barrier of entry and hook
them in would be good for IF.

Cheers,

Peter

peter.m...@lineone.net

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 8:46:05 AM7/31/06
to
Al wrote:
> Peter Mattsson wrote:
>
> >
> > > People will play their music over and over.
> > > People are unlikely to play IF games more than once or twice, after
> > > which the game becomes disposable.

Actually, I didn't say that: David Cornelson did (and, if you look,
you'll find I didn't entirely agree with him on that point).

> The games from Malinche have several endings. Maybe if the player was
> advised at the begining or end of the game that a finite number other
> options existed then the playabilty might be increased and thus spark a
> lot more replay of the same game.

I haven't played any of Malinche's commercial offerings, but a number
of games in the IF Archive have multiple endings/paths too, or at least
multiple solutions to some puzzles. Like anything else, it's only a
good idea if done well, and the differences are meaningful. (Throwing
in some arbitrary choices to give extra endings does not a good game
make.) I'm also not sure that specifying how many endings there are in
advance is a great idea, though I guess some people won't feel happy
until they know they've seen all the endings.

Cheers,

Peter

ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 11:12:12 AM7/31/06
to

Let me qualify for you...

Lowest common denominator of persons having a computer, able to read,
some rudimentary problem-solving skills, never seen a DOS prompt in
their lives, don't even know what linux is, play a kick ass game of
solitaire, but used to the way most computer programs are installed on
their machines...which is with a start menu listing or a big icon on
their desktop that they can aim their mousy thing at and click 16 times
(ignoring any hourglasses and always wondering why they have so many
windows open).

David C.

Janos

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 12:31:57 PM7/31/06
to

AMEN. This is the whole reason I started the thread that spawned this
one - IF is a form of art where the creators are proficient in
computers, but a big part of the potential audience is not. There's the
whole group of people who maybe use a computer at work, but who read a
lot and who are interested in literary arts - and who are never going to
even try IF games with the way they work and are presented now.

--
Janos

L. Ross Raszewski

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 12:44:46 PM7/31/06
to

I am increasingly of the opinion that thinking of it as "The Least
Common Denominator" is part of the problem. Once we go from thinkign
"We need to pretty this up" to "We need to pretty this up for the
stupid masses", we're pretty much resigned to failure. Dave: it's not
the norpal, technically nonproficient person who thinks the UI design
is kludgy, it's *you*. Don't try to fix the problem for an imaginary
nontechnical audience, try to fix it for *you*. The audience will
figure it out.

Usability isn't something you can just strap on at the end -- this was
the philosophy that Linux developers used for many years, and the
reason that it took so long for Linux to reach something resembling
usability.

Janos

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 1:09:30 PM7/31/06
to
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:

> I am increasingly of the opinion that thinking of it as "The Least
> Common Denominator" is part of the problem. Once we go from thinkign
> "We need to pretty this up" to "We need to pretty this up for the
> stupid masses", we're pretty much resigned to failure.

Sigh. Designing for the least commong denominator or making stuff for
"stupid masses" is pretty far from making things, you know, handy and
easy to use. There's also a world of difference in between dumbing down
ways to play IF games and dumbing down the games themselves. Personally
I think the first is an absolute necessity and the latter is an abomination.

I'm very allergic to the school of thought where everybody who doesn't
know how to use a computer is stupid, so sorry if I get a bit snappy
about the subject.

--
Janos

ChicagoDave

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 3:11:23 PM7/31/06
to
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> Dave: it's not
> the norpal, technically nonproficient person who thinks the UI design
> is kludgy, it's *you*. Don't try to fix the problem for an imaginary
> nontechnical audience, try to fix it for *you*. The audience will
> figure it out.

This is where I mention the 22 years of build systems for smart
business people who could care less how the program works..as long as
it works.

But aside from that, I think your sentiment is the exact hinderance the
IF community faces. It's an extreme unwillingness to accomodate the
outside world, much like the Linux community and its very common RTFM
responses of the past. The Linux community eventually figured out that
saying RTFM had exactly the opposite effect they wanted, which was to
get more people involved in their beloved open source OS. The Linux and
open source communities started reaching out, making it easier, and
helping people.

So to me, what your saying, and many others have said this too, is that
if people can't figure out how to use a separate player and game file,
well, we don't want them playing our games anyway. Or...they probably
aren't our audience anyway.

I'm as sure as can be that the "player/game file" model will work
eventually. But not until the audience is _already_ there. The _first_
step is to increase the audience and for that it's my argument that we
have to go the extra mile to make it drop dead simple to enter the IF
world.

It's like the "number of clicks required" measurement in websites. It's
very common to discuss how many clicks it takes to execute any given
feature of a website and the least amount of clicks, the better. You
hate flash. Well, I agree. When I see a website's main page come up as
flash, I usually close the browser instinctively. So how is a new
player of IF games going to feel when he needs to take several steps to
accomplish what is seemingly a simple and common set of tasks -
download, install, play. Instead, the community feels strongly that
"download A. install A. download B. execute A. find B. play B" is going
to somehow endear a user to our world.

I strongly disagree with that view.

In any case, all I'm asking for is that the interpreter writers
_accommodate_ the practice of packaging a game without the menu. To
allow a distribution of interpreter and game file in an installation
package that when executed gives the semblence of a single program.

I'm not suggesting that anyone change their view or that the community
is dumb for wanting an IF Player paradigm. I'm just suggesting that
some of us might want to package our games differently.

David C.

Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 3:57:36 PM7/31/06
to
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:11:23 -0700, ChicagoDave wrote:

> the past. The Linux community eventually figured out that saying RTFM had
> exactly the opposite effect they wanted, which was to get more people
> involved in their beloved open source OS. The Linux and open source

Correction: "Saying 'RTFM' had EXACTLY the effect the people saying it
wanted. It made the questioner go away and stop pestering them."
The fact that you don't hear RTFM as often now is because the community
is much larger now, which means more and different types of people, with
different ideas about what Linux should be. It's not because those RTFM
people suddenly changed all their priorities. Usually, the
Read-The-Fine-Manual guy is interested in Linux for his own purposes, and
truly couldn't care less if anybody else uses it. He's practical, rather
than idealistic. (IMO, idealism is often practicality with a longer view)

My view of the IF Player/game problem is that interpreters ought to set
up the proper filetypes so the game can be double-clicked. That's all that's
required for movies and other files, and I feel that trying for a simpler
method is most likely going to encounter a law of diminishing returns,
where a great deal of effort will have only a minor result.

--
- Mantar --- Drop YourPantiesSirWilliam to email me.

Taz

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 5:31:12 PM7/31/06
to
I agree 100% with everything you're saying. Especially that we need to
get people in before asking them to jump through hoops.

I don't know if the people in this thread are reading the "How to reach
a wider audience: turn IF games into one-click executables" thread but I
think the 'Adventure Blaster' concept would be a great way to get people in.

Taz

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 5:33:22 PM7/31/06
to
LMAO

*points big mousy thing at thread and tries to open*

Damnit, my internet is broken. =p

L. Ross Raszewski

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 6:10:39 PM7/31/06
to
On 31 Jul 2006 12:11:23 -0700, ChicagoDave <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
>> Dave: it's not
>> the norpal, technically nonproficient person who thinks the UI design
>> is kludgy, it's *you*. Don't try to fix the problem for an imaginary
>> nontechnical audience, try to fix it for *you*. The audience will
>> figure it out.
>
>This is where I mention the 22 years of build systems for smart
>business people who could care less how the program works..as long as
>it works.
>
>But aside from that, I think your sentiment is the exact hinderance the
>IF community faces. It's an extreme unwillingness to accomodate the
>outside world, much like the Linux community and its very common RTFM
>responses of the past. The Linux community eventually figured out that
>saying RTFM had exactly the opposite effect they wanted, which was to
>get more people involved in their beloved open source OS. The Linux and
>open source communities started reaching out, making it easier, and
>helping people.
>

No, you're totally misreading me here. I'm emphatically *not* saying
"We don't want your kind, go away". I am questioning the approach
that says "We've got to make this simpler so that the dumb people can
use it" -- The approach that treats usability as something you bolt on
the front after all the "real" work is done. It's *not* the attitude
that stymied linux for so many year, and I'm not saying "These people
are beneath us, so don't cater to them"

It's the *very assumption* that we need to "dumb things down" so that
the "nontechnical user" can use it that I am calling out. The
approach (which linux took for many years) was to say "We've got to
strap on some usability as an afterthought to accomodate the idiots"
-- this is a mistake.

A lot of what you've talked aboutseems to amount to just that: "Let's
take the Z-machine, and strap on some skins and an auto-loader."
That's *not* the answer. If you want to really lower the barriers to
entry, you need to rebuild the system *from the ground up*, building
the usability in at every level, not just as an afterthought.

Adam Thornton

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 7:40:40 PM7/31/06
to
In article <1154358732.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,

ChicagoDave <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lowest common denominator of persons having a computer, able to read,
>some rudimentary problem-solving skills, never seen a DOS prompt in
>their lives, don't even know what linux is, play a kick ass game of
>solitaire, but used to the way most computer programs are installed on
>their machines...which is with a start menu listing or a big icon on
>their desktop that they can aim their mousy thing at and click 16 times
>(ignoring any hourglasses and always wondering why they have so many
>windows open).

If they haven't figured out the single-click-to-select,
double-click-to-activate, and-these-days-right-click-for-contextual-menu
interface, it is, in my opinion, vanishingly unlikely that they're going
to enjoy a form of entertainment that is largely about figuring out what
actions produce what effects, when this is often both complex and rather
subtle (as opposed to say, "pressing left-alt fires my gun").

Seriously: *most* IF is about exploring until you have a sense of the
situation and the obstacles keeping you from changing that situation to
one you like better, followed by an inventory of tools at your disposal,
and then concoction of a plan by which you can turn those tools into a
solution to the problems in your environment.

If you are unwiling to pay sufficient attention to the environment and
the way it reacts when you poke it to recognize the difference between a
click and a 16-click, then you're probably going to find almost any IF
*no fun at all*.

So I don't think these are necessarily the users we should be
targetting.

Adam

Taz

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 8:43:58 PM7/31/06
to
I disagree. I have introduced some complete noobs to IF and they have
enjoyed it. Fear of technology doesn't stop then trying to use
computers, but it will stop them doing anything more complex than using
the software already installed, or that is easy to install themselves.

John Bruce

unread,
Jul 31, 2006, 9:20:45 PM7/31/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:
> > Peter Mattsson wrote:
> > What about copying IF to mobile devices (e.g. pdas, mobile phones)? One
> > thing that I'd like to offer is the facility to copy IF from a PC to
> > such devices and sync up save files. That way, you could take your IF
> > with you, even if you were in the middle of a game.
>
> I don't currently buy into the idea that people will play IF on a
> portable. When the larger screen portables become common I might change
> my mind, but I personally find playing IF on a handheld anything but
> enjoyable. Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I wouldn't focus a whole
> lot of attention here. I also think one of the main target audiences is
> a younger crowd, such as middle-school kids. They're not likely to have
> access to such devices.

I realize this is tangential to the more popular bulk of the
discussion, but I play IF on a handheld (Windows Mobile) all the time.
Indeed, I play the bulk of my IF on one. Maybe I'm a crazy loner, but
I prefer my IF out on the back porch or in a comfy chair. The best IF
deserve a better position than hunched over a monitor and keyboard. I
like the tactile, novel-like feeling of my handheld and the ability to
choose my position and location.

Technically, I got into this habit playing IF on the bus to school.
Then on the bus to work. Now that I no longer bus to work, it's mostly
because I just prefer consuming IF that way; it feels more like
fiction, less like Word. And when I'm 50 people from the front of the
line at the post office, I can pull out my PDA and - bam - there's some
IF to while the time away. Same as carrying around a novel or eBook
reader.

Admittedly, many of the 'terps are painful to use, and even the best
can't provide the speed and flexibility of a keyboard. If I had a
laptop or tablet PC, (or one of those flashy Origamis) I'd use it
instead without regrets. But nonetheless, I do use a handheld for
playing IF and do so mostly with success.

--
With all due respect,
John Bruce

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 1:01:30 AM8/1/06
to

Mmmm. I think MISER from Cursor Magazine on a Commodore PET was the
very first adventure game I played, even before ADVENT in RT-BASIC on a
PDP 11/10.

PRESS PLAY
SEARCHING FOR "SPACE INVADERS"

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 1:18:41 AM8/1/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:
> In any case, all I'm asking for is that the interpreter writers
> _accommodate_ the practice of packaging a game without the menu. To
> allow a distribution of interpreter and game file in an installation
> package that when executed gives the semblence of a single program.

One could mention that this is exactly what the original Infocom games
did. They shipped an interpreter and a game file, yes, but made them
launch as a single package.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best way for our situation
in 2006, though. Infocom had the standard distribution and shipping
infrastructure where you'd buy a game package for <computer of your
choice>. We presumably would be distributing these via a website. Do we
really want to create separate self-installing interpreter+game package
executables for every permutation of game, interpreter, VM, and OS
(where OS == OSX, Windows, Linux, PocketPC, PalmOS, whatever)? Seems
like that'll be a lot of executables to host, and they'll all need to
be updated whenever an interpreter or game gets an upgrade.

I think a better comparison is with the e-book market: people like Palm
Digital Media (Peanut Press that was) and such. To read an e-book, you
need both the book file and the reader program (like Palm Reader). Palm
Reader will quite happily 'play' multiple formats of e-books: PDM
files, DOC files, whatever. You can get it in PocketPC and Palm
versions, and Windows and Mac versions. When you buy an e-book off
their site, they ship you a package with both the reader and the book
file in it, with instructions for installing the reader. It's not
rocket science, it's targeted to a mainstream audience, and it Just
Works.

My feeling is we should set up a website, pick one best-of-breed player
for each OS and VM, and make a nice webby interface where you pick your
platform, the game you want, and viola, download. Maybe a customised
installer that checks for the presence of a player and
installs/upgrades if necessary, just adds the game file to the library
if not. How hard does it need to be?

I'd prefer if there were one IF player per platform that could handle
multiple VMs, and an iTunes-like thingy sounds great to me, especially
if we could wrap some kind of review / comment function around it.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 1:33:49 AM8/1/06
to
And yes, when an interpreter is installed it should of course set
itself to handle double-clicking on a game file or savefile or shortcut
as running that game or savefile with the minimum of fuss, so that an
installer should it wish to can just scatter shortcut icons wherever it
wants: desktop, start menu, whatever. I don't see how we can't get the
best of both worlds.

Just like you can play a movie or MP3 by clicking on it, or by opening
it in Windows Media or by putting it in an iTunes playlist.

I think we should start by setting some recommended standards for where
and how a well-behaved IF installer / interpreter / library tool should
look for games, interpreters and savefiles, so that a user can install
IF via a number of methods without ending up with too many conflicting
interpreters.

Right now, IF is where multimedia was in the mid-90s (and still is in
many ways) - the WinAmp vs Windows Media vs QuickTime vs RealPlayer vs
Flash vs DivX vs iTunes codec / extension-binding wars. We don't really
want to recreate that if we don't have to. We don't have control of the
Windows or OSX platform, but we don't have the commercial incentives to
fight with each other for market share either. Surely we can work
something sensible out?

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 11:59:38 AM8/1/06
to
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
> A lot of what you've talked aboutseems to amount to just that: "Let's
> take the Z-machine, and strap on some skins and an auto-loader."
> That's *not* the answer. If you want to really lower the barriers to
> entry, you need to rebuild the system *from the ground up*, building
> the usability in at every level, not just as an afterthought.

At this point, I will only say we must agree to disagree and move on. I
have my biases for promoting IF.

--- Off Topic ---

A perfect example of this is that if I were a developer capable of
creating an entire IF platform, I _would_ build it from the ground up.
I would still use an IF-focused language such as Inform 7's, but it
would not compile to the Z-Machine or Glulx. It would compile to the
JVM or .NET's CLR.

I think Graham opened up Pandora's Box with the I6 include
functionality in I7. Now it's clear that you could do the same thing
with a generalized language. Of course you'd want to have several
layers of syntax. The top layer would be something akin to I7. The next
layer would seemingly be some hybrid of TADS 3 and Inform 6 or possibly
something entirely new that Andrew Plotkin's brain hasn't quite
conceived yet. The layer below that would be Java or C#.

But each layer would have a clear set of rules for communicating
complex data structures up and down the architecture.

I can think of one reason this might be beneficial. A tool developer
could then build a complex help or conversation system in C# that
included graphics, sound, and had some rudimentary artifical
intelligence. A middle layer would give access to it and the top layer
would consume it. Another way to look at it is that the parser
determines what data is being requested, gets the data in a format that
the top layer will understand, and the top layer reads that data and
reports to the user.

Inform 7 is great for doing a lot of things, but one of its weaknesses
is still mass quantities of structured data. It stil doesn't do this
very efficiently. The table structure is a monumental step forward, but
if that were backended by a general programming language and/or
database, an author might have a lot more flexibility in how they
report responses to the player.

Anyway - I digress.

David C.

Tor Andersson

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 1:39:35 PM8/1/06
to
ChicagoDave wrote:
> --- Off Topic ---
>
> A perfect example of this is that if I were a developer capable of
> creating an entire IF platform, I _would_ build it from the ground up.
> I would still use an IF-focused language such as Inform 7's, but it
> would not compile to the Z-Machine or Glulx. It would compile to the
> JVM or .NET's CLR.
> [snip]

--- Even more off topic ---

Please don't. One of the best things about the past and existing
systems
is that their I/O model has been very simple and clearly separated from
the language itself. Thanks to this, programs like Gargoyle and
Spatterlight
have been possible. I can't do the same for DOS games, for instance;
we'll
just have to live with whatever UI they originally had, ugly or not.

If you make a system using a generic language, then you'll probably
also
make the UI and I/O model in the same language as the IF story.
So updating the player or changing the interface if the author fails to
make a visually pleasing UI will be nigh impossible.

Tor

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 1:58:32 PM8/1/06
to
Tor Andersson wrote:
>
> Please don't. One of the best things about the past and existing
> systems is that their I/O model has been very simple and clearly
> separated from the language itself. Thanks to this, programs like
> Gargoyle and Spatterlight have been possible. I can't do the same
> for DOS games, for instance; we'll just have to live with whatever
> UI they originally had, ugly or not.
>
> If you make a system using a generic language, then you'll probably
> also make the UI and I/O model in the same language as the IF story.
> So updating the player or changing the interface if the author fails to
> make a visually pleasing UI will be nigh impossible.

Well I would view being able to use C# and DirectX as a sizable gain on
the Windows side. I can't speak for the OS X or Linux side of things,
but with Mono and their eventual implementation of System.Drawing, you
would have options. Where Java is concerned I don't if I understand
this either. Volity.Com has done a remarkable job using Java.

I can't see how the I/O model _has_ to be tied to the top level
authoring language. The way I see it, the I/O layer would have a
provider at the C# level which is consumed by the middle layer (no name
for this yet), which in turn is consumed by the top level I7-like
layer.

This likely lead to top level source that had to be compiled with
different platform I/O layers and that's a loss for cross-platformness.

But the gains of having a generic language and all of its associated
APIs _available_ to the IF Platform would outweigh the benefits of
single-compile to single-game-file for multiple-platforms.

I _know_ this is heresay, but it's my view and I'm sticking to it.

David C.

Nathan

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 4:25:45 PM8/1/06
to
ChicagoDave wrote:

> Tor Andersson wrote:
> >
> > If you make a system using a generic language, then you'll probably
> > also make the UI and I/O model in the same language as the IF story.
> > So updating the player or changing the interface if the author fails to
> > make a visually pleasing UI will be nigh impossible.
>
> Well I would view being able to use C# and DirectX as a sizable gain on
> the Windows side.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. One of the most wonderful things
about the IF systems we have is their portability. I can play new .z5
games on my DOS machine in Infocom's Beyond Zork interpreter, if I
really want to (I don't). I can play a lot of the available IF on my
wife's Diamond Mako. Even if I want to run some multimedia-laden
Glulx game or one of the new I7 creations, the interpreter I need is
small and fast. I hate hate hate the idea of using any of those bloated
modern systems (Java, .NET, etc.) for IF. And I think I'm in the
majority. Why should one need to install one of these slow,
gargantuan beasts to play a *text* game?!

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 5:33:57 PM8/1/06
to
> Nathan wrote:
> And I think I'm in the
> majority. Why should one need to install one of these slow,
> gargantuan beasts to play a *text* game?!

Majority of what? The IF community or the average computer user?

I'll give you the IF community.

The average computer user could care less, as long as it does what it's
supposed to do.

And as I said, the gains in extensibility (to me) offset the stuff you
(and the community) so vociferously defend.

This is of course _all_ theoretical and has no concrete action
committed to it. None of the primary platform developers agree with me
and I don't have the skills to build a platform on my own.

So relax...it's just my opinion. And I'm only wrong until I build my
vision of an IF platform and it fails. Until then, it's just a pipe
dream.

David C.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 7:39:45 PM8/1/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:
> > Nathan wrote:
> > And I think I'm in the
> > majority. Why should one need to install one of these slow,
> > gargantuan beasts to play a *text* game?!
>
> Majority of what? The IF community or the average computer user?

If you're talking about making .NET a prerequisite, I think you mean
'average *Windows* user'.

PalmOS still doesn't have .NET. How many OS X users know or care about
Mono?

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 7:51:53 PM8/1/06
to
> na...@natecull.org wrote:
>
> If you're talking about making .NET a prerequisite, I think you mean
> 'average *Windows* user'.
>
> PalmOS still doesn't have .NET. How many OS X users know or care about
> Mono?

Within a year or two, mono will be available for nearly all platforms.
Whether the user cars or not is immaterial.

David C.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 8:46:59 PM8/1/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:

> > na...@natecull.org wrote:
> > PalmOS still doesn't have .NET. How many OS X users know or care about
> > Mono?
>
> Within a year or two, mono will be available for nearly all platforms.
> Whether the user cars or not is immaterial.

I'd like to share your enthusiasm about Mono. I really would. But I
notice even the official Mono OS X page only talks about "the latest
package" being for Panther. Tiger's been out for how long now? Unless
Apple ships a Mono in the default build, the user is going to *need* to
care.

And point me to someone, anyone, even contemplating Mono-for-PalmOS,
please. The Treo's not dead yet, and I'm not planning on giving up my
Tungsten anytime soon. You'd rather I replace it with a Pocket PC? Over
my cold dead stylus.

And despite Novell's energetic support, I'm not 100% convinced the
patent issues have gone away so much as been conveniently overlooked.
Novell have made spectaularly wrong strategic decisions before, and
they have a habit of adopting then dropping the latest shiny technology
(and I say this as a longtime Novell user). Not saying they will,
but... I don't see them completely betting the farm on Mono the way
Microsoft has on maintaining their .NET technology lead, and I don't
see Microsoft at all ever saying Windows.Forms is patent-safe. You may
be less paranoid than I am, but paranoia in the past with respect to
Microsoft has usually been insufficient.

I am starting to play with .NET... and I have to say, Visual Studio
2003 on XP is a wonderful environment. It's like Visual BASIC grown up.
But there's a world of difference between something that works great in
the Microsoft walled garden with all latest service packs and something
simple and low-key that Just Works Everywhere.

And then there's the issue that the needs of IF may be closer to
dynamic than static languages, and that the .NET CLR is optimised more
toward the static model. Maybe .NET 2.0 makes this less of a problem -
I see the IronPython guys now require the new 2.0 features. Can Ruby
and Perl compile to CLR?

I can see writing an *interpreter* in CLR, sure, that executes a
smaller, generic IF-friendly language, on which other infrastructure
can be built, and I think generally you're on the right track with a
layered VM approach. Just as long as the entire stack doesn't go
crashing down if Mono is unavailable for legal or
platform-incompatibility reasons.

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 9:16:03 PM8/1/06
to
> na...@natecull.org wrote:
> And point me to someone, anyone, even contemplating Mono-for-PalmOS,
> please. The Treo's not dead yet, and I'm not planning on giving up my
> Tungsten anytime soon. You'd rather I replace it with a Pocket PC? Over
> my cold dead stylus.

I actually think a book sized handheld tablet pc will become ubiquitous
in the next couple of years. All the hardware and software are there
and the manufacturers are starting to see the market. I coud see a
foldable LCD in the near future too. I think all of "today's" handhelds
will eventually fade away.

But I wouldn't dream of taking your stylus away from you. :)

> And despite Novell's energetic support, I'm not 100% convinced the
> patent issues have gone away so much as been conveniently overlooked.

Well. What would need to happen for MS to fell threatened? Mono would
have to be so successful that it _clearly_ was taking marketshare away
from MS. I just don't see that happening. Microsoft is already working
on .NET 4.0 and mono is still stuck on the 1.0 specs with some 2.0
specs already completed. Mono will always be several steps behind and
as long as that is true, MS won't care.

But even more telling is that Microsoft _hired_ the IronPython creator
to help with dynamic languages. There is a Ruby.NET compiler...go look
up John Gough, the same guy that has already built a Pascal.NET
compiler. There are ML based compilers too.

Microsoft has recognized that they need to win mindshare and they can
no longer do that with pretty upgrades alone. They see the cache that
Google has developed that they understand that the real battle isn't
AJAX or Search...it's coolness.

This is why they're giving away the Express products, built a Robotics
toolkit, sell the XBox, and are on the verge of competing with the
iPod.

Mono is already very successful. There are commercial products that use
it for web services (see Vault source control tool) and web toolkits.
The part that's lagging seriously behind is the WinForms, the
complexity of which Miguel very seriously underestimated. The problem
with System.Windows.Forms isn't the patent...it's that it has direct
calls to Win32.dll in its guts. Novell and Miguel basically have to
recreate Win32.dll in a cross-platform manner. I do not envy this task.

I'm glad you see the value of VS.NET - you should see 2005. It's even
more grown up than 2003 with unit testing, refactoring, and class
designers that are actually usable.

Anyway...the alternate architecture is what interests me....C# on the
bottom, an IF parser/world model/programmable engine in the middle, and
I7 syntax on top. And I think the middle layer should focus on rules,
but in a manner that is very open.

I think Graham has clearly identified why IF was never good in one
syntax. It has internally different problems that require different
ways of specifying solutions. The semantics of these problems is
debatable, but I think its been proven that one syntax does not solve
the entire problem of IF.

David C.

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 1, 2006, 9:58:58 PM8/1/06
to
> ChicagoDave wrote:
> There is a Ruby.NET compiler...go look
> up John Gough, the same guy that has already built a Pascal.NET
> compiler. There are ML based compilers too.

http://plas.fit.qut.edu.au/Ruby.NET/

David C.

Torne

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 9:10:35 AM8/2/06
to
na...@natecull.org wrote:
> I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best way for our situation
> in 2006, though. Infocom had the standard distribution and shipping
> infrastructure where you'd buy a game package for <computer of your
> choice>. We presumably would be distributing these via a website. Do we
> really want to create separate self-installing interpreter+game package
> executables for every permutation of game, interpreter, VM, and OS
> (where OS == OSX, Windows, Linux, PocketPC, PalmOS, whatever)? Seems
> like that'll be a lot of executables to host, and they'll all need to
> be updated whenever an interpreter or game gets an upgrade.

Which is why I suggested dynamically creating these packages on the
server side based on the user's choice of OS (autodetected from browser
by default). The theoretical self-installing package could even notice
that there was an existing 'terp from the same kind of package
installed, and just add the game contained into that (meaning the same
download works for people with or without a 'terp). Eventually this may
help users get the player/mediafile distinction?

--
Torne Wuff
to...@wolfpuppy.org.uk
digital wolf in an analogue forest

Richard Bos

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 3:40:32 PM8/2/06
to
"ChicagoDave" <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If some day IF has a strong niche market, then the delivery methods can
> be simplified into player and game.

I fear that we already know when that some day is, and that it was the
1980s. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad /per se/, but it's not
a hopeful thought for people who want IF to be popular.

Richard

Richard Bos

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 3:40:33 PM8/2/06
to
"ChicagoDave" <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tor Andersson wrote:
> >
> > Please don't. One of the best things about the past and existing
> > systems is that their I/O model has been very simple and clearly
> > separated from the language itself. Thanks to this, programs like
> > Gargoyle and Spatterlight have been possible. I can't do the same
> > for DOS games, for instance; we'll just have to live with whatever
> > UI they originally had, ugly or not.
> >
> > If you make a system using a generic language, then you'll probably
> > also make the UI and I/O model in the same language as the IF story.
> > So updating the player or changing the interface if the author fails to
> > make a visually pleasing UI will be nigh impossible.
>
> Well I would view being able to use C# and DirectX as a sizable gain on
> the Windows side.

Whereas I would see any attempt by what is still in essence a text game
to use BackdoorX as a reason to get rid of it for security reasons; and
no way am I going to install the .COM framework on this machine for a
mere game.

Richard

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 4:16:33 PM8/2/06
to
> Richard Bos wrote:
> I fear that we already know when that some day is, and that it was the
> 1980s. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad /per se/, but it's not
> a hopeful thought for people who want IF to be popular.

I don't believe this. As a parent of small children growing into young
adults, I am appalled at the lack of interactive educational and
entertainment software available for computers. I have spoken to many
parents within the circle of people we've met through our kids' schools
and there's definitely a market for software that isn't based on the
idea of hypnotizing our children.

I believe the market is there and sizable enough to support commercial
IF.

David C.

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 4:18:53 PM8/2/06
to
> Richard Bos wrote:
> Whereas I would see any attempt by what is still in essence a text game
> to use BackdoorX as a reason to get rid of it for security reasons; and
> no way am I going to install the .COM framework on this machine for a
> mere game.

Most PC's shipped today (Windows XP and soon Vista) come with the .NET
Framework installed. Most PC's that have done their upgrades regularly
have it too.

It _would_ be interesting to know how many PC's have the .NET Framework
installed. I wonder if there's a webtrends that shows this info since
it gets passed in HTTP headers.

David C.

Mike Snyder

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 4:21:56 PM8/2/06
to
"ChicagoDave" <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154549793.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

My daughter isn't quite a year old yet, but I'm already thinking about the
kinds of kid-friendly IF I might write. Anything from simple storybook
games, to games geared toward learning -- science, history, math, etc. I
just wonder at what age she might have a reading level to actually *use*
these games, and would this make her old enough that other forms of learning
are more desirable?

In general, though, kid-friendly IF that does nothing but encourage reading
would be a plus. Games written specifically *for* kids would be even better.
I'm going to get my daughter interested in IF some day, if I can keep her
away from my shelves full of video games. :)

---- Mike.


Adam Thornton

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 5:26:12 PM8/2/06
to
In article <1154549793.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,

ChicagoDave <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>there's definitely a market for software that isn't based on the
>idea of hypnotizing our children.

Why do you hate America so much, Dave? If you can't hypnotize the
children, you can't target them with ads, and if you don't expose them
to ads, you're preventing companies from selling things to them, and if
you do that it can only mean that YOU HATE CAPITALISM AND THE BABY JESUS
WHICH ARE THE SAME THING.

Get out of the forum, terrorist.

Adam

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 8:56:14 PM8/2/06
to
Mike Snyder wrote:
> My daughter isn't quite a year old yet, but I'm already thinking about the
> kinds of kid-friendly IF I might write. Anything from simple storybook
> games, to games geared toward learning -- science, history, math, etc. I
> just wonder at what age she might have a reading level to actually *use*
> these games, and would this make her old enough that other forms of learning
> are more desirable?
>
> In general, though, kid-friendly IF that does nothing but encourage reading
> would be a plus. Games written specifically *for* kids would be even better.
> I'm going to get my daughter interested in IF some day, if I can keep her
> away from my shelves full of video games. :)

I think the right age will be somewhere between 8 and 14 depending on
reading/writing ability. I think what's more telling though is that
parents are more involved now and will be very open to IF as an
alternative to television and video games.

I have already worked on a game with my eldest, Gabby, and she caught
on to the whole thing instantly. It's called "Gabby goes to the Moon"
and when we're done we will release it.

One of the local librarians here is rabidly interested in Inform 7 for
her weekly middle-school age creative writing class.

The market is there.

David C.

Jon Barker

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 6:18:34 AM8/3/06
to
On 31 Jul 2006 18:20:45 -0700, "John Bruce" <aras...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>ChicagoDave wrote:

>
>Technically, I got into this habit playing IF on the bus to school.
>Then on the bus to work. Now that I no longer bus to work, it's mostly
>because I just prefer consuming IF that way; it feels more like
>fiction, less like Word. And when I'm 50 people from the front of the
>line at the post office, I can pull out my PDA and - bam - there's some
>IF to while the time away. Same as carrying around a novel or eBook
>reader.
>
>Admittedly, many of the 'terps are painful to use, and even the best
>can't provide the speed and flexibility of a keyboard. If I had a
>laptop or tablet PC, (or one of those flashy Origamis) I'd use it
>instead without regrets. But nonetheless, I do use a handheld for
>playing IF and do so mostly with success.

What terp do you use for your PDA? I use Kronos for my Palm and it's
great, just click on a word in the text and a list pops up with
actions to carry out on that word. You can just about do any game
with the minimal of typing/graffiti for text entry.

--

Cheers,

Jon Barker

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 9:40:01 PM8/3/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:
> > na...@natecull.org wrote:

> > And despite Novell's energetic support, I'm not 100% convinced the
> > patent issues have gone away so much as been conveniently overlooked.
>
> Well. What would need to happen for MS to fell threatened? Mono would
> have to be so successful that it _clearly_ was taking marketshare away
> from MS. I just don't see that happening. Microsoft is already working
> on .NET 4.0 and mono is still stuck on the 1.0 specs with some 2.0
> specs already completed. Mono will always be several steps behind and
> as long as that is true, MS won't care.

But we don't have any assurance that that's true. Not legally. If they
have patents - and they do - on more than just the CLR, if they have
patents on the higher-level libraries, they can *force* things like
Mono to forever be not-quite-feature-complete. And as you point out,
this is a situation that they very much want. You think some desire to
be seen as 'cool' will stop that?

The problem is, this is an old, old story that's been playing out with
various technologies since the 1970s. You only have to look at the SCO
lawsuit to realise that if it's not on paper, in triplicate, that
you've got the rights to use a technology, then you have to assume that
somewhere down the line you'll be sued for using it.

> Microsoft has recognized that they need to win mindshare and they can
> no longer do that with pretty upgrades alone. They see the cache that
> Google has developed that they understand that the real battle isn't
> AJAX or Search...it's coolness.

I respectfully disagree.

The *real* battle Microsoft needs to fight is to win back *trust*, not
coolness. It's trust that they burned, slowly but surely, when they
moved from the DOS era of being a cheap open platform where anyone
could play, to the Windows/Office/MSN era of being an aggressive
monopoly that absorbs all technologies created in its space and crushes
any it can't absorb. Now they're seen as evil and abusive, but they
have such a huge captive audience via technological lock-in (and a vast
fringe of hangers-on who don't even understand ethical issues and just
follow the latest shiny lights) that "let them hate us as long as they
fear us" and "bread and circuses" continue to be successful strategies.

The problem is that very few MS executives have yet realised this, and
those who do care still have not taken the essential steps that would
reverse their reputation slide.

A "cool" technology, no matter how powerful, without detailed,
irrevocable, legally-binding assurance that it's not just another
Trojan horse for killing competition, is always going to be more of a
hazard than it is a benefit, to anyone who's not fully signed on to the
Microsoft payroll and thus protected from legal backlash.

What MS needs to do is state clearly, on the record, not via bloggy
backchannels and vague hints and experimental research projects, but in
a legally binding declaration, that they will not prosecute anyone who
reverse-engineers CLR-based technologies, including all libraries
required to be fully compatible with Vista and friends. Or, if they're
not comfortable doing that, then they need to clearly indicate a bright
line between what's kosher to replicate in a free project, and what
they will sue over.

Until then, I really have little interest in building foundational free
software on top of a giant ticking patent bomb. I mean, even *MP3* is
not lawsuit-safe these days - why should we even look at something huge
and sprawling and deeply interwoven like .NET until we know what can
and can't kill us?

Glulx, on the other hand, is not patented by Zarf, as far as I'm aware,
and that *is* a technology that's perfectly safe to implement on as
many platforms as we can find.

There's paranoia and then there's simple situational awareness and
self-defense.


> Anyway...the alternate architecture is what interests me....C# on the
> bottom, an IF parser/world model/programmable engine in the middle, and
> I7 syntax on top. And I think the middle layer should focus on rules,
> but in a manner that is very open.

Assuming 'C#' is replaced by 'some future free, legally-safe,
cross-platform object technology which may or may not actually be
CLR-based' - hmm, maybe. I still think that there's a lot of low-level
services (such as save/load and undo, dynamic typing, and a strong
security sandbox that prevents game code from making arbitrary desktop
calls) that an IF VM needs to provide that are not generally provided
by an enterprise object VM like Java or CLR. Possibly we might be able
to get memory management for free.

I think such a layer might end up being an interpreter for something
much smaller, like Glulx or T3, anyway. I notice that even the Ruby.NET
guys say 'To achieve full semantic compatibility, many sections of our
runtime library implementation mirrors the structure of the Ruby 1.8.2
interpreter code.' -- in other words, their compiler, like the old
Visual BASIC compiler, essentially just makes p-code that's executed by
an interpreter runtime.

Given this, though, yes, I think there should be multiple layers of
world-model and syntax above this base.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 10:29:32 PM8/3/06
to
One thing I am interested in, is how easy it would be to implement a
logic programming language (like TPL) on top of a static object system,
such as C#/CLR, as opposed to on top of a more low-level abstract von
Neumann machine like Glulx. What the performance gains and losses, eg,
would be.

The other observation I would make is that probably implementing a Glk
binding in C# would be the first step toward C# IF, and is something
that shouldn't be that hard to do.

Still trying to get my head around what the security, namespacing,
library, etc, primitives of CLR/.NET are, and how one goes about
writing cross-language bindings.

ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 4, 2006, 11:13:44 AM8/4/06
to
> na...@natecull.org wrote:

I agree with the previous post. There are no guarantees. I just believe
it doesn't serve Microsoft's best interests to attack something like
mono. That would be in large part biting the hand that feeds them,
which is developers. But even in the worst case scenario, mono is legit
in its core. The only major concern is really System.Windows.Forms, but
Miguel seem spretty confident that if the worst became true, he could
adapt their code to an alternate architecture, call it
Mono.Windows.Forms, and move on. The only thing we'd lose is the
ability to use VS.NET to test stuff and then port it to mono.

But I mostly agree with your fears, or at least I understand them and
respect them.

The security in the CLR is pretty amazing. the granularity with which
you can deny/allow permissions is one of the great things about .NET
that's rarely discussed.

Cross language bindings? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As
far as I know, the only problems you'd have in crossing languages were
if you used the p/invoke capability. Other than that, the CLR, and CTS
(Common Type System) make sure that all CLR based languages can use
each others resulting assemblies.

One of the better books about the CLR is the Don Box book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201734117

And then the creator of C#, Anders Hejlsberg's C# book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321334434

But what I think needs to happen for an IF Platform to be reduced to
architectural semantics is that we need to take it apart and see what
sort of things developers and authors need for different things.

For instance...

Storage and Data
Why not make storage and data access a standard interface and then let
developers create their own solutions? With something like this
implemented, extensibility to messaging, databases, and the internet
become available and I think it would very interesting to see what
hackers do with this ability.

Rules Engine
I think this is where a lot of discussion has been in regards to I7 and
it would be interesting to build an IF library from scratch based on
rules. I'd really like to see all of the presumptions thrown out.
Supporters, Containers, Doors, and all of the other aspects of a
library that drive one mad.

And as you said, memory management, logic programming, etc. All of
these things could be detailed as we learn more about what works best
for IF.

David C.

Richard Bos

unread,
Aug 5, 2006, 5:24:49 PM8/5/06
to
"ChicagoDave" <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Richard Bos wrote:
> > Whereas I would see any attempt by what is still in essence a text game
> > to use BackdoorX as a reason to get rid of it for security reasons; and
> > no way am I going to install the .COM framework on this machine for a
> > mere game.
>
> Most PC's shipped today (Windows XP and soon Vista) come with the .NET
> Framework installed.

Not mine, though.

> Most PC's that have done their upgrades regularly have it too.

Not mine, though. I don't trust M$ enough to just blindly accept any
upgrade, and a damn good thing it is, too (see also: WGA, IE7).

Richard

Kevin Forchione

unread,
Aug 5, 2006, 9:14:17 PM8/5/06
to
"Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:44d4f8a8...@news.xs4all.nl...

> Not mine, though. I don't trust M$ enough to just blindly accept any
> upgrade, and a damn good thing it is, too (see also: WGA, IE7).

So what are you running?

--Kevin


ChicagoDave

unread,
Aug 5, 2006, 11:17:35 PM8/5/06
to
> Richard Bos wrote:
> >
> > Most PC's shipped today (Windows XP and soon Vista) come with the .NET
> > Framework installed.
>
> Not mine, though.

Well. Most PC's except for the overly paranoid windows-haters. (:

Dude...the 1.1 .NET framework has been around for 6 years. If that
isn't "tested", I don't know what is.

David C.

na...@natecull.org

unread,
Aug 6, 2006, 7:18:07 PM8/6/06
to

ChicagoDave wrote:
> > na...@natecull.org wrote:

> > Still trying to get my head around what the security, namespacing,
> > library, etc, primitives of CLR/.NET are, and how one goes about
> > writing cross-language bindings.
>
> The security in the CLR is pretty amazing. the granularity with which
> you can deny/allow permissions is one of the great things about .NET
> that's rarely discussed.

Yes, well. That's as may be. My first introduction to the .NET security
system was my attempt last week to install Visual Studio .NET 2003 onto
an XP SP1 machine with a home directory on a shared network server . It
wouldn't allow me to compile anything until I ran an arcane security
override (caspol.exe) which I still don't know what it did.

Not the most inspiring of beginnings.


>
> Cross language bindings? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As
> far as I know, the only problems you'd have in crossing languages were
> if you used the p/invoke capability. Other than that, the CLR, and CTS
> (Common Type System) make sure that all CLR based languages can use
> each others resulting assemblies.

Well, mostly I mean, disentangling the semantics of what the CLR
provides from what VB and Visual Studio provides. Very easy to just go
clicky-click compile in VS.NET, but knowing what works across VS,
SharpDevelop, MonoDevelop, C#, J#, and... what the heck is 'Boo',
anyway, and why is it in MonoDevelop by default? Where do you put an
assembly, do you need to set any equivalent of Java's 'Classpath' to
make it work, how do you locate libraries. That stuff gets tricky, at
least to me.


> But what I think needs to happen for an IF Platform to be reduced to
> architectural semantics is that we need to take it apart and see what
> sort of things developers and authors need for different things.

Hmm. Well, the core things I think we need are:

* I/O model - don't see why we can't use Glk, unless it's amazingly
broken somehow
* Save, load and undo a running game image (doing this from inside a VM
may mean defining your own 'game object' class with explicit
serialisation or transaction/rollback support, and it will probably
still be slow compared to doing it outside the VM)
* A suitably generic data model that is fast to execute and makes very
few assumptions about what kind of world it represents.
* If we have any possibility for Internet access: either a way of
completely disallowing Internet access without exception, or an
insanely complicated, detailed and guaranteed unbreakable security
scheme. Otherwise, welcome to a whole new world of trojans in your
games. (Flash is heading in this direction - I don't see it as a
feature.)

The rest can be built on that.

0 new messages