Inform really need the "at" in commands?
Drummer_Geek
played IF 20 years ago and even wrote my own game back then in BASIC.
I recently learned of Inform and this whole "underground" of IF and
have rekindled my fire to port my "Tropic Survival" game. As I forge
into this process of convert, play/debug, something is really starting
to bug me. Being "old school" I frequently want to type "look bones"
and get the "You can't...such thing" message. However, "look at bones"
of course works. I know, it must be covered somewhere how to deal with
this, but searching the usegroups for "at" didn't sound too promising.
Hahaha! I've gotten most of the way through the IBG and starting the
500+page DM4, but beginning to get discouraged. Seems like "verb noun"
should be allowed when that's sufficient to describe the action
desired, as well as more flowery sentences when desired. I get the
feeling Infor should be powerfull enough to accomodate both styles in
the same game.
I'm having a good time with Inform otherwise and doing some pretty
interesting stuff.
Mike
David Fisher
news:1130467457....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Being "old school" I frequently want to type "look bones"
> and get the "You can't...such thing" message. However, "look at bones"
> of course works. I know, it must be covered somewhere how to deal with
> this, but searching the usegroups for "at" didn't sound too promising.
Add this line somewhere after #include "Grammar.h":
Extend 'look' * noun -> Examine;
This will add a new rule for the 'look' verb, defined in Grammar.h ... for
more info, have a look at section 30 of the Inform Designer's manual.
Hope this is helpful,
David Fisher
Drummer_Geek
it to section 30 yet, gulp, :) but will read it next. Lots of reading.
I have 20 years to catch up on.
You do have me wondering why this "little mod" wasn't "standard" lib
and perhaps what compromise I've imposed in my parser by using it.
There was some wisdom in NOT having it there, I'm sure. Overall, I
have been hesitant to make many of these kinds of changes purely on the
basis that I want to first learn the "philosophy" of the tool before I
impose my own philos, deferring to the wisdom of time and masses. In
this one case though, I don't mind paying the as yet unknown price due
to my stubborn old ways. I'm just too stuck on the "look lamp" syntax.
Overall, this is such fun breathing new life into my old game, while
leveraging the tool to add some new twists to my old friend.
Mike
Dan Shiovitz
Drummer_Geek <on...@mailinator.com> wrote:
[about allowing the syntax 'look thing']
>You do have me wondering why this "little mod" wasn't "standard" lib
>and perhaps what compromise I've imposed in my parser by using it.
>There was some wisdom in NOT having it there, I'm sure. Overall, I
There's not any good reason for not supporting >LOOK THING, that I
know of, except that it's not a standard IF phrasing. I mean,
obviously it's not perfectly grammatical, but neither is >TAKE THING.
I guess the real reason IF languages don't tend to support >LOOK THING
is because the conventional short form is >X THING ('x' as an
abbreviation for 'examine').
By the way, rec.games.int-fiction is only intended for discussion of
playing games; you're likely to get a better response if you ask
questions about writing/modifying games on rec.arts.int-fiction.
>Mike
--
Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
David Fisher
> Hey thanks, very helpfull, worked like a champ. I guess I hadn't
> made it to section 30 yet, gulp, :) but will read it next.
> Lots of reading. I have 20 years to catch up on.
>
> You do have me wondering why this "little mod" wasn't "standard" lib
> and perhaps what compromise I've imposed in my parser by using it.
Not much - "look <object>" wasn't doing anything anyway ...
> There was some wisdom in NOT having it there, I'm sure. Overall, I
> have been hesitant to make many of these kinds of changes purely on the
> basis that I want to first learn the "philosophy" of the tool before I
> impose my own philos, deferring to the wisdom of time and masses.
The library kind of expects verbs to be extended and changed (thus the
"extend", "replace" etc. commands). I wouldn't worry too much about
customising verbs and messages for your own games. It's a sign of a good
game if you modify the standard responses, actually ...
By the way, the rec.arts.int-fiction group is a better one for coding and
game writing questions - this one is more for posts about specific games.
Have fun with your game (sounds like you already are),
David Fisher
Drummer_Geek
direction.
I meant no disrespect to this groups purpose, I just gotta get my
bearings. Thank you for humoring an old "newbie" and helping me
anyway. :)
So, in the spirit of this groups purpose, I'll leave you with the
opening to my game:
"You stand serenely, gazing at the ocean. All evidence of last
night's storm gone, the peaceful scene in front of you belies no
hint of last night's ordeal. As reality begins to set in, you realize
that this small, deserted tropical island is now your home, and
unless you can get yourself rescued, you could be marooned
here forever, or worse..."
Autymn D. C.
examine bones
x bones
l at bones
watch bones
BTW, don and doff can be used instead of wear and remove. Let me know
when your game is coming out; it sounds interesting.
-Aut
Drummer_Geek
the complex stuff I used to do "with full control over the language"
under the new Inform rules. Now that I think if it, I could post a
before and after when I'm all done. :) I think the after will be much
nicer, but long learning curve. I wrote the original in 2 weeks, but
QuickBasic was my native language, after english. For any really old
gamers/coders, I was inspired by the "Stoneville Manor" printed in 80
Micro if I remember right.
Jess Knoch
>
> You do have me wondering why this "little mod" wasn't "standard" lib
> and perhaps what compromise I've imposed in my parser by using it.
> There was some wisdom in NOT having it there, I'm sure.
I like to think it was because it's improper. Prepositions are more
important than articles, so "take thing" instead of "take the thing" isn't
much of a slip, but "look object" is really bad. If you start tossing out
prepositions, you run into trouble with other verbs. For instance, "throw
<object> in <noun>" maps to the verb Insert while "throw <object> on <noun>"
translates to PutOn, and "throw <object> AT <noun>" is a third action
altogether (ThrowAt).
Luckily, if you enable "look object" in your game, I won't notice because I
won't ever try it. It's only when a game forces that awful phrasing that I
get all bent out of shape :-)
p.s. You can ask in either group (or both!) for beta-testers.
--
Jess K., procrastinating
Drummer_Geek
better phrasing like "L at object" or "x object" . Perhaps you type
"examine the object" every time? But you'd have had a tough time in
the early days of 2-word adventuring. Heck, I did. :) It's
interesting for me to get "caught up" as I read through the do's and
don'ts of IF writing. I'm kinda proud of how my old game still seems
to obey most of the rules, even though it was made before the rules.
Such as, even when the right 2-word phrase was difficult to conjecture,
I gave a gentle nudge as to the correct phrasing. When I implemented
my "maze" (yes everyone did mazes back then) I used a rather original
approach. My method may have long-since been over-done by now for all
I know, but it was unique in it's day. My fear now, is that
audiences/players have matured beyond the simple sophistication of my
game. I think I need to stop writing/converting it and start playing
other modern games to get a feel for where the bar is. Most, if not
all my puzzles seem to have a basis in logic and fact, which may be too
easy for todays audience to solve. One thing that always "bent me out
of shape" was when you had to think of some totally nonsense action to
solve a puzzle. That was just as frustrating to me as trying to find
the right way to say it. With a few examples I've seen recently, I
wonder if that disconnected-logic style is thriving today. Perhaps my
game will be relegated to beginner players for it's logic. Or, perhaps
I need to learn to re-word sections of my game that have PC: "Look
radio" IF: "It's a 2-way radio, maybe you can SEND a MESSAGE on it?"
to something more cryptic like IF: "It appears to have wavelength
adjuster with single side band setting at 20 meters and 40 meters with
FSK and CW mode." and let the player figure out what to type. Naw, I'm
just not that mean. :]
Thanks for the beta offer. Right now I'm finding so many bugs on my
own, I'm kept busy. Like how to create "infinite" items such as sand
(on my beach) or "huge piles of banana peelings" that can be "gettable"
while still leaving piles around. In raw code it was easy for me.
Nelson's "arrows" example is not quite what I need, but I have a hunch
my solution will have to be something related to it. I am progressing
though, slowly, and should have a workable game before I die. :) Well
that's the plan anyway. If I ever get this stuff, I can start fresh on
my "nautical" idea.
Mike
Autymn D. C.
it's -> its
grr
J. Robinson Wheeler
> Drummer_Geek wrote:
> > You do have me wondering why this "little mod" wasn't
> > There was some wisdom in NOT having it there, I'm sure.
Dan Shiovitz wrote:
> There's not any good reason for not supporting >LOOK THING,
> that I know of, except that it's not a standard IF phrasing.
Jess Knoch wrote:
> I like to think it was because it's improper. Prepositions are more
> important than articles, so "take thing" instead of "take the
> thing" isn't much of a slip, but "look object" is really bad.
My memory is that it is not standard IF phrasing because Infocom
didn't like it, and they didn't like it because it was insufficiently
grammatical. I can't back this up (maybe someone else can), but I
seem to recall reading official Infocom documentation of some sort,
wherein they quite nearly bragged about how you had to put the AT
in >LOOK AT, that the old Neanderthal style of LOOK OBJECT was
no longer accepted by civilized parsers.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler Games: http://raddial.com/if/
JRW Digital Media Movie: http://thekroneexperiment.com/