IF Contest Issues
Don Rae
Having too much work to do is not giving me the time I need to finish my
elaborate interactive masterpiece of tomfoolery. I will have to set this
aside for next year.
Having said that, I'd like to generate a discussion concerning the current
state of Interactive Fiction Contest.
I like the general idea of the contest, but I think I would find myself
somewhat reluctant to abide by one of the crucial submission areas: "The
provision of the walkthrough". I believe that this inadvertantly works
against the spirit of the competition, which is to promote IF, keeping it
alive for future players to enjoy.
There are people who would argue that a walkthrough is necessary to judge
the game on its merits - ie. puzzles, gameflow content, etc. However, I
beginning to think that it takes far too much away from the initial reaction
of the fiction experience, and doesn't do much to promote interactive
fiction as a viable source of personal entertainment (negatively affecting
it's overall appeal).
Imagine picking up a book and reading it after someone has told you how the
protaganist deals with all of the problems, and you know how it all ends.
Can a person successfully judge the amount of enjoyment thet would have had,
if they had to learn it all for themselves? No offense to anyone, but I
cannot believe that this kind of impartiality cannot possibly lend itself to
a fair judgement of the IF experience offered by the submitted piece.
And...when the contest is over, the prizes are awarded, and the pieces are
publicly available - they are inherently tainted by the temptation of having
a spoiler in place, ready and available to download. This doesn't give the
player much encouragement to enjoy the piece, and do some actual thinking.
It just focuses the main attention on the puzzles in IF, perhaps far more
than necessary.
A good game/IF experience will allow the player to be absorbed in it, and
the puzzles will either have logical solutions - or they simply won't be
resolvable, which would thus speak volumes about the quality of the
offering.
If this is the case, why can't this kind of judgement be the only deciding
factor in the contest?
A good game will usually consist of the capability to get through at least
75% of it without help, unless it is "designed specifically to tax the
expert puzzle solver". (Lord knows, there has been enough discussion on
this). In this, maybe the judge may not finish the game, but the quality of
the experience would still remain. This, to me, seems to be the only factor
that counts.
Does anyone else care to share their opinion on this?
- Don
Adam Cadre
> And...when the contest is over, the prizes are awarded, and the pieces are
> publicly available - they are inherently tainted by the temptation of having
> a spoiler in place, ready and available to download.
Not everyone is that weak-willed. Those who are have a character fault
they should work on correcting.
-----
Adam Cadre, Issaquah, WA
http://adamcadre.ac
Paul O'Brian
> I like the general idea of the contest, but I think I would find myself
> somewhat reluctant to abide by one of the crucial submission areas: "The
> provision of the walkthrough".
From the rules posted at http://www.textfire.com/comp99/enter.html:
"If you wish, you can submit a walkthrough for my testing purposes but not
for general release to the judges."
Just so we can keep this debate in perspective, let's remember that no
entrant is required to provide a walkthrough to judges. My own experience
judging games in the contest is that I use walkthroughs or hints whenever
I determine that they will make the playing experience more rewarding.
Usually this happens when I decide that the puzzles or implementation are
so poor that it's not worth my time to try to figure them out. However,
there are times when I want to see more of a good but difficult game
before my two hours are up -- I remember this happening with "Sunset Over
Savannah" and "The Arrival", to name two very good examples. I'm
comfortable with the "fun" I lose by making this choice, but the way I see
it is that it's my choice as a player/judge, and I like having the option
open to me.
--
Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
"Sometimes even music cannot substitute for tears."
-- Paul Simon
Don Rae
>Just so we can keep this debate in perspective, let's remember that no
>entrant is required to provide a walkthrough to judges. My own experience
>judging games in the contest is that I use walkthroughs or hints whenever
>I determine that they will make the playing experience more rewarding.
>Usually this happens when I decide that the puzzles or implementation are
>so poor that it's not worth my time to try to figure them out.
I guess this speaks for itself, apparently - as I was attempting to suggest.
The body of the work is judged accordingly, as it should be.
>However,
>there are times when I want to see more of a good but difficult game
>before my two hours are up -- I remember this happening with "Sunset Over
>Savannah" and "The Arrival", to name two very good examples. I'm
>comfortable with the "fun" I lose by making this choice, but the way I see
>it is that it's my choice as a player/judge, and I like having the option
>open to me.
You do have a very valid point here. But if we are solely speaking about
this in terms of "the IF contest" itself - would this ultimately have
affected your choice, as a judge, if you didn't have a solution handy and
you were intrigued enough to keep pressing onward? Doesn't this, by itself,
say something about the quality of the work?
What I think I might be suggesting is that the "two hour limit for judging"
may not be the only practical way to conduct the means of adjudication for
the contest. An enjoyable, thoughtful piece may deserve 5 or more hours of
study (which a judge is likely to do anyway), vs a boring, unengaging piece
that is clearly not in a comparable category. The better works will end up
taking up more time than the others, giving the judge a little bit more to
compare the quality of their experiences with the offered work.
Then, maybe instead of the tendancy to summarize the "overall content" -
maybe there might be a bit more leaning towards the work's "addictive
qualities" and "the challenge offered" and "the essence of the enjoyed
experience". Isn't "being highly entertained" the best qualification for
choosing the winner?
But right now, I would suggest that the format of the contest lends itself
to shorter entries only. Why? Because if I want to submit a larger work,
the current judging format compels one to submit a complete walkthrough,
just so the judges can experience some of the periodical climaxes and
substance of the game.
I feel that this cannot sufficiently account for the experience of going
through it alone, taking the time to do it.
Remember the emotional upheaval the average player went through when they
got to the point where Floyd died in "Planetfall"? Why was this so special
a moment in the IF experience? It was because the player spent a lot of
actual time with the character - getting to know him, getting to like him,
getting annoyed with him, becoming his friend....etc. It was time very well
spent, since it introduced the element of emotional appeal and sympathy for
the NPC character(s). (I have seen very few IF works that have held that
kind of attention since then)
A 2 hour judging time just cannot offer a fair appraisal of that same kind
of experience. And thus, it is pointless to attempt that level of writing,
only to have it glossed over in a hurry in the contest. Why would anyone
bother with that, when it's much easier to build a small game with an
endless variety of humorous puzzles?
So this is why I'm thinking that the current format of the contest is
ultimately self-defeating - you won't often get that ideal level of quality
in the contest. Very few will put that kind of time into a work when they
know the judges are only looking at it for two hours...instead devoting
their time into doing something short and cute, or somewhat experimental, or
something funny, thus getting more attention a little more easily (achieving
notice in the same manner as the average commerical does on TV). This was
evidenced in the kinds of works that were submitted last year, as I suspect
it will be this year.
Please be aware that I'm not criticizing anyone, or putting these kinds of
works down....not at all....I like them very much on their own merit.
They're fun and enjoyable too. But I would just like to see a lot more of
the character-driven work as well, where the player's invested time is a
real factor in the value of the gameplay experience, encouraging better,
more challenging work from everyone who is involved in the IF contest, or
who is writing IF in general. An adjustment to the judging format of the IF
contest just might achieve this, and we might all benefit from it through
seeing more high quality work come out on a regular basis.
Believe me, I'm not complaining. I just want to see if the envelope can be
pushed a little more, now that IF is beginning to regain a solid foothold in
the internet community. And something in me really wants to say to the
world: "I offer you a challenge. I hope you take me up on it, and that you
enjoy it on your own" without having to "put the entire plotline somewhere
in the index".
- Don
Andrew Plotkin
> But right now, I would suggest that the format of the contest lends itself
> to shorter entries only. Why? Because if I want to submit a larger work,
> the current judging format compels one to submit a complete walkthrough,
> just so the judges can experience some of the periodical climaxes and
> substance of the game.
The format of the contest is *intended* for shorter entries. The two-hour
rule was invented to solve the problem "How do we accept only short works
into this contest?"
It works pretty well, for the reasons you describe.
This is more or less intended to give shorter works a place to thrive. A
longer game is more impressive simply because the player spends more time
in it. We were concerned: would anyone even bother writing an experiment,
a joke game, or a one-scene mood fragment, if it was going to be competing
with _Curses_ or _Theatre_?
Long games are released fairly infrequently, and usually get a fair amount
of attention on their own. And (of course) they are eligible for XYZZY
awards. So the competition is still about short games.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Stephen Granade
> But right now, I would suggest that the format of the contest lends itself
> to shorter entries only. Why? Because if I want to submit a larger work,
> the current judging format compels one to submit a complete walkthrough,
> just so the judges can experience some of the periodical climaxes and
> substance of the game.
This is intentional. The original competition was designed to
encourage short games, especially short experimental games. Outside of
the contest, short games often garner no discussion. Inside the
contest, it's too dark[1].
Long games will inevitably be slighted in any kind of competition
which involves judging which must take place before a deadline. If
I have five long games to play and six weeks in which to play them,
chances are I'll start skipping around in an attempt to see them all
and will end up only finishing the shorter ones. I doubt I'm alone in
this.
Stephen
[1] You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Visit About.com's IF Page
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.about.com
Paul O'Brian
> Paul O'Brian wrote:
> >I use walkthroughs or hints whenever
> >I determine that they will make the playing experience more rewarding.
> >Usually this happens when I decide that the puzzles or implementation are
> >so poor that it's not worth my time to try to figure them out.
>
> I guess this speaks for itself, apparently - as I was attempting to suggest.
> The body of the work is judged accordingly, as it should be.
Huh? I don't understand what your statements mean. I don't downgrade a
game because it includes a walkthrough, if that's what you're suggesting.
I use a walkthrough after I've evaluated enough of the game to know that
I'm not interested in battering my head against the author's poor puzzle
design/inability to write/lack of programming skill.
> >[I sometimes use walkthroughs to see more of good games.]
> You do have a very valid point here. But if we are solely speaking about
> this in terms of "the IF contest" itself - would this ultimately have
> affected your choice, as a judge, if you didn't have a solution handy and
> you were intrigued enough to keep pressing onward? Doesn't this, by itself,
> say something about the quality of the work?
Again, I'm not clear on what you're talking about. You use the word
"this" three times, and for none of them is it clear what the "this"
refers to. The inclusion of a walkthrough? My approach to difficult games?
The fact that a game was entered in the contest? And by "my choice as a
judge" do you mean the score I give the game or my decision to keep
playing it up to the 2-hour limit?
> But right now, I would suggest that the format of the contest lends itself
> to shorter entries only.
Bingo. That's what it's supposed to do. Zarf's comment about this point
was right on the money.
[snipped some good points about how long games affect players differently
than short games]
> Please be aware that I'm not criticizing anyone, or putting these kinds of
> works down....not at all....I like them very much on their own merit.
> They're fun and enjoyable too. But I would just like to see a lot more of
> the character-driven work as well, where the player's invested time is a
> real factor in the value of the gameplay experience, encouraging better,
> more challenging work from everyone who is involved in the IF contest, or
> who is writing IF in general.
The IF contest != IF in general. (Or, if you're an Inform programmer, The
IF contest ~= IF in general.)
I'm actually working on a sizable game right now that fits what you're
looking for. I won't enter it in the competition, because I want people to
spend more than two hours with it. This year I've betatested two very
large games, neither of which are suitable for the competition and both of
which very much reward the player for investing a great deal of time in
them.
You see, such games *are* being written. To find them, look beyond the
scope of the contest.
Don Rae
"The format of the contest is *intended* for shorter entries. The two-hour
rule was invented to solve the problem "How do we accept only short works
into this contest?"
(Now I feel a bit more stupid than before. Of course, you are correct. But
I'm not done yet.)
>It works pretty well, for the reasons you describe.
It certainly does.
>
>This is more or less intended to give shorter works a place to thrive. A
>longer game is more impressive simply because the player spends more time
>in it. We were concerned: would anyone even bother writing an experiment,
>a joke game, or a one-scene mood fragment, if it was going to be competing
>with _Curses_ or _Theatre_?
Well, you have a point there. But wouldn't it be fair to say that most of
the new offerings, "contest or not" lately, are mostly shorter
"experiments"? There isn't that much recognition or incentive available for
the larger, grand scale offering. With little incentive offered, thus very
little results. How many of the excellent "short work" authors have gone on
to make larger offerings? Not too many, unfortunately.
>Long games are released fairly infrequently, and usually get a fair amount
>of attention on their own. And (of course) they are eligible for XYZZY
>awards. So the competition is still about short games.
The larger works currently get so much attention, due to them being so rare!
And why is that? Currently there's very little incentive to do it at all,
other than the author's sense of self-satisfaction. (The XYZZY awards give
equal opportunity to shorter games - which are, of course, much easier to
write and implement). The rewards are few for the time invested, especially
since there's a virtual absence of more formalized recognition and
incentives.
Hmmm.....wouldn't it be nice if there was more larger works available?
Perhaps a category for them in the IF contest? Perhaps the promise of
commercial sales might be enough for the winning entrants? I'm only
suggesting possibilities here.
Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. If the people here are even
somewhat serious about reviving IF as a product (commerical sales, maybe in
some kind of on-line offering, CD distribution, or as some kind of
magazine-companion distribution/sales offering), larger works will
eventually have to be forthcoming (and regular) from various authors.
Myself, I would seriously consider extending my current internet/systems
consulting business to do commercial IF distribution, if more of larger
offerings were actually available and visible to the public. Instead, it is
not specifically encouraged - and thus it remains an underground success to
a limited, devoted audience - a terrible shame for such high quality work.
If Infocom can still churn out an occasional Zork yarn, and sell plenty of
copies of it, I don't see why that couldn't apply to an IF market created
through continual free exposure and visibility within the internet medium,
combined with the eventual marketing of said advanced works of IF.
(It wouldn't be impossible to create a internet based commmunity of
developing commercial authors, based upon the co-operative principles that
are already at work here.)
We have a KEYBOARD magazine editor who writes IF here, I'm sorry in advance
for not specifically remembering who you are. I'd like to have your opinion
in this discussion.....
- Don
Don Rae
>> I guess this speaks for itself, apparently - as I was attempting to
suggest.
>> The body of the work is judged accordingly, as it should be.
>
>game because it includes a walkthrough, if that's what you're suggesting.
>I use a walkthrough after I've evaluated enough of the game to know that
>I'm not interested in battering my head against the author's poor puzzle
>design/inability to write/lack of programming skill.
I believe I meant to say: "Why bother with the walkthrough at all, if it's
the judge's foregone conclusion that the work is a waste of their time?" If
the judge didn't enjoy it, a walkthrough isn't going to help the overall
assessment of it, for sure.
Of course, I'm also speaking from the viewpoint that larger games should
have recognition or inclusion in this contest.
>Again, I'm not clear on what you're talking about. You use the word
>"this" three times, and for none of them is it clear what the "this"
>refers to. The inclusion of a walkthrough? My approach to difficult games?
>The fact that a game was entered in the contest? And by "my choice as a
>judge" do you mean the score I give the game or my decision to keep
>playing it up to the 2-hour limit?
This, referring to the walkthrough itself.
If you didn't have a walkthrough, and found yourself up against a wall in a
difficult, but so-far-enjoyable piece - I was suggesting that it probably
wouldn't influence your rating of the work, because you were enjoying it
right up until that point.
>I'm actually working on a sizable game right now that fits what you're
>looking for. I won't enter it in the competition, because I want people to
>spend more than two hours with it. This year I've betatested two very
>large games, neither of which are suitable for the competition and both of
>which very much reward the player for investing a great deal of time in
>them.
>
>You see, such games *are* being written.
But not very often, you must agree with that. And, of course to some of my
points - you say that you are submitting it of your own volition, without
any kind of incentive. If there were more incentives to do so, I'm sure
there would be more experienced authors like you submitting larger works.
>To find them, look beyond the
>scope of the contest.
>
I'll be happy to see it then. It's just too bad that there isn't more
incentive to do this in general, other than the author's personal
satisfaction of a job well done.
Why not target the larger game as a focus point for experienced authors,
make it a special part of the yearly contest? (Other than the XYZZY
contest, I mean - which evaluates all games, large or small).
Charles Gerlach
>
> Some more comments...
>
> >Just so we can keep this debate in perspective, let's remember that no
> >entrant is required to provide a walkthrough to judges. My own experience
> >judging games in the contest is that I use walkthroughs or hints whenever
> >I determine that they will make the playing experience more rewarding.
> >Usually this happens when I decide that the puzzles or implementation are
> >so poor that it's not worth my time to try to figure them out.
>
> I guess this speaks for itself, apparently - as I was attempting to suggest.
> The body of the work is judged accordingly, as it should be.
But to construct a counter-example: suppose someone has written
a moving, lyrical, kick-butt game, that has one puzzle that
must be solved up front to get into the heart of it. The puzzle
is necessary to the plotline, as it ties in with the ending and
brings the whole piece together. There are two subtle hints in
the text as to how to go about solving that first puzzle.
Adventurer A solves the first puzzle in short order and goes on
to experience the rest of the marvelous wonders. Adventurer B
doesn't get the clues (perhaps they are culturally specific)
and spends two hours beating his head against the wall, pleading
for a hint, which the author has not provided.
Can Adventurer B possibly give a reasonable value judgement to the
*entire* game? The rest of the game is perfect by everyone's
standards, but there is one little glitch at the beginning. You
apparently want Adventurer B to judge the game not on what is in
it, but on what B is capable of getting to within two hours.
Unfortunately for you, B might be an idiot.
Personally, I have a very low tolerance for being stuck. (I have
great empathy with adventurer B.) If walk-throughs and hints were
not included with any game, then I would rate a game I could solve
higher than a game I could not, if they appeared to be comparably
well written. If most other people feel this way, then puzzle-less
or puzzle-easy games will tend to win.
[snip]
> What I think I might be suggesting is that the "two hour limit for judging"
> may not be the only practical way to conduct the means of adjudication for
> the contest. An enjoyable, thoughtful piece may deserve 5 or more hours of
> study (which a judge is likely to do anyway), vs a boring, unengaging piece
> that is clearly not in a comparable category. The better works will end up
> taking up more time than the others, giving the judge a little bit more to
> compare the quality of their experiences with the offered work.
What this sounds like to me is that you want more full- or
medium-sized works, and not the smaller works that the contest
is designed to foster. You are welcome to your opinion, and you
are also welcome to start your own contest, or come up with some
other way to spark the development of medium-sized games. I *like*
the smaller games, and I tend to look down on any game that is
obviously too large to be played in two hours, even if it is
excellent in most respects. To me it doesn't meet the spirit of
the contest.
[snip]
--
Charles Gerlach doesn't speak for Northwestern. Surprise, surprise.
Don Rae
>Don Rae wrote:
>> And...when the contest is over, the prizes are awarded, and the pieces
are
>> publicly available - they are inherently tainted by the temptation of
having
>> a spoiler in place, ready and available to download.
>
>Not everyone is that weak-willed. Those who are have a character fault
>they should work on correcting.
>
True, very true.
I think my comment was trying to be focused on the long term effects of the
practice. If you offer a work with a readily available solution, how can
you really build interest in IF beyond the public domain gamer if you're not
offering them "a challenge"? (Most people, if they want to actually buy a
game, it's usually because they're interested in meeting the challenge, no
matter what medium it's in.)
(I realize this philosophy doesn't apply to offerings like Photopia - which
I enjoyed by the way, thank you very much for your effort there...a very
unique approach to the medium),
Some games are unsolvable without a walkthough, but then again - these are
the ones that are simply summarized as poor quality, and popular praise or
disapproval of the game would indicate whether or not the game is even worth
attempting.
- Don
Dave G
>
> I don't understand why I've been getting so many negative responses against
> my want for larger IF stories being recognized in the IF contest...
The existing annual IF contest is designed for short works of
interactive fiction. A contest for long works of interactive fiction
may also be a good thing. But these need to be separate contests, just
as short stories and novels are eligible for different award
recognition. Short and long works of IF are qualitatively different,
and it makes no sense to judge one against the other.
Of course, you could lobby for short and long *divisions* within the IF
contest, and that would be fine. (However, for a number of logistics
reasons, not the least of which is limited judging time, I think
separate contests at separate times is the more practical approach.)
> So if you, the IF fan and/or creator, personally want to see more and more
> larger, involved IF offerings, then it logically follows that the remainder
> of the community must provide the prolific and creative IF people with more
> incentives for creating more larger works!
Fair enough. You now need to support your assertion that a contest is
the best way to create these incentives. My primary two objections have
to do with logistics and incentives.
-- You want games that take a long time to play, so the player is truly
"involved" in the story. And you want players to play one game at a
time, so they fully appreciate it. With several games, this could take
months, potentially the whole year. Given this, a yearly awards
ceremony such as the XYZZYs seems the more practical approach to
judging: same recognition, same judging period, staggered game release.
-- The "incentives" that the current IF contest provides do not
necessarily translate to larger works. Without the contest, very short
games have little audience, little feedback; authors may feel they don't
have enough to justify a release. The contest provides the forum to
overcome these obstacles. But longer games always receive an audience
and feedback, so the contest provides nothing incremental. (One could
claim that the spirit of competition, the desire to win, is what's
driving the entrants; that may be true, but I doubt it.)
> Myself, I'm sure getting tired of reading all the posts about the "good ol'
> Infocom days", bemoaning the glory days of IF are past and gone.
I read all the messages on rgif and raif, and I haven't seen any posts
like this.
> I'm
> looking forward to the future, where a renaissance of this kind of
> entertainment is on the horizon,
Ditto. I don't think anyone has argued that with you. They've merely
said it doesn't make sense to put long and short works in the same
contest.
Paul O'Brian
> I believe I meant to say: "Why bother with the walkthrough at all, if it's
> the judge's foregone conclusion that the work is a waste of their time?" If
> the judge didn't enjoy it, a walkthrough isn't going to help the overall
> assessment of it, for sure.
Aha. Thank you for clarifying. While your point is sound, it ignores some
subtleties. Sometimes games are uneven, and have stronger and weaker
sections. Sometimes those stronger sections are towards the end. Sometimes
seeing the ending of a story unifies it in a way that makes the whole
thing more appreciable. I have been influenced (both positively and
negatively) by sections of contest games which I wouldn't have gotten to
without a walkthrough.
> If you didn't have a walkthrough, and found yourself up against a wall in a
> difficult, but so-far-enjoyable piece - I was suggesting that it
> [the lack of a walkthrough] probably wouldn't influence your rating of
> the work, because you were enjoying it [the game] right up until that
> point.
See above. Sometimes the *weaker* sections are towards the end. The more
of a work I can see, the more detailed of a review and accurate of a
rating I can give it.
> >You see, [larger] games *are* being written.
> But not very often, you must agree with that.
Indeed I do agree with that. At least, not very often in comparison to how
often shorter games are written. But where I think we disagree is on the
*reason* why fewer long games are being written. You seem to think that
the reason is that there is a lack of incentive. If I'm understanding you
right, you're suggesting that the prizes and feedback provided by the
contest are the reason why people enter it, and consequently why there are
more short games than long games. I think that the reason for the lack of
longer games is because longer games, with larger scope, take much more
time and effort. A couple of corollaries apply here:
1) Some people don't have that kind of time and energy to devote to what
is essentially a hobby, preferring instead to devote themselves to
projects of more manageable size.
2) Because a longer game takes more of an author's time, that author is
therefore able to produce fewer games, which helps to account for the
infrequency of larger games. We're not so large a community that we can
mask this infrequency with volume from lots of different authors.
3) People are writing IF as a labor of love, not to win prizes, so
they'll do it the way they want. As I said to the last person who thought
that the prizes are what motivate people to enter the contest, even the
top prize from last year looks pretty poor when viewed as an hourly wage
(unless Adam spent less than 15 hours on Photopia.)
> Why not target the larger game as a focus point for experienced authors,
> make it a special part of the yearly contest?
Because even judging 25-35 short games at two hours apiece in the space of
six weeks is work enough, thanks very much.
I think the contest has been a great success in its primary goal, which is
to encourage the creation of new pieces of short, high-quality IF. In
fact, in some ways it's a victim of its own success in that sometimes it
is mistaken for the source of and reason behind all activity in the IF
community. It isn't.
Paul O'Brian
> Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. If the people here are even
> somewhat serious about reviving IF as a product (commerical sales, maybe in
> some kind of on-line offering, CD distribution, or as some kind of
> magazine-companion distribution/sales offering), larger works will
> eventually have to be forthcoming (and regular) from various authors.
Indeed they are, and commercially too (insert Mike Berlyn/Cascade
Mountain Publishing exhortation here). In fact, I would argue that if
people here are serious about reviving IF as a product, they ought to buy
the products currently available and make everybody they know buy them
too, so it will become clear that IF can be a *successful* product, if
only to a particular marketing niche.
> Myself, I would seriously consider extending my current internet/systems
> consulting business to do commercial IF distribution, if more of larger
> offerings were actually available and visible to the public.
What are you thinking of paying your authors? (If money isn't an
incentive, I don't know what is.) If you can generate enough business to
be a successful commercial distributor and sufficiently compensate your
authors for their work, lack of product will not be a problem for you for
very long.
> If Infocom can still churn out an occasional Zork yarn, and sell plenty of
> copies of it,
Actually, Infocom hasn't turned out a new commercial text adventure for
many years. (ZTUU and the contest winners on Masterpieces don't count as
Infocom-created commercial text adventures, nor do Zork: Nemesis and Zork:
Grand Inquisitor.)
> We have a KEYBOARD magazine editor who writes IF here, I'm sorry in advance
> for not specifically remembering who you are. I'd like to have your opinion
> in this discussion.....
If it's Jim Aikin you're thinking of, he's announced that he's in the
beta-testing stage for yet another large adventure. 2000 looks to be a bit
of a banner year for large text games, actually.
Paul O'Brian
> So if you, the IF fan and/or creator, personally want to see more and more
> larger, involved IF offerings, then it logically follows that the remainder
> of the community must provide the prolific and creative IF people with more
> incentives for creating more larger works! In other words, let them somehow
> be rewarded and encouraged for their longer-term efforts, and give them a
> forum to do it in!
My forthcoming large game will be released as freeware, but I will still
accept cash "rewards and encouragement." I'm going out on a limb here, but
I'd imagine Zarf, Adam Cadre, Graham Nelson, and other creators of large
freeware games feel the same way.
Avrom Faderman
Don Rae wrote in message ...
>Sure, the smaller IF games are a good training ground for starting authors.
>I won't deny that. But does everyone here not want to have some kind of
>formal recognition for trying to build larger designs? Doesn't anyone else
>want to see plenty more of the Curses type offerings? Or even the
>possibility of trying to gain the needed momentum for a return of
commercial
>based IF offerings?
There have been a fair number of these lately. The list of nominees for the
1998 XYZZY awards included the following long non-contest games:
Anchorhead
Once and Future
Spider and Web
Losing Your Grip
Guilty Bastards (I actually haven't played this; just assuming it's
good-sized. It wasn't in the contest.)
Bad Machine
None of these could possibly count as 2-hour games! (It might be possible
to win Bad Machine in 2 hours [in fact according to the author what happens
the first time most people play counts as a "win"], but you would be missing
most of it.)
If you were interested in becoming a distributor--well, that's 6 games in 1
year (if the authors were willing to sell, that is). Five, I guess, since
Once and Future was already spoken for.
Of course, that's a lot less than the number of games that *do* get entered
in the contest. But of course there are more short stories than novels in
any given year.
Also, I don't mean to say an official longer-games contest or longer-games
tradition wouldn't attract more. Just pointing out that there isn't a big
paucity of longish games.
(And re walkthroughs: Anchorhead, OaF, S+W, and Grip were released without
walkthroughs, and Bad Machine's would only get you to one of several
possible endings.)
Best,
Avrom
Don Rae
it's because I've stepped on a sacred cow here.
It was my thought that most people here are devoted to the creation and
support of this kind of entertainment, enough to see it change and evolve
and eventually make it become something a bit more than the current "IF: an
amusing diversion, and an almost forgotton, but very devoted minor subset of
the global internet community".
So if you, the IF fan and/or creator, personally want to see more and more
larger, involved IF offerings, then it logically follows that the remainder
of the community must provide the prolific and creative IF people with more
incentives for creating more larger works! In other words, let them somehow
be rewarded and encouraged for their longer-term efforts, and give them a
forum to do it in!
Sure, the smaller IF games are a good training ground for starting authors.
I won't deny that. But does everyone here not want to have some kind of
formal recognition for trying to build larger designs? Doesn't anyone else
want to see plenty more of the Curses type offerings? Or even the
possibility of trying to gain the needed momentum for a return of commercial
based IF offerings?
Myself, I'm sure getting tired of reading all the posts about the "good ol'
Infocom days", bemoaning the glory days of IF are past and gone. I'm
looking forward to the future, where a renaissance of this kind of
entertainment is on the horizon, due to the overwhelming popularity of the
internet and the kind of interactive experience it offers to plain old
people (and not just the computer geeks of yesteryear), everyday and
everywhere on our increasingly interactive bound planet.
There are more and more literate people in the world who are potentially
looking for something a bit more involving and entertaining than "Quake" or
"Super Mario" as they look for alternative forms of interactive
entertainment. I think that interactive fiction (and similiar forms of it)
has the potential to gain global popularity, potentially more than it ever
did before - due to the overwhelming global acceptance of the internet and
similar interactive based technologies in this modern age! And now, unlike
the golden years of IF yesterday, there are a hundreds of different ways of
marketing computer based products beyond "trying to sell them at the
specialty computer store, in direct competition with other computer
software", and all of them fit the boundaries of popular interactive fiction
distribution!
(Interactive novels and stories are a potential gold mine to smart and
talented IF authors, if they want to make the necessary adjustment. In as
short as 5 years it could very well be a very large industry, if developed
properly! People are now using "palm pilots", smaller laptops, internet
services, you name it - with virtually no other available entertainment
choices beyond the graphic-based-shoot-em-up games, and endless adaptations
of boring old classics - card games, board games, and other yawners of the
same ilk. It's potentially a very big market indeed, if it is marketed as a
form of fiction that can be bought off the shelf at your local Chapters or
similar bookstore chain outlet!)
BUT THIS WILL ONLY HAPPEN if the remainder of the I.F. community still has
the spirit to encourage larger, more interesting, and better quality
offerings from the very small talent pool it has! And for that, I'm
suggesting that some needed change is in order to encourage this - in the
form of rewarding IF authors who write bigger, better works.......because
believe me, you won't be able to do much with this idea at all if the
majority of the available demonstration offerings are primarily experimental
short works, appealing only to IF purists!
The IF contest can be utilized to encourage these highly probable
eventualities, or it can continue to be an sideshow, forever appealing to
the specific narrow audience it currently has. Myself, I'd like to see the
former.
- Don
Don Rae
> Ditto. I don't think anyone has argued that with you. They've merely
> said it doesn't make sense to put long and short works in the same
> contest.
Ok, if that's how people really feel about it. I figured that it might make
more sense to include it all in one annual deal, but you could be right that
it might be too much.
I'll put some more thought into this once this year's contest is over. I
will need any helpful suggestions, from organizers and authors alike. If it
is done at all, it has to be in such a way that will certainly encourage
that extra effort, and is more or less rewarding to everyone who
participates.
Knight37
Don Rae <game...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I don't understand why I've been getting so many negative responses against
> my want for larger IF stories being recognized in the IF contest...unless
> it's because I've stepped on a sacred cow here.
Well you did mention the word "commercial" in one post, but I don't think
the majority of the newsgroup has gotten to that post yet. That's bound to
start up some colorful conversation. :)
> It was my thought that most people here are devoted to the creation and
> support of this kind of entertainment, enough to see it change and evolve
> and eventually make it become something a bit more than the current "IF: an
> amusing diversion, and an almost forgotton, but very devoted minor subset of
> the global internet community".
Hmm... I'm not sure I don't prefer minor subsets of... whatever.
> So if you, the IF fan and/or creator, personally want to see more and more
> larger, involved IF offerings, then it logically follows that the remainder
> of the community must provide the prolific and creative IF people with more
> incentives for creating more larger works! In other words, let them somehow
> be rewarded and encouraged for their longer-term efforts, and give them a
> forum to do it in!
Ok. There is the XYZZY Awards... But someone said that already. I'm not
sure what other kind of "contest" you really need. I kinda like that, it
sorta matches the film industry awards system. Not that there couldn't
stand to be more awards "shows" on the IF scene. On the other hand,
I don't see a real lacking in awards for IF... we're pretty good about
patting each other on the back.
> Sure, the smaller IF games are a good training ground for starting authors.
> I won't deny that. But does everyone here not want to have some kind of
> formal recognition for trying to build larger designs? Doesn't anyone else
> want to see plenty more of the Curses type offerings? Or even the
> possibility of trying to gain the needed momentum for a return of commercial
> based IF offerings?
I like what Mike Berlyn is doing with Cascade Mountain Publishing.
I think this is the kind of thing we should be supporting if we
want more commercial IF. I think people should buy stuff from CMP
and CMP should line up some more deals from good authors. The
thing is, unless people are willing to pay for IF again (we've
had it so good for so long), it's not going to happen. Of course,
there appears to be a lot of people willing to write good IF
for free, so maybe we don't need CMP. I don't know. What I think
CMP *can* do for IF is bring back the really cool packaging and
"feelies" in the old Infocom style. The Once and Future CD and
package was really, really cool. I think more stuff along those
lines, along with the good IF of course (you can't just make
cool packaging to sell a game), and that could do a lot toward
bringing commercial IF back.
> Myself, I'm sure getting tired of reading all the posts about the "good ol'
> Infocom days", bemoaning the glory days of IF are past and gone. I'm
> looking forward to the future, where a renaissance of this kind of
> entertainment is on the horizon, due to the overwhelming popularity of the
> internet and the kind of interactive experience it offers to plain old
> people (and not just the computer geeks of yesteryear), everyday and
> everywhere on our increasingly interactive bound planet.
So you think the interactivity of the internet will bring back a full
renaissance of commerical text interactive fiction? I'm not sure
I see this connection.
> There are more and more literate people in the world who are potentially
> looking for something a bit more involving and entertaining than "Quake" or
> "Super Mario" as they look for alternative forms of interactive
> entertainment.
I think you're giving people a lot more credit than they deserve. :)
Lets see... what sells more games? Superb graphic IF (adventure games)
like Grim Fandango? NOPE. Deer Hunter. "Jus pass me thut six pak,
Bubba, and fork over the pork rinds."
> I think that interactive fiction (and similiar forms of it)
> has the potential to gain global popularity, potentially more than it ever
> did before - due to the overwhelming global acceptance of the internet and
> similar interactive based technologies in this modern age!
I'm not sure that text adventure games will be the direction for
IF for the masses. Maybe (maybe) hypertext fiction.
> And now, unlike the golden years of IF yesterday, there are a
> hundreds of different ways of marketing computer based products
> beyond "trying to sell them at the specialty computer store,
> in direct competition with other computer software", and all of
> them fit the boundaries of popular interactive fiction
> distribution!
So write a game and sell it. I dare you. I double-dare you. :)
I'll probably buy it, if it's good. :)
> (Interactive novels and stories are a potential gold mine to smart and
> talented IF authors, if they want to make the necessary adjustment. In as
> short as 5 years it could very well be a very large industry, if developed
> properly! People are now using "palm pilots", smaller laptops, internet
> services, you name it - with virtually no other available entertainment
> choices beyond the graphic-based-shoot-em-up games, and endless adaptations
> of boring old classics - card games, board games, and other yawners of the
> same ilk.
You ever sit and watch people who don't really know computer games play
Solitaire? Man, they just eat that stuff up. It baffles me. I think a
lot of those "yawners" are extremely popular to a lot of people who are
NOT computer gamer type people.
I think if Palm Pilot and it's ilk get more popular, that could lead to
more commerical opportunities for IF writers. Right now it's still
pretty much a "computer geek" toy. Or at least an "eletronic gadget
geek" toy. I don't think that market is really there TODAY, but it's
probably growing.
> It's potentially a very big market indeed, if it is marketed as a
> form of fiction that can be bought off the shelf at your local Chapters or
> similar bookstore chain outlet!)
Whoah. I thought you wanted to try non-traditional forms of marketing.
Now we're talking about competing with the big, "real" publishers again.
What is going to make people go to Chapters (or Waldens) to buy some kind
of electronic gizmo? How are you going to get Chapters to agree to waste
their valuable shelf space for it?
> BUT THIS WILL ONLY HAPPEN if the remainder of the I.F. community still has
> the spirit to encourage larger, more interesting, and better quality
> offerings from the very small talent pool it has! And for that, I'm
> suggesting that some needed change is in order to encourage this - in the
> form of rewarding IF authors who write bigger, better works.......because
> believe me, you won't be able to do much with this idea at all if the
> majority of the available demonstration offerings are primarily experimental
> short works, appealing only to IF purists!
Ok. Put up a huge cash prize once a year for a "large IF" contest.
This will help encourage that. Of course, if you're going to sell
the results of the contest, there should be a royalty paid to the
authors. Of course, you could make that a percentage of the profits,
in which case, if you don't make money, you don't have to pay them
anything. I'm not sure if this will fly, or even if it's been tried
before and failed, but that's one possible way to encourage bigger
works of IF. Of course, bigger don't mean better...
> The IF contest can be utilized to encourage these highly probable
> eventualities, or it can continue to be an sideshow, forever appealing to
> the specific narrow audience it currently has. Myself, I'd like to see the
> former.
Personally I think we should keep the existing annual IF contest
as it is. I think it would be great if someone wanted to come up
with a new contest for big IF, but I think small IF has it's place
in the world of IF.
Knight37
Neil K.
> I don't understand why I've been getting so many negative responses against
> my want for larger IF stories being recognized in the IF contest...unless
> it's because I've stepped on a sacred cow here.
Nothing particularly sacred. Basically you've come along, seen a short
story competition and said "hey! Why won't they take novels? Why are you
guys so narrow-minded here?"
Well. Do we *need* to extend the competition to allow novels? Then the
competition becomes something else, and I haven't heard any convincing
arguments for this, you see.
> Myself, I'm sure getting tired of reading all the posts about the "good ol'
> Infocom days", bemoaning the glory days of IF are past and gone. [...]
You are? I haven't seen posts like that for years and years. I think
we're safely past that stage.
- Neil K.
> (Interactive novels and stories are a potential gold mine to smart and
> talented IF authors, if they want to make the necessary adjustment. In as
> short as 5 years it could very well be a very large industry, if developed
> properly! People are now using "palm pilots", smaller laptops, internet
> services, you name it - with virtually no other available entertainment
> choices beyond the graphic-based-shoot-em-up games, and endless adaptations
> of boring old classics - card games, board games, and other yawners of the
> same ilk. It's potentially a very big market indeed, if it is marketed as a
> form of fiction that can be bought off the shelf at your local Chapters or
> similar bookstore chain outlet!)
--
t e l a computer consulting + design * Vancouver, BC, Canada
web: http://www.tela.bc.ca/tela/ * email: tela @ tela.bc.ca
Magnus Olsson
Paul O'Brian <obr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Don Rae wrote:
>
>> I believe I meant to say: "Why bother with the walkthrough at all, if it's
>> the judge's foregone conclusion that the work is a waste of their time?" If
>> the judge didn't enjoy it, a walkthrough isn't going to help the overall
>> assessment of it, for sure.
>
>Aha. Thank you for clarifying. While your point is sound, it ignores some
>subtleties. Sometimes games are uneven, and have stronger and weaker
>sections. Sometimes those stronger sections are towards the end. Sometimes
>seeing the ending of a story unifies it in a way that makes the whole
>thing more appreciable. I have been influenced (both positively and
>negatively) by sections of contest games which I wouldn't have gotten to
>without a walkthrough.
Indeed. Let me give you a concrete example: "Jewel of Knowledge".
This game has an ambitious and interesting ending (which IMO fails to
convince, but that's another story). However, to get to the ending, you
have to play thorugh a middle-game that's (again IMO) npt very interesting
and which contains a number of puzzles of the read-the-author's-mind
variety.
I'd say that in this case, giving up on the game because you get stuck
on one of these puzzles would mean that you missed the interesting part
of the game. On the other hand, using a walkthru to breeze past the
middle-game is no big loss.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Magnus Olsson
Don Rae <game...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't understand why I've been getting so many negative responses against
>my want for larger IF stories being recognized in the IF contest...unless
>it's because I've stepped on a sacred cow here.
The contest is not a sacred cow, but most people seem to like it as it
is. You're saying that you'd like a different sort of contest. That's
fine, but if you're trying to change the current contest, then you're
going to get opposition from the people who don't want to change it.
It's as simple as that.
>So if you, the IF fan and/or creator, personally want to see more and more
>larger, involved IF offerings, then it logically follows that the remainder
>of the community must provide the prolific and creative IF people with more
>incentives for creating more larger works! In other words, let them somehow
>be rewarded and encouraged for their longer-term efforts, and give them a
>forum to do it in!
Sure.
But do we have to do away with the existing short-game contest in order
to provide incentives for longer games? Can't we keep it, and instead
start a new competition for longer games, or something?
>But does everyone here not want to have some kind of
>formal recognition for trying to build larger designs? Doesn't anyone else
>want to see plenty more of the Curses type offerings? Or even the
>possibility of trying to gain the needed momentum for a return of commercial
>based IF offerings?
I don't understand where you're getting those notions. Are yuou
suffering from a case of "everybody who doesn't agree with everything
I say is against me"? Or have you come to the conclusion that there
can only be One True IF Competition?
That said, I too have been concerned that the Contest draws energy
away from the larger format and towards the smaller games. But I think
my concerns have been misplaced: from what I've seen over the last few
years, the Contest encourage a lot of new people to write IF. Granted,
to write short IF at first, but many of these authors then go on to
write longer works. As for those who don't, well, I think that if the
Contest had been for longer games, they might ery well never have
entered at all.
Finally, a very important point, and I'm speaking from hard-won
experience here: Writing a long game is a *lot* of work. The only
incentive I can think of that would cause a significantly larger
number of people to invest this amount of work (and we're talking
about man-months of work) is money.
Neil K.
> Finally, a very important point, and I'm speaking from hard-won
> experience here: Writing a long game is a *lot* of work. The only
> incentive I can think of that would cause a significantly larger
> number of people to invest this amount of work (and we're talking
> about man-months of work) is money.
Or perhaps knickers.
- Neil K.
Eric Mayer
wrote:
>
>(Interactive novels and stories are a potential gold mine to smart and
>talented IF authors, if they want to make the necessary adjustment. In as
>short as 5 years it could very well be a very large industry, if developed
>properly!
As someone who is very new to this whole IF concept, but who has been
spending some time reading IF and trying to learn how to write a game,
I'd like to offer some observations on this discussion of the contest.
I copied out the above comment because, while it is probably a nice
thought, it is almost certainly not true. Speaking as an occassionally
published author (my wife and I co-author mysteries and our first
novel is coming out shortly) I can attest that even conventional
fiction is not a gold mine for authors and it is getting harder and
harder to market even conventional books by authors whose potential
sales are less than, say, John Grisham or Stephen King, let alone
market a literary form most people have never heard of.
Most "professional" authors of the sorts of fiction people are
familiar with don't make a living at it. And the entire fiction market
is more and more driven by corporate types who can't even think in
terms of less than seven figures.
i.e. >ask publishing exec about $100,000
I don't understand
This isn't to say it might not be nice if some IF authors sometimes
got a little reward for their efforts. But I'm pretty sure IF will
remain for its authors a labor of love - which is the case with most
conventional fiction.
There are a huge number of talented people out there in all fields
from painting pictures, to writing books, to writing IF and our
society, commercially speaking, only has room for the superstars, and
really isn't geared to accomodate all these folks who have wonderful
creative things to offer.
During my very limited exposure to IF so far I have already read some
superb stuff. In a perfect world they'd get paid for it. In the world
we've got they'll likely just keeping doing it because its what they
enjoy doing.
As for the contest, speaking as someone who has been struggling to
finish a game, I can say it is a great incentive. I probably would've
set my own project aside as too time consuming, or been satisfied that
I had gone from having never done any programming to having gotten to
the point where I made a few things work, except that the contest has
given me a goal. I expect I will enter my own game - unless something
goes terribly wrong with it --for the same reason I sometimes enter a
5K road race - just to say that I did it, even though I know I'll
trail the field.
Although as to size -- I am so inexperienced with IF I don't know what
a two hour game is. For me there is very little IF that isn't a two
hour game!
--
Eric Mayer
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite
Stephen Granade
> >This is more or less intended to give shorter works a place to thrive. A
> >longer game is more impressive simply because the player spends more time
> >in it. We were concerned: would anyone even bother writing an experiment,
> >a joke game, or a one-scene mood fragment, if it was going to be competing
> >with _Curses_ or _Theatre_?
>
> Well, you have a point there. But wouldn't it be fair to say that most of
> the new offerings, "contest or not" lately, are mostly shorter
> "experiments"?
Lucian Smith took a look at this issue roughly a year ago, and found
very little change in the number of large games being produced over
the years of the competition. You can read his message at
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359933303&fmt=text.
> There isn't that much recognition or incentive available for
> the larger, grand scale offering. With little incentive offered, thus very
> little results. How many of the excellent "short work" authors have gone on
> to make larger offerings? Not too many, unfortunately.
[snip]
> And why is that? Currently there's very little incentive to do it at all,
> other than the author's sense of self-satisfaction.
[snip]
> Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. If the people here are even
> somewhat serious about reviving IF as a product (commerical sales, maybe in
> some kind of on-line offering, CD distribution, or as some kind of
> magazine-companion distribution/sales offering), larger works will
> eventually have to be forthcoming (and regular) from various authors.
Time for me to step in. Y'see, I've written a very large game (_Losing
Your Grip_, for those of you playing along at home) and I've taken
shareware registrations for that game.
_Losing Your Grip_ took a while to write. I came up with the idea back
in 1994 and talked to Kevin Wilson about having his nascent company
Vertigo Software publish it. I did some initial design work, then let
it languish in the face of graduate school.
I came back to it eventually. I spent some four months completely
redesigning it, then about a year coding it. Due to its size it took
another six months to beta-test, and of my elite squad of
beta-testers, only a few made it all the way through to the end before
I decided to release it.
When I released it in January of 1998, it received a fair bit of
attention. There was a brief thread on r.g.i-f about its themes and
What It All Meant. Many people asked for hints. I got some 25
registrations in those early months.
I've been pleased with the reaction _Grip_ got. I've had a number of
interesting e-mail conversations with players who were working through
it. I got enough money through registrations to pay for the feelies I
had printed up and still have enough left over to go out to dinner
several times.
Despite this, I will never ever write another long game. Long games
are *hard* to write. Really, really hard. For nearly twelve months of
my life I spent an hour or two a day coding it. And now, as we near
the two-year anniversary of my releasing it, it's seldom mentioned any
more. On the one hand, this is how it should be. Newer games come
along and garner attention. Short, experimental games are often more
memorable than longer, more traditional games. On the other hand, it's
disappointing. You want everyone to pay as much attention to your game
as you did while making it, and at that you're bound to be
disappointed.
You want to encourage more long games? Talk about them when they're
released. Start discussions on the newsgroup. Write reviews. To date
_Grip_ has been reviewed once. _Arrival_, my competition entry from
last year, has some 20 reviews. I was lucky: _Grip_ garnered quite a
bit of newsgroup discussion. I haven't seen all that much discussion
of recent games like _Jewel of Darkness_.
Stephen
Ross Presser
(Knight37).wrote.posted.offered:
>You ever sit and watch people who don't really know computer games play
>Solitaire? Man, they just eat that stuff up. It baffles me. I think a
>lot of those "yawners" are extremely popular to a lot of people who are
>NOT computer gamer type people.
*Sigh* One of my favorite pastimes at home on my PC is to play the endless
variations of solitare provided by Pretty Good Solitaire '98 (goodsol.com).
>
>I think if Palm Pilot and it's ilk get more popular, that could lead to
>more commerical opportunities for IF writers. Right now it's still
>pretty much a "computer geek" toy. Or at least an "eletronic gadget
>geek" toy. I don't think that market is really there TODAY, but it's
>probably growing.
*double-sigh* And one of my favorite Palmpilot pastimes is *also* a
solitaire game, the freeware "Patience" which provides about 8 solitaire
variations
None of this is relevant to the discussion, of course.
Ross Presser
K.).wrote.posted.offered:
> m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
>> Finally, a very important point, and I'm speaking from hard-won
>> experience here: Writing a long game is a *lot* of work. The only
>> incentive I can think of that would cause a significantly larger
>> number of people to invest this amount of work (and we're talking
>> about man-months of work) is money.
>
> Or perhaps knickers.
>
> - Neil K.
>
Oh no. The mind boggles. The major gaming publishers, in an effort to
save money, start paying programmers in prostitution vouchers instead of
currency. "BJ Drifter XVI" is released, with full-color, 3D, full-motion
video and a zooming feature.
edr...@my-deja.com
"Don Rae" <game...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think my comment was trying to be focused on the long term effects
> of the practice. If you offer a work with a readily available
> solution, how can you really build interest in IF beyond the public
> domain gamer if you're not offering them "a challenge"? (Most
> people, if they want to actually buy a
> game, it's usually because they're interested in meeting the
> challenge, no matter what medium it's in.)
My perception is that the presence or absence of walkthroughs is not a
deciding factor in whether IF is popular with the public domain gamer.
In fact, I'd venture to say it's not even a significant factor.
Walkthroughs, hint-throughs, and game-guides for mainstream graphics-
heavy games are in no short supply, but it doesn't seem to dent their
popularity any. There are just as many people out there yammering for
spoilers for Grim Fandango or Half Life as there are on rec.games.int-
fiction yammering for spoilers for Curses or Zork III. More, in fact,
since the first two games are played by many, many more people. I think
the decision to look at hints is primarily an individual one, and one
that is made *after* purchase (or download, as the case may be).
-M.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lucian Paul Smith
: Well, you have a point there. But wouldn't it be fair to say that most of
: the new offerings, "contest or not" lately, are mostly shorter
: "experiments"? There isn't that much recognition or incentive available for
: the larger, grand scale offering. With little incentive offered, thus very
: little results. How many of the excellent "short work" authors have gone on
: to make larger offerings? Not too many, unfortunately.
Sigh. I see it's time to point to dejanews again:
http://x25.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=359933303
As noted there, we seem to be averaging about 6 'large' games a year since
1994. The contest hasn't changed this. The contest has increased the
number of short games written, instead.
Also of note is that a significant proportion of large recent games were
written by early competition entrants. In this way, the competition *is*
encouraging large works, albeit indirectly, by giving new authors a
foothold in the IF world first--it's quite intimidating to try to write a
masterwork as your first piece of IF.
Maybe I'll have to go do the stats for '98 now. Further bulletins as
events warrant.
-Lucian
Eric Mayer
>
>Walkthroughs, hint-throughs, and game-guides for mainstream graphics-
>heavy games are in no short supply, but it doesn't seem to dent their
>popularity any. There are just as many people out there yammering for
>spoilers for Grim Fandango or Half Life as there are on rec.games.int-
>fiction yammering for spoilers for Curses or Zork III. More, in fact,
>since the first two games are played by many, many more people. I think
>the decision to look at hints is primarily an individual one, and one
>that is made *after* purchase (or download, as the case may be).
>
Long ago when I played some graphic adventures, before the advent of
the internet where one can find seemingly anything, including
walkthroughs for everything, I predictably got stuck and rather
regretted not getting to see the end of the story.
I think there's an argument to be made, when it comes to commercial
games, that someone who has paid for the game has a "right" to be able
to see the whole thing even if they can't solve all the puzzles. And
although someone who gets a game free hasn't paid for such a right I
think there's an aesthetic reason - if that's the right word - for
including walkthroughs or hints with IF.
After all, I read mystery novels and have never ever solved the
mystery completely but books still allow me to read the last page to
see how it all comes out, even though I may not have correctly figured
out whodunit!
Having said that, there can be a temptation to go to a walkthrough too
quickly sometimes rather than maybe getting the full experience that
the IF author intended. But people will skim through novels too. I
guess that is the reader's choice.
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Don Rae wrote:
> >
> > >You see, [larger] games *are* being written.
>
> > But not very often, you must agree with that.
>
> Indeed I do agree with that. At least, not very often in comparison to how
> often shorter games are written. But where I think we disagree is on the
> *reason* why fewer long games are being written. You seem to think that
> the reason is that there is a lack of incentive. If I'm understanding you
> right, you're suggesting that the prizes and feedback provided by the
> contest are the reason why people enter it, and consequently why there are
> more short games than long games. I think that the reason for the lack of
> longer games is because longer games, with larger scope, take much more
> time and effort.
<snip>
> 3) People are writing IF as a labor of love, not to win prizes, so
> they'll do it the way they want. As I said to the last person who thought
> that the prizes are what motivate people to enter the contest, even the
> top prize from last year looks pretty poor when viewed as an hourly wage
> (unless Adam spent less than 15 hours on Photopia.)
When I first read this, I agreed 100%. Then I recalled a time, oh,
6 months ago? When I realized my own game was going to be too big to
enter the comp. I was quite bummed. For some reason, for me, there
is something rather tantalizing about entering a game and having it
ranked among it's peers. Maybe that's just my competitive streak
showing, or the fact that there is so much feedback for comp.
games and very little (at least I don't seem to see much) for those
released outside of the comp, but I really did consider shelving my WIP
and trying something smaller just so I would be able to enter the
comp.
So, while I agree on principle - no one writes IF for $150 and
a bag of peanuts - it is possible that there are those out there
who plan their game size so that they can participate in the comp
for reasons other than the prizes. Still, I don't think the
solution lies in adding larger games to the comp. Short stories
are rarely lumped with novels when it comes to contests. Perhaps
when big games get released there should be a greater effort to
review them publicly? Or perhaps as part of the XYZZY's - or
along with it - there could be a "call for reviews" for the big
games of that year? Does Eileen publish a ranking of the votes
for the Best Game category? That might be interesting as well.
Kathleen (FWIW, I've been working on my "big" game for nearly a year.
Faithfully typing away 30min to 2hr. each night (I've probably missed
less than 6 nights 10(?) months). I was hoping to release in
march 00 but that isn't going to happen. Perhaps I'll be able to
start beta testing then <shudder>)
--
*******************************************************************
* Kathleen M. Fischer *
* kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov (nospam = l l n l) *
** "Don't stop to stomp ants while the elephants are stampeding" **
Lucian Paul Smith
: "Don Rae" <game...@hotmail.com> writes:
: > Well, you have a point there. But wouldn't it be fair to say that most of
: > the new offerings, "contest or not" lately, are mostly shorter
: > "experiments"?
: Lucian Smith took a look at this issue roughly a year ago, and found
: very little change in the number of large games being produced over
: the years of the competition. You can read his message at
: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359933303&fmt=text.
Woo-hoo!
: When I released it in January of 1998, it received a fair bit of
: attention. There was a brief thread on r.g.i-f about its themes and
: What It All Meant. Many people asked for hints. I got some 25
: registrations in those early months.
: Despite this, I will never ever write another long game. Long games
: are *hard* to write. Really, really hard. For nearly twelve months of
: my life I spent an hour or two a day coding it. And now, as we near
: the two-year anniversary of my releasing it, it's seldom mentioned any
: more.
The problem here is, I think, one of concurrency. For the contest,
there's a specific time where people are supposed to play the games, then
a specific later time where people are supposed to discuss them. Lots of
discussion gets generated.
Big games don't have that enforced schedule. It happens anyway, to some
extent, since there are many people who play it immediately, many of them
finish at more or less the same time, and they then talk about it here on
the ng. But the total number is a lot less. Then later as people finish
the game on their own, all the discussion is gone.
Perhaps what we need is a 'book club'. We could take a month and announce
that all that month, people who hadn't should play game X, because at the
end of the month, we would all be discussing it. Someone could, during
that time, cull the deja for old discussion threads and archive them
in some central location and people could read those, too, after they were
done. Then we'd have a week or so of dedicated discussion about it,
perhaps with consumate scheduled discussions on ifMUD or something (which
would also be archived for those who couldn't make it.)
For myself, I know it would be a great incentive to go back and finish
some old 'classics' that I've gotten partway through. 'Lost New York',
'Spiritwrak',...and 'Grip' all come to mind ;-) Heck, there are old
Infocom games I've never finished that I'd like to, like Sorceror. And
games I have played I wouldn't mind discussing some more, like Trinity or
So Far.
Anyone think this would be valuable? Anyone want to volunteer to help me
set it up?
-Lucian
nickmo...@my-deja.com
> Perhaps what we need is a 'book club'. We could take a month and
> announce that all that month, people who hadn't should play game X,
> because at the end of the month, we would all be discussing it.
> Someone could, during that time, cull the deja for old discussion
> threads and archive them in some central location and people could
> read those, too, after they were done. Then we'd have a week or so
> of dedicated discussion about it, perhaps with consumate scheduled
> discussions on ifMUD or something (which would also be archived for
> those who couldn't make it.)
>
> Anyone think this would be valuable? Anyone want to volunteer to help
> me set it up?
Yes, and yes.
I think this is a great idea. It will provide a good excuse to
experience some classic games and works which people may have passed
over, but it will also help authors focus on some really great aspects
of writing and interaction, and figure out why they are great.
-Nick M.
Kathleen M. Fischer
> Perhaps what we need is a 'book club'. We could take a month and announce
> that all that month, people who hadn't should play game X, because at the
> end of the month, we would all be discussing it. Someone could, during
> that time, cull the deja for old discussion threads and archive them
> in some central location and people could read those, too, after they were
> done. Then we'd have a week or so of dedicated discussion about it,
> perhaps with consumate scheduled discussions on ifMUD or something (which
> would also be archived for those who couldn't make it.)
>
> Anyone think this would be valuable?
Sounds good to me, though I might suggest starting with the more recent
introductions and working backward in time. Some kind of mail in scoring
over a few simple categories might be enlightening as well. Walkthru's
would be really, really nice.
Kathleen
Paul O'Brian
> So, while I agree on principle - no one writes IF for $150 and
> a bag of peanuts - it is possible that there are those out there
> who plan their game size so that they can participate in the comp
> for reasons other than the prizes.
This makes sense to me. I'm still not convinced, though, that the pull of
the competition is dissuading people from writing larger games. You
yourself are a case in point.
> Perhaps
> when big games get released there should be a greater effort to
> review them publicly? Or perhaps as part of the XYZZY's - or
> along with it - there could be a "call for reviews" for the big
> games of that year?
This is probably a good spot to remind everybody that SPAG is actively
seeking reviews for inclusion in issue #18. The deadline for submissions
to that issue is September 1, but all submissions I receive after that
date will of course be considered for later issues.
Alan Trewartha
>
> > Perhaps what we need is a 'book club'. We could take a month and
> > announce that all that month, people who hadn't should play game X,
> > because at the end of the month, we would all be discussing it.
> > Someone could, during that time, cull the deja for old discussion
> > threads and archive them in some central location and people could
> > read those, too, after they were done. Then we'd have a week or so
> > of dedicated discussion about it, perhaps with consumate scheduled
> > discussions on ifMUD or something (which would also be archived for
> > those who couldn't make it.)
> >
> > me set it up?
Very valuable, don't know how I could help, but feel free to ask.
--
Mail to alant instead of no.spam
Marnie Parker
>From: Alan Trewartha al...@no.spam.demon.co.uk
>Date: Wed, 18 August 1999 05:29 PM EDT
>> > Anyone think this would be valuable? Anyone want to volunteer to help
>> > me set it up?
Very good idea.
However, I think not all the games played should just be the ones that are now
considered "great". Make the criteria just the longer ones. Include decent
games that have been overlooked and gotten little public reaction.
If parts of a game are bad we can skip over those parts with walkthrus or
something.
Doe :-)
-----------------------------
doea...@aol.com
The Doepage - http://members.aol.com/doepage/index.htm
IF Art Gallery - http://members.aol.com/iffyart/gallery.htm
"I can live for two months on a good compliment." Mark Twain
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Kathleen M. Fischer wrote:
>
> > So, while I agree on principle - no one writes IF for $150 and
> > a bag of peanuts - it is possible that there are those out there
> > who plan their game size so that they can participate in the comp
> > for reasons other than the prizes.
>
> This makes sense to me. I'm still not convinced, though, that the pull of
> the competition is dissuading people from writing larger games. You
> yourself are a case in point.
As the comp approaches, and I consider the fact that I could have
finished my game by now had I "thought smaller", I can't say that
I haven't had a twinge or two of regret. :)
> This is probably a good spot to remind everybody that SPAG is actively
> seeking reviews for inclusion in issue #18. The deadline for submissions
> to that issue is September 1, but all submissions I receive after that
> date will of course be considered for later issues.
Kathleen
Don Rae
>
> I copied out the above comment because, while it is probably a nice
> thought, it is almost certainly not true. Speaking as an occassionally
> published author (my wife and I co-author mysteries and our first
> novel is coming out shortly) I can attest that even conventional
> fiction is not a gold mine for authors and it is getting harder and
> harder to market even conventional books by authors whose potential
> sales are less than, say, John Grisham or Stephen King, let alone
> market a literary form most people have never heard of.
>
And I would ordinarily agree with you, if my idea of selling IF was based
upon today's conventional publication standards. Don't apply them here.
For this kind of sales offering, I would never dream of approaching an IF
author, and say: I will give you "this much" for your product, and that's
it.
Sales percentages are the only way to go, royalties - like the music
industry. This way, anyone can create something that might make it - or if
it genuinely is trash, it won't. The rest is just promotion and
distribution - and there are plenty of places that do this on the internet
already. And, if something suitable doesn't exist - you create it yourself.
The market for this stuff doesn't exist yet - so there may be an opportunity
to get the distribution system right before it can be made to happen. I
don't think any individual will ever get filthy rich on the stuff - but an
extra $50-$100 in royalties per month for a well constructed title would
never hurt anybody either. It's a little better than self-satisfaction (or
"nothing").
- Don
Eric Mayer
wrote:
>
>And I would ordinarily agree with you, if my idea of selling IF was based
>upon today's conventional publication standards. Don't apply them here.
>For this kind of sales offering, I would never dream of approaching an IF
>author, and say: I will give you "this much" for your product, and that's
>it.
>
>Sales percentages are the only way to go, royalties - like the music
>industry. This way, anyone can create something that might make it - or if
>it genuinely is trash, it won't. The rest is just promotion and
>distribution - and there are plenty of places that do this on the internet
>already. And, if something suitable doesn't exist - you create it yourself.
>
>The market for this stuff doesn't exist yet - so there may be an opportunity
>to get the distribution system right before it can be made to happen. I
>don't think any individual will ever get filthy rich on the stuff - but an
>extra $50-$100 in royalties per month for a well constructed title would
>never hurt anybody either. It's a little better than self-satisfaction (or
>"nothing").
>
>- Don
>
>
>
Well put in those terms I'd have to agree that what you suggest might
be possible. One neat aspect of the internet is that, potentially, it
can put the little guy, whether a book seller or an IF seller, on an
equal footing with the huge chain stores. In the past you couldn't
compete with the marketing giants because of distribution limitations.
Quite a few independent book stores are trying out web sites. Although
the big book store chains can still generate more publicity anyone can
get to and order from a small store, over the web just as easily. Web
shopping certainly isn't readily accepted by everyone yet, but then
the web has only been around for an eyeblink so I'm sure the day is
coming.
However this is wandering away from IF. My own efforts won't be
generating any income as I expect they may be more on a level that
people might have to be paid to read them!
wyndo
will be available on request only.
Don Rae wrote:
> >Don Rae wrote:
> >> And...when the contest is over, the prizes are awarded, and the pieces
> are
> >> publicly available - they are inherently tainted by the temptation of
> having
> >> a spoiler in place, ready and available to download.
> >
> >Not everyone is that weak-willed. Those who are have a character fault
> >they should work on correcting.
> >
>
> True, very true.
>
> I think my comment was trying to be focused on the long term effects of the
> practice. If you offer a work with a readily available solution, how can
> you really build interest in IF beyond the public domain gamer if you're not
> offering them "a challenge"? (Most people, if they want to actually buy a
> game, it's usually because they're interested in meeting the challenge, no
> matter what medium it's in.)
>
> (I realize this philosophy doesn't apply to offerings like Photopia - which
> I enjoyed by the way, thank you very much for your effort there...a very
> unique approach to the medium),
>
> Some games are unsolvable without a walkthough, but then again - these are
> the ones that are simply summarized as poor quality, and popular praise or
> disapproval of the game would indicate whether or not the game is even worth
> attempting.
>
> - Don
Andrew Plotkin
> I believe that the walkthrough doesn't have to be made available
> publicly. Mine will be available on request only.
I don't think that's a good idea, for the competition. (During the
voting period, I mean.)
The competition package should be what you want to be judged on. This is
why entries are collected by the organizer and released all at once, in a
single spot. Authors aren't supposed to add anything after that -- no
commentary, no bug fixes, no updates. (No apologies. :-)
Otherwise you get into a morass. Some players don't follow teh newsgroup
(well, theoretically), so they don't see updates/additions/whatever; some
authors don't have time to handle requests for updates/additions/whatever;
if not everything is released at the same time, there's all sorts of mess
there; etc.
Basically -- and remember, I'm not a competition official -- I think that
if you want the walkthrough available, stick it in the package, and if you
don't, leave it out. This maintains the basic concept of Here's A Bunch of
Game Releases; Now Decide Which Ones You Like.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Kathleen M. Fischer
available in a single download?
Kathleen
--
***********************************************************************
* Kathleen M. Fischer *
* kfis...@no.spam (no.spam = g r e e n h o u s e . l l n l . g o v) *
Stephen Granade
> wyndo <wy...@cxo.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that the walkthrough doesn't have to be made available
> > publicly. Mine will be available on request only.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea, for the competition. (During the
> voting period, I mean.)
However, he does not want the walkthrough available for general
release, for reasons we've discussed. His game will explicitly say how
to get the walkthrough, and he will not be allowed to change the
walkthrough after the competition begins. This will not be an addition
to the package.
Stephen Granade
> Is there going to be a Mac friendly compilation of Mac playable games
> available in a single download?
There will be the usual competition.zip file (although this year there
will be two zip files, one containing the bare essentials for the
games and the other containing any multimedia files). I'd love it if a
Mac person would make a Stuffit file of all the games with file types
set and (possibly) with interpreters for the less technically
inclined. Any volunteers?
Magnus Olsson
Stephen Granade <sgra...@lepton.phy.duke.edu> wrote:
>"Kathleen M. Fischer" <kfis...@no.spam> writes:
>
>> Is there going to be a Mac friendly compilation of Mac playable games
>> available in a single download?
>
>There will be the usual competition.zip file (although this year there
>will be two zip files, one containing the bare essentials for the
>games and the other containing any multimedia files). I'd love it if a
>Mac person would make a Stuffit file of all the games with file types
>set and (possibly) with interpreters for the less technically
>inclined. Any volunteers?
IIRC, you can get ZipIt (a Zip archiver for the Mac) to set the
file types when unpacking a non-Mac zip file, based on file extension.
So all files ending in .z5 would automatically be given the file
type and creator appropriate for a Mac game.
Iain Merrick
> "Kathleen M. Fischer" <kfis...@no.spam> writes:
>
> > Is there going to be a Mac friendly compilation of Mac playable games
> > available in a single download?
>
> There will be the usual competition.zip file (although this year there
> will be two zip files, one containing the bare essentials for the
> games and the other containing any multimedia files). I'd love it if a
> Mac person would make a Stuffit file of all the games with file types
> set and (possibly) with interpreters for the less technically
> inclined. Any volunteers?
I could do that, if no-one else has volunteered.
Two questions: how big a download would people be happy with, and what
are the most popular interpreters?
I think it might be best to split things up into a few moderate-sized
packages. That would save some downloading time for people who don't
need all the packages, but shouldn't be too complicated for new users to
cope with. Perhaps something like:
1) Game files
2) Text-only interpreters (MaxZip, MaxTADS, MacGlkHugo, Alan? And/or Zip
Infinity?)
3) Multimedia files
4) Multimedia interpreters (HyperTADS, possibly wxHugo?)
Packages 2 and 4 might be combined, although HyperTADS is quite big (1.4
megs) and wxHugo will also be pretty big if anyone gets round to
compiling it. Alternatively, packages 3 and 4 might be combined. Oh, and
for people with fast connections there could also be:
5) Everything, in one big bundle
I trust that people _don't_ want any kind of fancy installer...? Unless
they're installing loads of extensions or whatever, these things are
generally more trouble than they're worth.
--
Iain Merrick
i...@cs.york.ac.uk
Geoff Bailey
In article <7rtngr$o...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>wyndo <wy...@cxo.com> wrote:
>> I believe that the walkthrough doesn't have to be made available
>> publicly. Mine will be available on request only.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea, for the competition. (During the
> voting period, I mean.)
>
> why entries are collected by the organizer and released all at once, in a
>
> Otherwise you get into a morass. Some players don't follow the newsgroup
> (well, theoretically), so they don't see updates/additions/whatever;
More than theoretically -- I will be giving the competition entries to at
least two friends of mine who don't read raif or rgif.
I understand the reasons for the non-public walkthrough; it will hurt the
entry's chances in the competition, however. Indeed, if the walkthrough
isn't provided with the game there wouldn't seem to be much point having
it exist at all.
One of my friends mentioned above will play most of the games on his
PalmPilot, the other is likely to use his laptop. I'll be playing them at
home, where I don't have a modem. None of us is going to start playing
the game and then jump onto the net and try to get a walkthrough when we're
stuck. (And it sounds like the response would not be immediate.)
A more likely response is for us to hit our heads against whatever the
problem is for the requisite two hours and then assign a low score in the
enjoyment column. Or perhaps to stop even earlier in the event that we
don't just not know what to do, we don't even know whether there is more
to do. (Cattus Atrox springs to mind here -- from my point of view it
seemed to be little more than wander around the city for a while and then
get eaten.) In any case, we're not likely to request the walkthrough and
then rejudge.
It's your choice not to make the walkthrough publicly available, as long
as you accept that this may well cost you marks in the competition. Of
course, the competition should not just be about score. :)
Cheers,
Geoff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Bailey (Fred the Wonder Worm) | Programmer by trade --
ft...@cs.usyd.edu.au | Gameplayer by vocation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Granade
> Stephen Granade wrote:
>
> > I'd love it if a
> > Mac person would make a Stuffit file of all the games with file types
> > set and (possibly) with interpreters for the less technically
> > inclined. Any volunteers?
>
> I could do that, if no-one else has volunteered.
>
> Two questions: how big a download would people be happy with, and what
> are the most popular interpreters?
My suggestion would be to mirror what's being done with the .zip files
and self-installing packages. Make two stuffit files, one with the
games and the other with the extra multimedia files, which correspond
to the two competition .zip files. Make one self-installing file which
contains [Z-interp of your choice], HyperTADS, &c. along with the
competition games*. The former stuffit files would be available on GMD
with the .zip files and be for the IF-savvy user. The self-installing
file would be available on the competition web site along with the
Windows self-installing file and would be for newcomers to the
competition.
While this solution produces files which overlap somewhat, it strikes
a balance between a small download for people familiar with
interpreters and ease-of-installation for the newcomer.
Stephen
* By "self-installer file" I mean a file which dumps all of the
programs and competition games into directories -- a .sea would work
just fine. If you really want to get fancy, let the player choose
which interpeters to install, but I don't think that's absolutely
necessary.
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> Iain Merrick <i...@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Stephen Granade wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love it if a
> > > Mac person would make a Stuffit file of all the games with file types
> > > set and (possibly) with interpreters for the less technically
> > > inclined. Any volunteers?
> >
> > I could do that, if no-one else has volunteered.
> >
> > Two questions: how big a download would people be happy with, and what
> > are the most popular interpreters?
>
> My suggestion would be to mirror what's being done with the .zip files
> and self-installing packages.
I second this.
It would cut down on confusion and documentation if they (the .zip's &
the .sea's) contained roughly the same thing (except for anything that
won't run on a mac, of course)
Kathleen ($0.02(US))
Mike Snyder
> as you accept that this may well cost you marks in the competition. Of
> course, the competition should not just be about score. :)
It seems that the competition games are archived "as is" after the
competition. I certainly don't mind making a walkthrough available, I just
don't want it to be a "standard" part of the game from now 'till eternity.
If this equates to a lower score, then so be it. I will probably set up an
automatic requester (i.e. look for a keyword in the message subject) and
auto-reply with the walkthrough. There should be no need to "re-judge" when
a walkthrough can be obtained before even starting.
I fortunately went through a similar discussion (I say "fortunately" because
the experience has prepared me some) last year over the topic of platform
independence regarding contest entries. I remember being told that if the
game would only run on PC's it would guarantee a score of "1". I also
remember being told the game would get a "0" by people who couldn't play it
at all due to using a Mac, Unix, etc., but luckily scores can (I believe)
only be cast for games you *can* play, and even then in the range of 1 to
10. Still, I remember a discussion about one potential judge who mentioned
he/she would have to get a "DOS emulator" to play and that in itself would
mean a major loss of points.
After my head stopped spinning, I took what I felt was a collective "hint"
and moved on to other things. It did seem to me that the IF community was
based around a sense of conformity ("the only good/worthwhile IF is the
Hugo/Tads/Inform/Etc. IF"). This probably was my own misunderstanding over
getting what I felt was "attacked" when all I really wanted to do was
contribute and have fun. It's hard to be objective when you feel like
everybody is against you. ;)
I've read the thread on scoring issues and then the replies to this thread.
I wasn't going to reply (and probably shouldn't have even now) but it just
seems that the contest *should* be for fun. I really doubt that anybody is
anxiously awaiting the cash prizes. I would have entered even if "Hey man,
you placed #18" was the only prize -- I don't know the other entrants but I
suspect many of us earn more in a day than the top prize in the contest. I
think the contest is fun. I *still* do, even after hearing that points are
going to be docked if you have to "request" a walkthrough. If I were judging
(and next year, maybe I will be) I would try to judge an entry on its own
merit. If I loved one game of the bunch but really liked many of the others,
I'd rank them accordingly. I wouldn't mark all the games a 1 or 2 except the
one I liked most. This would mean horrible games end up with a 1 and
excellent games end up with a 10 (based on what I like). Really *good* games
wouldn't end up with a 1 or 2(indicating to the author that I considered
their game "horrible") just so my favorite had a wider point spread. At the
same time I would dock points for things that I felt detracted from the game
itself (whatever those things might be -- a plot I just didn't like, writing
I couldn't really enjoy, bugs, whatever). Not finishing the game wouldn't
affect my score because I'm just voting on what I've seen, unless I felt
that I didn't finish the game because it was too difficult to solve a puzzle
where I'm stuck. Yes, not having a walkthrough would make it worse and yes
this might affect my score too, but if a walkthrough *is* available and I
can request it before I start playing, I'll do it.
We do this for fun, right? I do it for fun. I do it because I played and
wrote (primitive) adventures through highschool in the late 80's and was
quite addicted to them. I've come to realize that a high degree of criticism
is to be expected here but it does seem to be more objective than malicious
("Game X could have been better with Y and Z" as opposed to "Game X sucked,
if you play this you're a fool"). I wouldn't even say "Ha! let's see you do
better" because I'm among a group of people who CAN.
I hope this doesn't seem like a rant. I only replied (finally) because
"...as long as you accept that this will cost you marks in the competition."
kept staring at me. I do accept it. There are a number of things that will
cost me marks in the competition, having to "request" a walkthrough just
seemed like the most unusual one. Regardless of who wins... regardless of
who places dead last... regardless of what criteria were used to judge a
game... regardless of whether or not a game gets a "1" even if it's not
horrible... I'm having a wonderful time getting ready to enter. For that,
the competition has already paid off. :)
Mike.
Andrew Plotkin
>> It's your choice not to make the walkthrough publicly available, as long
>> as you accept that this may well cost you marks in the competition. Of
>> course, the competition should not just be about score. :)
>
> It seems that the competition games are archived "as is" after the
> competition. I certainly don't mind making a walkthrough available, I just
> don't want it to be a "standard" part of the game from now 'till eternity.
There are often updated versions which get stored in the regular game
directories of the archive. So you can finesse that, in a sense, by
recommending the updated version instead of the competition version.
If you think your game plays better -- is more likely to be enjoyed --
with no walkthrough, then maybe you shouldn't offer a walkthrough for the
competition. It's all about what players enjoy, right?
Mike Snyder
> with no walkthrough, then maybe you shouldn't offer a walkthrough for the
> competition. It's all about what players enjoy, right?
I do want a walkthrough to be readily available during the judging period
but not "as part of" the game after the contest. After my earlier post, I
thought of an idea which will do both (should have thought of it before) and
won't rely on people to email me for it after all. *Whew*
Mike.
Joe Mason
>If you think your game plays better -- is more likely to be enjoyed --
>with no walkthrough, then maybe you shouldn't offer a walkthrough for the
>competition. It's all about what players enjoy, right?
I agree with this. Don't do what I did - I provided a walkthrough but bitched
about it in the game notes. Then again, the game notes were really pretty
horribly arrogant in general.
Joe
BrenBarn
>don't want it to be a "standard" part of the game from now 'till eternity.
game, then the puzzles were a tad on the difficult side. If I happen to be in
a lazy mood, and I just don't feel like solving them, that's different. I
hadn't really though about providing a walkthrough on request, but I suppose if
someone really wanted one I'd give it to them. To me, though, gentle hints and
suggestions are better than blatant spoilers.
> I really doubt that anybody is
>anxiously awaiting the cash prizes. I would have entered even if "Hey man,
>you placed #18" was the only prize -- I don't know the other entrants but I
>suspect many of us earn more in a day than the top prize in the contest.
I don't earn squat -- I'm a student -- and I imagine my game is probably
horse manure compared to most others in the comp, but, like you, I enjoy the
idea of entering. Plus, the presence of a deadline motivates me to get my
ideas coded ASAP.
>If I were judging
>(and next year, maybe I will be) I would try to judge an entry on its own
>merit.
So would I. I might be annoyed if there were technical problems, but I
would consider that a part of the game's merit -- as long as it wasn't
something the game author couldn't have foreseen, like the presence of a
peculiar file system on my computer or something.
>Regardless of who wins... regardless of
>who places dead last... regardless of what criteria were used to judge a
>game... regardless of whether or not a game gets a "1" even if it's not
>horrible... I'm having a wonderful time getting ready to enter. For that,
>the competition has already paid off. :)
Bravo! I applaud your attitude -- and I hope I share it. (And I curse
this computer because I can't convey my attitude toward you through this
keyboard. :-)
From,
Brendan B. B. (Bren...@aol.com)
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
BrenBarn
win, then certainly what matters is what the players think. But if you're out
to participate, have fun, and share your work, then I think it's more about
what you enjoy and what you think is meritorious.
Andrew Plotkin
>>It's all about what players enjoy, right?
> Whoa! That one stopped me short. I think it depends. If you're out to
> win, then certainly what matters is what the players think. But if you're out
> to participate, have fun, and share your work, then I think it's more about
> what you enjoy and what you think is meritorious.
Oh, I've always believed in *educating* players about what to enjoy. By
example.
wyndo
>game, then the puzzles were a tad on the difficult side. If I happen to be in
>a lazy mood, and I just don't feel like solving them, that's different. I
>hadn't really though about providing a walkthrough on request, but I suppose if
>someone really wanted one I'd give it to them. To me, though, gentle hints and
>suggestions are better than blatant spoilers.
Absolutely, but with a 2-hour judging time limit and no public discussion, it's not
really practical for the competition. That's why I wanted a walkthrough with the
competition entry without it being a part of the game after it's over. A
walkthrough suits a 2-hour limit where getting stuck on 1 puzzle could make a
difference, where gentle hints and spoilers and great when you've got days or weeks
(or as long as it takes) to play. Anyway, that was my reasoning in wanting to have
a walkthrough "on request." I came up with a better idea today though.
> I don't earn squat -- I'm a student -- and I imagine my game is probably
>horse manure compared to most others in the comp, but, like you, I enjoy the
>idea of entering. Plus, the presence of a deadline motivates me to get my
>ideas coded ASAP.
I don't want to go down this path <grin> because of the non-discussion rule. I've
tried to be as generic as possible and don't want to cross any lines or even enter
any gray areas.
> Bravo! I applaud your attitude -- and I hope I share it. (And I curse
>this computer because I can't convey my attitude toward you through this
>keyboard. :-)
<LOL> I'm getting anxious to play some IF after these past few weeks of plugging
away on code -- less than a week to go!
Mike.
wyndo
> win, then certainly what matters is what the players think. But if you're out
> to participate, have fun, and share your work, then I think it's more about
> what you enjoy and what you think is meritorious.
I don't remember if I heard it here or elsewhere, but in a way programmers
*do* do things for the user, not for themselves. The programmer's job is
made a little tougher so the user's can be a little easier. I wish I
remembered exactly how the comment was worded. It made a lot of sense. It
most ways, what you do is more for the player's enjoyment than your own,
even if you do enjoy what you're doing. :)
wyndo
seems to be different. The Mike Snyder messages and the Wyndo messages are from me.
Woops. Sorry.
Mike Snyder
Geoff Bailey
In article <7so0og$7aa$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> It's your choice not to make the walkthrough publicly available, as long
>> as you accept that this may well cost you marks in the competition. Of
>> course, the competition should not just be about score. :)
[ <snip> Note that the above was actually written by me, not Mike. ]
> I hope this doesn't seem like a rant. I only replied (finally) because
> "...as long as you accept that this will cost you marks in the competition."
> kept staring at me. I do accept it. There are a number of things that will
> cost me marks in the competition, having to "request" a walkthrough just
> seemed like the most unusual one. [ ... ]
I should point out that I said "may well cost you", not "will cost you".
Perhaps I should have said that a walkthrough might earn you extra marks,
as people could get to experience more interesting parts of your
game/story/plot/whatever. Cattus Atrox may well have gotten another mark
or so from me if I had been able to get significantly far with it.
Mike Snyder
> Perhaps I should have said that a walkthrough might earn you extra marks,
> as people could get to experience more interesting parts of your
> game/story/plot/whatever. Cattus Atrox may well have gotten another mark
> or so from me if I had been able to get significantly far with it.
I've figured out a way to include the walkthrough (in ".sol" text format, as
is standard I believe) in a way that will "hide" it if anybody downloads
this version of the game (the competition version) after the competition
ends. My intent was never to prevent a walkthrough from being available,
only to make sure it doesn't sit there in the archive forever as part of the
game.
Can you give me your opinion on this?
I understand how a walkthrough will help get past hard parts of a game. What
I'm not clear on is how it helps further the story. For example, suppose
that 10 moves get you from point A to point B. Following a walkthrough to
get there might leave a player feeling confused, right? "Why in the world
did I have to say "gooble" while holding my nose then walk backwards to get
past the laser?" (That's just an example, I don't know of any game with that
particular puzzle.) In order to allow the story to unfold for the player's
benefit, there may be an additional 10 moves (involving looking at some
things, maybe reading a book, maybe talking to somebody about something you
read) which don't really affect any game variables but are there to further
the story. Should these extra moves be put in a walkthrough? They don't seem
to belong, since a 50-move walkthrough could turn into a 200-move
walkthrough where most of the moves are irrelevant to the "beginning to end"
path and only necessary for the story (things that would have been done
without the walkthrough anyway unless a player's not stuck).
For the purpose of a competition game, should the walkthrough include the
"story-supporting" moves where a normal walkthrough shouldn't? Should the
walkthrough always include everything a player is intended to see, even if
it's not really necessary except to the story? Should a walkthrough include
only the moves needed to complete the game?
Maybe this question is more suited for rec.games.int-fiction?
--Wyndo
Kathleen M. Fischer
> For the purpose of a competition game, should the walkthrough include the
> "story-supporting" moves where a normal walkthrough shouldn't? Should the
> walkthrough always include everything a player is intended to see, even if
> it's not really necessary except to the story? Should a walkthrough include
> only the moves needed to complete the game?
Just my opinion of course, but I think a walkthrough for a comp game
should be more... telling... then a normal walkthrough needs to be.
1. Comp games are shorter. You can afford a more leisurely walkthrough
so long as the player can still type in it in 2 hours. If they can't,
then your game is probably too long anyway!
2. I seem to recall some comments from previous comps where, toward the
end, after playing a bunch of games, some people were so burnt out
that they relied quite heavily on (or went quite early to) walkthroughs
If that's the case, and after 30 games who WOULDN'T be burnt out,
then you would want your walkthrough to give them the experience they
might have had having played it "fresh".
3. I don't see how it could hurt. I suppose, if a person is stuck, then
they might have a harder time telling what one thing they need to do if
the walkthrough is long (but good comments could ease that problem).
But then again, if your walkthrough is concise then your game might
seem truly bizarre (and perhaps suffer in the ratings) when the player
must cluck like a chicken to get the box to open if you haven't "shown"
them the logic.
Paul O'Brian
> Can you give me your opinion on this?
> I understand how a walkthrough will help get past hard parts of a game. What
> I'm not clear on is how it helps further the story. For example, suppose
> that 10 moves get you from point A to point B. Following a walkthrough to
> get there might leave a player feeling confused, right? "Why in the world
> did I have to say "gooble" while holding my nose then walk backwards to get
> past the laser?"
Perhaps you might consider writing a hint file rather than a walkthrough.
The drawback, of course, is it's a lot more work and we're really close to
the deadline. But as a general principle, competition authors (or for that
matter *any* IF authors) who want to provide help for players but have
problems with walkthroughs ought to consider providing hints of some kind,
whether within the game itself or outside of it somehow.
After all, it's not like walkthroughs are the only option in the world for
this sort of thing.
--
Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
"Sometimes even music cannot substitute for tears."
-- Paul Simon
Kvan
> Just my opinion of course, but I think a walkthrough for a comp game
> should be more... telling... then a normal walkthrough needs to be.
[snip]
You can add my USD .02 to Kathleen's, for a grand total of 4 cents, if
you make your walkthrough more telling and well commented :)
Kvan.
--
-------Casper Kvan Clausen------ | 'A *person* is smart. People are
---------<kv...@dis.dk>---------- | dumb, panicky, dangerous animals
| and you know it.'
| - "K" in Men in Black.
Mike Snyder
> so long as the player can still type in it in 2 hours. If they can't,
> then your game is probably too long anyway!
Without being able to discuss a particular "entry", I'll just say that this
is a possibility. When reading the info I was so anxious to get started
(plus I was way late on getting started) that the two hour thing didn't
really sink in. Plus, I was thinking that games were to be judged on 2 hours
of play without regard for anything past that which would mean a "200-hour"
game would be judged on the first 2 hours only. Although this is true, it
seems that not seeing the entire game might lower a judge's opinion (maybe?)
which isn't really what I was thinking at first. It was only later that I
realized that the competition is for short games and that not seeing the
entire thing might lower a vote... ACK!
> 2. I seem to recall some comments from previous comps where, toward the
> end, after playing a bunch of games, some people were so burnt out
> that they relied quite heavily on (or went quite early to) walkthroughs
> If that's the case, and after 30 games who WOULDN'T be burnt out,
> then you would want your walkthrough to give them the experience they
> might have had having played it "fresh".
Ah yes, burnout. I guess near the end of 30, it might make sense just to
"get to the end" without even having to deal with all the extras that a
"detailed" walkthrough would give.
> 3. I don't see how it could hurt. I suppose, if a person is stuck, then
> they might have a harder time telling what one thing they need to do if
> the walkthrough is long (but good comments could ease that problem).
> But then again, if your walkthrough is concise then your game might
> seem truly bizarre (and perhaps suffer in the ratings) when the player
> must cluck like a chicken to get the box to open if you haven't "shown"
> them the logic.
This was exactly what I was thinking. It might make sense to lower a vote
because the game as (played from the walkthrough) didn't seem to make much
sense, even though if all the "extras" had been discovered, the game might
have gotten bonus points for having some good puzzles (any game, generically
I mean). Hmmm. I had even considered breaking the walkthrough up into
sections so that it would be easier to get past "main" things without
spoiling the whole thing.
I think I will take the time to add a "help" section in addition to just the
walkthrough, and leave the walkthrough itself in simple form. Like you said,
it shouldn't hurt to provide as much as possible.
Thanks!
Mike.
Lucian Paul Smith
: Should these extra moves be put in a walkthrough? They don't seem
: to belong, since a 50-move walkthrough could turn into a 200-move
: walkthrough where most of the moves are irrelevant to the "beginning to end"
: path and only necessary for the story (things that would have been done
: without the walkthrough anyway unless a player's not stuck).
I think you should do whatever you feel is best. Personally, I put in a
bunch of extra commands in the walkthrough I submitted for my comp game.
One comment on it I got was that the player was able to solve some of the
puzzles by looking at the walkthrough for examples of what to do, instead
of for outright spoilers, which I thought was pretty cool.
Another option is to have a 'talky' walkthrough, where some commands are
explicit, and other bits aren't commands at all, but talk about the game
and what the general thing-to-do-next is. You can browse gmd for examples
of both types, and pick the style you like the best.
-Lucian
cozmo
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Mike Snyder wrote:
>
> > Can you give me your opinion on this?
> > I understand how a walkthrough will help get past hard parts of a game. What
> > I'm not clear on is how it helps further the story. For example, suppose
> > that 10 moves get you from point A to point B. Following a walkthrough to
> > get there might leave a player feeling confused, right? "Why in the world
> > did I have to say "gooble" while holding my nose then walk backwards to get
> > past the laser?"
>
> Perhaps you might consider writing a hint file rather than a walkthrough.
> The drawback, of course, is it's a lot more work and we're really close to
> the deadline. But as a general principle, competition authors (or for that
> matter *any* IF authors) who want to provide help for players but have
> problems with walkthroughs ought to consider providing hints of some kind,
> whether within the game itself or outside of it somehow.
>
> After all, it's not like walkthroughs are the only option in the world for
> this sort of thing.
>
Edifice, and the 'footnotes' in jigsaw. Although the notes in jigsaw
may not have been intended as helpful hints, I found that by reading
them for a particular piece when stumped has helped.
In my work in progress 'snowball' I am implimenting a few (IMHO) novel
approaches to 'hints'. For one thing if the PC (who is a cat) gets
stuck he/she can give the command 'think'. This causes the game to
replay a previous scene that has bearing on what you should do
As an example (not from story).
You are getting very hungry, you should find some food soon.
>thing
You ponder for a moment and remember back to this morning...
Kitchen
This is your favorite place in the castle, full of warmth and delicious
sents. Cook is here busily preparing the afternoon meal. In the other
side of the kitchen you spy a mouse nibbling at the corner of a grain
sack.
Cook looks down at you and says 'Not now kitty', and promptly tosses you
out into the hall. ...
This can be taken as a hint that you might want to go back to the
kitchen. Or maybe that you pay attention to mice.
L8tr,
Cozmo the Magician
http://www.superior.net/~cozmo
Avrom Faderman
Vincent Lynch wrote in message ...
>Do people really mark down a game for not seeing all of it in two hours? I
>always took the two hour limit to mean that as an author, you've got two
>hours of playing time to entertain the judges. It's of no advantage to
>enter a longer game, so I can't see any reason to penalise someone for
doing
>so.
I don't think anyone (well, not many people) mark a game down *because* they
didn't see all of it. But there are a lot of games that suffer if you don't
see the ending, because the ending supplies a twist that throws new light on
everything that came before, because the game is supposed to present some
narrative arc that doesn't work if left incomplete, or because the game
simply gets a lot better towards the end. These games might well get marked
down if people don't see all of them.
Best,
Avrom
J.D. Berry
"Kathleen M. Fischer" <kfis...@no.spam> wrote:
> 2. I seem to recall some comments from previous comps where, toward
>the end, after playing a bunch of games, some people were so burnt out
>that they relied quite heavily on (or went quite early to)
>walkthroughs. If that's the case, and after 30 games who WOULDN'T be
>burnt out, then you would want your walkthrough to give them the
>experience they might have had having played it "fresh".
Nothing illustrates IF burnout more than C.E. Forman's reviews
(http://bang.dhs.org/if/library/criticism/cef.html) Even though
those reviews are hilarious and insightful, I think there's a point
where a judge should just stop playing. Just to get all the games
reviewed doesn't seem like a great reason.
I heard Dostoyevsky lost the 1865 fiction finals because his book
(Crimes Against Punishment) was the 33rd to be reviewed that
year. "All right, it's 2 a.m.... what have we here... geez, ANOTHER
book about testing the limits of individual freedom? A metaphysical
detective story? Comrade Barringer would love to hear about this one.
And there's a house? WALKTHROUGH, please... I'm done, it's about
time."
Thank goodness for the release 2.
Jimbo
P.S. Fyodor still won an Ass Kicking Borscht Basket.
"Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the
privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." -- FD
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric Mayer
but my first ever attempt to do any sort of programming -- I have been
following this thread with a lot of interest, and some distress. When
I ran across IF last spring I thought that's neat. And when I saw that
folks had made it possible to write it yourself I thought, that's even
neater. I've gotta try that. So I did. Now, if there wasn't such a
thing as a competition I likely would've have tried to write a game
but not completed it. When I asked, some of you who are very well
qualified offered some advice on the purposes of the contest, and
seemed agree that it wasn't just for potential winners, I decided to
go ahead and enter - just to say I had run the course so to speak!
So if anyone else is feeling a little apprehensive about their entry
well, you're not alone, but as my wife used to remark when I'd drag
her out to orienteering meets and she'd go out on a course, "Someone's
got to finish last." Yep, a dirty job but someone's got to do it.
As to walkthrus - I have to admit, I usually don't want to start a
game if I know there's no walkthru or solution of some sort because I
figure I'll get stuck and never know the end. I do some other fiction
writing and my experience has been that what one person might find
obvious another might not see at all. You can hardly go wrong figuring
as, I think E.B. White once put it, "Most readers are lost most of the
time.".
--
Eric Mayer
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite
Mike Snyder
> well, you're not alone, but as my wife used to remark when I'd drag
> her out to orienteering meets and she'd go out on a course, "Someone's
> got to finish last." Yep, a dirty job but someone's got to do it.
I'm actually a little encouraged now. I won't comment on how I think my
entry will fare among the others (although I do have an opinion) but I will
say that I'm pleased to be a part of it. I recently came across a site with
some reviews of past year's entries. Nothing was sugar-coated -- it all
seemed like blatant honesty. Every flaw is brought to light, but the good
things (if any) are mentioned too. The criticism I read seemed constructive
(even on bad reviews) and that can only *help* an author improve. Being told
"your game sucks, the idea sucks, you suck" wouldn't be too helpful, and I
didn't see any of that.
The hardest part for me will be the 6-week stretch where the game is done
yet the feedback is on hold. That's nothing to be apprehensive about
though -- just a litle anxious. :)
Mike.
Mike Snyder
> yet the feedback is on hold. That's nothing to be apprehensive about
> though -- just a litle anxious. :)
I just came across this comment in the reviews, appearently from Suzanne
Skinner on one entry in last year's competition:
"I would like to say to this author, and to others like him/her: Learn TADS
or Inform or Hugo. Please. Or even Alan or AGT, if you find those too
difficult. Please, new IF writers: don't inflict any more homemade parsers
on us. I don't care how clever a programmer you are; nothing you can do can
match up to a system that's had years to mature and is deployed on over a
dozen operating systems. If you make a game you're proud of, do you really
want to cripple it with an immature parser? And do you really want to
prevent everyone but DOS-users from playing it?"
I do think it's unfortunate that a game is judged on the programming prowess
of the authors of these engines, but I do understand the reason for this. If
a game written in TADS is an "8" and the same game written home-brewn is a
"4" then shouldn't Mike Roberts get 4 points and the author of the game get
4? (Sorry, just kidding).
A game with a home-brewn parser hasn't (from what I've seen) placed very
high in past competitions. Neither I, nor anybody else is likely to change
that, and as pointed out (in a way) by the quote, there isn't much point in
thinking otherwise. When you decide to enter (and begin developing a game)
the last day that "intent to enter" is even open, you've already placed
yourself at a disadvantage. It either has to be a home-brewn parser or,
spend the month learning an IF language instead and probably not be able to
enter a game at all.
However -- and this is the only reason I've mentioned this -- the comment
from the review seems like a high-handed generalization: "I don't care how
clever a programmer you are; nothing you can do can match up to a system
that's had years to mature..." You have no idea what can I do. Encouraging
one of these languages is great. When people ask me about IF I don't
recommend that they develop their own parser (I tell them about the ones
mentioned, instead). Is it fair to say that such a game can "never" match up
though? Perhaps "almost never?" Maybe "highly unlikely?" Maybe "it would
take a miracle?" Being told, though, that nothing I can do can match up just
seems wrongs.
Mike.
J.D. Berry
>Mike Snyder wrote:
> ... but I will say that I'm pleased to be a part of it. I recently
>came across a site with some reviews of past year's entries. Nothing
>was sugar-coated -- it all seemed like blatant honesty. Every flaw is
>brought to light, but the good things (if any) are mentioned too. The
>criticism I read seemed constructive (even on bad reviews) and that
>can only *help* an author improve. Being told "your game sucks, the
>idea sucks, you suck" wouldn't be too helpful, and I didn't see any of
>that.
>
The thing that impresses me is that several of the prize donors are
people whose games have been at the bottom of recent competitions. I
commend their sportsmanship and enthusiasm for IF.
Regarding the reviews, usually one man's cup of delicious hot coffee
is another man's mug of bitter, scalding, dark brown liquid. The fear
is being nobody's morning pick-me-up!
I agree that the reviews I've read are quite helpful, although
sometimes patronizing--faint praise (it didn't sweat a lot for a fat
game); "compliment sandwiches" heavy on the criticism bread (the
game was a garbled mess--neat premise though--and failed to grab
my attention at any point); and "encouragement" (you get a clue as
to what you're doing and how to write and I'll look forward to your
next effort.) Better to err on that side of a review, IMO, though.
;-D
> The hardest part for me will be the 6-week stretch where the game is
>done yet the feedback is on hold. That's nothing to be apprehensive
>about though -- just a little anxious. :)
>
:-) I'm thinking of those chattering teeth in "Day of the Tentacle."
BTW, the public feedback is quite limited, but are judges free to
contact you privately after they've rated your game? Like "good job"
or "what WERE you thinking?"
Jim
Adam J. Thornton
Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>things (if any) are mentioned too. The criticism I read seemed constructive
>(even on bad reviews) and that can only *help* an author improve. Being told
>"your game sucks, the idea sucks, you suck" wouldn't be too helpful, and I
>didn't see any of that.
Not to be one, but I think my review of _The Commute_ pretty much did just
that. Mostly because, I reiterate, the game RESET MY $^&#*&$@(ING SYSTEM
CLOCK! WITHOUT ASKING!
Any game that screws around with my machine like that this year will not
only get a very low score, but runs the risk of me dropping by the author's
house with a board with a nail in the end of it.
And then there were some (was it last year or the year before? Can't
remember) that were on the order of "Why did you write this game? And
having done so, why did you feel compelled to submit it rather than drop it
in a deep hole, pour gasoline on it, and incinerate it?" Hint: I will not
look favorably on any games that are simulations of being locked in a
very boring yet highly buggy house with no other plot or inhabitants.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Stephen Granade
> Nothing illustrates IF burnout more than C.E. Forman's reviews
> (http://bang.dhs.org/if/library/criticism/cef.html) Even though
> those reviews are hilarious and insightful, I think there's a point
> where a judge should just stop playing. Just to get all the games
> reviewed doesn't seem like a great reason.
Well, Chris's burnout with IF did not so much occur during the
competition as before it, and his reviewing style reflects this. It's
not a case of his reviews becoming less and less forgiving as time
went on. He approached adjudicating and reviewing the competition
entries as a giant game of Whack-A-Mole from the first, and one in
which he used a giant spiked club.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Visit About.com's IF Page
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.about.com
Mike Snyder
> competition as before it, and his reviewing style reflects this. It's
> not a case of his reviews becoming less and less forgiving as time
> went on. He approached adjudicating and reviewing the competition
> entries as a giant game of Whack-A-Mole from the first, and one in
> which he used a giant spiked club.
OMG those reviews were funny! If I do bad in the comp, I hope that my review
looks like "Aunt Nancy's House" -- I was laughing out loud! My coworkers
must think I'm nuts.
Mike Snyder
> people whose games have been at the bottom of recent competitions. I
> commend their sportsmanship and enthusiasm for IF.
I didn't (gasp) look over the prize list in much detail. Thats cool!
> I agree that the reviews I've read are quite helpful, although
> sometimes patronizing--faint praise (it didn't sweat a lot for a fat
> game); "compliment sandwiches" heavy on the criticism bread (the
> game was a garbled mess--neat premise though--and failed to grab
> my attention at any point); and "encouragement" (you get a clue as
> to what you're doing and how to write and I'll look forward to your
> next effort.) Better to err on that side of a review, IMO, though.
One set of reviews was pointed out elsewhere in this thread. These reviews
weren't patronizing (even a little). They do, in fact, shout "you suck,
why'd you bother?" in several cases, but it was funny to read. I guess
something like this could either help or hurt an author. If you realize that
many of the reviews were bad and (maybe unintentionally) humorous, then it
might not really bruise you much. On the other hand, an enthusiastic
first-timer might decide that IF isn't worth the abuse.
I certainly don't think reviews should be sugar-coated, but you're right
that it might be better than nothing but bad marks. Stroking the author's
ego (even a little) IMO isn't necessary in the effort to give constructive
criticism. Comments on what could have been better and what could have made
the game more enjoyable would be helpful. A thoughtful explanation (even a
short one) on why the game isn't very good would be helpful.
> > The hardest part for me will be the 6-week stretch where the game is
> >done yet the feedback is on hold. That's nothing to be apprehensive
> >about though -- just a little anxious. :)
> >
>
> :-) I'm thinking of those chattering teeth in "Day of the Tentacle."
Maybe not *that* anxous. ;)
> BTW, the public feedback is quite limited, but are judges free to
> contact you privately after they've rated your game? Like "good job"
> or "what WERE you thinking?"
I was thinking this myself. Since entries are played in a "random" order
(right?) a game might be played first by some, last by others, and at any
point in between. Periodic comments would be nice -- although I don't know
if that's taboo or not.
Mike.
Stephen Granade
> BTW, the public feedback is quite limited, but are judges free to
> contact you privately after they've rated your game? Like "good job"
> or "what WERE you thinking?"
The only form of communication which is verboten is *public*
discussion of entries. Judges are free to mail authors all they want
after they finish the game, and in fact are encouraged to do so.
Mike Snyder
> discussion of entries. Judges are free to mail authors all they want
> after they finish the game, and in fact are encouraged to do so.
That's good news. It could mean the difference in having a post-competition
"update" ready right when the judging ends versus a few weeks later if no
feedback comes in until then. Thanks!
Mike.
BrenBarn
>yet the feedback is on hold.
that I won't get too nervous. :-)
From,
Brendan B. B. (Bren...@aol.com)
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
BrenBarn
>clever a programmer you are; nothing you can do can match up to a system
>that's had years to mature..." You have no idea what can I do.
Lucian Paul Smith
: > BTW, the public feedback is quite limited, but are judges free to
: > contact you privately after they've rated your game? Like "good job"
: > or "what WERE you thinking?"
: I was thinking this myself. Since entries are played in a "random" order
: (right?) a game might be played first by some, last by others, and at any
: point in between. Periodic comments would be nice -- although I don't know
: if that's taboo or not.
The limitation is on public discussion only. And, if you read it closely,
you'll notice that the restriction is actually only for authors--but it's
considered sporting to not discuss them at all while the voting's going on
because discussion *will* sway people's votes, and it's nicer to vote
unswayed.
So any e-mail discussion is perfectly acceptable--encouraged, even,
because there's nothing more nerve-wracking than releasing a game and
wondering how it's going over.
-Lucian
Eric Mayer
<mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The criticism I read seemed constructive
>(even on bad reviews) and that can only *help* an author improve. Being told
>"your game sucks, the idea sucks, you suck" wouldn't be too helpful, and I
>didn't see any of that.
>
Yeah. I haven't seen a lot of over the top nastiness either. Not like
when I recently looked on Amazon.com for a book by a friend who's had
half a dozen horror novels published and found someone had posted a
review saying, if I recall correctly, "This book is terrible. A total
waste of time and anybody who reads it should have their hands cut
off."
Of course, if it were a game review, then the question would be, does
"cut hands off" work or does it have to be "cut off hands"?
Eric Mayer
>
>And then there were some (was it last year or the year before? Can't
>remember) that were on the order of "Why did you write this game? And
>having done so, why did you feel compelled to submit it rather than drop it
>in a deep hole, pour gasoline on it, and incinerate it?"
We suffered coding it so why shouldn't you suffer playing it?
wyndo
> >And then there were some (was it last year or the year before? Can't
> >remember) that were on the order of "Why did you write this game? And
> >having done so, why did you feel compelled to submit it rather than drop it
> >in a deep hole, pour gasoline on it, and incinerate it?"
>
> We suffered coding it so why shouldn't you suffer playing it?
Well, that's not exactly what I was saying. :) Anyway, I for one didn't suffer.
I've had a blast doing the coding! :)
Jake Wildstrom
Adam J. Thornton <ad...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>in a deep hole, pour gasoline on it, and incinerate it?" Hint: I will not
>look favorably on any games that are simulations of being locked in a
>very boring yet highly buggy house with no other plot or inhabitants.
Also, any game that kills you for insufficient bladder control gets shafted.
Unless there's a _very_ good reason (say, you're hanging around with sociopaths
who react incomprehensibly to the presence of urine).
There's a very good reason such puzzles are never used in good games (well,
once--in LGOP).
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Second April
> The only form of communication which is verboten is *public*
> discussion of entries. Judges are free to mail authors all they want
> after they finish the game, and in fact are encouraged to do so.
That would leave open the possibility of two judges discussing the entries
by private e-mail and swaying each other's votes thereby, of course. Not
that I've done such a thing or plan to, but perhaps it should be mentioned
as something to avoid.
Plus, as Lucian pointed out, the rules do say that "authors", as opposed
to both authors and judges, shouldn't discuss the games in a public forum,
so that might be something to change.
Not to nitpick or anything.
Duncan Stevens
d-st...@nwu.edu
773-728-9721
Love in the open hand, no thing but that,
Ungemmed, unhidden, wishing not to hurt,
As one should bring you cowslips in a hat
Swung from her hand, or apples in her skirt,
I bring you, calling out as children do,
"Look what I have!--And these are all for you."
--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Daniel Barkalow
> However -- and this is the only reason I've mentioned this -- the comment
> from the review seems like a high-handed generalization: "I don't care how
> clever a programmer you are; nothing you can do can match up to a system
> that's had years to mature..." You have no idea what can I do. Encouraging
> one of these languages is great. When people ask me about IF I don't
> recommend that they develop their own parser (I tell them about the ones
> mentioned, instead). Is it fair to say that such a game can "never" match up
> though? Perhaps "almost never?" Maybe "highly unlikely?" Maybe "it would
> take a miracle?" Being told, though, that nothing I can do can match up just
> seems wrongs.
One feature considered good in a game is having a parser essentially the
same as a familiar parser. Especially in a situation when you've been
playing a lot of games, it's much nicer to be using a parser that reacts
the way you expect all the time. Part of the problem with individuals'
parsers is that they're not going to be the same as a traditional one (or
the people really wouldn't bother to write them). Perhaps it would make
sense to say, "I don't care how good a parser you can write; nothing's
going to be so intuitive to me as a system I've played for years"?
The technical merits of the IF system don't make so much difference for
the game as the subjective impression the players get, and on this count
a new system will never match up, at least initially.
-Iabervon
*This .sig unintentionally changed*
Lelah Conrad
wrote:
> I heard Dostoyevsky lost the 1865 fiction finals because his book
>(Crimes Against Punishment)
? I guess I missed that one.
Lelah :)
cozmo
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Mike Snyder wrote:
>
> > However -- and this is the only reason I've mentioned this -- the comment
> > from the review seems like a high-handed generalization: "I don't care how
> One feature considered good in a game is having a parser essentially the
> same as a familiar parser. Especially in a situation when you've been
> playing a lot of games, it's much nicer to be using a parser that reacts
> the way you expect all the time. Part of the problem with individuals'
> parsers is that they're not going to be the same as a traditional one (or
> the people really wouldn't bother to write them). Perhaps it would make
> sense to say, "I don't care how good a parser you can write; nothing's
> going to be so intuitive to me as a system I've played for years"?
>
> The technical merits of the IF system don't make so much difference for
> the game as the subjective impression the players get, and on this count
> a new system will never match up, at least initially.
As a programmer I disagree. There is vast room for improvement in
todays IF. And IF is continually undergong improvement. IMHO if someone
developed a system that revolutionised NPCs (for example), it could be
an instant success. I am continualy amazed at the inovation and
creativity that go into some of todays IF. Granted there are things out
there that I would not want to waste 100k of drive space on. Yet the
majority of what I have seen lately shows how this art/craft/vodoo magic
can progress.
L8tr,
Cozmo the magician
http://www.superior.net/~cozmo
cozmo
>
> >As a programmer I disagree. There is vast room for improvement in
> >todays IF. And IF is continually undergong improvement. IMHO if someone
> I think you're right, but I think the comments were more geared at the
> "single game" engines... ones that are entirely self-contained and only
> drive 1 game, not an engine for many. I have written (and am continuing to
> write, at least to this point) these "singe-game" engines. The original
> sentiment was that a game written entirely on its own is in a way crippled,
> as opposed to a new "engine."
Then (IMHO) it all depends on you. If you have written a parser that
works for your game I don't see any problem. I do agree that you may be
limiting your audience though. One of the first things I noticed about
this NG and the users in general is how 'cross platform' IF is.
CYA,
Cozmo
Mike Snyder
>same as a familiar parser. Especially in a situation when you've been
>playing a lot of games, it's much nicer to be using a parser that reacts
>the way you expect all the time. Part of the problem with individuals'
>parsers is that they're not going to be the same as a traditional one (or
>the people really wouldn't bother to write them). Perhaps it would make
>sense to say, "I don't care how good a parser you can write; nothing's
>going to be so intuitive to me as a system I've played for years"?
>
>The technical merits of the IF system don't make so much difference for
>the game as the subjective impression the players get, and on this count
>a new system will never match up, at least initially.
Yes, to this I can agree. I even understand (as far as "judging" goes) that
a home-brewn game isn't going to receive marks as high as a similar
tads/inform/hugo/etc game and I understand this too (being comfortable with
how the "environment" works is a big part of the overall impression of a
game). I definitely was not trying to attack the author of the snippet I
quoted, but if it had been phrased the way you suggested, I wouldn't have
even mentioned it at all. :)
Mike.
Mike Snyder
>todays IF. And IF is continually undergong improvement. IMHO if someone
>an instant success. I am continualy amazed at the inovation and
>creativity that go into some of todays IF. Granted there are things out
>there that I would not want to waste 100k of drive space on. Yet the
>majority of what I have seen lately shows how this art/craft/vodoo magic
>can progress.
I think you're right, but I think the comments were more geared at the
"single game" engines... ones that are entirely self-contained and only
drive 1 game, not an engine for many. I have written (and am continuing to
write, at least to this point) these "singe-game" engines. The original
sentiment was that a game written entirely on its own is in a way crippled,
as opposed to a new "engine."
Mike.
J.D. Berry
I later mentioned release 2 which was to imply the retitled Crime AND
Punishment. Crimes Against Mimesis and the tie in to the Comp game
of the same name, and... oh, forget it. ;-D
I guess "Our Town" wasn't a collaboration between Adam Thornton and
Jake Wildstrom, either. :-(
Jim Wild-ER Berry
LucFrench
>Do people really mark down a game for not seeing all of it in two hours?
Only if neither hints nor a walkthrough are provided.
Thanks
Luc "Loop" French
Adam J. Thornton
J.D. Berry <jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <37f3f50...@news.nu-world.com>,
> l...@nu-world.com (Lelah Conrad) wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:59:23 GMT, J.D. Berry <jdb...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I heard Dostoyevsky lost the 1865 fiction finals because his book
>> >(Crimes Against Punishment)
>> ? I guess I missed that one.
>Punishment. Crimes Against Mimesis and the tie in to the Comp game
>of the same name, and... oh, forget it. ;-D
Indeed. Some people never appreciate the finer points of humor. And that
game was one of the few not savaged by CEF in his Whackamolean (tm Stephen
Granade) reviews that year.
>I guess "Our Town" wasn't a collaboration between Adam Thornton and
>Jake Wildstrom, either. :-(
Well, of course not. That was my illustrious cousin Billy Bob and good ol'
Jake.
Jake Wildstrom
>J.D. Berry <jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>I guess "Our Town" wasn't a collaboration between Adam Thornton and
>>Jake Wildstrom, either. :-(
>
>Well, of course not. That was my illustrious cousin Billy Bob and good ol'
>Jake.
Woohoo! I've been regularified (or something). Now all I need to do is write
something! (Maybe an IF version of Our Town? <g>)
tls
Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I do think it's unfortunate that a game is judged on the programming prowess
>of the authors of these engines, but I do understand the reason for this. If
>a game written in TADS is an "8" and the same game written home-brewn is a
>"4" then shouldn't Mike Roberts get 4 points and the author of the game get
>4? (Sorry, just kidding).
If a game written as a homebrew system were as robust as a game written
with one of the standard packages, I imagine that it would be given a
good score. 'Robust' means that all the things I consider standard IF
interaction are implemented; obviously that might vary from person to
person. I believe that the reason that homebrew packages have a bad rep
is that they often leave out things that most reviewers consider
standard, which makes gameplay experience rather irritating.
Or, put another way, I don't care what system the game is written in
provided that I can get through it without feeling the parser itself is
limited, and therefore limitING of what I can do. I will put up with
little quirks from system to system; as long as there's /some/ relatively
obvious way to do what is necessary to move through the game, the method
of authoring it is immaterial.
--
ti...@ripco.com - you...@foad.org - help, I'm stuck in a bottle