Guess-the-verb examples
Jeremy Douglass
real IF works?
As usual, I'm trying to compile a short list of actual guess-the-verb
situations in IF.
I know that judgement on what counts as a guess-the-verb is often
subjective, but I'm concentrating on:
- a single interaction or puzzle (e.g. PRY CRATE)
- a verb that isn't used elsewhere, or hasn't been used yet
In particular, I'm trying to find examples which aren't just problems
with a limited range of common synonyms. If a work implements "PUSH
DOOR" and "PULL DOOR" but not "OPEN DOOR", this is an understandable
but not very compelling example. If a work requires "LEVER CRATE WITH
PRYBAR" but doesn't allow "PRY CRATE WITH PRYBAR," well, that's just
pure gold.
Any examples appreciated. Thanks!
David Fisher
news:1194220466....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone suggest examples of actual guess-the-verb situations from
> real IF works?
There are some examples here (in the section on "Unrecognized Commands") ...
http://dfisher.serverspeople.net/ifgems/gems_14.html
Most of these are "missing synonym" types, though.
David Fisher
Mike Snyder
news:1194220466....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> real IF works?
>
> As usual, I'm trying to compile a short list of actual guess-the-verb
> situations in IF.
Are you wanting to cite references in real games?
Guess-the-verb is when the player knows what to do, but can't convince the
game to accept rational and likely commands to accomplish it.
There are other situations which, IMO, are incorrectly classified as
guess-the-verb:
1) If the player attempts a couple *obscure* actions to accomplish a thing
for which several more likely actions *are* supported, that's not
guess-the-verb
2) If a player makes the wrong assumption about what action is necessary
(assuming something works when that's not the answer regardless of
phrasing), that's not really guess-the-verb.
3) When a specific action is required that *is* supported in rational ways,
but the action itself is hard to guess (standing on a chair, for instance),
that's not guess-the-verb. Maybe guess-the-action.
I think guess-the-verb happens as a result of too little beta testing, and
is more common when the author hasn't played much IF (at least, beyond the
two-word parsers of the olden days).
I would consider any of these to be guess-the-verb situations:
1) Players tries to hit or pick up an object, but nothing happens (this is
from a game in an IFComp a year or two ago -- I forget which, but I could
find out). The answer is to "touch" the object, when the specific manner of
touching isn't really important (just physical contact in general triggers
the actions).
2) The author has a room which can only be entered using "go into room."
Other possibilities, such as "in" and "enter room" and direction movement
isn't supported.
3) An NPC must be addressed with a directive, such as "bob, give me the box"
or "bob, open the hatch." This teeters on "guess-the-action" if other
phrasing is supported (such as "ask bob for box" or "tell bob about hatch").
These are changed-up examples from this year's IFComp.
4) When the author simply hasn't supported verb and grammar synonyms in a
big enough way. For example, if "push button with fake finger" is required,
players may stumble trying to figure it out if other phrasing isn't
supported (poke button with finger, touch finger to button, press finger
against button, and so forth).
---- Mike.
Emily Short
> In particular, I'm trying to find examples which aren't just problems
> with a limited range of common synonyms. If a work implements "PUSH
> DOOR" and "PULL DOOR" but not "OPEN DOOR", this is an understandable
> but not very compelling example. If a work requires "LEVER CRATE WITH
> PRYBAR" but doesn't allow "PRY CRATE WITH PRYBAR," well, that's just
> pure gold.
>
> Any examples appreciated. Thanks!
I was stuck on Zork II for a long time because...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
At one point you have to assemble a brick of plastic explosive and a
fuse; the only way to do this is with a particular phrasing (I think
"insert fuse in brick") and all other attempts to attach the fuse, tie
the fuse, put the fuse on/in, etc., were unavailing.
Default User
No, "put string in brick" works fine. "On" shouldn't work, because the
fuse necessarily has to be inserted into the explosive. Most others
give you reasonably useful error messages.
I'm not seeing that as one that qualifies.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Ron Newcomb
I distinctly remember needing the walkthru on how to shapeshift into a
bird.
albtraum
was called, there was one point where you could tie a rope to a hook,
dangle it off the edge of a cliff and then... nothing. I couldn't
climb down the rope. I couldn't go down. I couldn't descend. I
couldn't rappel.
I don't even remember what the "correct" approach to that rope and the
cliff was. I just remember being quite frustrated.
albtraum
>
> No, "put string in brick" works fine. "On" shouldn't work, because the
> fuse necessarily has to be inserted into the explosive. Most others
> give you reasonably useful error messages.
>
> I'm not seeing that as one that qualifies.
>
> Brian
Except that 99.9% of humankind's interaction with bricks, of any kind,
involves putting things ON them, not IN them. It just seems wrong to
type "put string in brick". That's a deeply weird phrase. It's like
forcing the player to type "chew boulder" or "defecate in monocle".
it's understandable that people would want to try "on" first.
But I guess technically that's more of a guess-the-preposition problem.
dean.m...@gmail.com
In Dungeon (Mainframe Zork), you had to type "BOARD BUCKET" -- you
couldn;t type "ENTER BUCKET"
Default User
>
> >
> > No, "put string in brick" works fine. "On" shouldn't work, because
> > the fuse necessarily has to be inserted into the explosive. Most
> > others give you reasonably useful error messages.
> >
> > I'm not seeing that as one that qualifies.
> >
> > Brian
>
>
> Except that 99.9% of humankind's interaction with bricks, of any kind,
> involves putting things ON them, not IN them.
This was clearly a brick of pliable material, not a brick brick.
> It just seems wrong to
> type "put string in brick". That's a deeply weird phrase. It's like
> forcing the player to type "chew boulder" or "defecate in monocle".
> it's understandable that people would want to try "on" first.
Not at all. If you've correctly assumed that it is a brick of plastic
explosive, and the string is a fuse, then "on" makes no sense. If you
haven't come to that conclusion, then you're shotgunning anyway and
don't really "deserve" to have it work.
jdouglass
> In Dungeon (Mainframe Zork), you had to type "BOARD BUCKET" -- you
> couldn;t type "ENTER BUCKET"
This seems like an excellent example. The general concept is
understood, but the only acceptable verb is a specific and atypical
one.
On Nov 5, 12:21 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, "put string in brick" works fine. "On" shouldn't work, because the
> fuse necessarily has to be inserted into the explosive. Most others
> give you reasonably useful error messages.
>
> I'm not seeing that as one that qualifies.
Well, that whole disagreement is really about guess-the-preposition,
not guess-the-verb. =)
For my two cents, prepositions are less logically differentiated than
most verbs. You can "put the bow IN her hair" or "put the bow ON the
pigtail" - both incidentally signify attachment. You don't just put
the fuse ON the brick, because that doesn't signify attachment, but
then you don't *really* put the fuse IN the brick either, in the sense
that you put water in a bucket or a coin in a slot. Then the fuse end
wouldn't be poking out - it would be a brick of explosive with a
useless fuse contained in the middle. You want to put *one end* of
the fuse in the brick. Because IF is traditionally really bad at
expressing these ideas, the player often has to translate these ideas
into parser-ese - so, instead of propping the door by putting one end
of the two-by-four in the doorway, the player types PUT BOARD IN DOOR
and hopes that doesn't mean tossing the board into the next room. Of
course, that's where the verb PROP could help - but the whole point of
guess-the-verb is, if the player recognizes that the doorway needs to
be obstructed to prevent closure, should they have to guess the word
"prop"? Or should they be able to use simple but potentially
ambiguous language equivalents?
My prejudice is that the contemporary IF author opposed to near-
guesses should at least give feedback: "The board sits in the doorway,
but it doesn't look very sturdy" or "After several attempts, the tied
fuse seems loosely connected at best, so you give up." This at least
makes plain that the player is supposed to articulate the concept
"FUSE + BRICK" more specifically, and hints at how.
jdouglass
> couldn;t type "ENTER BUCKET"
I'm trying to remember - was this the bucket that was taken out later
whose only purpose was to send you to your death?
David Fisher
news:1194385682....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> For my two cents, prepositions are less logically differentiated than
> most verbs. You can "put the bow IN her hair" or "put the bow ON the
> pigtail" - both incidentally signify attachment. You don't just put
> the fuse ON the brick, because that doesn't signify attachment, but
> then you don't *really* put the fuse IN the brick either, in the sense
> that you put water in a bucket or a coin in a slot. Then the fuse end
> wouldn't be poking out - it would be a brick of explosive with a
> useless fuse contained in the middle. You want to put *one end* of
> the fuse in the brick. Because IF is traditionally really bad at
> expressing these ideas, the player often has to translate these ideas
> into parser-ese
I understand the objections to having a universal "use" verb, but maybe it
could function as a mini help system in cases like this. "Use string with
brick" could say "You can use the following verbs with the string and the
brick: tie to, touch with, put in/on, insert in". Since the player is
effectively asking for a hint, leave out obviously useless verbs like "throw
at", but still include some verbs of unknown usefulness like "touch with".
If there is only one object, eg. "use brick", there would be a lot of
potential verbs ... maybe just say "You'll have to be more specific about
how you want to use the brick" if this happens.
David Fisher
Gemma
> Can anyone suggest examples of actual guess-the-verb situations from
> real IF works?
The worst I can remember was from the old Artic game _Ship of Doom_.
You needed to use a tool to activate a mechanism. Only one verb
worked: POINT. I don't think POINT was used anywhere else in the game.
Gemma
Daphne Brinkerhoff
> real IF works?
This might be more "guess-the-preposition" (like you mention elsewhere
in the thread), but I'm *still* pissed off about Enter the Dark (from
comp06). Here's what I wrote in my (non-posted) review:' "shoot x
with crossbow" often gives no response at all, a blank line then a new
prompt. How do you like "Kill x with crossbow" saying "No point
attacking anything with that!" except that "shoot crossbow at x" is
the desired wording. In general, "shoot x with crossbow" and "shoot
crossbow at x" don't do the same thing. Sometimes one is required,
sometimes the other.'
And can I also complain about Pathfinder (same year)? 'Also let's
whine about how "get x" doesn't work but "put x on y" starts its
response with "you get a big bunch of the x".'
And Initial State (same year): ' "hit x with y" doesn't work; only
"use y on x" works.'
Thank you for your patience.
--
Daphne
steve....@gmail.com
> Any examples appreciated. Thanks!
If you consider I7 as a game in itself (a little perverse, but it
might serve your purpose), it's a pretty good example. Guess the verb/
syntax/etc.
Emily Short
> Not at all. If you've correctly assumed that it is a brick of plastic
> explosive, and the string is a fuse, then "on" makes no sense. If you
> haven't come to that conclusion, then you're shotgunning anyway and
> don't really "deserve" to have it work.
>
> Brian
Hm, okay, possibly I am misremembering exactly what phrases I tried.
Sorry about that. But I do recall coming back to the game several
times over the course of years and always getting stumped at the
brick, because I couldn't figure out how to attach the fuse.
(Though, re. "on", I can imagine something to do with putting one end
of the string on the brick and then pressing to embed it, or something
along those lines. At any rate it wasn't at all intuitive, at least to
me.)
S. John Ross
>> It's like
> forcing the player to type "chew boulder" or "defecate in monocle".
[eyes widen]
[begins madly scribbling notes]
--
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.io.com/~sjohn/bio.htm
S. John Ross
> Hm, okay, possibly I am misremembering exactly what phrases I tried.
> Sorry about that. But I do recall coming back to the game several
> times over the course of years and always getting stumped at the
> brick, because I couldn't figure out how to attach the fuse.
Might also be a version difference ... My experience with Zork II is
limited, but in Zork I, there are often pretty vast differences between
the "forgiveness level" of the different releases I've played.
I do remember Zork II for having me hang my head right out of the gate
with an unimplemented bit of scenery.
[goes to check it and quote it]
No, I misremembered even something that simple; it was Zork III ... (sigh)
Mark Tilford
More likely the bucket from the well / Alice area.
Default User
Well, if you say "on" then you get back "you can't tie the string to
the brick". Reasonably useful, I think. It's not perfect, but I think
it's not too bad.
Different people have different sticking points. Mine the was always
the vault. I *think* I could get the cash now, but I wouldn't swear I'd
remember the correct sequence.
wyrmis...@gmail.com
figured I would throw in a few follow-ups.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
The Insert/"Put in" didn't bother me. What did bother me was the
version I played (48? Is that an actual version or did I just put two
random numbers together?) had a difference between LIGHT and BURN. It
first performed a GET/TAKE on anything you lit before doing it. You
could burn something you didn't have. There doesn't seem to be an
inherent purpose to the difference and the result meant that the
puzzle you refer to frustrated me because I kept yanking the thing
back out (or, kept holding on to the brick). And later when I had to
burn the paper, I'm pretty sure LIGHTing it killed me. I remember
something I tried to LIGHT told me "Are you trying to burn X" and I
figured out the other wording. While it makes some sense with the
paper, the common usage of the phrase "light fuse" would trump "burn
fuse".
In the Alice room you had the bottle of poison which required a "LOOK
THROUGH" as opposed to "LOOK AT" and "LOOK IN" (did any other item use
a LOOK THROUGH?). You could technically get around that one just by
eating all the cakes and restoring, but still.
Or the curtain room, where the phrase "GO THROUGH" was needed instead
of just "GO" (and I think ENTER didn't work). And of course the whole
bank vault sequence with its random seeming directions...sort of a bad
room to have in a game with the carousel room and having everyone
primed for random directions.
W. Doug Bolden
Si Vales, Valeo
Default User
> A little late to the party, but since I just recently played Zork II,
> figured I would throw in a few follow-ups.
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
> S
>
>
> The Insert/"Put in" didn't bother me. What did bother me was the
> version I played (48? Is that an actual version or did I just put two
> random numbers together?) had a difference between LIGHT and BURN. It
> first performed a GET/TAKE on anything you lit before doing it.
Not mine (which also says Version 48):
> i
You are carrying:
A brick
A black string
A matchbook
A sword
A lamp (providing light)
> put string in brick
Done.
> drop brick
Dropped.
> light match
One of the matches starts to burn.
> light string with match
The string starts to burn.
The match has gone out.
wyrmis...@gmail.com
> Not mine (which also says Version 48):
>
> > i
>
> You are carrying:
> A brick
> A black string
> A matchbook
> A sword
> A lamp (providing light)
>
> > put string in brick
>
> Done.
>
> > drop brick
>
> Dropped.
>
> > light match
>
> One of the matches starts to burn.
>
> > light string with match
>
> The string starts to burn.
> The match has gone out.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
> won't shut up.
> -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Ah, there's the difference. Here's how it played out on mine:
>put string in brick
Done.
>drop brick
Dropped.
>light match
One of the matches starts to burn.
>light string
(Taken)
The string starts to burn.
The match has gone out.
>z
Time passes...
The string rapidly burns into nothingness.
It looks like the difference is you specified light string with match.
I just said light string. The game seems to "know" that the string
needs a lit match to burn, because you say it without a lit match it
takes the string and then says "if you wish to burn the string, you
should say so" (which is where I noted the burn command).
However, you just say "burn string" you don't have to specify with a
match if you have one lit:
>burn string
(with the matchbook)
The string starts to burn.
The match has gone out.
Which is not as severe as it seemed and I should have known better
from the "Light the candles with match" incident from Zork I.