Just to echo this point, I suspect this is what folks who complained about the error message always being the same were getting at - at least since Zork players are used to getting this level of guidance from the parser. I’m guessing that you won’t want to implement the kind of changes that would be needed to add this capacity to the parser since that would add functionality the original didn’t have, in which case I’d really recommend going back to the single static error; otherwise players are likely to get very confused and frustrated.
As for the testers vs players thing, the norms that have developed around testing here are similar to those that I think govern most software development these days - testers are part of the team, helping the author release a stable, engaging product that meets the author’s vision. So it can be deflating to put in energy to test alternate commands to see if they behave sensibly (and I dunno how many players of IF you’ve met, but they’re 100% going to type stuff that’s not in the manual - hell, most of them aren’t going to read the manual) and think of suggestions for ways to make the game experience better and smoother, only to be met with rejection.
That’s I think why Victor was suggesting you maybe reconceptualize to ask for players who’ll just send you a transcript when they’re done with the game, since that might set expectations for the kind of feedback you’re looking for and be better aligned with the effort that makes sense for folks to put in.
Sorry, but that’s not how the original functioned. verbose means always verbose.
It’s how the game was intended.
It’s not odd, it’s the way it was originally built, the classic version of the game.
I have near zero interest in making this game like every other game out there.
That would be incredibly boring. And it would destroy the feel of the game,
and destroy the intention of the original.
I need to keep this game within the confines of the intent of the original.
But if people really don’t like it, then they can type ‘brief’ or ‘mode’ upon starting the game.
It’s not that difficult.
Can’t do that, sorry. The original never did that, and there was no intention of ever doing that.
I will not break it just because people aren’t into that aspect of the game.
Play the game the way it was meant to be played, in the style it was meant to be played.
It must remain true to the original.
If I get enough complaints, I’ll switch it back to just saying “I don’t understand that.”
But it would have to outnumber the amount of complaints I got to switch it in the first place.
(that’s only fair).
It IS clearly and explicitly labeled as a “restricted parser” in the introduction!
And in the instructions, and in the user guide.
“I only understand the first five letters of the first two words” can’t get much clearer than that.
And no, I can’t list all supported verbs, that’s a no can do. it would totally ruin the game.
Never part of the original, so is there a “restricted parser” tag that could get thrown on my original post about the game/etc?
That’s false! Quoting from his post, it’s right there, the response he got was:
Lightning flashes, sparks shower, and in one blink of the eye, you have missed seeing.
That’s the error message. again, it’s 1 of 100 chosen at random.
But again, I can change it all back to “I don’t understand that” for everything, if preferred.
Personally, I think that’s far too boring, and I got too many complaints that it was boring.
So there you go.
Well this is very clearly a mainframe-era text adventure and meant to be in that old style.
It was never intended to be a fancy parser with natural language processing or anything else.
Heck, it was never intended to have a dictionary or anything else!
it’s a very unique style from a very unique era, and it must remain ‘unblemished’ (for lack of a better word), otherwise it’s just not the game that it is, it’s something else, and that’s not the point.
If people want to play games that coddle them, or have fancy “Levenshtein distance” algorithms or language processing, pointing out exactly where in the command the problem is, or even full verb listings, this isn’t the game for them, and it was never intended to be.
It’s not meant to compete with modern IF games, I have no interest in winning competitions, or prizes,
and another thing, it’s not even a score-based game! Your score is actually totally irrelevant.
But this game is important from a historical perspective,
For one thing, as far as I know this is the only game that breaks the fourth wall!
In fact, the player must figure out how to get the game to break the fourth wall in order to actually finish the game! It can’t be completed without it.
Someone please name me one game which breaks the fourth wall?
Name me a game which the player actually interacts with the game staff within the game?
Yeah, you have to, otherwise you can’t finish it.
So it’s historically important, it has some features not seen anywhere else,
and it has an extremely limited grumpy curmudgeonly restrictive parser
Remember it was originally built in the late 1970’s… very different times.
There is a tester on this board who has two (or maybe three) sections of the game before he completes it.
Just needs to solve a couple of puzzles and do some stuff before getting into the end-game.
The end-game might just drive him insane, the original puzzles are a bit… odd…
ok, so one person for normal static error response. I had dozens the other way.
As for testers/players - yes exactly! and that’s what I’m looking for
“helping the author release a stable product that meets the authors vision”!
As for alternate commands, that’s fine, but it’s not a bug report if the game is responding as it should.
no game ever fit that expectation.
As for your last suggestion of sending a transcript once they’ve finished, that’s not valid and certainly not good enough. that doesn’t capture any bugs along the path, which is what testing is all about in the first place.
No one has finished it yet, I’d love to see a transcript if someone actually did,
but that’s just playing it, not testing it and that’s only a secondary goal.
the primary is finding bugs so I can fix them.
As of v23-pre-release no bugs have been reported, which is good, so far.
But I’m not confident that there aren’t bugs hiding in there that might prevent people from finishing it.
So I still need reports “as they go” through the game. Until it’s reasonably certified to be clean.
Forgot to mention: There are reasons like this as to why the game is rated CRUEL
“restrictive parser” would be an appropriate tag if it could be added.
technically it’s all one error message.
besides you’re being very rude by totally ignoring that it was you (broader sense of the word) testers that demanded it be changed, so there you go.
And you ignored again, that I said if enough people complained I’d change it back to the same boring old “I don’t understand that”. I even mentioned that in the reply that you just ignored!
“they’ll be think” ? uhh wut?
If you can’t understand that’s an “error” message, you haven’t been playing enough text adventure games. You should see some of Douglas Adams “error” responses! whew!
Actually, some of these are taken from HIS games!
So go bug him if you don’t like them.
it was only changed because people like you wanted it to be changed.
Don’t change it, you complain, change it, you complain, change it back, you complain.
Can’t satisfy everyone.
And this has nothing to do with bugs or solvability. Let’s get back on topic.
I’d recommend going with the original default error message over the randomized responses. Some players used to modern games may find it boring, but at least it is clear and concise. And true to the original game you’re attempting to document.
Apparently it might not be so clear and concise.
I got a lot of complaints about it, people didn’t understand it, at all, they actually praised the change.
But if I get enough requests maybe I’ll throw it in as a switch, then people can choose which system they want.
There are, of course, lots of games that break the fourth wall and lots of games where you have to interact with the game staff as part of the puzzle. I think I was guilty of overusing that device myself, back in the day!
I hope all these comments and feedback from people testing the game continue to be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. You have clearly defined that your vision is to replicate your memories of a lost game without changing too much. That is obviously always going to be at odds with people who are looking to make the game accessible and playable by a newcomer. There is probably a balance to be found… allowing some common (and indeed fairly common even in 1983) standard adventure conventions to be available as alternatives (such as L for LOOK, TAKE for GET)… unless you only ever intend this project to be enjoyed by yourself. (Which seems a shame)
Don’t know if this is what you’re looking for, but the grandfather of all interactive fiction games, Colossal Cave Adventure, ends with breaking the 4th wall and discovering the truth behind the fiction:
115 You are at the northeast end of an immense room, even larger than the
115 Giant Room. It appears to be a repository for the “Adventure”
115 program. Massive torches far overhead bathe the room with smoky
115 yellow light. Scattered about you can be seen a pile of bottles (all
115 of them empty), a nursery of young beanstalks murmuring quietly, a bed
115 of oysters, a bundle of black rods with rusty stars on their ends, and
115 a collection of brass lanterns. Off to one side a great many dwarves
115 are sleeping on the floor, snoring loudly. A notice nearby reads: “Do
115 not disturb the dwarves!” An immense mirror is hanging against one
115 wall, and stretches to the other end of the room, where various other
115 sundry objects can be glimpsed dimly in the distance.
116 You are at the southwest end of the repository. To one side is a pit
116 full of fierce green snakes. On the other side is a row of small
116 wicker cages, each of which contains a little sulking bird. In one
116 corner is a bundle of black rods with rusty marks on their ends. A
116 large number of velvet pillows are scattered about on the floor. A
116 vast mirror stretches off to the northeast. At your feet is a large
116 steel grate, next to which is a sign that reads, “Treasure Vault.
116 Keys in main office.”
…
133 There is a loud explosion, and a twenty-foot hole appears in the far
133 wall, burying the dwarves in the rubble. You march through the hole
133 and find yourself in the main office, where a cheering band of
133 friendly elves carry the conquering adventurer off into the sunset.
I must just have a different text adventure background to you then, as it was really common in the UK scene in the 80s and 90s, particularly in “humorous” games, for the authors to make cameos as characters, often taking part in the puzzles… Like I said, it’s something I did in my own games back in the day! A more famous example? Well, Fergus McNeill is there in his Return of the Holy Joystick game.
Fourth wall breaking stuff… such as directly addressing players, commenting on the game from within the game, adventure games within adventure games etc… were also commonplace in the 1980s and 1990s.
I have! Gareth Pitchford a.k.a. @8bitAG is a bit of a legend in the 8-bit homegrown UK text adventure scene. As indeed is Fergus McNeill, author of the Holy Joystick games.
(But that’s derailing your thread, so I’ll stick my head back below the parapet now, for fear of having it blown off).
Nah, Fergus is a legend though… having produced the first official videogame based on the work of Terry Pratchett.
I’m personally no more than one of hundreds, if not thousands, of youngsters who used tools like the Quill, GAC and the PAW to bring their daft little ideas to life. Not proper adventure writers… and the games didn’t get played by many… But for lots of us it changed our lives and shaped some careers… We all had a lot of fun back then… helped each other out… and were generally quite nice to each other.
(Luckily we can talk about whatever we like on these public forums but yes, now that specifically posed question has been answered… I’ll leave this particular thread to those that still feel they want to try and help.)
@transnet I’m going to ask you again to please keep the conversation civil and watch your tone. You can disagree with people without making them feel their opinions are worthless.
This is a place for discussion, and everyone is allowed to participate. If you’re not interested in hearing other people’s opinions and feedback or at least being receptive and polite about it, you can go start your own blog and write about this project all you want without interference.
There are many people on this forum with an incredible amount of knowledge and experience. You are not the sole authority on text adventures. We’re all here to learn from each other. If someone gives you information you consider unhelpful, say nothing, or just say thank you and move on.
We’ve already tried to handle this in private, and we’re well aware of the guidelines. I’ve closed this topic since it’s an ongoing issue. This is probably best handled with your selected beta testers in private messages.
