As a result of discussion on this thread on Cloak of Darkness, I ran a survey. This is a summary of the results, with a few tentative comments.
IF Systems
Question 1 asked what (if any) IF authoring systems respondents were familiar with?
[table][tr][td]System[/td][td]Percentage[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Inform7[/td][td]86[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]TADS3[/td][td]42[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Inform6[/td][td]38[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]TADS2[/td][td]25[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hugo[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Adrift4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Adrift5[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]All others[/td][td]10[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: There was nothing surprising here. This wasn’t intended to be a popularity survey, but I wanted to be sure we had a reasonably wide range of views. I think we do. The “others” included a variety of non-parsers systems (such as Undum and Twine)
33 people began answering the survey, but although most people answered this question and the next, only 21 completed all the remaining questions.
The general principle
Question 2 asked whether respondents were familiar with Cloak of Darkness. Everybody was.
Question 3 asked whether respondents supported the idea of a “new sample game that would demponstrate the use and facilities of different IF authoring systems”.
The results were:
[table][tr][td][/td][td]Per cent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Great idea[/td][td]36[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Good idea[/td][td]42[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]No opinion[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Not a very good idea[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Terrible idea[/td][td]0[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: That seems to suggest a pretty strong consensus among respondents that it’s at least a good idea. Of course, the sample is biased.
The game
Question 4 asked respondents to rate the importance of various basic characteristics of a sample game. The rating was on a four point scale: very important, quite important, not very important, and very unimportant. For the purposes of reporting the results of this and other similar questions, I have converted this scale to a numeric scale, where 1 is “very important” and 4 is “very unimportant”, and I list the results in order of mean rating.
[table][tr][td][/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]mean[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should include common things[/td][td]59[/td][td]36[/td][td]5[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.45[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should be short[/td][td]33[/td][td]62[/td][td]5[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.71[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should be easy to code[/td][td]25[/td][td]35[/td][td]40[/td][td]0[/td][td]2.15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should include difficult things[/td][td]5[/td][td]40[/td][td]42[/td][td]15[/td][td]2.67[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should be enjoyable to play[/td][td]0[/td][td]20[/td][td]60[/td][td]20[/td][td]3.00[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]It should be suitable for non-parser systems[/td][td]0[/td][td]20[/td][td]48[/td][td]33[/td][td]3.14[/td][/tr][/table]
Comment: It looks as if the consensus is for a short, simple demonstration that covers the basics of parser-based IF. There is some division of opinion about whether it should demonstrate “difficult things”; perhaps it depends on how you understand “difficult”. Fortunately, specific answers to later questions help us to understand better what people have in mind.
Question 5 asked respondents to comment on a variety of “game world” features that they thought should be included. Again there was a four point scale, and I have converted it to numbers and give them in order of mean rating. Percentage responses are given with the mode in bold. All are rounded to the nearest percent.
[table][tr][td][/td] [td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]mean[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects the player can carry[/td][td]67[/td][td]19[/td][td]10[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.52[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]NPCs[/td][td]57[/td][td]24[/td][td]14[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.67[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Moving between locations using standard compass directions[/td][td]54[/td][td]23[/td][td]18[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.73[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Inventory[/td][td] 53 [/td][td]29[/td][td]14[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.73[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Scenery objects[/td][td]39[/td][td]48[/td][td]14[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.76[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects that can contain other objects[/td][td]33[/td][td]52[/td][td]10[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.86[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The player’s description[/td][td]43[/td][td]24[/td][td]33[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.90[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects that can have other objects placed on them[/td][td]20[/td][td]67[/td][td]10[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.00[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects the player can wear[/td][td]24[/td][td]53[/td][td]19[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.05[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Doors[/td][td]19[/td][td]48[/td][td]29[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.19[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Locks and keys[/td][td]19[/td][td]48[/td][td]29[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.19[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects the player can enter[/td][td]19[/td][td]48[/td][td]29[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.19[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects the player can switch on or off[/td][td]24[/td][td]38[/td][td]29[/td][td]10[/td][td]2.24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Things the player can read[/td][td]20[/td][td]33[/td][td]43[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects the player can eat / drink[/td][td]14[/td][td]33[/td][td]43[/td][td]10[/td][td]2.48[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Moving using “GO TO” or similar commands[/td][td]5[/td][td]33[/td][td]47[/td][td]14[/td][td]2.71[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Darkness[/td][td]10[/td][td]24[/td][td]43[/td][td]24[/td][td]2.81[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Animals[/td][td]0[/td][td]33[/td][td]48[/td][td]20[/td][td]2.86[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Moving between locations using non-standard directions
(e.g. fore and aft)[/td][td]10[/td][td]20[/td][td]43[/td][td]30[/td][td]2.90[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Vehicles[/td][td]0[/td][td]25[/td][td]50[/td][td]25[/td][td]3.00[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Inventory limits[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][td]43[/td][td]43[/td][td]3.24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Magic[/td][td]0[/td][td]5[/td][td]53[/td][td]43[/td][td]3.38[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: This helps us understand what people mean by basic. As was suspected, darkness is not thought important, and NPCs are seen as pretty fundamental. My guess is that the “line” between what ought to be included and what really need not be occurs somewhere around the area of reading matter. Everything above that (which, interestingly, includes locks, keys, doors and enterable objects) is a pretty strong candidate for inclusion. It’s from about reading matter downwards that the majority tips against inclusion.
The question invited additional suggestions – but most of them were for things which were dealt with in later questions anyway, especially custom commands.
Speech
Questions 6 and 7 asked specifically about NPC speech. As can be seen from Question 5, most people thought that NPCs should feature. But should NPC speech? And if so, what form should it take.
Question 6 simply asked whether people thought a sample game should include NPC speech. The results were as follows:
[table][tr][td]Yes, probably[/td][td]38%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Yes, it’s very important[/td][td]29%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Perhaps[/td][td]29%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]No[/td][td]5%[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: That’s a clear majority in favour of including NPC speech (67% either strongly or somewhat in favour, compared to only 5 percent definitely opposed).
Question 7 asked respondents to rank four possible options for NPC speech if it was included.
The first choice for a clear preponderance of respondents was for the specification to be agnostic, leaving it to each implementation to decide what system to use (45 percent of respondents). The remaining respondents were pretty evenly divided between ask/tell (25%) and menu based (20%) as first choice.
COMMENT: There seems to be a clear majority in favour of having a specification which does require NPC speech, but leaves it to each implementation to decide how to implement speech, with pretty even division of next preferences between ask/tell and menu. In practical terms, this seems to militate strongly in favour of a specification that is agnostic on the point.
Parsing and commands
Question 8: Question 8 asked specifically about demonstrating aspects of parsing. Again I report results using the 1 to 4 scale, in mean order, where 1 is “very important” and 4 is “very unimportant”.
[table][tr][td][/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]mean[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Creating new actions[/td][td]67[/td][td]33[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Disambiguation (distinguishing
between similarly named objects)[/td][td]52[/td][td]42[/td][td]5[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.52[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Names for objects that change automatically
for instance “lighted” lamp when lamp is lit[/td][td]14[/td][td]48[/td][td]33[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.29[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Actions like “remember” that dont refer
to physical things[/td][td]19[/td][td]48[/td][td]14[/td][td]20[/td][td]2.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Synonyms for standard actions (eg cuddle for
kiss)[/td][td]19[/td][td]38[/td][td]33[/td][td]10[/td][td]2.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Demonstrating use of all or most standard
verbs[/td][td]19[/td][td]19[/td][td]33[/td][td]29[/td][td]2.71[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Using hypertext as well as or instead of
the parser[/td][td]0[/td][td]20[/td][td]33[/td][td]48[/td][td]3.29[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Letting the player name objects[/td][td]0[/td][td]14[/td][td]38[/td][td]48[/td][td]3.33[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: This produced some of the strongest consensus but also the most division. There’s very strong agreement on the first two points, but proposals to demonstrate the use of most standard actions and to demonstrate verbal synonyms seem to produce a fairly broad split.
Technical and presentational
Question 9: This question asked about other features, which weren’t really about the world model or the parser; they are all really technical features or about presentation. Again, I’ve converted the answers into a 1 to 4 rating where 1 is the most enthusiastic and 4 the least, and lited them in mean order.
[table][tr][td][/td] [td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]mean[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Customized default responses[/td][td]67[/td][td]14[/td][td]19[/td][td]0[/td][td]1.52[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Customized error messages[/td][td]62[/td][td]14[/td][td]19[/td][td]5[/td][td]1.67[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Handling implied actions (eg automatic
opening or unlocking of doors)[/td][td]33[/td][td]33[/td][td]29[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.05[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Randomized text or responses[/td][td]29[/td][td]38[/td][td]29[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Contextual hints[/td][td]14[/td][td]67[/td][td]14[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Customisation of scope rules[/td][td]24[/td][td]24[/td][td]48[/td][td]5[/td][td]2.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Time triggered events[/td][td]10[/td][td]52[/td][td]24[/td][td]15[/td][td]2.43[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Keeping track of player knowledge[/td][td]19[/td][td]29[/td][td]33[/td][td]19[/td][td]2.52[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Customized status line[/td][td]10[/td][td]33[/td][td]33[/td][td]24[/td][td]2.71[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Different text styles (eg italic)[/td][td]5[/td][td]33[/td][td]33[/td][td]28[/td][td]2.86[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Scoring[/td][td]0[/td][td]29[/td][td]43[/td][td]29[/td][td]3.00[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Coloured text[/td][td]0[/td][td]14[/td][td]38[/td][td]48[/td][td]3.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A graphical map[/td][td]0[/td][td]10[/td][td]33[/td][td]57[/td][td]3.48[/td][/tr][/table]
COMMENT: The “line” between the desirable and the unnecessary here probably falls somewhere around time triggered events. The most contentious item seems to be customisation of scope rules, which doesn’t attract very widespread support, but scores quite highly on average because quite a few of the enthusiasts are very enthusiastic.
Multimedia
Question 10: The final question asked whether a sample game should use multimedia. Almost no respondents thought tht it should be required (only 1 single respondent thought it was important). But a majority (52%) thought that a sample game should offer an “opportunity” to demonstrate if a system provides them, and only a third of respondents were positively opposed to it.
COMMENT: There is clearly no general wish for a sample game that puts multimedia capabilities front and centre, but other things being equal it would be nice if the game provided at least an opportunity for multimedia.
SUMMARY
I think the results largely speak for themselves. There seems to be some sort of appetite for a revised game, and it’s reasonably clear what the most important things it needs to have are. How it gets done, of course, is another matter …