I played Infocom games on my Spectrum +3 back in the day anyway; using the Amstrad PCW/CPC 3" disk versions. 
2 Likes
I know it was a while back (don’t I know it 
) but can you recall what was on the disks? Was it literally just ZXZVM and the z3 game file?
Also a +3?! You posh bugger! 
2 Likes
It was the CP/M version of the game; the UK distributor put them on 3" disks to flog to the Amstrad crowd. Picked up a couple up cheap at the time. Probably had at least two different “executables” from what I can recall, to cater for the different CPC & PCW column widths. (The disk images are out there I’m sure).
Played them through Locomotive’s CP/M Plus on the Spectrum +3… which was a separate purchase (it didn’t come bundled, unlike with the Amstrads). Playing the games was, as Mike Gerrard remarked at the time, a bit like watching a game of tennis… one of the screen modes you could use (to fit it all on the Spectrum screen) split the screen into two sections, with a middle portion that overlapped… So you flicked between the two to read each line of text. Spectrum Computing - ZX Spectrum games, software and hardware
Bought our +3 from the Littlewoods (or Grattan/Brian Mills) catalogue… paid it off over a very long time… Sometimes I wonder if I’m still paying it off. 
Anyway… this is totally derailing this thread.
2 Likes
This could be interesting. I’d certainly be up for creating the ZIL/ZILF version.
Could we get a list together of what we think needs including? I’d suggest an agreed specific list.
This could also assist the OP with their language.
Adam.
It has a richness and depth as well as size that I’d say goes beyond basic, but Emily Short’s Bronze has served this role. Derivatives of Bronze are permitted and it’s been translated into XVAN and… I felt sure there were others, but I’m not readily finding any (other than Bronze updated into modern Inform 7…)
I am glad they were rescued. I don’t think they were tested for being there in a while.
Rob
I like that there was activity. I am proposing Ring of Darkness. It requires search finding an object in a container. Otherwise, it doesn’t add to Cloak of Darkness. It requires of the language that, there is a sense of container. Of an object containing a child object.
I think we’re about at the level where Cloak of Darkness/ Ring of Darkness starts allowing for Colossal Cave. I am still not sure that we have 1975-77 level basic IF.
We have to handle, “with what, your bare hands?” as a question. And answer.
Rob
I think if you don’t support classic IF Cloak of Darkness out of the box, your new IF system doesn’t work. It’s artificial and contrived for a good reason, You have to start here.
If you have a new one, that doesn’t support Cloak of Darkness, it’s useless and it’s trash. I am saying that affirmatively.
Rob
It’s great and new and can skip the old Roger Firth Cloak of Darkness. Why are you here, then?
Everyone knew it at the time. Roger put his finger on it. You have to start here.
Rob
I am waiting to talk to the guy with the Unreal 4 editor, hey I have an IF story. I just did Cloak of Darkness in Unreal 4+.
Well, ok, let’s take you seriously.
I’m afraid i have to disagree with this. What exactly is the “good reason”?
It seems to me a pointless requirement for a game engine to support “out of the box” an “artificial and contrived” design.
The “good reason” was to demonstrate that the parser and world model could be customized at several levels:
- Customizing standard library actions
- Customizing movement actions and “can’t go that way” messages
- Customizing the light-dark system, or (alternatively) being able to implement darkness in a way that affects all library actions
It’s not a complete example by any means, but that’s what your IF system has to support.
1 Like
The “light-dark” system is being able to customise the interactive scope. can you do that in inform?
Andrew l read your reply. Thank you for posting.
I am talking like a guy out of time, stiffly. That’s to be expected l know.
Remember Rob when the time c
1 Like
I just mean that Cloak of Darkness can be added to, if you are actually working on an IF language or system that needs more. But you can’t fool yourself if it doesn’t have the basics. I got a lot of what I thought was the basic, start from scratch, that I could define a Room, and I could with certainty define which Room an Object was in. That’s when I had started over with Scott Adams.
Once I defined an Object, and which Room it was in, and I brutally defined Inventory as a Room, I was writing IF in Swift. Then I made absolutely sure, that my function moved Object from Room to Room, I started writing interactive fiction with my own code. Then when I tried my successful code with Cloak of Darkness, I understood why Closk of Darkness is the standard, and I still stand by it.
I’ve always thought that “darkness”, however you want it to be, should be definable in your IF language and therefore not have to be a built-in system primitive. So, yes, your IF system needs to be able to do it, but there should be no requirement that it exists a priori.
If you can customise scope, which i think you can in Inform, is it not possible to build “darkness” yourself. A first approximation of darkness is to set the scope to the player (and within) as opposed to the standard definition of the current location (and within). You then need to take account of lights etc.
Ring of Darkness proved that I was not successful, I was still moving empty copies around, my IF code wasn’t healthy, it would not work.
I was overwhelmed when I got this far.