I think the fact that parser-IF has always been harder to write and play then CYOA, yet the folks here still mostly choose to primarily write, play and identify with parser-IF, answers that question.
(Speaking purely for myself, I’m totally uninterested in more games unless that means better games; there is not necessarily a positive correlation.)
Well, based on the evidence in the other thread, I’d say the reaction would be positive if 1) it was a MUD “we” had ever heard of before, and 2) it was a MUD that was “good” based on the parser-IF communities cultivated criteria (which might include, for example: doesn’t have needless mazes, supports a lot of synonyms, doesn’t gratuitously rehash tired setting/character tropes). Which could have very little to do with the goodness of the MUD judged by the criteria of its creator and target audience.
Isn’t Guncho basically a MUD system for Inform?
Why does this have to be a zero-sum system? This kind of phrasing sets up a competitive relationship between the communities, where everyone has something to prove; and I’m not interested in playing that game.
I like both CYOA and parser IF, and I’m interested in seeing each game be as accessible as it can be given its design constraints. But there are times when the richly present, textured world and slow emotional build of parser IF are necessary for a game’s aesthetic goals.
I’ve tried and failed to emulate the effect I have in mind in ChoiceScript, nor have I ever seen anyone else accomplish it. That may not mean it absolutely can’t be done, but does suggest that traditional parser IF tools (or at least those built around a complex world model) are a better fit for rich-setting, slow-discovery storytelling.
Hm. For the most part, I’m really only interested in promoting individual works which rock my world on a personal level. There are works in every medium I’m fond of, and there’s no medium (not even my beloved pen-and-paper RPG) which has any inherent quality. Everything begins with (literally or metaphorically) the same, neutral, valueless blank page. There are a few formats I do enjoy in particular (IF certainly includes a few of them), but beyond a “hey, try this out if you haven’t” to someone once every … three or four years, maybe? That’s about as much enthusiasm as I can muster for a medium.
Defending is a whole 'nother ballgame. I only feel the need to defend a thing if I feel someone is maliciously (or at least noisily) mischaracterizing it. And then, it’s often a case of someone conflating the properties of a work with the properties of its medium 
Yes! I believe strongly in “the right tool for the job.” To me, one of the highest goals a work can strive for is to be perfectly matched to its chosen medium. The Gostak would simply not have worked as anything other than parser-IF, and The Matter of the Monster needed to be choice-based. (Braid needed to be a platformer. Exit Through the Gift Shop gains much of its strength from the documentary form. Watchmen needed to be a graphic novel with a very specific aesthetic. Etc.)
As such, I’m thrilled that ChoiceScript exists (along with Undum and Twine) and is apparently quite popular, because more people working in choice-based narrative means more progress towards really capitalizing on the medium’s strengths. Having more options means that any given author is more empowered to pick the perfect form for their games. I really don’t think there’s anyone who’s thinking “oh, I have this great idea for a puzzle game but this new system has a shinier website so I’ll just cram my ideas into a different format,” but I’m sure there are people thinking “I have this great idea for a game that looks exactly like [whatever]… now how can I make it real?” In fact, we get that question around the forum all the time.
This is a group of people who create and play text adventures. If accessibility and popularity were our primary concerns, would we even be here?
Okay, I’m being flippant, but I do think that there is something about the parser game format specifically that appeals to many of us here, and while many members of the community are working hard to maximize accessibility within that format (many examples of this have been mentioned in this thread and/or the other one, including A Colder Light, Walker & Silhouette, and Blue Lacuna), I think few of us want to entirely chuck it over in favor of a “more popular and accessible” format, because if we were going to do that? We would have done it a long time ago.
I like both parser-based IF and choice-based IF, myself, and am perfectly happy to have them both under the umbrella of IF. (And while I haven’t played any of the “unofficial” Choicescript games, I really enjoyed all of the “official” ones, especially Broadsides and, uh, Romance. [size=85]… Don’t look at me like that.[/size]) But they are slightly different formats that are suited to doing different kinds of things and telling different kinds of stories. Just as the sprawling, heavily branching stories of the Choice of Games probably wouldn’t work at all in the granular parser-based format, the majority of parser-based IF stories wouldn’t be best served by the choice-based format. Choice-based doesn’t work that well, I think, for anything that doesn’t have at least some degree of branching, for instance, which many of my favorite works of IF don’t. And while I do enjoy the kinds of interactive fiction that you can play over and over again trying different things and getting different outcomes, I don’t think that’s the only kind of story worth telling in an interactive fashion, and I, personally, would be sad if it became the only kind of interactive story being told. Not because I think it’s inferior, but because I enjoy the variety that we have now.
(edit: And while I was typing that up, much of my second paragraph was covered by tove in a clearer and more concise fashion… oh well.)
When you use “we” like that, you are (at best) sidestepping all the thorniness of the issue.
Among other things, but yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. But if it helps, your version inspired me to say “yes” more. 
Right.
Dan, you’ve just been instrumental, however unwittingly, in a rather messy faux pas. Most people here are friendly towards CYOA, and people are generally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are not really helping them do so. Trying to use this as an opportunity to promote your particular concerns, and trying to be the one who frames the conversation, is not earning you any friends.
This issue is complicated, and I’m sorry to have offended people.
I didn’t mean to suggest that text adventures and multiple-choice games are in a zero-sum game, or that one thrives at the expense of the other; I can see (after some of these posts) how I chose my words poorly. My point was just that the semantics of “interactive fiction” don’t matter as much as what we do: what we write, what we play, what we encourage others to play.
(I must admit that I actually don’t understand zarf’s comment at all, except insofar as I agree that the issue is thorny.)
In the interest of calming some of the waters, I’d just like to say that, in addition to wearing my Choice of Games hat, I also help organize the SF Bay Area IF Meetup; there, we play a lot of text adventures, and I’m happy to promote them. We can and do all get along.
Hey now. I heard that Choice of Romance was really good. I hope you’re not trying to imply that romance is an inherently bad or shameful genre! [/peeved feminist mode] [/total tangent]
Also, in the interest of pulling another toe out of my mouth, I’d like to add that I’m well familiar with the newbie who wanders onto this forum (or raif) and suggests “hey everybody, have you considered not doing interactive fiction?”
As if we hadn’t thought of that; as if the newbie hadn’t considered that someone had considered the question.
I can see how my remarks may have sounded like: “hey guys, since multiple-choice games are better than text adventures, don’t you all think you should quit writing text adventures?” I want to clarify that this is NOT my view.
I personally happen to prefer multiple-choice games, but that’s out of a super abundance of love for multiple-choice games. I still enjoy and promote good text adventures. IMO, all programmers enjoy a good puzzle every once in a while.
Less “I think this genre is inherently shameful” and more “I know this community skews male somewhat and in male-dominated spaces I am used to being looked at kinda funny for mentioning that I like that sort of thing.” No offense meant to romance at all.
If we’re talking origins, we have to remember that rec.arts.int-fiction was created as a discussion group for hypertext fiction, and only later taken over by text adventure folk.
Ah, fair. Then I’ll just point out that this community does have a particularly respected reviewer in Emily Short – to the point where there have been discussions of whether her opinion is too powerful in influencing Comp scoring – and she often talks about romance-type games without getting [much?] flak for it. So you may be safe here.
The hypertext folk are surely off somewhere even now, grumbling about how they should never have let the text adventure people in.
Really? Somehow I thought it grew out of Usenet around the end of the 80s – when Infocom was dying/dead and GAGS/AGT were popular, and before hypertext even existed as a thing – as an attempt to continue the Infocom-style line of programs, which often had greater-than-game aspirations. But I admit I’m hazy about history from that time period; I don’t think I had internet access until 1995 or 6.
Actually, looking into it, apparently at least one hypertext existed as early as 1977. Interesting.
Do you “play” a CYOA?
Is the ability to play a story reliant on the story tracking states?
Conrad.
At its most basic, I would say, respectively, yes and no - if a CYOA has a “bad ending” (i.e., a “losing state”), and if you can get to it and/or avoid it by choosing certain paths, then it is a game you can play, even if there’s absolutely no state-tracking.
Of course, if we leave the basics, we admittedly run into CYOA that is less of a “game” than a “story” - but we’ll also find quite a bit of parser-based IF in that cathegory.
So I guess the answer to your question would be, does it really matter?
On an unrelated note, welcome back.
I do. What’s more, I often cheat when playing a CYOA (by backtracking) which is a pretty sure sign there’s a game happening