For Speed-IF horror, I think Ectocomp has produced a few games of quality. The revised, original episode of “The Forest House” (2007) was intriguing enough to be creepy. “Drinks with Lord Hansom” (2008) has a competent horror story in it, but the interactive puzzle is sort of shoehorned into that framework. “Salutations” (2008) was sort of scary, but a little buggy, with a tight focus on a single puzzle. For horror in this year’s Ectocomp, check out Taleslinger’s “Blue.”
Ah. Well, in that case I think your best bet is to ask for advice about hows and whens, but still to run it yourself. Only you have the unique passion for the specific thing you want to do.
My own advice would be:
– aim for short games, as in less than an hour average playtime. People are more likely to be willing to write constrained/themed stuff if it’s shortish; if they’re going to invest the time to write something really massive, they’re more likely to want it to be on a theme of their own choosing, but sometimes a specific constraint will spark them to try a small project.
– consult the front page of ifwiki to find out what other comps are currently scheduled
– pick a date that’s roughly two months distant from now, at least two weeks from any other comp due date, and not during IF Comp or Spring Thing judging; if no such dates are available, wait a bit (but I don’t think that’s the case right now)
– decide whether you actually want it to be a competition with winners, or something more like an anthology/showcase – there’s a trend for comps in this community, but some people like non-competition formats better, and they can be fun too
– likewise, if it is a competition, do you want winners to be determined with open voting (like IF Comp and Spring Thing) or by a judging panel? (NB that if you do go with open voting and want help managing this, you might be able to talk to the comp organizers about sharing their tech for collecting votes so that you don’t have to go to the bother of setting this up yourself.)
– consider what incentives you’d like to offer, bearing in mind that material rewards aren’t the only option and that authors also strongly value feedback, reach beyond the typical IF audience pool, coolness factor, and assets that their game wouldn’t otherwise be able to have. So: prizes, not just money but thematic stuff like classic horror books/magazines, or Lovecraftian fonts? guaranteed reviews (typically achieved by asking a named group of judges/reviewers to commit to writing something about each game)? a showcase in a particular context that the community doesn’t usually reach, say by arranging to have the comp profiled in an online horror fiction zine that specializes in this subgenre? or maybe a nice packaging reward, like finding some volunteer artists or designers willing to cook up cover art or feelies for each entry in collaboration with the author? This element is likely to depend a lot on what you’re able to offer and what you think might appeal, and you may need to ask some people for help. I usually do this by emailing potential judges/zine editors/donors directly, since for this kind of task, people almost always respond better to a direct personal appeal than to a posting asking generically for help.
– write a blurb that expresses your theme and constraints as clearly and inspiringly as possible – that is, something that communicates your enthusiasm for the coolness of the subject matter; if you’re not sure of yourself, run this blurb past a friend or two to help hone it
– decide any key rules, which may include the following: do entries have to be in any specific format? can they make use of copyrighted intellectual property or must they be original? if it is a competition with open judging, may beta-testers vote on games they tested? may reviewers discuss the games during competition time? may the authors? Read the announcement pages for some recent competitions to get an idea of what’s involved. ifwiki may be able to help you locate these as well. Focus especially on projects that you liked/thought were cool/would like to emulate.
– present your blurb, followed by a description of the incentives and finally the fine-print rules
Other people might have more advice; it’s even possible someone might be up for being your comp-running mentor, as it were, and talk over your concept with you until you’re both happy with it. Asking for that kind of feedback isn’t necessarily a sign of inexperience. Most of the comps, shows, projects, etc. that I’ve seen started by the IF community go through some discussion before they’re officially announced. It’s like beta-testing for your project idea.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but here’s why I’m not going to: I have lots of other projects of my own to do; I’d be happy to see something like this happen because I like to see a rich diversity of genres and content, but I’m not that into horror myself; I think it’s actively a good thing for more people to get involved with community events and would rather see a novice do it than someone “established”; and I get a metric asston of requests of the form “X would be good for IF/the community/the fulfillment of my personal tastes, so please make that happen.” It’s a matter of self-defense at this point that my response has to be some form of “hey, sounds like you’re the one with the vision here! Go for it.” And maybe some getting-started advice if I think of any, and/or a couple of links to resources if I know of some relevant ones.
[Jacek rolls his eyes.]
Fortune cookie, anyone?
All good advice. My statement was more directed toward the people who do have an active interest in the (sub)genre, who are familiar with the community and do have the time to devote to it. Particularly those who have been actively involved in or following this conversation. Ben suggested that “something” could be done. Not saying he needs to take it on either. I just threw it out there, more than once, that if someone wants to go ahead and take it on, I’d be in. Otherwise, I don’t mind doing it myself eventually, as my plate is somewhat full at the moment as well. Tech isn’t a problem, it would just be a matter of deciding what the parameters would be.
I’ll keep your responses in mind if and when that time should come.
Fair enough. Sorry if I seemed cranky.
No ma’am, not at all.
Rewriting the walkthrough might be a good project for somebody! Maybe it won’t be that much work to take the existing walkthrough, divide it up, and include a few comments about what problems the player is working on in each part. It’d get used, and I suspect it’d be much appreciated.
(Particularly by me. This is one of those things I’m not volunteering to do, because I want to use the improved walkthrough myself.)
Not entirely sure I follow. What’s wrong with the walkthrough as it is now?
Actually, this one looks like exactly what I was envisioning, so never mind. (This one is the sort of thing that’s no use unless you’re willing to type it in exactly.)
Oh wow, that is a nice walkthrough. Might have to give the game another whirl now with the use of that. I think part of my problem playing Anchorhead is that I was interested in things I either could you at the time or weren’t important, but completely overlooking things that were essential to moving the game along.
Ditto that. I’ve tried Anchorhead a handful of times, but I’ve always just wandered away from it again, chalking it up to different strokes. But a good walkthrough might at least give me the grand tour of what others groove so hard on.
A lot of the appeal of Anchorhead lies in its old-school play style: it’s designed to be played over days or weeks, getting stuck a lot, switching between a number of different puzzles and taking breaks until you get one to work. I think that heavy walkthrough reliance would risk missing a central part of what it’s loved for.
Light walkthrough reliance, now, that I’m all in favour of.
Light walkthrough reliance is not possible with Anchorhead only because its walkthrough is a tight transcript of typed commands. If, as matt suggested, some kind soul who has played the game through (to avoid spoiling the whole thing for themselves) could produce a more clue-based/contextual/divvied-up type hintbook for the peeps who haven’t, I think future generations would benefit. Also, I would benefit today!
They have, or at least they’ve come up with a more narrative walkthrough – check my previous post (or the walkthrough section of if-archive.)
Which I usually love, but I’ve already given Anchorhead multiple shots at engaging me and … it just didn’t work out. The writing just doesn’t smack my particular buzzer, is all.
But because I do love Lovecraftian gaming in general (and because Anchorhead has a unique place in my relationship to IF … it is, in a very real sense, exactly why I’m here) I feel hopeful that a walkthrough play might offer me an opportunity to appreciate it, and I’d like to appreciate it. I’m more than willing to meet it 75% of the way, and maybe a walkthrough can provide the missing 25%.
And its on my mind lately because Gentry is taunting the universe on Facebook by eating at some of my favorite Austin restaurants, while I’m stuck in Denver, which is like a culinary hole of suck (I love Denver in so many ways, none of which involve restaurant food).
Oh, duh me - the link everyone’s been talking about. Thanks 
This. There is not enough IF to be picky about genre — or really, anything. Anyone who has read my posts on this forum knows that I am very picky indeed about all sorts of stuff when it comes to IF. But I don’t let that restrict what I will try to play — I will try to play anything that someone (or some resource) I respect recommends.
For example, I absolutely can’t stand the ‘ask X about Y’ dialogue interface. Imagine how little would remain if I decided that I refuse to play anything that utilises it.
In fact, categorical decision-making in general is notoriously unreliable in the search for a good experience. The IF field happens to be small enough that the ineffectiveness of this kind of blanket criterion is exposed rather than buried with sheer volume. That doesn’t mean it’s more reliable in more popular media, either; it just means that you are less likely to notice the faults in the reasoning of applying superficial, blanket criteria to your input.
Paul.
I’m typically pretty forgiving about mechanics. I just prefer to read horror (and some fantasy, but I’ve found my patience for fantasy in IF doesn’t translate nearly as well), which carries over into my genre preference for IF. I don’t read Nicholas Sparks because I’m not a fan of romantic drama. Not a fan of mystery, which is unfortunate given all the positive reviews of “Make It Good”, though I’ll probably wind up playing it anyway. I don’t read Stephanie Myer or Charlaine Harris because I avoid the genre of “Take a steaming, runny dump between two covers”. I hope the jack wagon who coined the term “Paranormal/Supernatural Romance” dies of colon cancer.
I am, ashamedly, a Harry Potter fan boy. I also read a lot of the crap that my kids read, such as D.J. McHale’s “Pendragon” series.
Anyway, I obviously limit my IF based on what I like to read. I’m not one of those voracious readers who just tears through anything I can get my hands on. Probably won’t ever be that way with IF, either.
There are other ways to limit your input than purely genre, like recommendations from people with good track records on their opinions. If you combine recommendations with genre, though, the available pool gets even smaller. But if you discard recommendations, then you end up playing everything that fits a genre even if it’s crap – that would be too disappointing for me. That’s why I go with recommendations as my input-restriction method of choice. I would not characterise myself as ‘voracious’ because I just don’t have the time.
Paul.
Second that. Colin and I perceived that Lovecraftian horror was the dominant form of horror in IF, which is why we wrote a horror game (One Eye Open) that didn’t go anywhere near the Lovecraftian mythos.
Still, while I’m not a fan of Lovecraft’s writing per se, I enjoy his themes, so I’m sorry to hear you’re having trouble finding the brand of horror you prefer.