I mean, that’s what the database was, right?
2 Likes
“Implementor.” It was standard Infocom lingo back when they were still operating in the 1980s.
3 Likes
Thanks Dan. Can’t say I’ve ever come across that abbreviation even back then but I suppose I was more interested in playing the games then and without the internet I was limited to what I found in magazines or the few BBSs I frequented. I think Australia was a bit of a backwater in the '80s.
3 Likes
The Implementors are actually referenced, or appear, in a couple of the Infocom games too!
2 Likes
On the topic of Thaumistry, to anyone who’s bought or played it, what form is it in for Windows and Mac? Is it a standalone app based on a known interpreter? Or a rolled-from-scratch app? The homepage doesn’t indicate, nor Steam, though all I can say is the screenshots don’t resemble any particular interpreter I know (which doesn’t mean much).
-Wade
2 Likes
PS - Ah, okay, I at least found in a FAQ that it’s using some kind of TADS interpreter:
-Wade
3 Likes
Exactly my question! But rather than embarrass myself here, I looked it up on Wikipedia (the source of all my wisdom, without which I am a knowledge vacuum):
A bigger question is…
Is it Implementer or Implementor? Even the Wiki article you reference uses both and in the same paragraph! 
I think it’s incorrect but I’ve always preferred Implementor. No doubt it’s wrong. Typically I choose the wrong one.
1 Like
Implementor sounds like US English to me, so that’s probably the correct usage?
1 Like
I was wondering the same thing the other day, possibly because I was browsing the MDL Zork code trying to make a map. (Some day I will actually play that game, and I want to be prepared!)
In the 1981 version of MDL Zork, there is the “Tomb of the Unknown Implementer” which houses the “Crypt of the Implementers”. The wraith that heralds the endgame refers to the “Implementers” and the The Dungeon Master refers to “the Great Implementers”. In most other messages it’s spelled with a lower-case “i”.
But in the Treasury of Zork, at the very end of the game, one of the items mentioned is a book called “The Wisdom of the Implementors”.
Enchanter calls them “Implementers”, while Beyond Zork (and the Solid Gold version of Wishbringer) calls them “Implementors”.
So I guess it’s a bit like how some games refer to “Double Fanucci”, while Sorcerer and Planetfall called it “Double Fannucci”, and Zork Zero retcons it by saying “Fannucci” is an alternate spelling.
2 Likes
Looks like implementor has been falling in popularity since the 90s? This question from the English Language stackexchange has an answer with a bunch of interesting links. Doesn’t look like there’s a big difference between US and British usage…
3 Likes
It’s based on QTads.
2 Likes
I didn’t actually buy Thaumistry, but that’s because I got a free copy as a beta tester.
I still can’t remember if it’s Sorcerer or Sorceror. Speaking of Infocom.
3 Likes
That’s ok, very occasionally Spellbreaker doesn’t remember what it’s called either:
>VERSION
MAGE
An Interactive Fantasy
Copyright (c) 1985 by Infocom, Inc. All rights reserved.
SPELLBREAKER is a trademark of Infocom, Inc.
Release 63 / Serial number 850916
Even in Release 63 you need to be patient to see that bit of defiance, and apparently it was removed some time after that. 
2 Likes
Found this from two years ago, Jason Scott posted on Twitter and given (I believe) his good friendship with Meretzky this was probably a genuine consideration.
It ended 60/40 in favour, and our poll here is at approx 70/30 so a little more positive but neither is what you might call a landslide.
Anyways, it’s always nice to dream 
2 Likes
short version: Bob Bates should have had graphics.
long version:
I have to chip in and ask why does it have to be a “straight-up text game”?
It seems to me that the primary sales barrier is not having any form of graphics, and the argument about lack of revenue is based on the (mostly correct) assumption that a pure text game isn’t worth making commercially.
There seems to be some kind of basic assumption that a “parser game” isn’t graphical, or more precisely that you don’t interact graphically in such games.
More specifically, i think the phrase “parser game” as a categorical form is highly delusive, because, ask yourself;
Is it that you actually want to type things in, or do you, in fact, want the agency afforded by an interactive world?
In my view, text input is just one way to interact with a world, but by no means the only way.
In view of this, i like to think that “parser games” as a thing in itself isn’t the true goal, but rather a game whose mechanic is built from fictional world behaviour. Indeed, even choice games can have a world model.
I’ve always thought there is commercial viability for modern interactive fiction, even ones narrative lead, given the right interfaces.
And if this were to be pursued by former Imps or, in fact, anyone, it would indeed be successful.
2 Likes
There absolutely is, I’m with you on that. Whether it’s enough to live on I’m not sure, but certainly they will sell.
I’m also with you on the graphics and sound. Here’s my favourite example, The House Abandon…
1 Like
This description sounds a lot like what ended up creating the Myst games*. That’s not a bad thing; I thought the Myst games were really cool growing up, and they were very successful. And I think there’s a lot of overlap between fans of one and the other.
*(and Lucasart or Sierra games.)
2 Likes
No graphics is why a book is always better then the derivative movie.
2 Likes