Do we need to define “game using a parser”? Normally I’d figure that the voting will basically crowdsource the definition (i.e. games that voters judge as not meeting the definition will be downvoted), but here you have a specific disqualification rule. On the other hand, I’d also be fine with a “she knows it when she sees it” rule rather than trying to nail down a definition.
For example, would you disqualify an Inform game that was entirely dialog trees? Or an Inform game that only allowed single-digit commands? What about a Twine game where each room has a bunch of links for verbs and nouns? (I think there’s one of these in the current IF comp?)
[Edited to add: I think this comp is a great idea, and I hope this post doesn’t come across as negative or nitpicky.]
There are conceptual diffences between parser and CYOA games and I have no concept to evaluate them after some years of experience. There are some possibilities, e.g do it in any way you feel right, or try to judge technical and narrative aspects separately, I really can’t bring all together in a satisfactory way. IF comp 2010 was much easier in this case.
Obviously comps to encourage different forms of IF are a good thing, but I love that as many different forms as possible can come together as one big family under one big label once a year. It fosters dialogue, experimentation, change and surprise. It means that each year there will always be pairs of games that, when you look at them side by side, you think, “How can these both be IF?” and not have a satisfactory answer. And that is a very good thing.
It might seem like “parser games” is an easy subset to define. But writers and programmers and artists are such that, when you set a limit, they will naturally try and find all the edges, the limit cases, the thorny problems in the definition of the medium. So whatever definition is used, I think the best thing to do is not to enforce it, not to build a fence around it, and to let artists do what they do best.
We already have a “ALL IF” comp. What Carolyn wants to achieve is to have more parser games (which definition is pretty easy to understand, I think) as an absolute value, not against any specific platform. I stress this out because I sense there is a bit of a derailing in this thread going on. We are NOT discussing the end of web-based.
If I want to play Burraco at my house, tonight, and I post free-for-all invitations on my front door, I wouldn’t want (nor accept, to be honest) people demanding me to accept javeling throwers at the party.
Sorry if this was received as an attack. It was not intended, etc. etc.
Pal, it’s OK, we’re good here. I wasn’t arguing against ParserComp. I am good with ParserComp. I was saying to the folk worrying about the definition for “parser game” in this thread: relax, don’t worry, define it how you like, and people will mess with the edges of that definition anyway, and you won’t be able to have a complete set of rules about what is and isn’t parser, and that’s a good thing.
The current IFComp crop has a really fantastic set of examples to talk about this, but I can’t talk about them [emote]:-D[/emote]
There’s no versus being talked here; it’s just that that conversation ties into a lot of politics, both local and global, so there’s a tension around it I reckon you’re picking up on.
It’s also because the definition isn’t simple: “web-pased” and “parser-based” are not mutually exclusive categories. In fact they’re different sorts of categories! You can build something in Twine (and it’s now been done) that’s more parser-like than, say The Space Under the Window (which in retrospect plays like a proto-twine!): eblong.com/zarf/zweb/sutwin/. You can have a choice-based game where you type the input (and it’s now been done). So there will be confusing limit cases. All I’m saying – and this isn’t said against anyone, but in support of ParserComp – is that we’re likely to have a better time and a more interesting comp if we just don’t worry about the borders too much.
I wondered whether I would need to define “parser game”. Okay, here’s my thought:
In order to be a parser game (for the purpose of ParserComp), the game needs to process typed commands with a parser and then interpret those parsed commands within a world model.
This Is A Real Thing That Happened would not qualify, because it’s an I7 game that has no world model and sidesteps the use of a parser. (Admittedly, I categorized it as “parser” at Sibyl Moon, but we all know the truth.)
Chemistry and Physics also would not qualify. It has a world model, demonstrated by having an inventory and a map that you navigate, but it doesn’t have a parser, either.
Fish Dreamswould qualify. It’s a bizarre little game that gives you virtually no meaningful choices (to eat, or not to eat?) but it’s still parsing noun/verb commands and interpreting them within a world model.
I would say that Galatea has a sort of world model in the representation of the eponymous character’s thoughts and emotions, as well as the topics of conversation that the player can choose.
(Of course, official decisions on the rules are up to Carolyn; this is just my opinion.)
What about The Table? I don’t intend to submit anything like this, especially not the part where it’s auto-generating really bad Beckett imitations, but I would have a sad if world model (or parser) was interpreted strictly enough to rule something like this out.
Other edgish cases: interactive poetry like Renga in Four Parts (not clear what the world model and parser are), keyword-only games like the offline version of Starborn and to some extent Walker and Silhouette (typed commands and world model, but does it count as a parser?) And The Space Under The Window, for that matter.
Sorry to be nitpicky here–I would be perfectly happy for you not to clarify this in advance.
…oh grrraghhg, I thought of the best troll edge case and I cannot find it. It is a Flash (or other online-playable) game where you use a mouse to control a bear paw mashing keys on a keyboard to enter commands into an onscreen computer. I have a pretty clear mental image of it but I cannot enter that image into a search engine. I don’t think it had a world model to speak of, but if it did…
Anyway on preview “we can talk about this more if you want to do it” is awesome, but now that I’ve got that game in my head I want to post this to see if anyone knows what I’m talking about.
The point of this competition is to promote parser games, and I don’t think that purpose is well-served by encouraging hybrids. There are all kinds of other spaces where those games are perfectly appropriate, but I don’t think this should be one of them.
With that said - if you want to make a case for a specific thing you want to do (rather than discussing options in the abstract), ping me directly, and we’ll talk about it.
What I’m trying to get at is the idea that the game should make use of an underlying structure, rather than bypassing it. “Model” rather than “world model” seems reasonable to me if that will make it clearer.
(That’s why I used This Is A Real Thing as an example - it’s written in Inform 7, but it shuts down all parsing, so it’s not really a parser game.)
Perhaps a simple answer: A parser game can reject a player’s input. A choice based game cannot.
A parser game allows player input that must be interpreted and understood, and can be rejected based on the parser’s understanding (or lack) of it. A parser game may comprehend unique player input that the author did not specifically plan for.
A choice game has a one-to-one mechanical reaction to a player’s input, which boils down to “choosing this results in this,” even despite intelligent trickery or randomness employed by the author to disguise the basic one-to-one reaction. A choice game does not accept input the author did not explicitly plan for and create. If a Twine rejects a command, it is because the author specifically planned ahead of time a mechanical reaction to reject it.
Metaphorically if you consider board games:
Monopoly is choice based. Despite the randomness of dice-rolls and card-drawing and the exchange of money, there is no interaction that happens during the game that was not planned by the designers. (Player negotiation is not part of the actual game mechanics; the board doesn’t care if you trade Boardwalk or not.) There is a set list of actions that can be taken by a player at any given time during a turn that is not deviated from.
Scrabble could be analogous to a parser game. The creators of the game had no way of predicting every word in existence that could be placed on the board. There are general rules, and as long as the input is valid (in the agreed upon dictionary) the player scores points. The input is interpreted (albeit by human judges), must be comprehended, and can be rejected.
