Continuing the discussion from What's the best order to play the entire Infocom catalog?:
You seem to suggest that there’s a notable difference between the Infocom titles before and after these. Is that so? Are there phases in Infocom’s activity? (I remember only having played Zork, AMFV, Wishbringer so I’m still an Infocom noob.)
Going by this chronology, there definitely seems to be a marked lack of classic titles after Trinity (some might disagree).
You’d want to go back to the Digital Antiquarian articles for details. But roughly Infocom’s history went like
1979-1983: Figuring out their market.
1984-1986: More intense business development. (1984 is when they revamped their packing to the grey-box model, and also got Douglas Adams’s name on their catalog.)
1986-1989: The Activision era. Heavily impacted by both directives from above and the contraction of text games as a market niche.
But this doesn’t capture all the motivations at play. Activision wasn’t the end of classic Infocom IF; there were “passion projects” in development all the way to the end. (Lurking Horror is a late classic, and nobody should neglect Plundered Hearts.)
Back in 2022, I argued that Infocom’s “Golden Age” ended with the release of Sorcerer. That assertion was not well-received; I got a lot of messages about it. All I meant is that the period lasting from Zork I to Infidel (1980 through 1983) was marked by constant innovations that shaped the medium. Sorcerer, while very good, is more iterative than innovative.
Even The Witness, which I dislike, feels new thanks to its extensive period detail and research.
I would say that the next period extends from Sorcerer (1984) to the release of Cornerstone (beginning of 1985). It’s an uneven time that includes both beloved and disliked works. The workplace, so far as I know, had grown more fractured as the business products division grew.
Despite the troubled release of Cornerstone, an excellent streak of six games followed: Wishbringer, AMFV, Spellbreaker, Ballyhoo, Trinity, LGOP. This run, by itself, would cement the reputation of any company. Even the flawed Ballyhoo mixes distinctive prose with an innovative approach to time in-game.
That streak ended with Moonmist, and Infocom would never again achieve that level of artistic success with consistency (financial success had peaked some time ago). In fairness, the company was in poor shape and pursuing hits in a shrinking market. Activision (who had bought them) was growing increasingly skeptical. Still, as I said in the other thread, some very strong games still shipped.
What! No Spellbreaker? Sir, this vile utterance shall not go unanswered: choose thine weapon and prepare thy soul, for justice demands satisfaction, and I shall not rest until it is duly served. LOL
I more or less said the same thing, but with different emphasis. :) It’s the difference between “Hey, we could make a sci-fi game! What should we throw in?” and “Let’s make a game with this particular sci-fi story.”