I hope this isn’t too off-topic, but is there a place where I can find a list of competitions, and the dates on which they occur? I’m in this weird spot where I know there are competitions, and they have happened before, but I don’t know what’s coming up next.
I’m working on a parser game, and I’d love to participate in my first competition, but I don’t know how much time I have lol.
The Competitions category is a good place to find announcements. There are a few consistent ones that happen at the same time every year—Spring Thing, Introcomp, IFcomp, and I guess you could count the XYZZY awards as the big ones that have been repeated for years and years—and then some smaller one-off ones. Sometimes one-off ones catch on and start getting repeated, like Ectocomp and (back on topic!) Parsercomp.
I don’t think there’s a standard list of them, but if you watch the category you’ll see when a new one is announced.
There’s the IFWiki category, too, though note some of the pages are one-offs or are no longer going.
Ectocomp has run every year since 2007, surely it deserves to be counted among the consistent ones by now.
Indeed it does! My knowledge is a bit out of date there; I’d thought there was a long hiatus and then it got resumed.
I think that “parser” is a pretty narrow thing that engenders wide feelings.
It’s a technology that interprets sentences, isn’t it? To me, Gent Stickman is very clearly a parser game, because that’s exactly how it operates. It’s subversive tech, but it isn’t subversive in terms of input. It tries to find verbs and nouns in player commands and then gives an appropriate response. While it might be different under the hood, the player inputs are no different from games almost 50 years old.
I was surprised to see that it was controversial, honestly.
While I didn’t find many takers, my recent suggestion that IF be defined in terms of output attempted to work through this problem. I stated that the primary measure of progress in IF is “text,” but I meant that in a media/cultural studies sense—a cultural product. In most (but certainly not all) cases this would mean advancing a narrative. This is where the debate/edge cases would likely be found. The controversy surrounding Gent Stickman was about output, not input. It was always clear to me that it was parser IF.
I don’t see any harm in having a parser competition that is limited to parser games. The biggest competitions of the year are not constrained in this way. There are bigger platforms for releasing a game. ParserComp is not anyone’s only chance to share work with the IF world. It’s not even the most visible means of doing so.
I do think it would be nice to have some sort of new tech expo—not the responsibility of Christopher and Fos1—that had appropriately set audience expectations. Instead of judging something still in beta against an Inform game that had been thoroughly playtested for months, players could experience these works in the best possible light: as evolving tech that hopes to innovate or move the medium forward.
While a contestant might hope to have such an experience there, I think it is open to anyone who would like to get feedback (and perhaps a prize) for an unfinished work. Someone else might know more.
I don’t think it’s so controversial except for residual feelings among those who were around during the great “What is IF/Choice vs Parser” debates and perhaps for the purposes of qualifying for a competition specifically geared toward parser.
Discussion of this is absolutely great and what this forum is for, we do just want to make sure all conversation is constructive and civil.
Definitely agree! It might be helpful to unpack two related but distinct questions: 1) with how much specificity should ParserComp’s definition of “parser game” be crafted; and 2) with how much rigor should that definition be enforced.
As to 1, it seems like the current definition mostly works, though is a little wordy and could probably be simplified. To my mind, the issue is more 2, where since it’s a process question there wasn’t anything discussed or written down in the rules beforehand. Maybe a legal analogy would be helpful? In the U.S., in many circumstances – most torts, for example – cases are decided based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, like, whichever side makes a better case, even if it’s only by a tiny bit, wins. In criminal trials, though, the standard for the prosecution is of course proof beyond a reasonable doubt – otherwise the defendant wins. Then there’s also an in-between standard of “clear and convincing evidence” that’s used in certain specialized cases, like when you’re asking for punitive damages to be imposed on a defendant.
In terms of how that might play out in ParserComp, I could see an argument that if you’re using a stricter standard of interpretation, things like Cost of Living would be excluded (a lot depends on how you understand the term “world model!”) whereas using the others, you’d probably go “yeah, close enough” and not worry about it. The difference between clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt might play out with something like Kondiac – though I don’t whether anyone considered disqualifying it (and I’m glad they didn’t!), it doesn’t track state as far as I can tell, and from playing around with it I don’t think it even parses input as just has specific responses hardcoded to very specific words or phrases (like, a space will mess it up).
My preference would be to stick with a streamlined definition that continues to make it clear ParserComp is about parser games, while also making clear there’s some play in the joints in how that definition will be interpreted, so that stuff that’s clearly not suited like platformers, or choice-only games that are IF but really don’t below, can be sorted out, but otherwise it’s up to judges to decide what they think.
Yeah, this is kind of where my head’s been going too – new tech and/or new design, honestly, but something that’s intentionally meant to be less polished, maybe pushing the edges, or maybe even just providing a lower-stakes way for folks new to the IF scene to engage (this seems like the kind of thing that would be great to run and publicize via itch). There’s of course a tradition of Speed IF, including in the Petit Mort category for EctoComp, but loosening up the time restrictions to be less intimidating while still making clear that the idea is not to have polished, playtested stuff, I think would fill a niche that doesn’t currently exist in the scene, and might be a helpful gateway.
IntroComp is for specifically incomplete games (and since it’s a competition, with a prize, there’s an advantage to having that incomplete bit be tested and polished) – I think the idea would be to create a space for games that don’t need such a high degree of sheen, and could be complete ideas in their own right, even if they could be expanded later.
EDIT: Man, I wasn’t around for those arguments, but even going back and re-reading some of the old threads has given me scars! It’s great that the temperature on these conversations has gotten way, way more manageable – moderation standards being a big part of that, I’m guessing! – so I appreciate the reminder.
The other motivator - entrants don’t get their prize unless they finish their game within a year of the competition.
If I were responsible for defining it in a technical way, I would start very narrow, then consider what has been excluded. My starting point would be: "interprets sentences as the primary (maybe sole? maybe not) means of player input. That would include the “typical” Inform, Adrift, TADS offerings, as well as Gruescript and Gent Stickman. For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, I don’t think output is so important when it comes to defining “parser.” “Kondiac” would be out, though, which doesn’t bother me too much, as long as it can be considered elsewhere. I think this is where state tracking matters more—remember that my definition of IF requires the creation of a cultural object (a “text” in media analysis terms). Still, I think that may be because “Kondiac” is unfinished. Perhaps a later version—if we get one—would address all concerns.
Would such a definition exclude games that we strongly feel are parser games? I think that there is no way to completely eliminate the edge cases. A goal of a good definition (I think) would be minimizing them, but I think its inevitable that organizers will have to interpret on occasion (just as a legal framework requires adjudication). So perhaps an edge case does not immediately disqualify the definition.
That leads into the expo subject. I think there should be a venue for a game like “Kondiac” where we could discuss it and see the potential there. Because I think it is there.
One other process thought while I have my lawyer’s hat on – it might be a good idea to stipulate that qualification decisions based on whether or not a game satisfies the parser game definition happen before the games are publicly released, and are final once they’re made. It’s not really fair to either authors or the organizers if those decisions get opened up and relitigated once the competition is running. Feedback on whether the decisions should have gone another way I think is absolutely in-bounds, but would be more constructive in the kind of discussion we’re having now as opposed to an in-competition debate that can have the consequence of disqualifying a game.
(Of course, if it turns out a game has non-obvious abusive content, or unknown to the organizers was previously released, I think in-Comp disqualification would be appropriate in that case).
The opposite suggestion is to leave it to voters - have a “null” voting option “this game in my estimation does not meet the competition requirements as a parser work.”
I believe some of of the relevance issues occur specifically on itch due to the open platform and how Jams are advertised and managed. Every creator with an existing game that has the barest sliver of relevance (or even none) will enter it into as many jams as they can to raise awareness of it on the platform. Itch’s house-rules do not naturally exclude released games - Jams are considered a promotional tool - and it’s common for some jams to have years-old entries. Sometimes this is good, but not if the competition is specifically promoting a specific kind of unpublished work.
TIME FOR A BREAK?
Perhaps the stuff of defining what a Parser Game is and how ParserComp should handle that, is taking all the focus.
There are many other things to talk about, like available categories, or organizers spending their money to give lamps to, let’s say, the 7th position ¬.¬
What about moving this discussion to specific topic for “ParserComp: Parser stuff?”. Once there we can come back to the old good times of beer, punk music, chains, and parser bawls and scuffles @_@
[voila - Mod]
Yooooo, this is what I get for joining the forums so late!! When was this?? I’ll absolutely bring punk music and chains wherever you want! We don’t even need to have the scuffles!
What a time to be alive!!
I agree. If you had asked me some years ago if you could have a parser game with no text output, I would have stared blankly at you. But then Gent Stickman happened, which clearly was a parser game because it parsed typed player input and gave replies based on that. It makes me wonder what else one could do with parser output.
I do think a parser game ought to, well, parse textual player input. That would seem irreducible. But who knows what I’ll be taught next by a wildly clever author?
Curious?
How did this thread get moved from “Planning for ParserCoimp 2023”?
“Jams, Competitions, Parsers and Definitions” should have been a new thread.
I’m afraid that for a second I had more influence in this community than the one I deserve : _D
Let me enjoy the moment!
I moved it per request as some of the discussion was drifting from ParserComp into definitions of what a parser was and it warranted a new thread.
It is a new thread, unless you’re experiencing something different.
On request, I’ve moved all the posts from the split thread back to this one.
The original poster asked for the split, then someone IMed and wanted them moved back.
I don’t mind moving stuff, but if there’s going to be arguments I’m much less willing to do that. If there should be a new thread, start a new one.
Sorry for the slight bit of impatience.