The recent post on Coloratura had me thinking. I believe the choice version of Coloratura came after the parser, which may be one reason why it wasn’t as popular as the parser. But are there any games that have been released in nigh-identical parser and choice versions at the same time? Not a single hybrid system that blends parser and choice, since there are quite a few games that do this, but two parallel and separate versions of the same game releasing simultaneously?
The Intfiction demographic survey results are in the back of my head as I write this; some people play only parser and some play only choice. Releasing a game in two formats at once would attract players from both sides of the aisle, but more importantly, it could serve as an interesting demonstration of how a game and its reception changes in a choice vs parser format, all else being equal. I don’t know how this would work with Spring Thing or IFComp, though. Would you have to submit the games as two separate games in IFComp? Would they be listed as two separate games on IFDB? Has this been done before?
It would definitely be an interesting experiment! I’m not aware of this ever being done, though; when a game has both parser and choice versions (rather than a hybrid), usually one was made first, then the other adapted from it (Coloratura, One King to Loot them All, some of the usual show-off-the-system demos).
But if you have an idea for it, I predict entering them separately in the same IFComp would make quite a splash on the review scene.
Not quite the same thing, but I’ve been toying with the idea of creating a feelie for my WIP that’s functionally a walkthrough or spoiler guide for the game scenario, presented as a first edition AD&D module.
One of my original concepts for Cursèd Pickle of Shireton was the player would have to switch between a parser and choice version of the game and use clues in one to solve puzzles in the other and vice versa.
Chandler Groover clear-headedly talked me down from that, pointing out there was such a slim Venn-diagram of people who would play both sides of it that it wouldn’t work. There’s still a suggestion of that in the game, and I purposely recreated gameplay from the parser version of Baker of Shireton in CPoS.
My personal opinion is that is very feasible, but needs a long “drawing table time” (I toyed a bit with a sort of choice-based refactoring of Isekai, and I’m sure that is feasible, but needs substantial changes in the narrative. (but this allows writing it in a much easier language…)
Also, there’s that mixed choice/parser/choice IF in TADS3 and Twine in a competition two years ago (sorry, I don’t remember the title…) which is an interesting idea.
Oh definitely. But I’d imagine the reverse is less of a case since parser requires some experience and preference for it. An entire game requiring extensive gameplay in both formats would have uninterested detractors on both sides. Not in a bad way, just having a game fundamentally change how it plays in the middle and requiring gameplay in both is (at least at the time we discussed it) not an attractive option.
I did end up including some parser stuff just for fun/lore, but it’s not a requirement to actually play the parser section for clues or to complete the game.
I’ve been thinking about this (but probably won’t because writing one full length game is quite enough). I wasn’t sure whether it would be appropriate to release as two different entries, or just one. And would having the same game posted twice help or hurt the overall score of both?
Brett Witty designed a game with both elements separately (Hand me Down). I was thinking this thread was about submitting the same game (or very similar games) in two different languages/formats.
The problem becomes one of game design. Choice games and parser games each play to their own strengths. Translating a parser game into a choice game (or the reverse) in most cases would present the same challenge as translating a book into a movie (or the reverse). Even the sort of hybrid games we’ve seen coming out of Dialog (and others) are designed specifically for the game engine they’re designed for, and would want to be redesigned for a game engine with fundamentally different features.
Indeed! That’s what intrigues me about the concept: is it possible to design a game that can be played and enjoyed, separately, both as a parser and a choice game? Coloratura and One King, to my read, both started as one, then the author figured the concept could work better as the other, and changed it. The Dialog hybrid games I’ve been pushing for in recent years work best with both options available in the same interface. Can a game be made that does the opposite?
If it were possible, I think it would merit two separate IFComp entries, since people would interact with them in very different ways, and then the randomizer would show them to people in a random order. (But I’m not the organizer, so don’t take this as gospel.)
I know some people have messed with the Dialog[1] web interface to disable text input, so you could potentially code your game in Dialog and release a Z-machine version (no links) and a web version (only links). But even better would be writing it in two different systems so you can really take advantage of each; Dialog links are fundamentally the same as typing commands into the parser, just with a restricted set of them, as opposed to something like ChoiceScript.
Yeah, I imagine the barrier to entry for parser games is pretty low within this community specifically, because we’ve been making and playing them for thirty years now; and it’s this community that primarily votes on IFComp entries.
At the beta testing session of my debut One King parser game, Pinkunz mentioned the game might translate well into a choice game. I could not let go of the idea once planted in my head, and recreated it as a choice game in Twine, using widgets to implement its mechanics. Another motivational factor was to try to make my game more suitable for mobile play. In that sense the Twine version was better. I even tried to add images but scrapped that idea when time ran out for submission to Spring Thing.
The biggest drawback IMHO was the further limitation of agency (since most links led to “useful” actions making progress), the loss of parser trickery like adding additional verbs (xyzzy and lick are present in the parser version but almost nobody tried them in the transcripts I have seen during the comp), and the absence of a way to scroll back and read what had transpired before.
My current WIP is in its present state still agnostic; I really really want to build a parser version but mobile friendliness is a concern. I have been playing around with Bisquixe to see if that might alleviate my concerns (and I had a look at the Wise Woman’s Dog game in order to understand how a hybrid game works and what potential pitfalls are when I try to create a hybrid experience myself). That said, I am very much tempted to release it as both a parser and choice game. Not as a hybrid, but as two separate entries. Tempted, but not fully committed yet…
Like One King, my WIP has a similar feel, but implementing something of its size again in Twine would be so not fun. Also, I’m not great at Twine. I don’t have an eye for aesthetic visuals, as anyone who’s played my Twine games can vouch for.
The Impossible Stairs released both parser and choice, right? I never played the choice version but it honestly feels like a game that is more parser-inclined than choice-inclined.
For parallel games, would they necessarily have to be the same or both based around the same core material but taking it off in different directions to suit the different formats?
I mean, if it’s that then isn’t it two different (although connected) games? I can’t think of an example like what you’re describing but I don’t know whether that would make it two games or one game with two different versions. Also, the only idea I can think of for a game like that is a meta game.
