Speaking as a creator, I think there’s merit in using simpler systems such as Twine or even ScottKit. I can quickly implement the design using Examine, Go, Take, Drop, Use, and Combine. That may not be too sophisticated for experienced users, but it allows quick prototyping my games. As a plus, Scott Adams system is simple enough that I can hard code it using any coding platform, including old style BASIC, if need be.
Another consideration for such simpler system is the user interface. What if you want the simplicity of web interface without typing? It’s possible with DIALOG, as the Bottle adventure game proved. Sorry I forgot the complete name by Linus. Anyway, if you look at SA datafile, then it’s a simple table listing of matches, conditionals, and actions. That’s all. Which means, assuming that you don’t mind writing your own routines, you can output a list of commands that matches all conditions, negating the dreaded “You can’t do that yet” type of response. Since it’s also limited to Verb-Noun construct, you can also present it as click Verb , click Noun type of game, which is similar to “Mickey’s Space Adventure” game.
In other words, with proper UI implementation (and this includes Web UI), you can have a game presents the UI progressing from Troll Tales to Mickey’s Space Adventure to Pirate Adventure (Choice, P&C, Parser) all in one game, differing only by the method the interpreter executes the code. You don’t need to change the game data at all!
Linus mentioned it in his postmortem of his game that having multiple interface options allows people to graduate from PnC to Parser, a gentle way for beginner to get used to the rich parser input possibilities. I wonder if this is something that interests people, or does this strictly belong to the experimental IF genre?
Edit: Name of game is The Impossible Bottle.
