Have you wondered why Quest is unpopular?

Well, it was the same when Graham released Inform. There were only a few people who used the system (as compared to the at-time best system TADS). But he did something that the 'unpopular' systems of now did not do: Create a superb game Curses to prove Inform can do really good game.

So we need a really good game, perhaps a collaborated game to prove that Quest is best.

What do you think?

Well here is my 0.02:

To be able to make a really good game easily, Quest would need some minor improvements and bugfixes first.

Moreover, for a good text adventure game good writing is essential.

Also, you need at least one person who knows how to write code and understands programming logic well.

Finally, if you really want to make it stand out and show what can be done in Quest, you need artists to draw cool characters and maps and make some unique music.

I don't know about that, levicki. I have seen few games on this website that employ "good writing". Although, that definition is semantics.

Also, a caveat - I have only played about 12 or so, so this is nowhere near a sweeping generalization.

I have tried to play several of the highest-rated games on this website, and gave up because I didn't think that any sort of interesting and meaningful story would be forthcoming, or because the writing was riddled with so many errors that I didn't care to continue. And these games have dozens of 5 star rating etc... and have been downloaded hundreds of times.

First Times is the only game that I've played so far that I could finish, because it was a really good game with good atmosphere. But, First Times included, everything has given me the impression that story is second fiddle to puzzles.

It seems to be reinforced by the fact that I've asked for help and advice for my game, WAKE, a few times and in different places, and only Sonic has given me any advice, and two other people said it was looking good. Either WAKE sucks really really bad, or fewer people are trying it out and giving advice because there is a heavy dose of fiction in it - when all they want is puzzles. Just my take.

Game Making isn't exactly easy nor quick, as been mentioned, there's so many elements needed:

Story~Writing, Coding~Programming, Innovative~Novelty (fun, new, and unique puzzles or game features), Good Game Mechanics, Good Game Design, Good Artwork, Good Music, and etc.

There's a reason why game making is a huge industry, with a huge team and company to create it. One person, just can't handle such a massive project, as can be seen be the shift from the early days of gaming to the gaming of today.

A few interesting reads I've come across on game making:

http://emshort.wordpress.com/how-to-pla ... geography/

http://www.mcshaffry.com/GameCode/

http://freecodingtutorial.files.wordpre ... mplete.pdf

Asyranok wrote:First Times is the only game that I've played so far that I could finish, because it was a really good game with good atmosphere. But, First Times included, everything has given me the impression that story is second fiddle to puzzles.

Exactly, lot of people don't know how to write a good story overall, and also individual quests.

Asyranok wrote:Either WAKE sucks really really bad, or fewer people are trying it out and giving advice because there is a heavy dose of fiction in it - when all they want is puzzles. Just my take.

I must admit I didn't have time to try it.

What I know is that you need a good blend of story and action. Too much of either and it becomes boring fast.

Actually, interactive fiction is a story with roadblocks (puzzles) so the scales should tip to story. That's why Wake is the way to go.

(You know what? Wake would be a good game to prove Quest. You can do it alone if you wish, Asyranok or we along with you shall collaborate. Either way, it should be a good game.)

((Thanks for that compliment, Asyran!))

I'll chip in with everyone else, Asyranok, I tried your game, but I didn't finish it: I got stuck because I touched the "strange device" before I left the medical tent and I couldn't figure out how to get out, I've been meaning to try it again since you updated it, and I saw that in the walkthrough that wasn't what I was supposed to do
As far as what sonic is getting at: he's right, we need a good game to prove Quest. I think a huge part of that is the QuestComp that sonic spurred: get people to try to make something that's as good as they got. But, failing that, I think a collaborative project would be a very good idea. I've got a few too many projects on my plate right now to say I'd be willing to start one, but ask me after SpringThing and QuestComp are over and I'd be glad to lend a hand!

I'd be very open to collaboration on WAKE, sonic. I have the whole story synopsis and a general plan for everything if you want to see it. As for puzzles and certain dialogue, I am making them up as I go.

Sorry about that, Homeeman. You probably caught my game right after 5.4 beta came out. I uploaded my game into that, and it automatically changed a bunch of stuff. I didn't realize until recently that the Cold Void, where the player is sent after touching the device, wasn't working properly in 5.4. I recently fixed that issue. The game was missing a whole bunch of verbs though, in that build, and also a bunch of functionality.

Now, it should be working though. That section is an optional puzzle that nets you a reward. It's not necessary at all to play the game, but it is there as an aside.

Emily Short actually touched on this briefly in an interview conducted by Leigh Alexander in the current issue of Game Developer magazine. Allow me to quote, if you will:

Leigh Alexander: The accessibility of new creation tools helps democratize the craft of interactive fiction. What challenges need to be overcome in the tools space to keep reaching more people?
Emily Short:... Good examples. Any new interactive storytelling platform or tool badly needs at least one cool, compelling work to help new users understand what the platform is capable of. Launch without that, and it's a lot harder for people to understand why they should care or what the affordances of the tool will be...

I think the other reason why other IF systems like Quest haven't been as popular as Inform is because some of the largest names in the IF community like Andrew Plotkin and Emily Short helped develop Inform 7 and have used it to create their games in the past, therefore it gets more exposure. If some high profile IF authors released games made with Quest it would definitely cause a huge surge in popularity. Initiatives like QuestComp aim to help in this regard. Maybe someone like Andrew or Emily will become intrigued and enter?

If anyone is interested in the article, you can grab the digital edition of this month's issue here. Also, Leigh has done quite a few articles on developing interactive fiction on Gamasutra. Just Google "Leigh Alexander Interactive Fiction" and you'll get some engaging reading material.

sgreig wrote:I think the other reason why other IF systems like Quest haven't been as popular as Inform is because some of the largest names in the IF community like Andrew Plotkin and Emily Short helped develop Inform 7 and have used it to create their games in the past, therefore it gets more exposure.

I think that you may be over-estimating their influence while also under-estimating the influence of games such as Flexible Survival on Inform 7 popularity

Unpopular compared to what? Based on what information?

There have been between 50 to 70 Quest games published each month for the last few months.

I've just come back from a few days of holiday to find twice as many posts here as there were over at the intfiction.org forums.

I am actually fairly confident that Quest is probably already the most popular system for creating text-based interactive story games or whatever you want to call them.

(I don't think most people have caught on to this yet though, so still some work to do to change perceptions in various places.)

And it feels like a system and community on the way up, to me anyway. Much more so than I think could be said of Inform and especially TADS, good as both of those are of course - they just don't feel like the IF systems of the future, to me.

The only other system I've used was SUDS, and I'm much happier with Quest.
(Seriously, how can a developer tell his users,
"NO, I'm not letting you include the verb "use," because I personally don't like it."
I mean really, come on now.)

Quest might well be the most popular IF system around right now, but when the majority of games it produces are of very poor quality, its worth is debatable.

Today, I downloaded three at random just to see if Quest game writing had improved at all since I last looked at it several years ago. I can't say I was impressed with any of them.

"Doctor Incognitus & The Scorpion's Sting" didn’t have any major bugs that I could see, but it was a fairly average game at best with nothing much I could find to recommend to anyone. "The House of Dom Orre" had lots of locations that were nothing more than a line or two long, most items couldn’t be examined and the whole thing was just very, very shallow. Then I came to "A Pirate's Quest for Treasure" which is currently the highest rated Quest game on the site. Unfortunately, highest rated in this case doesn’t equate to good. Did I really count three typos in the introductory paragraph? That doesn’t really bode well for the rest of the game. Venturing a little further, I found a crate that didn’t have a description and couldn’t be taken (with no explanation offered for why). Moving around the ship was a pain because sometimes compass directions are adequate, yet other times I need to 'go {location}'. All in all, I didn’t find much to make me want to play it any further.

So yes, there are a lot of games being written with Quest right now, but how many of those games are worth playing? Until such time as Quest can produce the kind of games that are being written with TADS and Inform, I don’t see its popularity appealing to anyone who actually knows how to write a game.

While I agree with you, David - 2 of those games are by the same author< Craig Dutton. I have tried several of his games (which are commonly the highest rated on the website) and not one appeared to have any story to it - and I base that SOLELY on my limited interactions in each of those games; so I could be wrong about that. I gave up in all of his games because there seemed to be no story, though.

So it is a little unfair to judge the populace by three games. 2 by the same author who seems to be a puzzle-oriented designer anyway. And one by someone who has never made a game before.

Try my game David. Story-driven games exist. It's just that there aren't enough (And mine not even be any good, but at least it tries to make a story).

Maybe Craig was trying to mimic Photopia , Ramses and the like.

First off just want to say what a great piece of kit this is.

I have downloaded quite a few games for Quest and found them either buggy or uninteresting.
A couple i really tried to get into were a bit over the top on puzzles. Seriously getting out of the first room should not be a task in itself. (a great way to ruin atmosphere)
I like text adventures that give a sense of free roaming with great descriptions without them becoming great walls of text. as well as having the tasks and quest optional (maybe I been spoiled by playing Oblivion and old dungeons and dragons type of games).
Currently building two games and will be quite a time before i finish them but I find Quest has made it a lot easier to put to screen.

just thinking while writing here, do not know if Quest needs it or has done it but a group of people working on a sizable project, and releasing the games in competitions/on market/shareware would raise the profile.

Thanks for making this kit its great

I suppose I have to defend myself, I guess.

Asyranok wrote:While I agree with you, David - 2 of those games are by the same author< Craig Dutton. I have tried several of his games (which are commonly the highest rated on the website) and not one appeared to have any story to it.

Wikipedia: A narrative (or story) is ANY account that presents connected events.

Last time I looked my games have a beginning. You solve puzzles to progress the game and are all connected so you can reach the end. Yes, my games are puzzle oriented but that's how I see text adventures. If you want to write a 'story' then write a book. Text adventures are part story and game-play.

As for plots for my games:

A Pirate's Quest for Treasure. Story: Find as much treasure as you can to prove you're a better pirate.

Doctor Incognitus and the Scorpion's Sting. Story: You're a detective who ends up embroiled in stopping a madman destroying London.

Night of the Creeper: As a ghost-hunter you are determined to find out the mystery involving a ghost girl and the asylum she was a resident there.

I don't think I could write these games without a narrative (story) that doesn't connect from beginning to end.

sonic102 wrote:Maybe Craig was trying to mimic Photopia , Ramses and the like.

I've never heard of them.

davidw wrote:Then I came to "A Pirate's Quest for Treasure" which is currently the highest rated Quest game on the site. Unfortunately, highest rated in this case doesn’t equate to good. I found a crate that didn’t have a description and couldn’t be taken (with no explanation offered for why). Moving around the ship was a pain because sometimes compass directions are adequate, yet other times I need to 'go {location}'. All in all, I didn’t find much to make me want to play it any further.

Wikipedia: A crate is a large shipping container, often made of wood, typically used to transport large, heavy or awkward items.

So, unless you're Superman then tucking a large crate under your arm is slightly out of the question. I took it for granted what people knew what a crate was.

When on a ship - bow, stern, aft, starboard and port are more commonly used terms and not compass directions. I made it quicker and easier for the player to 'go to' a place rather than use the ship's directions.

Overall, I don't claim to be a great writer. I'm just having fun with it. Why aren't you?

You actually went on Wikipedia to get the definition of a crate to prove your point? Jeez. It's typical of bad game writers the world over to fall back on tedious excuses like "people know what a crate is so why bother having a description for it?" to explain away their own failings.

Wikipedia: This game sucks. Avoid it like the plague.

davidw wrote:You actually went on Wikipedia to get the definition of a crate to prove your point? Jeez. It's typical of bad game writers the world over to fall back on tedious excuses like "people know what a crate is so why bother having a description for it?" to explain away their own failings.

Wikipedia: This game sucks. Avoid it like the plague.

The point of the Wikipedia joke quote was to define your ignorance of 1) Not knowing what a crate's average size was so to answer why it can't be taken, and 2) That you didn't consider that I forgot to put an examine description in the first place, be rude about it when a simple polite, pointing out this fact would of sufficed.

Wikipedia: davidw - Rude, arrogant with a sense of humour bypass.

davidw wrote:You actually went on Wikipedia to get the definition of a crate to prove your point? Jeez. It's typical of bad game writers the world over to fall back on tedious excuses like "people know what a crate is so why bother having a description for it?" to explain away their own failings.
Wikipedia: This game sucks. Avoid it like the plague.

You’re original post may have made several good points about this game, the games/reviews offered on the site, and (more to the topic) game design in general, but you’re response to Dutton’s defense took you from making a critical game review to just insulting him. That was uncalled for.
While it’s certainly true that any object worth mentioning ought to be described, I can’t agree with the implication that everything which cannot be taken needs an explanation. There are plenty of situations where an explanation is necessary, and some designers might offer such a response for everything just to be funny, but there are also situations where it is fair to let the reason be assumed, such as things which would logically be attached to walls or things which a normal person wouldn’t be able to carry. If I saw a “crate” on ship I would assume it to be a “shipping crate,” and I would not expect to be able to take it.

cdutton184 wrote:The point of the Wikipedia joke quote was to define your ignorance of 1) Not knowing what a crate's average size was so to answer why it can't be taken, and 2) That you didn't consider that I forgot to put an examine description in the first place, be rude about it when a simple polite, pointing out this fact would of sufficed.
Wikipedia: davidw - Rude, arrogant with a sense of humour bypass.

I agree that davidw became a bit rude, but in all fairness there are other kinds of crates, some of which a person could easily carry, for example a milk crate. Obviously, you wouldn’t expect one of those on a pirate ship, but it was the first alternate example that came to mind.

That said, it’s all become a bit off-topic, and I’d like to steer this ship back in the right direction if I may. The point being made by the topic overall was that it would benefit Quest’s reputation to have a “flagship” game, or just a couple of really well made games, put together by a group of the site’s more capable users. Levicki made a really useful statement that seems to have been swept over.

levicki wrote:...To be able to make a really good game easily, Quest would need some minor improvements and bugfixes first.
Moreover, for a good text adventure game good writing is essential.
Also, you need at least one person who knows how to write code and understands programming logic well.
Finally, if you really want to make it stand out and show what can be done in Quest, you need artists to draw cool characters and maps and make some unique music.

It would probably be a good idea to make sure all the bugs are out of 5.4. Personally, I wouldn’t bother to wait much longer than that though, as there are always new ideas to improve Quest, and when the next version comes out with more features, it will be back to the beta situation.
He also offered up a good list of what such a project would need:
1. A good writer
2. A good programmer
3. Some good artists/musicians
So my thought is, if people are really interested in making a project of this, those people need to be found and volunteer (or be politely convinced) to fill those roles. I also think it might be good to have someone whose job is to lay out the framework of the game’s design, the idea being that it would save time for the “expert” programmer if he didn’t have to set up all the rooms and items himself. Someone of more moderate skill could do that. Lastly, I would suggest (again) that a coordinator or “team leader” be elected to keep things moving and well organized.

That said, this whole idea is actually very similar to the past project (on another site) I was referring to a week or so ago when I said I’d had a “bad experience” being in charge of things. I won’t bother to tell the whole story, but my one piece of advice is: make sure the concept and goal of the project itself is entirely clear to everyone on the site.

Re: the whole crate issue: if I was going to clutch at straws to prove a point, I could mention that after I left school I worked for a time in a warehouse. One of my jobs was to load "crates" onto the back of a lorry. These crates were a couple of feet wide and a couple of feet high and easily carried by a single person. So when I see a crate, I don't automatically assume it's some huge thing that can't physically be lifted.

But that's an irrelevant point anyway. If an item is mentioned in a room description, it should be possible to examine it. If I can't take the item, I should be given a reason why - unless the item in question in a wall or the floor, which would make the reason kind of unnecessary. It's bad game design to not include descriptions of items and then hide behind the excuse that "everyone knows what they look like anyway".

I would be quite willing to participate in a group project. I find that I can implement pretty much anything (given enough time, where "enough" sometimes exceeds the time I have available), but I don't always know what to implement. I'm also no artist. But I program for a living and write for myself, and I have a small body of Quest code I've been putting together which does some novel things that intrigued me in the interests of a game that I still would like to get back to someday...

And as far as concept and goal go, it might be worthwhile to come up with a bit of a "game bible" that lays out the general universe, similar to what they use on TV shows. Where "bible" could be a short, comprehensive document. In my experience, it always helps to have broad goals and principles to stick to when making down-and-dirty detail decisions.

davidw wrote:… I worked for a time in a warehouse. One of my jobs was to load "crates" onto the back of a lorry…
But that's an irrelevant point anyway. If an item is mentioned in a room description, it should be possible to examine it. If I can't take the item, I should be given a reason why…

I used to work for Starbucks, and back when I started the milk deliveries were just left piled in the lobby (hopefull, after an employee had arrived…). That’s probably why “milk crate” was the first alternate example I thought of. So, I see your point.
Regardless of this particular case, that is a good rule to work by for text games, and it reminds me that I had been thinking it would be neat to have a sort of How To guide that was more about writing with just that sort of advice in it. Unfortunately, I’m currently trying to work on two games and keep track of QuestComp (which isn’t all that taxing yet, actually), along with my household duties as “Mr.Mom,” and I still haven’t gotten back to finishing the other How To guide I was going to make.

jaynabonne wrote:… I have a small body of Quest code I've been putting together which does some novel things that intrigued me in the interests of a game that I still would like to get back to someday...

Time is another obstacle to consider, as most of the more experienced designers already have projects of their own they obviously would like to work on. Some of those would doubtless be great games to add to the site, so working together to help someone finish theirs could be great, except that I’m sure some people wouldn’t want to hand over a lot of control on their personal games. I know I’ve had creative works that I didn’t want people “messing” with.

jaynabonne wrote:And as far as concept and goal go, it might be worthwhile to come up with a bit of a "game bible" that lays out the general universe, similar to what they use on TV shows. Where "bible" could be a short, comprehensive document. In my experience, it always helps to have broad goals and principles to stick to when making down-and-dirty detail decisions.

That sounds like an excellent idea! Although, when I said "goal" I was referring to "make a great game with Quest, to show off what Quest can do," as losing sight of that concept was a big part of the problems I had in the past.

cdutton184 wrote:I suppose I have to defend myself, I guess.


As for plots for my games:

A Pirate's Quest for Treasure. Story: Find as much treasure as you can to prove you're a better pirate.

Doctor Incognitus and the Scorpion's Sting. Story: You're a detective who ends up embroiled in stopping a madman destroying London.

Night of the Creeper: As a ghost-hunter you are determined to find out the mystery involving a ghost girl and the asylum she was a resident there.

I don't think I could write these games without a narrative (story) that doesn't connect from beginning to end.

No, you don't need to defend yourself against what I said. Criticism is not a personal attack, although many people take it as such. If you want to be a writer, you have to develop incredibly thick skin, because people will mercilessly tear your "baby" apart and spit it back out at you. (Baby being your story, or game etc.) I am a published author (semi-pro), and I have only gotten even good enough for semi-pro because of excellent criticism from people like yourself, or anyone on this message board and writing message boards.

Sometimes the criticism is praise with a caveat. Sometimes it is "I don't like it, and this is why."

You are never under attack in that situation, and part of being a writer (and even a game designer), is to shrug the possibly hurtful aspect of that comment, and examine why the person didn't like something. Then, you simply better yourself and become more awesome.

You have excellent games - but your definition of a story is semantics. You can say a game is described as "You are a pirate that is trying to collect treasure". That is great. It's something that you can structure your game around. That doesn't mean you have a story.

P.S. This was my quote

While I agree with you, David - 2 of those games are by the same author< Craig Dutton. I have tried several of his games (which are commonly the highest rated on the website) and not one appeared to have any story to it - and I base that SOLELY on my limited interactions in each of those games; so I could be wrong about that. I gave up in all of his games because there seemed to be no story, though.

Not only what I mentioned above, but I stipulated that I could be ENTIRELY wrong about that comment, as I didn't give your games my full attention, and complete them because of my perceived problem. Just an fyi. I hope all of this was an interesting read and offers you some food for thought.

davidw wrote:If an item is mentioned in a room description, it should be possible to examine it. If I can't take the item, I should be given a reason why - unless the item in question in a wall or the floor, which would make the reason kind of unnecessary. It's bad game design to not include descriptions of items and then hide behind the excuse that "everyone knows what they look like anyway".

Well, there are things in the room which are scenery. They are there serving as fillers, but you can't always interact with them and even if you can, that interaction is not always meaningfull. I really don't see the issue of having fillers. Did you ever play Half Life? How many crates Gordon Freeman smashed to bits? How many of them had loot and how many where just there to fill empty space? Did any of those crate have description? Rhetorical questions of course.

Moreover, if there is a crate I can't pick up the next thing I would try is to push or pull. Maybe it is hiding a trapdoor below? Or maybe later in the game you find explosives and detonate it?

Bottom line -- someone wrote a game in their own free time and is giving it out for free. They shared it with everyone and even if it is horrible (which I am sure is not), the good intention should count for something.

Of course, you can like it or not and you can give reasons why you don't like it, but unless you also show others that you can do better, your words won't have much weight among people who are aware what kind of effort is necessary to make even a mediocre game. There are many free game creation tools (Quest, Inform 7, TADS, Game Maker Studio, etc) so what are you waiting for?

"Half-Life" is a completely different type of game so it's hardly relevant to a discussion about a text adventure. Whether the crate mentioned is scenery or not, it ought to have a description. That's text adventure basics.

As for someone writing a game and giving it away for free - so what? If the game is bad, it doesn't really matter if it's free.

levicki wrote:Of course, you can like it or not and you can give reasons why you don't like it, but unless you also show others that you can do better, your words won't have much weight among people who are aware what kind of effort is necessary to make even a mediocre game. There are many free game creation tools (Quest, Inform 7, TADS, Game Maker Studio, etc) so what are you waiting for?

That's a strange comment to make. Are you saying people aren't allowed to criticise games unless they've written a game of their own? I've never directed or acted in a film, so does that mean I shouldn't be able to say I dislike a film?

As for what I'm waiting for? That made me smile a little.

http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/David_Whyld

Since when are there flame wars in the Quest community? I was only gone for like, a few days you guys.

As I've said before, I am absolutely in love with the idea of a communal game where we make a flagship for the Quest platform. I would also love to work on this, and so I'll stop making excuses and consign myself to be willing to work on something with you guys. "You have my bow."

I can make a Google Doc that everyone could access from this topic in which everyone could contribute to an idea which would function as our "Bible" of sorts, and eventually create a game. Before I do that, though, it would be neat to brainstorm about the kind of setting, environment, and the type of game in general everyone would like to see. Just bounce ideas off this topic, I'd say, and if enough people stop after a certain suggestion saying, "Good idea, PERSON'S NAME! I think that would be a terrific way to prove Quest!" We can more or less agree that that would be a good place to start and create something to make all the IF hipsters totally jealous of us for liking Quest before it was cool.

For instance, the genre du jour for "mainstream" games is the first person shooter. It's simple and accessible, and I think that's what people like about it. I guess.
So, what's the first person shooter for IF? Probably your standard "stick this item with that item and use it on this thingy" puzzle sort of game, which always works great. There's a lot to love there, and saying that that's a staple of IF would be like saying that air is a staple of my diet.
Is that what we would want to make a flagship game for Quest? Would we want to include a battle system? Branching story lines Walking Dead style?
Are we going to have a character stand out that we can champion as a mascot, or are we going to play to the strengths of IF and create a game in which the main character is some extension of the player?
What's a good setting? Fantasy settings and modern day settings are probably the two most common, and I, personally have a bent towards fantasy. What kind of setting do you think would be appropriate for an exemplary Quest?
Let the brainstorming begin, perhaps?

I'm a good Puzzle Designer, or more acurrately, Midgame Puzzle Designer.

Why don't we call the game "Quest"? No, really.

Well, in the old days it wasn't strange to see a game called "Adventure" or even just "Venture." I don't see why it couldn't be called "Quest." Works for me!

I'd suggest a "medium" amount of story, by which I mean a good solid story that drives the player to move forward without throwing up giant walls of text.

Fantasy is sort of classic for text games and less likely to receive "realism" complaints than a modern setting, although to be honest I've never really understood that complaint in any genre other than sci-fi (oddly enough).

I actually have a strategy that allows me to handle story-heavy parts without making the player try the command "tl;dr"
In most cases, at least in my last game, these parts took place in the form of conversations (most of the plot exposition was done this way, and it was a you-are-the-character type deal). Before too much text pops up, give the player an option to respond. The response's impact for the player was always aesthetic: somewhere down the line someone would say something slightly different based on your response, but everything mostly stayed the same. The same strategy could be employed outside of conversation with options that represent actions instead of responses.
I bring this up because, like most people within this community, I write short stories in my free time and that tends to reflect on my writing in the game. But because even the most avid IF player might get frustrated or bored with walls of text, I needed to find a way to break up the long plot exposition, and now we could use this strategy in our game to have as much story as fits the game, without having to curb the colorful detail or make a game with a story that's centered more around the player's actions than an over-arching narrative (should we decide that we want to).

just a quick comment (and most of you already know this too), but it's a good comment (I think anyways) on how great quest is:

In my limited knowledge of coding, it seems that quest can for the most part, make an elder scroll quality of game (for a text adventure game's abilities of course), that's the power of quest's coding. You can code in all of the elements of an elder scroll game. So, as been said over and over, the problem isn't with quest, it just doesn't have great games to showcase the power of quest's capabilities. We just need some really great games and big advertising of them (and of quest), to get the reknown and fame that quest deserves.

--------------

I'm not a writer nor a game maker, but my "two cents" on the story aspect:

I think for the most part, dialogue should be at most a paragraph, as reading only ~5 sentences constantly throughout the game isn't that big of a deal, especially with game play spacing. This way, you can spread out your story, while still telling an epic story.

Obviously, here and there, you can have some major events in your game, where you can have a much longer dialogue, and a good example would be after a hard boss fight or a very difficult or long puzzle. That way, the game player sees it as a reward, and eagerly reads the long dialogue, compared to as a punishment, if you just have the long dialogue without a huge effort to receive it, resulting in the game player "grumbing" at having to read it.

maybe think of it as like a movie, you need to alternate back and forth between watching action and listening to dialogue, it's the same for a game.

The prologue (using the start script) is good place to set up your story, if it's their first time, they can read it (if they want), or if it is not their first time (or if they just don't want to read it ~ and stumble through the game blindly lol), you can skip it.

Also, any long dialogue of epic story telling, should have an option to skip it, especially if it's the same everytime, again for game player's who're replaying the game and already read it, or for those who just don't want to read it, lol.

davidw wrote:"Half-Life" is a completely different type of game so it's hardly relevant to a discussion about a text adventure. Whether the crate mentioned is scenery or not, it ought to have a description. That's text adventure basics.

Scenery is scenery, regardless of the game type. Would it be better if the game told you that you have no time to examine crates? Because that is what you seem to be doing in your own games which is even more lame because you can apply that generic excuse to all objects without description and yet you demand from others to have unique object descriptions. Talk about double standards.

davidw wrote:As for someone writing a game and giving it away for free - so what? If the game is bad, it doesn't really matter if it's free.

Well, my argument is that you have not wasted anything except your time, and you decided to do that willingly -- its not like someone forced you to play it.

davidw wrote:That's a strange comment to make. Are you saying people aren't allowed to criticise games unless they've written a game of their own? I've never directed or acted in a film, so does that mean I shouldn't be able to say I dislike a film?

I never made any game, but because everyone on the Internet is obviously entitled to an opinion I will criticize one of yours which I didn't even play:

You are a prince, carrying nothing, outside the tower of the princess you wish to wed. However, before she'll even let you inside the tower, she demands that you must first prove your love by bringing her the head of an orc, the rib bone of a goblin, and a diamond the exact size of a golf ball.

That sounds like a typical fairy tale (prince wants princess' hand but she has demands, blah, blah) setting which is utterly boring and exploited like zillion times so far. From your synopsis it seems as if those characters have no background -- they are just there and have to do something or other. So, you have already failed on the story part, and if I may notice that is exactly what you criticized others for here.

Furthermore, what kind of princess is that when she wants a big diamond? Is she poor? If she has no wealth of her own why would you want to marry her in the first place if you are a wealthy prince? Or maybe you are not wealthy prince? It sounds more like you are a street bum if you start with absolutely nothing in your inventory. But wait you are worse than a street bum because even street bums have something in their inventory and probably more character than any prince in any fairy tale, not to mention in that game of yours.

At that point I would already stop playing your game if I ever started playing it which I haven't, but I will criticize some more just because you said I should be able to.

Orc and Goblin -- two most stereotypical dungeon characters (if you exclude already stereotypical "prince" and "princess"). Do you have any imagination? Obviously not. If you said "wing of a Space Bat" it would at least sound less boring than a "goblin rib" or an "orc head".

I could go on like this for hours and tear every one of your games down to shreds, but I am bored by even having to demonstrate how easy is to criticize others if you are so inclined. Of all people you should know that, given how much experience that wiki claims you have. The point of this whole argument is that people writing games in Quest are mostly beginners, so if you aready know how hard it is you should really cut them some slack if they forget to describe a crate or write less than a stellar story plot.

= this thread

cdutton184 wrote:If davidw(hatever) you have written 58 games on ADRIFT why are you bullying people here? Maybe you get back and write your 59th.

cdutton184, please be kind to davidw (and every other visitor here). He has written more than 1000 posts here so he seems to know something about Quest.

And yes, he is right in his opinion that every object should have an description, even if it is a scenery. Or better said, if you want to create a good game, you should do it. When I start a (Quest-)game here and I get the message "Nothing out of the ordinary." I immediate stop playing this game. I can't see this message or other standard issues any more!

levicki wrote:Scenery is scenery, regardless of the game type. Would it be better if the game told you that you have no time to examine crates? Because that is what you seem to be doing in your own games which is even more lame because you can apply that generic excuse to all objects without description and yet you demand from others to have unique object descriptions. Talk about double standards.

It's not double standards at all. "Half Life" isn't a text adventure so a description in text of crates in a game like that would be pointless. In a text adventure, if something is mentioned in the room description, it should be possible to examine it. It's bad game design to not cover things like that, and, incidentally, probably one of the key reasons why Quest has been around for so long and yet is still remarkably unpopular: because the games written with it are, for the most part, pretty dire. And you know why they're dire? Because the kind of standards that are pretty much an unspoken rule in other systems don't exist here. People can write a terrible Quest game and other people will tell them it's great, even while knowing it's anything but. Games are badly designed, badly written and just bad full stop, yet does anyone actually bother pointing this out? No, they pretend said games are actually decent, so the bad games just keep on coming. Maybe, just maybe, if someone wrote an honest review of a Quest game and didn't simply say it was amazing because it was a Quest game, then Quest wouldn't be so unpopular.

levicki wrote:Well, my argument is that you have not wasted anything except your time, and you decided to do that willingly -- its not like someone forced you to play it.

True, but at the same time pretty much irrelevant. Are you saying we should pretend bad games are great so long as they're free?

levicki wrote:I never made any game, but because everyone on the Internet is obviously entitled to an opinion I will criticize one of yours which I didn't even play:

And there my opinion of you, which was never very high to begin with, sinks to an all time low. You're going to criticise a game you haven't even played simply because you've had a disagreement with the author? That's pathetic on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to start.

levicki wrote:That sounds like a typical fairy tale (prince wants princess' hand but she has demands, blah, blah) setting which is utterly boring and exploited like zillion times so far. From your synopsis it seems as if those characters have no background -- they are just there and have to do something or other. So, you have already failed on the story part, and if I may notice that is exactly what you criticized others for here.

Maybe - for example, if you'd actually bothered to play the game you're criticising, or read the same page on IfWiki you got that information off - you'd have realised the game in question was one I wrote for a speed-comp, specifically a one hour comp, i.e. you need to write, test and fully complete your game in an hour tops. With such tight time constraints, you don't really have a week or two to come up with a fully detailed plot or ideal game world. But, of course, you didn't play the game, so you wouldn't know that.

From what I have read, each object in a room should have a description, and every *feature* (or mentioned detail) of each object which can also have a description should as well, to a depth of at least three.

My personal pet peeve with some of the Quest games currently out there (and even some ranked highly) is the lack of verb development, with a reliance on "use" or "use on" for everything, even if it renders the input required of the player nonsensical. (There is a difference between shortened - or "caveman" - English, and just non-English crammed into a built-in verb.)

As they say, the devil is in the details, and one big detail of a text adventure game meant to reach a wide audience is a good set of developed - aka "natural" - verbs. I have given up on some games here simply because when playing a game, I want to believe that the author is at least *trying* to meet me half way as far as working out reasonable input, rather than just forcing me to do things in unnatural ways because it's easier for them.

The problem with this is those who commonly play these games *know* of this design feature, and so not only do they not complain about it, but they know how to work out the puzzles based on this. So they make their way through the game and think it's wonderful, in a closed-loop form of feedback that isolates both the author and these player in their own little bubble of acceptability. Without any external input, validation and verification, they end up on a little island all to themselves which works well for them (a producer/consumer relationship), but doesn't make the games accessible to anyone else in the IF world.

davidw wrote:It's not double standards at all.

How do you think it is not if you make a game which on examining an object says "you don't have time to do that" instead of "Nothing out of the ordinary"? Where exactly is the difference? Both messages are generic and both can be applied to a ton of objects you don't care to describe in detail, but are there to fill the space.

davidw wrote:"Half Life" isn't a text adventure so a description in text of crates in a game like that would be pointless.

I was comparing Half-Life crates because they are exactly the same thing -- generic space filling object. Since they all look the same you may as well imagine they have no description because if they had, it would be "just another boring crate".

davidw wrote:It's bad game design to not cover things like that, and, incidentally, probably one of the key reasons why Quest has been around for so long and yet is still remarkably unpopular: because the games written with it are, for the most part, pretty dire. And you know why they're dire? Because the kind of standards that are pretty much an unspoken rule in other systems don't exist here. People can write a terrible Quest game and other people will tell them it's great, even while knowing it's anything but. Games are badly designed, badly written and just bad full stop, yet does anyone actually bother pointing this out? No, they pretend said games are actually decent, so the bad games just keep on coming. Maybe, just maybe, if someone wrote an honest review of a Quest game and didn't simply say it was amazing because it was a Quest game, then Quest wouldn't be so unpopular.

First, people who are not familiar with programming can do only very limited things in Quest but they have to start somewhere.

Second, even those who are very familiar with programming such as myself quickly hit the Quest script/object handling limits, and have to look for workarounds wasting time they would be using to actually write the story and some game code. I came to this forum to try to help Alex out a bit with suggestions, libraries, and even some code patches as I gain more understanding of Quest's inner workings.

Third, I read reviews for several games (both good and bad) and I have not seen only praise as you claim. Reviews are pretty honest if you ask me.

Fourth, writing bad reviews can only serve to drive people away instead of encouraging them to stick with Quest, tinker more, and learn.

Finally, and I am sure you are aware of that -- Quest enables total noobs to try making a game. It is a teaching aid and it is free. If a person who makes their first crappy game learns something out of that, and if those playing their game also learn to express what they like and what they don't without saying "ur game sucks" it is a net positive.

davidw wrote:Are you saying we should pretend bad games are great so long as they're free?

All I am saying that you should cut them some slack or perhaps try conveying your opinion in a more pleasant manner if you can.

davidw wrote:And there my opinion of you, which was never very high to begin with, sinks to an all time low.

Your opinion about myself doesn't really matter to me, but maybe you could try criticizing my code, be it x86 assembler, C/C++, or Quest.

davidw wrote:You're going to criticise a game you haven't even played simply because you've had a disagreement with the author? That's pathetic on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to start.

Not because of disagreement, just to show how some of your own work isn't really that much better than what you criticize.

davidw wrote:Maybe - for example, if you'd actually bothered to play the game you're criticising, or read the same page on IfWiki you got that information off - you'd have realised the game in question was one I wrote for a speed-comp, specifically a one hour comp, i.e. you need to write, test and fully complete your game in an hour tops. With such tight time constraints, you don't really have a week or two to come up with a fully detailed plot or ideal game world.

Excuses, excuses...

I give you one thing -- you slapped together a functional game in one hour. It probably helped you were familiar with the system you were writing the game in after so many games, but is still an impressive skill.

Unfortunately...

davidw wrote:But, of course, you didn't play the game, so you wouldn't know that.

I do not have to play it to realize that it has a crappy, boring story and non-existent characters -- your own synopsis told me that.

I really don't want to argue further because we have hijacked the thread enough already, I had to confront you because in your tone I felt a resentful note towards Quest and what it brings to the scene. It almost sounded as if you hate it for enabling so many people to tinker in "your" domain. If it was not your intention to sound like that maybe you should have picked your words more carefully?

Pertex wrote:cdutton184, please be kind to davidw (and every other visitor here). He has written more than 1000 posts here so he seems to know something about Quest.

Pertex, have you read David's profile page and tell me what is 'kind' about 99% of his reviews. Why would anyone be kind about someone with such vitriol.

davidw's profile: http://www.textadventures.co.uk/profile/166/

Well, Levicki, I'd take the time to respond to you but... I frankly can't be bothered. I mean, why lower myself to argue with someone who criticises a game that by his own admission he hasn't even played? You're not worth the effort.

And cdutton184, yes I've written a lot of 'vitriol' about a good number of Quest games, but then a good number of Quest games are just plain bad. I've also, if you haven't noticed, written a glowing review of the only Quest game I consider to be genuinely good - Dr Froth's "Gathered in Darkness". So I do praise games when I think they're worth praising; unfortunately, in the case of both of the games of yours I played, that wasn't the case.

Hi Sonic - I personally am not a fan of the idea of "Quest" as a game title.

A game title is what catches my eye and makes me want to read the description, which in turn makes me want to play the game.

If I saw a game called "Quest", I'd never give it the light of day - My first impression would be that the story or idea is too weak to have a better name; or the author couldn't be bothered to think of a better name. That's not the assumption I am making for your idea of using it as a title for a collaborative project - I mean that that would be my impression if I had no idea what I was looking for and was just perusing a list of games that I could play.

I know that not everyone would approach that situation with the same thought process - just wanted to give you an idea of what the possibly gamers that think like me might see.

In the interest of maintaining sanity, I am locking this thread. Sorry if that annoys anybody, but let's try to keep the drama out of the public eye. Thanks for your understanding.

cdutton184 wrote:
Pertex, have you read David's profile page and tell me what is 'kind' about 99% of his reviews. Why would anyone be kind about someone with such vitriol.

davidw's profile: http://www.textadventures.co.uk/profile/166/

Yes, perhaps he is a kind of troll, but that is no a matter of offending each other. The Quest forum has been a very peaceful place and I would like to keep it. So the best way is just ignoring trolls.