Re: A novice's view of early text games

["wbassett" <wbassett@key-net.net>]

I should've added that I put Infocom right after the Adams/Colossal
Caves/Phoenix games, so for me they aren't in the "early" group. Anyhow, the
only Infocom I've played is Zork 1.

doug
wbassett <wbassett@key-net.net> wrote in message
38affe70_1@news3.paonline.com">news:38affe70_1@news3.paonline.com...
> Well, I've played a few int-fiction games (Babel, Anchorhead, Photopia and
> the ones I'll mention below), but I don't think I have enough expertise,
> really, to call myself much more than a novice. Anyhow, I've gotten
> interested in the genre's start recently, and these are my opinions to
date:
>
> 1. I don't like "run around a dungeon and get treasure" games (Colossal
> Cave, Adventureland, Zork 1). It's not so much that these games are hard,
> though they are, often, pretty damn tough. It's just that it's crass.
> Running around, stuffing your pockets full of gold, then depositing your
> ill-gotten gains somewhere -- I feel like a robber baron or Conquistador
or
> something. I'm under the impression that a lot of these early games spin
off
> the Dungeon and Dragons tradition, and so yeah, I can make allowances, but
> the truth is I just can't get interested in such a meaningless enterprise.
> Hell, one jewel-encrusted egg is enough for me.
>     I should say, though, that if you like this sort of thing, you should
> really try Fyeleet (which is either in the Topologika or Phoenix section
of
> the archive -- can't remember which). It's a tough game, and I only played
> into it awhile before I realized what it was and lost interest, but it's
> easily the best-written of all the "gimme gimme" games I've seen. And that
> means alot.
>
> 2. Speaking of writing, I guess I'm more interested in story and writing
> than puzzles -- although I do like puzzles. It's just that, when it comes
> down to it, for me good writing makes the difference.
>     I was thinking about that when I played a bunch of Scott Adams games.
> The problem with those games is that the writing is really poor. Almost
> embarrassingly bad. (Great lines from the Hulk game: bite lip: "You
scream!
> You're the Hulk! Gas permeates your skin! You're Bruce Banner again!") I
can
> deal with the early two-word controls, I can deal with the often obscure
> puzzles, but this stuff --- nah, I can't. I'm too busy laughing. (I didn't
> play into it deep enough to really be sure, but are you supposed to be
James
> Bond in "Mystery Fun House"? If so, why didn't Q give you something more
> than a crappy pair of sneakers and gum?) I can't, in good conscience,
> recommend any of those games to people like me who are relatively new to
the
> genre.
>
>     The best of these early games, I think, are the Phoenix/Topologika
> games. Well, I've only played into Fyeleet, and I'm now playing Crobe, and
> they were/are both pretty tough, but they're very well-written and very
> enjoyable. They really show up those Scott Adams games -- they prove that,
> even with the technological limitation of the day, you could produce good
> games.
>
> Every now and then I write posts like this to
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure. I mainly do it for my own amusement, and
as
> a way to clarify my own thoughts on these subjects, but if anyone wants to
> respond I'm always interested.
>
> doug
>
>
>