IF....

[Squinky]

I agree completely.

[Wyndo]

Hmmm. As a player and author of Interactive Fiction myself, I think you guys are oversimplifying things. If a game *only* understands "look behind curtain" -- and not likely alternatives like "move curtain" or "search curtain" or "push curtain" and so forth, then it's simply a poorly-designed game. There are far more of these than there are of the better kind.

Think about it this way. Suppose I'm playing Grim Fandango and Manny is carrying around the lawyer's cigarette case. The puzzle is that I blow it up in the bomb disposal. What if I were to try stepping on it? Or cutting it with the saw (which is probably impossible, since you lose the saw before that point, I think)? Or throwing it against a wall? Or any of another number of things. In a text adventure -- a *good* one -- you'll probably be able to attempt those things. They might not work, but the game will understand and give a response. In a graphic adventure, there's simply no way to even *attempt* it.

A small but active community still plays and writes Interactive Fiction (so-named by Infocom, back in the day, as a means of distinguishing story-based text games from their simpler forerunners, the text adventure). Many -- most -- aren't great. But some are really really good, and offer much smoother gameplay than you describe. The stories are vivid and worthwhile. Guess-the-verb is almost non-existent (although an inexperienced player might try really crazy commands until they've acclimated to the interface, the same way a newbie to Grim Fandango my wonder why is options are so severly limited -- for instance, in being unable to go around reaping everybody with the scythe).

For short, excellent games, try the winners and runners-up of the yearly IFComp (now in its 13th year). As a player of all kinds of games -- PSP, DS, Wii, PC, Xbox, Playstation -- adventures, FPS, puzzle, platformer, RPG -- and as a programmer by day -- I have to say you guys are really underestimating all that's happened to Interactive Fiction since the 1980's. And you're painting the same kind of picture of IF that a graphic adventure newbie might paint if exclusvely playing the worst of the worst in EGA-mode hobbyist games from the early 90's.

IMO.

[ad7venture]

I can somewhat appreciate what you're saying.  But look at your example from a person's perspective that wants to actually get somewhere in the game.
Step on the bomb: You jump on the bomb but nothing happens
Cut it with the saw: The bomb is still ticking
Throw it against the wall: It bounces and keeps ticking
Endless verbs on the saw later you're still looking at the bomb because you didn't pick up the razor blade in the bathroom of that mansion 20 rooms ago.

Chances are that a lot of people aren't going to find that fun.  Most of us want something to happen a little earlier than that.  So you've got a small group of verbiests who are happy and a lot of people that have given up a long time ago.  I've tried these games that have been highly recommended and they drive me crazy.  I really think those games that are great would still be great if you cut down the choices to something reasonable, just like Grim Fandango cut down the choices but still delivered an outstanding game that a lot more people could appreciate.

Here's your examples with use:

Use saw on bomb
Use foot on bomb
use wall on bomb

Granted it's not as colorful, but it still means the same thing and it's one verb and the objects in the room.  If I deplete those options, I can probably assume I didn't pick something up I was supposed to pick up.  Also, puzzles involve ordering and these type of solutions don't do that.  I think if you had less verbs at your disposal, you would think more about ordering.

[Squinky]

For the record, I have played some really well-written IF games; they do, in fact, inspire a lot of my own work. However, if they're in the least bit goal-oriented, I find I always have to look up hints to figure out what it is I should do to proceed; I'm bad enough at puzzles in graphic adventures as it is, and text parsers just amplify my ineptitude.

Of course, this doesn't apply when I play the more experiential, puzzleless games.

[Kickaha]

The community matters a lot (be it players, or player developers.)  The text adventure I mentioned where "look behind" was required came from a small community of text adventure fans / writers.  In that community "look behind" has become an unwritten rule.

I see every so often some of the IFComp games.  The community there is active (but seems to prefer to remain small.)  "Photopia" and the like don't work for me, but each to their own.  There are interesting ideas - some of which suggest things to try in a graphical adventure, some of which could only be done in a text adventure.

One reason I didn't try the "Scratches" engine is that (as far as I know) you're configuring everything in Lua scripts.  GUI editing is a must for me.

[Squinky]

I loved Photopia. It's one of my favourites, I think.

[ad7venture]

I tried Photopia but I didn't get it I guess.  Actually, I can't remember anything about it.  Correct me if I'm wrong but were there some gripey kind of people in it?  I don't know if that's the one or not but I hate it when authors try to write in "realistic" language.  I have to put up with that stuff enough, why do I want it in my fantasy world?  It also completely dates your work and makes it very temporary.  If they want to write in realistic language they should get around the drunks in Wisconsin.  Every other word is a meaningless expletive and I have to pause and take them out in my mind so I can understand what they're saying.  Which, by the way, isn't much.

[Squinky]

Oh. That was just the beginning, and the rest of the story isn't like that at all. In fact, it's rather sweet, and rather sad at the end, when you figure out what those gripey people were actually doing...