This is a short effort investigating telepathic powers, and not just of people, but of wolves. I like the use of footnotes to convey what the author is trying to do, and I think maybe future IntroComp editions should flesh out what exactly we can or should do. How much is too much? How can we make sure we are not push-polling the reader? Whatever the answers, this game certainly does not push any trollish boundaries that way. So I think more games, completed or not, should try this. Because I think it helps the author, too, answer tough questions in a public forum, and it's something to poke at when the creativity dries up.
This was the first of the IntroComp games, and I enjoyed replaying to refresh my memory about what was going on, here. It seems like it has a solid foundation, and the writer should be able to push his vision through. While it may seem like faint praise to say a first-time writer didn't try to do too much, that's what happened here. The game moves quickly to a focal point that opens up several possibilities. So while with Meld I wondered how this mess got bundled up (which is fun to figure in its own way--the intellectual poking is my sort of thing,) I saw--and was open to--more possibilities here. And I suspect this will appeal to a wider audience.
The switch in view between the wolf and person was quite good, and I was caught up enough not to notice I was being funneled to the next bit. The wolves and people obviously had some enemy's enemy and how much to hate the bad guy issues to work out, and if it wasn't super intense, it opened up the way for a big story without choking me off. The author had a clear idea of what to do and never needed to resort to silly tricks to do it.
I also enjoyed having the conversational topics at the bottom. This relieved the standard headaches of a parser game simply and effectively.
So I think this was the best title of IntroComp and the best work, too. It's not just one I hope gets done, but I can really see it getting done, and just because the author seems to have a pretty good vision of where to go doesn't mean they don't deserve the reward.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Deprivation, by Michael Coorlim
Seeing the size of the TADS file and executable, I thought I was in for a biggie. But not so. There are only three rooms. You've had a bad weekend, the details of which are vague. You also have insomnia.
If this seems like a This Lousy Apartment game, that sort of is and isn't true. It looks like a first effort, and the author seems to have hit at the least inspiring of conventions about this sort of thing, which is a shame, because it just implicitly feels like they know what they're doing when putting actual words together.
I think this could've afforded to be a bit longer than just the one non-puzzle that gets you to the end. So I think the scope was off, and the author could and should have concentrated on, maybe, another night (do you go to work after sleeping? What are the consequences? How messed up is your sleep schedule?) than the more trivial things one finds in a text adventure My Apartment game that are no fun to implement or, for that matter, comb through and realize they don't offer much.
I'm letting this effort skate based on the "ABOUT" section and how it was planned. I like the concept, and too much of the writing on examining etc. was good for this to be an accident. So I have more to say than "pfft, another apartment game." My guess is that the author settled for such a game and probably wished there was a way to do a bit better but didn't find any. Because what's implemented feels good and smooth, but the effort seems to have been focused in the wrong places.
I also might be letting this skate because it's in TADS which always seems to produce a unique flavor of adventures, and I do like the default links you can click on. For instance I very much enjoyed testing Royce Odle's Dead Man's Party and the odd things it does, and I always meant to look at more TADS games. But I never do.
If this seems like a This Lousy Apartment game, that sort of is and isn't true. It looks like a first effort, and the author seems to have hit at the least inspiring of conventions about this sort of thing, which is a shame, because it just implicitly feels like they know what they're doing when putting actual words together.
I think this could've afforded to be a bit longer than just the one non-puzzle that gets you to the end. So I think the scope was off, and the author could and should have concentrated on, maybe, another night (do you go to work after sleeping? What are the consequences? How messed up is your sleep schedule?) than the more trivial things one finds in a text adventure My Apartment game that are no fun to implement or, for that matter, comb through and realize they don't offer much.
I'm letting this effort skate based on the "ABOUT" section and how it was planned. I like the concept, and too much of the writing on examining etc. was good for this to be an accident. So I have more to say than "pfft, another apartment game." My guess is that the author settled for such a game and probably wished there was a way to do a bit better but didn't find any. Because what's implemented feels good and smooth, but the effort seems to have been focused in the wrong places.
I also might be letting this skate because it's in TADS which always seems to produce a unique flavor of adventures, and I do like the default links you can click on. For instance I very much enjoyed testing Royce Odle's Dead Man's Party and the odd things it does, and I always meant to look at more TADS games. But I never do.
Meld, by David Whyld
I always seem to take more energy on a David Whyld game than others. Even the mistakes he makes are fundamentally interesting. He'll overuse a joke I've heard before, but then he'll do a joke I thought I heard before just right. He'll provide a mechanic that's not fully fleshed out, but there'll be a couple spectacular examples how each works.
Meld certainly caught more of my time than any of the other IntroComp games, for better or worse. And I think he's found some pretty good territory to farm: big ideas people have put aside that are maybe a bit unpopular or not scholarly enough, but they can be, in Un-'Merican English, ripping good yarns.
Meld certainly caught more of my time than any of the other IntroComp games, for better or worse. And I think he's found some pretty good territory to farm: big ideas people have put aside that are maybe a bit unpopular or not scholarly enough, but they can be, in Un-'Merican English, ripping good yarns.
IntroComp reviews, part 1: Lair of the Gorgolath, Voltage Cafe, Walker's Rift
I should've gotten through IntroComp earlier, but at least I got around to it, eh? We'll start with these three, and I'll post the other tomorrow.
Hopefully my reviews will have something new to say or, if they don't, help act as a deciding vote/deciding motivation for an author to say "I need to do this, or that."
I've avoided other reviews, so there may be repetition, but I think I'll be less biased that way. In the past, I sometimes poked at reviews to see how long/short a game is, to organize my own time, but that spoiled a lot more. (Note to IFDB admins or anyone: I think this would be a good feature to put in for a game. Have people vote on how long a game seems to take. I know lots of times I'd like to sit down with a game but I have no clue how long it is.)
If you haven't gotten through IntroComp, you have one more day. No game is terribly long, except for one that has a walkthrough anyway. (Note: walkthroughs are a good thing, in-game or not. Authors, even if you want people to see the bad ending or not be spoon-fed, maybe put the "right" path at the end? Or say so to start?)
I hope it's not rough to say these missed the cut for my top 3, but they had enough that it's worth saying a bit. I'd have said a bit more if I'd have started earlier.
Hopefully my reviews will have something new to say or, if they don't, help act as a deciding vote/deciding motivation for an author to say "I need to do this, or that."
I've avoided other reviews, so there may be repetition, but I think I'll be less biased that way. In the past, I sometimes poked at reviews to see how long/short a game is, to organize my own time, but that spoiled a lot more. (Note to IFDB admins or anyone: I think this would be a good feature to put in for a game. Have people vote on how long a game seems to take. I know lots of times I'd like to sit down with a game but I have no clue how long it is.)
If you haven't gotten through IntroComp, you have one more day. No game is terribly long, except for one that has a walkthrough anyway. (Note: walkthroughs are a good thing, in-game or not. Authors, even if you want people to see the bad ending or not be spoon-fed, maybe put the "right" path at the end? Or say so to start?)
I hope it's not rough to say these missed the cut for my top 3, but they had enough that it's worth saying a bit. I'd have said a bit more if I'd have started earlier.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
How gender inclusion helped me proofread an abstract wordplay game
So when I decided to allow female characters for A Roiling Original, it was intended to be trivial, just as an exercise, so that I can finally say I didn't have all-male games. Even if the choice didn't affect gameplay.
But writing perl scripts to look through the random text (check for duplicates etc.) turned up some odd stuff. I had a lot of ways to check for anagrams, but one thing I hadn't done was to look at something like this.
"Lead Yon: No Delay[r], by [if player is male]Dean Loy & Leo Nady[else]Ola Endy[end if]"
Now, it's a decent exercise to have a flag in my checker-program to spear both the male and female options. But here's where something weird turned up.
When running weed.pl -female, I still got a few flags than in "male" mode and couldn't explain why. The entries anagrammed themselves, but one was reported as a duplicate and the other wasn't.
The answer was that I was using a classifying-string to look at duplicates, but above I would have
Male: a4d4e4l4n4o4y4
Female: a3d3e3l3n3o3y3
And of course I was taking the GCD so the 4's and 3's became 1, wasn't I?
Oh no I wasn't.
It turns out I never suspected this might be a problem. So, having cleared 1000+ anagrams as not heinously duplicating each other, I thought I'd get one final check--and it opened new problems. Well, I wanted to make sure of things.
But I didn't see it until, just to check everything, I wanted to make sure there were no bad female anagrams (e.g. if Ola Endy had been Lea Endy.) That's how bugs work--it stinks when a whole new area opens up, but it's worth it to know I saw something odd, found what was really wrong, and fixed it.
The work hasn't been too bad. It's more interesting than a boring mindless click and point game, and I'm turning up ideas and seeing what works and what is repetitive. And it was something I'd always wanted to do, to give the extra polish, but I put it off.
Flagging duplicates seems like chewing on grist, and it sort of is, but on the other hand, it's another way to get an idea to pop up when I don't expect it. You put in the work, something like this eventually comes to the surface. I just was a bit shocked to see so MUCH to re-re-check.
So gender inclusion was a good step for me, and if it isn't profound, it added complexity on my end. (I also am changing some NPC's gender for version 4. Again, I used automated means to see all the possible places that, say, the Smart Kid was. Then I grepped for "he|him|his" ... so I think I'm okay. But there may be a surprise there. I'll obviously need to run it by a tester.)
Now, I can't force gender inclusion for my IFComp game. The protagonist's name must be what it is, and so must a whole raft of NPCs'. But I have a few things I think will be amusing, that provide gender twists without getting into sexuality. I won't be able to find enough, but I think it'll be harmless laughs. And my hope is one player will say "YOU FORGOT (THIS POSSIBILITY)!
But writing perl scripts to look through the random text (check for duplicates etc.) turned up some odd stuff. I had a lot of ways to check for anagrams, but one thing I hadn't done was to look at something like this.
"Lead Yon: No Delay[r], by [if player is male]Dean Loy & Leo Nady[else]Ola Endy[end if]"
Now, it's a decent exercise to have a flag in my checker-program to spear both the male and female options. But here's where something weird turned up.
When running weed.pl -female, I still got a few flags than in "male" mode and couldn't explain why. The entries anagrammed themselves, but one was reported as a duplicate and the other wasn't.
The answer was that I was using a classifying-string to look at duplicates, but above I would have
Male: a4d4e4l4n4o4y4
Female: a3d3e3l3n3o3y3
And of course I was taking the GCD so the 4's and 3's became 1, wasn't I?
Oh no I wasn't.
It turns out I never suspected this might be a problem. So, having cleared 1000+ anagrams as not heinously duplicating each other, I thought I'd get one final check--and it opened new problems. Well, I wanted to make sure of things.
But I didn't see it until, just to check everything, I wanted to make sure there were no bad female anagrams (e.g. if Ola Endy had been Lea Endy.) That's how bugs work--it stinks when a whole new area opens up, but it's worth it to know I saw something odd, found what was really wrong, and fixed it.
The work hasn't been too bad. It's more interesting than a boring mindless click and point game, and I'm turning up ideas and seeing what works and what is repetitive. And it was something I'd always wanted to do, to give the extra polish, but I put it off.
Flagging duplicates seems like chewing on grist, and it sort of is, but on the other hand, it's another way to get an idea to pop up when I don't expect it. You put in the work, something like this eventually comes to the surface. I just was a bit shocked to see so MUCH to re-re-check.
So gender inclusion was a good step for me, and if it isn't profound, it added complexity on my end. (I also am changing some NPC's gender for version 4. Again, I used automated means to see all the possible places that, say, the Smart Kid was. Then I grepped for "he|him|his" ... so I think I'm okay. But there may be a surprise there. I'll obviously need to run it by a tester.)
Now, I can't force gender inclusion for my IFComp game. The protagonist's name must be what it is, and so must a whole raft of NPCs'. But I have a few things I think will be amusing, that provide gender twists without getting into sexuality. I won't be able to find enough, but I think it'll be harmless laughs. And my hope is one player will say "YOU FORGOT (THIS POSSIBILITY)!
Monday, July 20, 2015
IFComp 2015 Devblog #4: Consistency and going for big stuff
We'd all like to strive for consistency--and of course we all want to Catch the big fish too. I think the first helps with the second, as long as it's not done too much. So what is too much? And when does consistency become foolish and the hobgoblin of little minds?
So a correct (but unhelpful) answer is to say "You need a bit of each," and then if someone asks how, fluff on the details with "Oh, you'll figure out out."
This is strictly correct, but often we need data or illustrations for a story. My experiences at GitHub have given me some idea. It has a wonderful tracker for progress. And when I saw it, I said, wow, that'd be neat motivation to get me doing something every day. It worked so well! I would write up an issue, and that counted, and that was good, because it showed I was planning and thinking. I'd make a small fix, and it reminded me I did something well.
The only problem was that I started putting off fixes--for the day when I might not get anything done. Part of this was in my head, but I did play these games. Or I'd wait til 12:01 AM the next day. This book-fudging isn't exactly high-level embezzling or criminal records falsification, but it did eventually get in the way of just doing stuff, which was the opposite of my intent. And I was clicking just fine--well, until that day when I made a lot of changes, had something to do in the evening, and forgot to check in my changes until 12:03 the next day. Rats! So much for my 41-day streak. But it was a nice busy weekend, and I got a lot of stuff done, writing and Real Life.
This precipitated a nice long streak of doing nothing on GitHub. Well, I did something, just not on GitHub. Until Jason Lautzenheiser mentioned that he wanted to look at various source controls and I figured heck, why not throw the Stale Tales Slate up there. So I moved over issues, etc., from Bitbucket.
I've had two days since then where I forgot to submit changes. Obviously, I can fix that sort of localized error. I want to pay attention and get credit for when I do stuff, and I want to make sure I take time to do the simple stuff. And I'm not going to beat myself up over missing it, because I got a lot of changes done. I think the big thing is to avoid "BUT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" and the slump that potentially follows. Perhaps this is too technical or sports related for some people--but it's helped me.
Number one is considering hitting streaks in baseball. DiMaggio's record of 56 is all-time. That's where he had several chances to get a hit, and--well, he was lucky enough to get it going. Some days, it just didn't fall, but most days, he did get a hit. With writing ideas it's a bit easier to do something every day. And I think the hitting-streak model works pretty well, as the most recent long one I remember lost its final chance on a sacrifice fly. To stretch the analogy, Luis Castillo had several chances to get a hit withhis 35-game streak before he was left in the on-deck circle...and I had much more control over what I could do to submit some work for the day before I saw it was 12:03 or, well, 11:57 with nothing really adequate to send in. But the important thing is to win, and if I write out a big idea and don't need a bug to do it, so much the better.
Number two is considering how a football team mixes up plays. The run (probably get a few yards) and the pass (take a shot downfield) are both necessary, but if you play one too much, you may get predictable and unoriginal. Even unbalanced teams go with 1:2 ratio at worse, and if it's higher, it's probably because they're down and need to catch up (like a writer too close to a deadline.) So instead of worrying about what is the best thing to write, I try and mix it up to keep it fresh.
And sometimes I just need to punt to come back later.
Another has been Monte Carlo simulations, or stuff I remember from Analysis class. Let's say I give myself x=100 1-minute intervals a day to think up a big idea, the sort I get (throwing numbers at a wall) once every y=100 one-minute sessions, totally random. My times may run together e.g. on the bus or writing at my desk. Or they may be taken during breaks working or working out.
The expected distribution is 1/e chance I get no ideas, 1/e I get 1, 1/2e I get 2, 1/6e I get 3, 1/24e I get 4, etc. Changing x and y, the probability of no ideas is 1/e^(x/y).
So I can see that I can reduce the probability I get no ideas per day by doing more--but it'll never get close to perfect! There'll be some bad day. I also have some baseline figures for, what if I have more than one idea, and no, I shouldn't be surprised.
This has helped me a lot when I sit down and can't think of anything good right away. It's a mathy way of saying "I can have patience and faith" as opposed to hearing "YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE PATIENCE." Now some of this patience comes about by writing stuff down and seeing where it leads. But it also helps me keep things objective when I see an idea. I can't fully know if an idea is super inspired or not. Sometimes it feels too esoteric, and sometimes it feels too simple. There's always an excuse to puff it up or shrink it down.
And this isn't to say emotional stuff is bad. It's just that, for me, the less I worry about if an idea is a big one, the more I can look into adding the good stuff to make it a big one.
So a correct (but unhelpful) answer is to say "You need a bit of each," and then if someone asks how, fluff on the details with "Oh, you'll figure out out."
This is strictly correct, but often we need data or illustrations for a story. My experiences at GitHub have given me some idea. It has a wonderful tracker for progress. And when I saw it, I said, wow, that'd be neat motivation to get me doing something every day. It worked so well! I would write up an issue, and that counted, and that was good, because it showed I was planning and thinking. I'd make a small fix, and it reminded me I did something well.
The only problem was that I started putting off fixes--for the day when I might not get anything done. Part of this was in my head, but I did play these games. Or I'd wait til 12:01 AM the next day. This book-fudging isn't exactly high-level embezzling or criminal records falsification, but it did eventually get in the way of just doing stuff, which was the opposite of my intent. And I was clicking just fine--well, until that day when I made a lot of changes, had something to do in the evening, and forgot to check in my changes until 12:03 the next day. Rats! So much for my 41-day streak. But it was a nice busy weekend, and I got a lot of stuff done, writing and Real Life.
This precipitated a nice long streak of doing nothing on GitHub. Well, I did something, just not on GitHub. Until Jason Lautzenheiser mentioned that he wanted to look at various source controls and I figured heck, why not throw the Stale Tales Slate up there. So I moved over issues, etc., from Bitbucket.
I've had two days since then where I forgot to submit changes. Obviously, I can fix that sort of localized error. I want to pay attention and get credit for when I do stuff, and I want to make sure I take time to do the simple stuff. And I'm not going to beat myself up over missing it, because I got a lot of changes done. I think the big thing is to avoid "BUT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" and the slump that potentially follows. Perhaps this is too technical or sports related for some people--but it's helped me.
Number one is considering hitting streaks in baseball. DiMaggio's record of 56 is all-time. That's where he had several chances to get a hit, and--well, he was lucky enough to get it going. Some days, it just didn't fall, but most days, he did get a hit. With writing ideas it's a bit easier to do something every day. And I think the hitting-streak model works pretty well, as the most recent long one I remember lost its final chance on a sacrifice fly. To stretch the analogy, Luis Castillo had several chances to get a hit withhis 35-game streak before he was left in the on-deck circle...and I had much more control over what I could do to submit some work for the day before I saw it was 12:03 or, well, 11:57 with nothing really adequate to send in. But the important thing is to win, and if I write out a big idea and don't need a bug to do it, so much the better.
Number two is considering how a football team mixes up plays. The run (probably get a few yards) and the pass (take a shot downfield) are both necessary, but if you play one too much, you may get predictable and unoriginal. Even unbalanced teams go with 1:2 ratio at worse, and if it's higher, it's probably because they're down and need to catch up (like a writer too close to a deadline.) So instead of worrying about what is the best thing to write, I try and mix it up to keep it fresh.
And sometimes I just need to punt to come back later.
Another has been Monte Carlo simulations, or stuff I remember from Analysis class. Let's say I give myself x=100 1-minute intervals a day to think up a big idea, the sort I get (throwing numbers at a wall) once every y=100 one-minute sessions, totally random. My times may run together e.g. on the bus or writing at my desk. Or they may be taken during breaks working or working out.
The expected distribution is 1/e chance I get no ideas, 1/e I get 1, 1/2e I get 2, 1/6e I get 3, 1/24e I get 4, etc. Changing x and y, the probability of no ideas is 1/e^(x/y).
So I can see that I can reduce the probability I get no ideas per day by doing more--but it'll never get close to perfect! There'll be some bad day. I also have some baseline figures for, what if I have more than one idea, and no, I shouldn't be surprised.
This has helped me a lot when I sit down and can't think of anything good right away. It's a mathy way of saying "I can have patience and faith" as opposed to hearing "YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE PATIENCE." Now some of this patience comes about by writing stuff down and seeing where it leads. But it also helps me keep things objective when I see an idea. I can't fully know if an idea is super inspired or not. Sometimes it feels too esoteric, and sometimes it feels too simple. There's always an excuse to puff it up or shrink it down.
And this isn't to say emotional stuff is bad. It's just that, for me, the less I worry about if an idea is a big one, the more I can look into adding the good stuff to make it a big one.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Ouch! 3 months since my last post.
I've been--sharpening my tools. I hope? I meant to be posting a lot about my IFComp game, and the ideas and humor have been flowing, and I hope everything makes it in. The thing is, I'm putting out my nets, even if I'm doing a bad job of writing new code. I've got a lot of white paper.
As for actual accomplishments? The big news is that I finally moved some projects to GitHub, and the results were immediate. BitBucket has some useful organization, but GitHub's flexibility let me nail down the issues that were important to me.
So I would like to say that, if you have any idea whether creating a source control project is a good idea, even if you only use the issue tracker--it is. And with a source tracker, if you regularly upload, it's even better.
As for actual accomplishments? The big news is that I finally moved some projects to GitHub, and the results were immediate. BitBucket has some useful organization, but GitHub's flexibility let me nail down the issues that were important to me.
So I would like to say that, if you have any idea whether creating a source control project is a good idea, even if you only use the issue tracker--it is. And with a source tracker, if you regularly upload, it's even better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)