I have an idea (maybe not a good one) to help get some more games up on the archive. Here is my point by point argument:

1.) It has been a long time since a game has been uploaded to the archive for us to play. Granted, that is probably because most of them are not of the highest quality. But still...the lack of new games gives the impression to new people that there is no reason to try to make a game because no one will ever see it. Quest is not in the front of the pack on IF authoring systems at this point (though I personaly like it more than the others I've tried) and we should not discourage newbies from attempting to express their creative side in this medium.

2.) This, of course, leads us to the other problem (the catch-22) of this situation. That problem is: If all the games made with quest are as much fun as stapleing parts of your anatomy (that will go unnamed) to an angry badger, then who will want to try (besides us) to correct the issue by making a game that is not subaverage.

3.)Alex is busy. He has to be busy. I have owned a business before (I had a bar once) and I can tell you that it is more work than you can imagine. He is trying to sell this product in a market saturated with IF systems that you can use for free. (yeah, I know you can use quest for free...but if that was his goal, then why sell it?) He may not have time to go through everyones games (definatly if they made it in 3 hours or less and it is about trying to get to the bathroom in time).

MY SOLUTION:
--Okay, the problems listed above do exist so here is my solution for them. Lets take all those new moderators, and make them like a jury: The Court of Games (or whatever). They can weed through all the garbage by having each member play through the games that are uploaded and voting on their quality (just an up or down vote). Any game with a thumbs up goes to Alex for final approval.

This would accomplish:
1.)Keeping Alex in control of his product and how it is represented.
2.)Keep us from having to play a bunch of crap.
3.)Give incentive to keep people from making crap.
4.)Throw off the illuison that Quest is getting stagnet (which it is not if you look at the forum.)
5.)Provide new games every quarter or so.

Well, thats my idea. If it sucks, hopefully some of you can come up with something even better. My hope is that we can address the issue, because resolving it will only be good for all of us that are working hard on making quality products.

Thanks for your time,
Dr. Froth

I'm actually planning something similar-ish. What I want is a content management system that will let me delegate the approval of games to other people, and will also let people moderate the reviews that people post. I'm currently taking a look at Mambo but it will take a bit of work to set up. Watch this space...

I think one of the main reasons why so few games are getting written are because they never get added to the site, or only after an increasingly long delay. I seem to remember someone saying a few months ago that they had written a game, sent it off and yet it had never appeared on the site. Which hardly gives any other prospective authors a reason to write any.

This, of course, leads us to the other problem (the catch-22) of this situation. That problem is: If all the games made with quest are as much fun as stapleing parts of your anatomy (that will go unnamed) to an angry badger, then who will want to try (besides us) to correct the issue by making a game that is not subaverage.

True. Very few people will try to write a game with a system that hasn't produced at least one really good game. It's wrong to say that a system that hasn't produced a decent game isn't capable of producing one, but that's the way 99% of people think.

Of course, I also think that before anyone writes a really good game with Quest, the system itself has to undergo several major upgrades.

Alex is busy. He has to be busy. I have owned a business before (I had a bar once) and I can tell you that it is more work than you can imagine. He is trying to sell this product in a market saturated with IF systems that you can use for free.

Making Quest free would help the situation immensely as not many people are willing to buy a product that hasn't yet produced any great results (i.e. an amazing game). The only other IF system that has a registration fee (Adrift) also has a free version. Quest needs a free version as well.

Okay, the problems listed above do exist so here is my solution for them. Lets take all those new moderators, and make them like a jury: The Court of Games (or whatever). They can weed through all the garbage by having each member play through the games that are uploaded and voting on their quality (just an up or down vote). Any game with a thumbs up goes to Alex for final approval.

That's the kind of thing that is needed. They'd also need to go through the games on there now and delete all the drivel that barely qualifies as a game. I can think of three Quest games ever that haven't been complete stinkers so if they played and judged every one of them, they'd certainly have their work cut out.

Throw off the illuison that Quest is getting stagnet (which it is not if you look at the forum.)

Unfortunately most of the posts on the forum are flames of one kind or another. There's very, very little actual game discussion.

There's just one thing I want to add to this discussion:
Quest *IS* free. You only register if:
* you want to compile quest games..
* you want to keep using QDK after 30-days.

If you mean the creator, then I'm not sure what could be changed.. perhaps a message that comes up on game-start saying it was produced with an unpurchased QDK version..
The timer splash at the start is also a nice thing to keep bugging people.

I wish I could devote a fair bit to Quest development... I'd have a small-ish game up and running about classic IF stuff (like going around attic's, and solving puzzles, and stuff like that) - but I do have limited time.
Perhaps if I can get into it, I'll get one out.

Oh, and if anyone want's hosted games, I am able to give up some webspace... It's only gonna be a couple of K.
I'd just shove them up there and leave the voting up to other people... If it sucked then I'd remove it after a bit... Only thing I'd say is it'd have to be over a certain size (erm, 5/10K?).

I agree with most other things..

MOVING TO CHAT

The zipped version of the full King's Quest V is 158k. Unzipped, it is 490 KB. Maybe I do have an option after all.

As far as:

Alex wrote:What I want is a content management system that will let me delegate the approval of games to other people

I elect Tr0n and MaDbRiT

This sounds like a great idea.

As a fiction writer I have limited success on the novel front, but much success with short stories. I like reading short stories more than novels, too. Interesting, then, that I have been approaching game development from a novel perspective: make the thing big, epic, because it needs to negotiate with the reputation of the medium (ie, Quest), your own reputation (non-existent), and the need to appeal to the isolated masses. The Court of Games, however, would definitely enliven my love for reading and writing short stories. Which translates to creating smaller Quest games.

I'll be honest: the idea of a timely review upon release is a magnetic incentive. Although the process of creating a many-limbed monstrous beauty is rewarding, the completion of a more simple creature provides an altogether different kind of satisfaction. Can't wait to see where this goes.

Oh, and "Court of Games" is an excellent moniker. I hereby cast an official motion for the naming of the review board: let it be Court of Games. Google brought up a mere 6 results for this name in quotations.

Overcat wrote:
I'll be honest: the idea of a timely review upon release is a magnetic incentive.

Has the issue of the Court of Games doing reviews being mentioned? I thought it was just to decide which games get put on the main page and which get rejected.

Previewing the post before I submitted it, I thought someone might ask that question.

A: acceptance and rejection are, in a sense, a review. The resolution of such a review is binary, pass/fail, but is still an effective means of promotion. This is a viable incentive to write games, and write them well.

if (#Game# = Fail) then {
        Do until #Game# = Pass {
                set <Game; $Rewrite(#Game#)$>
        }
}
else {
        Do<SipChampaign(#InebriateLevel#)>
}

This is a great idea!

I agree! Sign me up!

davidw wrote:

This, of course, leads us to the other problem (the catch-22) of this situation. That problem is: If all the games made with quest are as much fun as stapleing parts of your anatomy (that will go unnamed) to an angry badger, then who will want to try (besides us) to correct the issue by making a game that is not subaverage.

True. Very few people will try to write a game with a system that hasn't produced at least one really good game. It's wrong to say that a system that hasn't produced a decent game isn't capable of producing one, but that's the way 99% of people think.

("Technical competence" will refer to quality from a programming point of view; how well does it understand and respond to input. It specifically does not include writing quality.)

Basic technical competence is a useful gauge: when large numbers of games made with a system have the same problems, it's a sign that either 1) the system is not capable of creating technically adequate games or 2) it requires a good deal of effort just to get the normal stuff working. Neither is too attractive for a user when there are alternatives where 3) basic technical competence is automatic.

I also think the manual has something to do with it; the DM4 gives the parts of the language important to most games up front, then gradually works into the less common things, and finally gives a reference list of the full language / library; the Quest manual (when I last looked) almost starts out with the big reference list.

Sounds good.

Is the Court of Games idea going ahead then?

I've been writing reviews of the recently uploaded games (three done, one in the process, three to go) but so far all of the games have been pretty dire. I'm not sure that the Court of Games would have passed any of them as there's precious little to recommend about them.

Basic technical competence is a useful gauge: when large numbers of games made with a system have the same problems, it's a sign that either 1) the system is not capable of creating technically adequate games or 2) it requires a good deal of effort just to get the normal stuff working. Neither is too attractive for a user when there are alternatives where 3) basic technical competence is automatic.

An excellent argument for more built-in commands, which has been a point of small contention. Couple that with a sound manual and the games will improve.

On the other hand, the easier a system is to use, the larger a group of people will use it. The intellectual scope of the users broadens to include, well, less technically-minded individuals. And that's saying it nice. Nothing wrong with that. But this is where the Court of Games could step in as a regulatory screen.

Quest has always been marketed as a system that’s “easy to use” (which I’d disagree with personally but maybe that’s just me) so I'm not sure whether making it any easier would make the less technically minded flock to it. There's still the registration free after all. All the other coding languages are free, and the only other one with a GUI (Adrift) has a free version. It’s asking a bit for people to pay for Quest when there are so many free alternatives and it’s yet to produce a great game.

But on the positive side of things, it would make the less technically minded capable of writing a proper game with it instead of the usual drivel that makes its way onto the games page.

As for the technically minded ones, are there any of them actually writing games with Quest?

Easier = good.

Yes.

Moved discussion of objects and commands to the developer forum...