Is there a reason that Basilica de Sangre has been classified as incomplete?

The game is finished, I just double checked it now so I'm not sure why it's been classified as incomplete.

http://textadventures.co.uk/games/view/42wu0r-jheg1gro7aa8xgg/basilica-de-sangre


It looks fine to me.

Check room descriptions, objects, and so on. They also like object "look" descriptions. You can publish the game again.


I'm not completely sure how the categorize but a here's a tip:
If you mention something, most players would want to be able to interact with it. At least be able to look at it to get a more in depth description.

You are on a shoreline.
You can go west, south or east.

You're on a sandy shore, the dunes broken here and there by scrubby vegetation and jagged rocks. A beaten path leads east to the dock and west to the imposing black basalt formation of the Basilica de Sangre. It forks off to the south, leading to a small overgrown cemetary.

> look dunes
I can't see that.

> look vegetation
I can't see that.

> look rocks
I can't see that.

> look path
I can't see that.

Maybe this doesn't have anything to do with the listing of the game but either way It's something to think about. :)


I would be surprised if that led to it getting it categorised as incomplete, given how common it is (but I too do not know how they do it).


J_J

This game is complete and is currently part of ifcomp. It should be catagorized.


This looks like a mistake. Hopefully it can be sorted out quickly.


You should edit it just in case. Then you should publish it again.

If you are using the web version of Quest, go to edit the listing, click where it says "Who can access this game?" and select everybody, then select genre. If you are using the desktop version , I believe it's the same thing, just that it's on a different tab, the tab should be published games.

Then again, I may be corrected.


Thanks for the tips! I'll try reuploading and see if that helps.


Looks like that worked! Thanks to everyone for your help! :D


I did not originally place the game but I re-placed it in recommended category.


I did a spree of them last weekend so it might have been me. I’m quite brutal unless I think someone has made an effort. I often sandpit stuff for missing descriptions (they will annoy comp judges too btw) but would state that if that was a reason. I remember playing one game (which might have been yours, maybe not) where I was put in an unwinnable position and basically couldn’t progress. I would put incomplete there as it means the author assumes it’s complete but it clearly hasn’t been tested. Another one had a coding error - but again that can be stipulated as the reason for the sandpitting.

Anyway, you followed the process of querying it and it’s been placed in your suggested category. We can make mistakes and so the process works if we get it wrong.


I think In future I may leave a note on a game as to precisely why if it looks like a lot of work has gone into it to make it easier for others to see if I was mistaken or not.


@Silver,

“(which might have been yours, maybe not)”
The OP, right? Not mine?

Also, I used to be brutal and I sandpitted a crap ton of games too. If I sandpitted all those that (in my opinion) should be in the sandpit, 90% of all the new games would be there and half the 4*+ games would be there too. We are wading in muck! Lol


From this discussion, I'm not clear about the approval process for games? I would have assumed that each game is played for as long as it takes to check that it meets some minimum standard in terms of content and implementation. It would then be given one or more category labels. So, for authors who had a track record of games production the process might take very little time but more effort would be needed for new authors or games that seem to have significant problems.

Is that what happens? Also, does the discussion mean that the identity of the person doing the approving is not stored anywhere?


Yes XanMag it was in response to the op.

Davy - there’s no official guidelines on this so it’s up to whoever deals with it. The vast majority of stuff is complete garbage and it usually takes a moment or so to establish that’s the case. There can be tens of games waiting to be approved at any given time so you can’t really give them all a thorough play through. Often games are over in seconds so they get binned for zero effort. Missing descriptions usually leads to the bin also. These are text games so those descriptions are needed to visualise the game world. Plus it’s just laziness to omit doing it. Then every so often you stumble upon one that has promise. I give those a bit longer and usually they don’t get binned.

We’ve got competing interests that we try to balance really. You don’t want to upset authors who may have put a considerable amount of time into something by quickly dismissing it as terrible. But equally there’s visitors to the site to think about who might play one game which turns out to be unfinished garbage and so they don’t bother with the rest of them. Quest has got a terrible name out there for bad games in the IF world unfortunately.


Missing descriptions usually leads to the bin also.

I think this is an issue that needs to be discussed. My main contribution to this site has been the re-implementation of two games that were popular in the UK in the 1980s. Text adventures at that time generally didn't support interaction with items other that those that were explicitly named. Even 10 years ago, Quest 4 was distributed with nine sample games, all of this type, where the background was exactly that. We now seem to be in a position where a description of all mentioned objects is expected and the author considered 'lazy' if these descriptions are not provided. That takes quite a bit of extra effort, as I found when I added that detail to my 1980 games. Quest could help support that effort as I discussed recently in connection with Cloak of Darkness (type 'about' in: http://textadventures.co.uk/games/view/cxbbr4mqakkylkr80ypjhg/cloak-of-darkness-another-version).

I think there are positive aspects of the Quest site to promote. It gives everyone a chance to try their hand at creating games, and this does result in some good material. Of course, there are games that are weak, but there is also weakness in aspects of the process that perhaps should also be addressed. Why don't we provide a clear section on guidance for authors and reviewers, for example?


There was a HUGE thread on reviewing (not moderating) games a few years back started by people irked that terrible games would get five starred from an Author’s friends pushing their own games further down the list (which had also clearly been five starred by their own friends...) and it proved inconclusive. I’d be up for debating that again and/or moderating.

Like I said, I usually let games go through if they’ve had some effort put into them. I overlook missing descriptions on otherwise brilliant games but more often than not it’s the first sign of a game having been rushed and when I plough on I usually end up correct in my speculation. Honestly, some terrible games make it into categories simply because they’re slightly better than the usual garbage.

That said, I don’t see what’s terrible about a game being sandpitted. It’s still published and can be shared with friends or advertised on social media. Furthermore people can appeal the decision and have it reversed, as happened in the op.


Btw - by missing descriptions I don’t mean

You are in a room with a carpet and a clock. You can go north.

X clock
nothing out of the ordinary

I mean

You are in a room with a carpet and a clock. You can go north.

x clock
I can’t see that


Ok, I’ve had time to investigate this further. It was me who sandpitted it but not for missing descriptions. I explored an area, tried an action and then.... nothing. I was literally stuck in a state of not being able to do anything (which I interpreted as a coding fault).

This issue is also being reported by others in the Comp chat on the Intfiction forum. So this needs escalating to the tech boffins as if it isn’t an error with the coding, then it’s an error with the software/server.

https://intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26689


Yes, Silver, I understand what you mean by missing descriptions, but hopefully you also understand that there was a time when this was the usual way to create games. Circumstances have certainly changed and many prefer to have full coverage but perhaps there is a way for both to coexist? Certainly it would be unreasonable to go back to games such as those by CJ592 and put them in the sandpit.

Perhaps we should allow developers to create games in a 'classic' style (or whatever term you want to use) where everyone knows what to expect. The developer can then put this label on their game and it can then be moderated and reviewed accordingly. If they leave off the label then of course they would have to be judged in modern terms. This all needs to be written down, of course, with the moderators agreeing the detail. Hopefully there is some way for you guys to talk to each other. Some software adjustment may also be desirable. For example, it would be nice to have an 'appeal' button for sandpit games...where a different moderator could pick up the game and look at it again.

(I'll come back to the reviewing problem when moderating has been covered.)


Davy, I also played these games back in the 1980s (although not extensively) and I don’t recall objects described in room descriptions not being able to be seen. It would be like having missing graphics from a graphic adventure! The only way we can see these worlds is through words.
That aside, if a game has been put together well I usually ignore that omission.
But it isn’t difficult to create scenery objects for every noun mentioned even if it just says ‘nothing out of the ordinary’ which is the Quest default.


Could you point to any examples of these ‘classics’ where the author couldn’t be bothered to include examinable objects that are mentioned in room descriptions?


I agree with pretty much everything Silver has said in this thread.

...and, yes: I'm one of the people who says it's lazy when authors mention objects without creating them (and when we create objects without providing descriptions).

I stand by this. We have to put forth extra effort to fill in (or create) all the small details.

...and what do we call people who refuse to put forth extra effort?

As today's creators of interactive worlds, choosing to not create and describe something we've mentioned in our prose is being lazy.

Older games had to be small enough fit on floppy disks, so it was necessary to leave out any unnecessary objects (or descriptions). We no longer have that excuse, unless we are authoring games exclusively for players using the Frotz interpreter (or an equivalent thereof).


As far as forking older games goes, perhaps a simple caption would suffice. Something like, "This is a remake of a classic text adventure. Most of the items you can interact with are important to the story, but not all items mentioned in descriptions will be accessible in the game world. This is due to the file size restrictions the original author(s) had to work with."


Concerning the Sandpit:

Is it not a place where games are played and reviewed, just like all the other games -- except the games are not expected to be professional quality?

Is it not a playpen of sorts? A playpen which was created to protect our authors-in-training from the vile, online trolls who love nothing more than to crush an aspiring author's dreams?


Bonus Question:

Is instilling a false sense of pride ethical in an online world?


IMPORTANT NOTE:

My comments are not directed towards any specific authors (or games). I'm just speaking generally.


Could you point to any examples of these ‘classics’ where the author couldn’t be bothered to include examinable objects that are mentioned in room descriptions?

This is how Zork I on the Quest site opens:

West of House
This is an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
A rubber mat saying 'Welcome to Zork!' lies by the door.

>x field
You can't see any such thing.

Ok, you’ve got me. But I agree with KV’s point here - aren’t we supposed to be attempting to raise the bar here rather than simply being lazy on the basis that it used to be done that way because of file size issues?

Zork was before my time (1977 - I was aged four then and it was a couple more years before we got to borrow a Commodore PET from my father’s work place). The ones I played like Hampstead or Terrormolinis on the Spectrum in the early 80s even managed primitive graphics. I think it’s a cop out to set the standard from something that is just over forty year old (unless you’re re-building that actual thing).


Here’s a short piece on Hampstead. Truly of the 80s. I actually had Quill at one point also.

https://www.retrogamer.net/retro_games80/hampstead/


That version of Zork I is made for the Frotz interpreter (or an equivalent thereof).

It was made with an old version of Inform, and Inform compiled to Z-code, which has a very small file size limit. (Z-code is pretty much what Infocom (the Zork people) used.)

The biggest story file you can have with a Z-code game is 512K (if I remember correctly). So, you can't add unnecessary objects (or text).

http://inform7.com/learn/man/WI_2_14.html


FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT:

Try to save an online play-through of Zork I on this site and see what happens when you try to RESTORE your save after you've closed your browser. (Hint: Nothing happens. The save file is lost once you've closed your browser. You have to know that it won't work ahead of time; save the URL after saving your game; then load that URL in your browser to actually load your save point.)

This is because of the Parchment interpreter, which is what allows us to play Z-machine games in our browser. It was created before HTML local storage, so it doesn't quite work as well as the new file format used by Inform 7, which is Glulx. The glulx games are played in-browser with the Quixe interpreter, which does handle HTML local storage. Hence, the glulx games will save correctly when played in your browser.


Silver & KV, my view is that creating games where only items that appear in game panes (or equivalent) can be examined is a valid style that I'm calling 'classic' for convenience (could also be 'shallow' or 'sparse', if you prefer?). That would mean that it should be no problem to a moderator, as long as it is implemented consistently (if some scenery objects can be examined then all should be)...and then left up to players and reviewers to decide if that reduces the gameplay experience.

Also, I think it is a big deal to put a game forward for classification and have it effectively 'rejected' by putting it into the sandpit. After all, the developer can do that themselves, so the moderator is saying the game has been looked at and considered 'substandard'. Again my personal view here is that the text adventure site would be better seen as a friendly place where encouragement and help are offered to budding game developers/players when needed. That would mean that rejected games are much harder work for a moderator as they need to be played through to a greater extent (to see if there are any good points to mention) and a detailed explanation of rejection provided, with suitable suggestions for improvement.

...and yes, I was much older than 4 in 1977!


Moderating started because of the volume of complaints about how bad a lot of the games were. Originally only Alex did this, but then it got too much so he asked for others to get involved.

And you don’t have to waste your time searching for that discussion as I’ve done the leg work for you:

http://textadventures.co.uk/forum/site/topic/4546/looking-for-moderators

I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing here. People get annoyed by substandard games so Alex created the sandpit for them. You appear to be saying this is wrong and that annoying visitors to the site is preferential to making sure zero effort games are kept in the sandpit.


Btw - if you want to make games where no object can be examined you can edit the examine command to reflect that. Having it say ‘I can’t see that’ to objects that are evidently there is just laziness.


I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing here. People get annoyed by substandard games so Alex created the sandpit for them. You appear to be saying this is wrong and that annoying visitors to the site is preferential to making sure zero effort games are kept in the sandpit.

Let me clarify. First, I think moderation is essential. There may be games that are completely unsuitable. I also agree with the guidance provided by Alex on the moderation criteria (thanks for the link!):

It's really just a matter of seeing whether any real effort at all has been put into the game.

If so, it belongs in a category - probably the same category that the author suggests, although sometimes they suggest the wrong category (for example "Literature" is supposed to be for works that are based on an existing book, but sometimes authors choose that category incorrectly, presumably because they think their game has words in and therefore is literature).

Games belong in the Sandpit if they are:

- mostly incomplete
- test games
- a small school project of interest only to their teacher
- a small game clearly only for the author's own small circle friends
- full of typos and grammatical errors
- clearly the result of only a few minutes work
- just generally not worthy of being on the site
- etc...

I'm not sure what "etc." means and so would probably be better left out! Also, I'd replace "clearly the result of only a few minutes work" with "insufficient content"...but apart from that this is promoting the minimum standard idea that I was going on about. Indeed it appears more generous. In the discussion there is the particular case of Frankenstein mentioned. I presume it is this version:
http://play2.textadventures.co.uk/Play.aspx?id=ifsz8md0m0knnxpozpvjyw

The 'game' can be completed with three clicks and could reasonably be excluded on the basis of insufficient content but was let through.


Btw - if you want to make games where no object can be examined you can edit the examine command to reflect that. Having it say ‘I can’t see that’ to objects that are evidently there is just laziness.

Sorry, I don't understand this point? Can you spell it out for me? Here is a simple example to illustrate the discussion: an almost empty room, with no exits, and a single box inside it.

You are in an almost empty room.
You can see a box.

> x room
I can't see that.

> x box
A square box, made of wood, with no apparent opening.

Ok - I think I misunderstood what you were saying here:

Silver & KV, my view is that creating games where only items that appear in game panes (or equivalent) can be examined is a valid style that I'm calling 'classic' for convenience (could also be 'shallow' or 'sparse', if you prefer?). That would mean that it should be no problem to a moderator, as long as it is implemented consistently (if some scenery objects can be examined then all should be)...and then left up to players and reviewers to decide if that reduces the gameplay experience.

What is meant by ‘items that appear in game panes (or equivalent)’?
If you mean inventory then how does the protagonist pick objects up if he cannot examine them? Or do you mean only provide descriptions for objects that can be picked up and/or interacted with (basically omitting to include descriptions for scenery nouns)?


Or do you mean only provide descriptions for objects that can be picked up and/or interacted with (basically omitting to include descriptions for scenery nouns)?

Yes, that's what I mean. There were old games that didn't allow any examination and some argued that that was okay but I think the examination of non-scenery objects is now a basic requirement...and I consider "Nothing out of the ordinary" as lazy!


As I said earlier, I won’t sandpit a well put together game that omits some descriptions (even though one of the reasons for sandpitting created by Alex was about lack of descriptions), I just personally think it’s a bit lazy and we should encourage people to polish a bit more.
I don’t understand why someone would deliberately miss descriptions, unless their strategy is to produce lots of games quickly (this happens) which ultimately leads to poorer content on the site.


I'm sure DavyB says he's okay with sandpitting games, it's just sandpitting games that have no look description, and have put effort in other places, that he's annoyed at. He may be annoyed that that one game he linked to was sandpitted as well. His new version of the game is published as a work in progress, though.

I think "nothing out of the ordinary" is better than "I can't see that," just in the context of the game. To people who play Quest, they should not know that "nothing out of the ordinary" is the default description, and probably think "I can't see that" is lazy, similar to Zork. "Nothing out of the ordinary" gives a general basic description, it's normal. "I can't see that" just tells the player someone forgot to add a description here, unless the room is literally so dark you can't see.


Well it’d be nice to be presented with examples of this happening, rather than some vague accusation based on something hypothetical.


What? I just stated my opinion. That's almost exactly what happened to me the first time I played Zork, and when I first came to this website.


Two cents that are worth one cent (or less):

If a game doesn’t prove itself worthy^ in 7-8 minutes of playtime, I sandpit that turd. 99% of the games submitted are either total garbage* or obviously well-done•. This of course is my opinion and I think my opinion is relatively universal.

^fun, planned, good grammar, reasonable length to completion (ten minute minimum), enjoyable (thought provoking, funny, fun)

awful grammar (the absolute killer for me), random death without reasonable warnings, limited choices, missing descriptions of what should be described, inventory issues (get knife = you can’t take it (why the fck not?!? Now I’m pissed!! There’s a knife on the counter! I want it!!)). At least give me the common courtesy of saying something like “Sounds like a good idea but you really won’t need it. Besides you’d probably end up cutting a finger off.” Whatever.

•you’ve got my attention. Grammar is at least not cringeworthy. Effort has been put into object description and inventory ‘efforts’. I guess I should have just referenced my ‘worthy’ comment.

Last note. No one has ever complained to me or on the forum about the gazillion games I’ve pitted. So, in 99.9999% of the games that I’ve found crappy, all of the authors expected it. Or at least didn’t care enough to complain about it. Either way... it’s sandpit worthy.

On a slightly related note... I still stand by my offer... I’d love to be able to edit reviews in extreme cases. I’m still a bit salty about a recent “Good Night” review. 😬

And pardon my italics application. I’m too lazy to go back and alter it.


What? I just stated my opinion. That's almost exactly what happened to me the first time I played Zork, and when I first came to this website.

I meant examples of great games being sandpitted because of lack of descriptions. If Davy has a specific gripe then maybe he can lay the cards on the table instead of me having to defend something that I'm not even sure has happened.


Hey, let's play nicely! I raise issues that I think are fairly obvious, and should be looked at for the health of the site. Please don't call them 'gripes'. :)

As the discussion has gone on, more issues have arisen. This started when a highly respected game author (his games have appeared among the editor's picks) had a competition game put in the sandpit as "incomplete." That's now fixed but it raised the general possibility that other reasonable games, from less well known, and less confident authors, might be in the sandpit. The related issues are:

  1. Are the guidelines for moderators sufficiently clear?
  2. Are all the moderators following these guidelines in the same way?
  3. Why is the identity of a moderator not recorded when they make a decision (to help review a decision and document contributions)?
  4. Is the 'appeal process' adequate?
  5. Why is it so important to allow interaction with background objects? You can't do it in CYOA games? It was a common style in the past and I believe is still an acceptable style today. There are some players who want more depth, so authors are risking a reduced review, and perhaps that means providing clearer guidelines for authors.
  6. Following the departure of Alex, no one seems to be in charge of the moderation process to address these issues. Are moderators aware of each other? Do they communicate to agree their approach? How are new moderators appointed? ...

Sorry, at some point this should probably have been split this off as a separate thread.


This started when a highly respected game author (his games have appeared among the editor's picks) had a competition game put in the sandpit as "incomplete."

This has been explained upthread: when I tested the game it froze. Furthermore, I'm not the only person this has happened to as similar is being reported on IntFiction:

https://intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26689

So there's quite possibly an issue with either the Quest software or the server if not the game itself. So absolutely no fault of moderating. Despite me outlining this already upthread, you appear to have ignored it and are ploughing on with questioning the moderating process (which is fine, but it's dishonest to keep using the game from the op as your example of bad modding).


Also, when testing games, there isn't a klaxon that goes off when the game is by a 'respected author' or anything to indicate it's a competition entry. There's just a pile of games that moderators spend a few minutes playing to ascertain whether they're complete garbage or not. On this occasion a possible mistake was made because the game froze during that testing period. Are there issues with games freezing generally on Quest? I haven't been about for a few months so wasn't aware of anything and none of the other games I tested froze. But that could possibly be the reason in which case your interrogations are best directed at those who maintain the site/software rather than at me.

Final point, but this time at the op: I thought historically that games were meant to remain unlisted until the end of IFComp. Perhaps this has changed or I'm misremembering.


Silver said:
Are there issues with games freezing generally on Quest?

Definitely. When playing online, you might as well expect every game you play to freeze. (Server issues.)

I believe this became an issue just after I found this site, which I believe was just after you stopped frequenting the site for a while. (I have learned quite a bit from your old posts, by the way. Thank you for all that info!)

Oh... and there is also a timeout when playing online. If you walk away from the game for more than a couple of minutes, it's usually stuck when you get back.


Silver said:
I thought historically that games were meant to remain unlisted until the end of IFComp.

I wanted to second this, but decided to research it first and...

From https://ifcomp.org/rules/

All entries must be previously unreleased at the opening of judging. By "unreleased", we generally mean that a qualifying entry has never been widely distributed, sold, or made available for public play or download prior to the competition.


DavyB said:
Why is it so important to allow interaction with background objects?

First off, this is not an attack. It is merely my view concerning scenery objects and descriptions in modern text adventures, which seems to be shared by the majority of the people who review games on IFDB and other prominent IF websites.

I see it like this: if something is important enough for an author to mention in a description, it is worth spending time to create an object, even if the object is scenery. It adds depth to the imaginary world. We are building imaginary worlds when we create text adventures.

Imagine I asked you to close your eyes and pretend you are in a room with a small window, through which a single ray of light trickles. You can see a brochure here, and there is an exit to the north.

Would you picture the window and the ray of light in your mind's eye?

If you were to ask me about that ray of light, and I said, "I can't see that," would it not break the illusion?

Alternatively, if my response were, "It's nothing out of the ordinary," the illusion would remain intact.

But, if 80% of the objects in the game are described as "nothing out of the ordinary", that wouldn't be very enjoyable, either.

In the early days, authors had to exclude some scenery objects and descriptions due to file size limitations. So, in the classic text adventures, some objects mentioned in the prose didn't exist in the game world for the same reason no one in the 2000s put HD movies on DVDs -- it simply wouldn't fit.


DavyB said:
You can't do it in CYOA games?

This is like comparing apples to oranges; is it not?


DavyB said:
It was a common style in the past and I believe is still an acceptable style today. There are some players who want more depth, so authors are risking a reduced review, and perhaps that means providing clearer guidelines for authors.

Note that I'm not lobbying for games to be tossed into the Sandpit (to be digested by the sarlacc for a 1,000 years) just because there are a few missing scenery objects or descriptions. I'm just arguing that it is lazy on behalf of an author to exclude any scenery objects or descriptions when creating a new work in this day and age.

But, if the game being discussed is a port of an old game, I would rather everything in the game world to be left unaltered. (If this is the case (and it was ported well), the game should already be of professional quality, which should negate any worries of a moderator condemning it.)


I believe DavyB's overall message is that authors who don't place their game in the Sandpit when publishing should expect bad reviews if there wasn't enough effort put into the game. And, if someone can Sandpit games, he'd like to know exactly (and specifically) what makes a game so bad it is deemed Sandpit-worthy.

I don't believe there are any actual guidelines or specifics. Mods are players (and maybe authors) who volunteer to test out the games to see if they are worthy of a true category or if they belong in the Sandpit as part of an effort to uphold the integrity of the site.

I can't recall who mentioned sending a message to an author when a game is put in the Sandpit, but that sounds like a very good solution to me.



In this post, DavyB's example is:

You are in an almost empty room.
You can see a box.

> x room
I can't see that.

> x box
A square box, made of wood, with no apparent opening.

I've never played a text adventure in which you could examine your current location by entering X ROOM. Also, if the command did work, it would simply print the room description, which exists in this example. Anyway, I don't think any experienced text adventurers would expect X ROOM to work.

We played with that (adding an EXAMINE ROOM feature) back in February. Here's a link to the beginning of that part of the old thread:

http://textadventures.co.uk/forum/quest/topic/9m2lavmzregstombcuxrba/fun-with-doors#1cbf33a6-645b-4577-b9e3-01a342af41c4


XanMag said:
I’m still a bit salty about a recent “Good Night” review. 😬

High road, good sir.



Taking it back to the OP and the game originally referenced in this post, I (admittedly) have not played it (yet), but after reading that thread on intfiction (https://intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26689), it seems that most players who are using Quest 5.8 on their desktop (as everyone should be*) are experiencing the freezing issue during the last "scene" of the game. If there is an IF...THEN... statement or a SWITCH block, there could be an error somewhere in a bit of code when possessing the final target.

* I am assuming this game was created with Quest 5.8, and previous versions of Quest will not load games made with 5.8. (This was at least 1 person in that thread's issue.)

Everyone else who experienced the freeze-up at random points during play seemed to be playing online, and this is a very common issue with Quest nowadays.

...but (and this is pure conjecture), if it always happens when trying to possess a target (which is a big IF, as I haven't even tested the game out personally), there could be a slight discrepancy in some of the code in whatever script is run to possess objects.


(I have learned quite a bit from your old posts, by the way. Thank you for all that info!)

Cheers... although I was mostly just learning myself. I've just started playing with your audiovidlib - all very good, it works well.


I (admittedly) have not played it (yet)

I decided to focus on the game and see if there are problems that can be sorted out there. Downloading it, it played through to completion without a problem. Playing online (several times) there were errors most of the time but even there I did get through to the end at a quiet time this morning. The problems in some cases looked like an issue with game. In one case it said "you can't have more than one wait in operation at a time"; in another, the map position got out of step with the game and no text appeared as I moved around. When I didn't log in, the game just suddenly stopped. It rather feels as if this is all connected with the general site problem of insufficient time to play games online. I don't know enough about the game engine to explain the problems themselves but perhaps that's irrelevant anyway.

Is there a way to get rid of this online time constraint without spending a lot of money?


I use a more descriptive string when the player types x room. It gives me another opportunity to give clues as to what is worth digging into further. Why make a room that is truly empty? If it is there then put/hide something in it. It could be an item, monster, npc, or even the description of the room gives clues to what lies ahead or information needed later.

I am very annoyed by I can't see that responses.

A game having responses, good grammar and the program working correctly is still a flop if it lacks a plot or action leading to some form of entertainment for the player. Players invest a lot of time into a game as well and the creator should give them something for their time.

If a game creator has spent a week or several months making a game they should realize that other game makers have several years in their game and have yet to publish it trying to work on the little details.

I want a player to fall out of their chair at least once or twice laughing or jumping up in astonishment, yelling, "Zork can kiss my a__!", when they play one of my games. If they want to lick or smell an orc then have at it. If you get mad and want to throw that +7 sword into the lake, go ahead, have fun retrieving it after you cool down.

I don't expect creators to go that far but dang it, put a little effort into it. Sheesh. Think about the player and what he is going through and what they may want to do to advance in the game, they don't have the answers and are looking for them.

Length of game is not important to me. If it entertains then it is what it should be. A player may only experience half of the plot or find half of the items the creator put in the game and still finish it. That is what makes them fun to play again.

Just my cent worth. :)


Hear, hear!


Log in to post a reply.

Support

Forums