thought it would be cool if you could render the finished product for different platforms. Like phones, and things like that.

Maybe the ability to change the skins on the game window?

What do you think?

If you want your game to be runnable on different platforms, use Inform or TADS.

if this program could do that I wouldn't have to, lol. Is tads as easy as this?


oh another feature I was thinking was in the next update make all the fields hold more information. I tried changing the look property of one of my rooms, but the field was too small for my text, and it's only a small paragraph. now I have to figure out how to do it the hard way, lol.

A while back I tried to write a clone of the Quest runner. I kept running into problems because the format is not well-defined and is very hostile towards alternate implementation.

As for relative difficulty: TADS and Inform are definitely harder to pick up, but are significantly easier to work with once learned; they both have extensive class libraries and lack Quest's many bugs.

That's a bit harsh. "Quest's many bugs". There aren't many outstanding bugs in Quest 4.03 that I'm aware of - the only one I have in the list relates to verbs with capitals in them.

Unless there are any you've logged that I've forgotten about?

I didn't log any because there was no point. Quest has some bad design decisions at the core, so that it can't be truly fixed without removing them, which would require a complete rewrite.

For example, Quest is fundamentally based on internally referring to objects / properties by strings instead of using references. While I can't name any consequent bugs offhand, it does lead to messiness (such as with the clone command), and makes it impossible to do static checking.


There's no concept of variable scoping. For example, in code like

	command <testloop> {
		for each object in game {
			msg <Setting quest.thing to #quest.thing#>
			msg <$testloop(#quest.thing#)$|xn>
			msg <Afterwards, quest.thing is #quest.thing#|n> }
	}

, quest.thing is not guaranteed to be the same at the end of the loop (such as if testloop() has a loop of its own). Constructs like that may appear in the code that prints inventory.
There was also a related bug in a previous version regarding the interaction of exec / afterturn / dontprocess, but I don't recall the exact setup, so I didn't retest.



What does "if A or B and C then ..." mean? Is it "(A or B) and C" or "A or (B and C)"? Guess before running the below code.

	command <testif> {
		do <testifp(T;T;T)>
		do <testifp(T;T;F)>
		do <testifp(T;F;T)>
		do <testifp(T;F;F)>
		do <testifp(F;T;T)>
		do <testifp(F;T;F)>
		do <testifp(F;F;T)>
		do <testifp(F;F;F)>
	}
...
define procedure <testifp>
	msg <if $parameter(1)$ or $parameter(2)$ and $parameter(3)$ == |xn>
	if ( $parameter(1)$ = T ) or ( $parameter(2)$ = T ) and ( $parameter(3)$ = T ) then msg <TRUE> else msg <FALSE>
end define

Alternately, try

command <testif2> if ask <Q1> or ask <Q2> and ask <Q3> then msg <Accepted> else msg <not accepted>

.


String interpolation:
How do you test whether two string variables hold the same contents?
(Example: Doing it in BASIC: if A$ = B$ then ... )

Related, is the below correct?

msg <Enter a string>
enter <var>
if (#var# = #var#) then msg <This always happens.> else msg <This message can never be printed.>

How do you tell what room is north of the current room? Even if it was changed with a "change exit" command? Or if it was initially declared "north <the; otherroom>"?

Why does something like "look <It's a book; it's rather long.>" have a simply wrong outcome?

Most of that technical stuff went way over my head so I can’t really comment on it, but I’d say a bug – or maybe a design flaw to be more accurate – is the way Quest’s GUI is designed. Quest is marketed as a tool for non-programmers, yet the GUI’s design is so confusing and needlessly complicated that it takes a programmer’s mind to figure your way around it. I've heard it mentioned a time or two in the past that Quest has more power than Adrift, yet while both have been out for about the same period of time, Adrift has produced quite a few great games whereas Quest has produced hardly any. In fact, the average Quest game is generally along the lines of what people like Gamer or dther99 write (i.e. crap that no one wants to play). Why is this? Simple.

Design.

Adrift’s GUI is simple and straightforward. Quest’s isn't. Doing anything even vaguely complicated with Quest requires so many mouse clicks, pop-up windows and menus, etc, that you'd be quicker learning a proper programming language from scratch and coding it in that. Mastering the GUI seems to be beyond the average Quest user which is why so many of the games produced with it are poorly-written drivel.

So go back to the drawing board. Come up with a simple and straightforward design that allows people to produce a game very easily; add in the complexity later on; scrap the registration fee because, to be honest, it isn't really worth the money and most Quest games seem to be written with the trial version anyway.

(Oh, and delete 99% of the games from the main Quest archive as they're a terrible example of what Quest is capable of. When the first game in the archive someone sees is by the likes of Gamer, it’s hard to imagine them taking Quest seriously.)

Adrift is no wheres near as powerful as Quest is. Adrift is straight forward, yes, but that's the problem. The tasks, and events are too simply set up. They don't leave for much freedom at all. In Quest you can pretty well 'program' anything to happen that you want. the events that you set up are completely customizable, and not limited to only displaying text or graphics.

as for the programming of script, it's easy. You just add a new script, and put all your scripts in order, as you want them to happen when that particular set of scripts are activated. You could program 100 things to happen with script in one window, instead of having to set up 100 different events, and tasks, and rack your brain trying to figure out how to make them trigger each other off, and work well together, while keeping them organized.

You get to create your own verbs, and customize what happens to each object in the game each time they type that verb.

You can give items multiple aliases, in case the player wants to type something different.

Ex -even tho the player sees a telephone, they can type pick up the telle, or pick up the phone.

you can create a list of verbs that do the same thing even though they're different words. Simply by placing a ; between them.

ex- push;shove

It takes a little getting used to, but if you just play with the program, you'll see just how simple it is to use. It's a far better choice than Adrift, you'll thank yourself for learning it. It just seems daunting at first, but it's really not.

Believe me, I've no intention of writing a game with Quest. Have you seen the drivel that's on the main site? Do you really think I'd want to see any game I wrote alongside tripe like that?

Yes, Quest potentially has more power than Adrift. So what? The games it produces are, with a couple of exceptions, pretty awful. Quest could be the greatest IF system of them all, but until it has some major, major upgrades, it'll never be a good choice for writing IF games with. Why choose to program with Quest when you could program with Inform or TADS?

Alex is working on a stand alone runner to pack the games into an exe file, so that you can distribute them how you want. I think this program is great for writing games, and has an awful lot of potential, but that's just my opinion, lol.

As for Tads, and Inform, I've only looked at screen shots. I'm a little iffy on trying it out. Programming languages are beyond me.

davidw wrote:Believe me, I've no intention of writing a game with Quest. Have you seen the drivel that's on the main site? Do you really think I'd want to see any game I wrote alongside tripe like that?

So you choose to not make a Quest game, and not provide us with a decent game to put on the site? If you're not going to do anything about the problem, then stop complaining about it. Either do something or don't bother, but stop wasting all our time with YOUR drivel. If you love Adrift so much, yet hate Quest, what are you still doing here?

I've tried both Inform (which is horrible!) and TADS, which I thought was pretty crap. Quest would be a choice of the three, every time.

Yes Quest has some design flaws, but show me one system which doesn't. I agree some things are hard to do and I'd really like to be able to do '#%variable%#' or '%#variable#%'. Quest 4 is a major improvement on 3.53, with the GUI much easier to use. The ability to program something with a GUI then see the corresponding code is great, and what originally taught me to program.

I'm still working on my game, which I've been working off and on for 3+ years now, people have played it and said it was great, begging me to make more.

The point of Quest is that you can do anything really with it, not just make rail-roaded games. Being able to program systems like battle engines yourself meaning you can make it exactly how to want. My battle engine is based on the riddle of steel roleplaying game, the only one approved and endorsed by the prestigious Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Can you do the same in Adrift? No, so back off until you prove otherwise.

So you choose to not make a Quest game, and not provide us with a decent game to put on the site? If you're not going to do anything about the problem, then stop complaining about it. Either do something or don't bother, but stop wasting all our time with YOUR drivel.

As I said before, why would I want to write a game with Quest in its current state? So my hard work can sit alongside some crap by Gamer or dther or one of the sword master games? No thanks. I doubt I'm the only one who feels like this way either. Or do you have a good explanation for why none of the big names in the IF world write their games with Quest?

Even if you manage the seemingly impossible and write a good game with Quest – like Dr Froth did – it only becomes lost amidst the associated drivel on the main site and forgotten about. The one genuinely decent game ever written with Quest and I bet most people here have never even downloaded it.

I've tried both Inform (which is horrible!) and TADS, which I thought was pretty crap. Quest would be a choice of the three, every time.

Now this I'm genuinely curious about. I don’t use either Inform or TADS myself, but even a non-programmer like myself can see their strengths when compared to something like Quest. Check the IFArchive and you'll find so many games for Inform and TADS, you'd never have enough time to play them all if you lived to be a hundred. There are resources and libraries for programming almost everything imaginable. There are detailed manuals and texts on the best way to achieve things. There are articles on writing games with Inform in computer magazines. Does Quest have any of these?

I'm still working on my game, which I've been working off and on for 3+ years now, people have played it and said it was great, begging me to make more.

I can show you good reviews of dozens of bad games. Your point being…?

The point of Quest is that you can do anything really with it, not just make rail-roaded games. Being able to program systems like battle engines yourself meaning you can make it exactly how to want. My battle engine is based on the riddle of steel roleplaying game, the only one approved and endorsed by the prestigious Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Can you do the same in Adrift? No, so back off until you prove otherwise.

The prestigious Association for… what? Yep, very prestigious. I mean, I bet everyone here has heard of them, right? So you’ve made a battle engine with Quest. So what? You make it sound like a major achievement. I've written games that people have liked. Are you impressed? Do you want my autograph?

Could the same sort of thing be done in Adrift? Who knows? Who cares? There's more to IF than a battle engine. Quick question: how many games have come in the top ten places of the yearly IFComp and featured a battle system? Slightly less than one I'm guessing.

To be honest, the very fact that you're a programmer who has chosen Quest over Inform or TADS speaks volumes.

I think you missed my post. A stand alone runner is in the works, so that you can distribute your game how you want. In a couple of weeks if you didn't want your game near out "drivel" you can use the new project to create exes. Other wise you can use the same shitty battle system in adrift for every game, and miss out on the ability to program anything, and distribute it anywhere.

that's your choice.

A stand alone runner is certainly a nice idea, but I'm not quite sure why you think this is going to solve anything. If I wrote a Quest game now, I'm not forced to upload it to the Quest site. It'd make far more sense to submit it to the IFArchive and announce it on RAIF, thereby reaching a far larger audience and, of course, keeping it away from all the really bad games. So yes, a stand alone runner is a good idea but what is it really going to achieve in the long run?

The point I was making earlier on was that Quest is flawed. Every version of it has been flawed and each new version just carries over the same old flaws. In short: the design hampers anyone who wants to use it and leads to the only games it produces being flawed themselves. Sure, you have the announcements every five minutes of some uber ambitious epic of a game being written with Quest that would be impossible to write with any other system, but how many of these games ever see the light of day? Whatever you might personally think of Quest, even its biggest fan would surely have to admit that it's not produced much in the way of decent games. Until it does - until it can produce games on par with the standards people expect from TADS and Inform - the way Quest is regarded isn't going to change. I've always felt it's the design more than anything about it that hampers it and until something changes about that design, the majority of what Quest produces will be bad. The talented game writers will be using different systems that have a proven track record.

Alex asked for examples of bugs in Quest above. Freak responded. I'm curious to see what Alex is going to say about his response.

I'm not really a programmer, so I don't really know about internal flaws with quest, but the system seems fine. By looking at the way it's set up, as an interface, it seems really friendly. almost with the ability to program pretty well anything that someone would want. If quest produces a flawed game, is that the games fault, quests fault, or the person creating the game?

what issue do you personally have with quest. You've said that quest is flawed, and has these 'types' of problems, but other than saying that, what are the issues that you see with the program?

davidw wrote:A stand alone runner is certainly a nice idea, but I'm not quite sure why you think this is going to solve anything. If I wrote a Quest game now, I'm not forced to upload it to the Quest site. It'd make far more sense to submit it to the IFArchive and announce it on RAIF, thereby reaching a far larger audience and, of course, keeping it away from all the really bad games. So yes, a stand alone runner is a good idea but what is it really going to achieve in the long run?

In the long run it would make you be able to create a commercial product to promote, where, and how you please. That way if you created something utterly amazing, and don't want to just put it on with a bunch of trash, or just give it away, you wont have to.

Alex said that when the game is taken from quest, and put into an .exe file, with the stand alone runner he's making, people wont even know they're playing a quest game. Sounds amazing to me!

I'd have to agree that the QDK program does have flaws - although I can't actually give examples because I haven't used it in yonks.
I don't think I'm able to suggest improvements either - being a programmer/scripter/guy.

My first thought is that it's too linearly-oriented..
Going into an object to edit scripty-things (take for example) gives you a way to 'add things to a list' rather than simply go "it's takeable, it prints out this message and does this"..

I'd point to the syntax interpreter as one of the major flaws - again, I'm rubbish at English and have very limited experience on the other systems, but my understanding is that quest uses an exact-match type of algorithm, where-as a lot of the other systems use a more language-centric, grammatically based system (verbs, nouns, etc).
This just means that the Quest 'programmer' needs to add in a fair amount of commands to have the same versatility.

As from the aspect of power. I usually run into limitations in what I want Quest to do (variable pointers, multi-dimensional arrays, string manipulation, maths functions, etc). Not to say it's not powerful - it may be.

FREAK:
I had to change that if comparison into a function to get it to work..
Once I did it was very entertaining - TFT = TRUE .. FTT = FALSE

If I remember correctly, it goes on a one-by-one basis, so if it fails at the first and there's an "and" in the if, then it fails it - regardless of where the and is.
I thought this was fixed in a previous Quest actually?

Quest interprets "A or B and C" not as "(A or B) and C" or "A or (B and C)" but as "A and C". (If you use the ask version, you'll discover that, whether you answer Q1 yes or no, Quest doesn't even perform the second test.)

The savegame format is messed up; if you open a few up with the program here (or just look at the example from Hungry Goblin), you'll likely see some pointless repetition, like

  properties 5: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 6: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 7: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 8: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 9: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 10: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 11: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 12: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 13: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 14: name 'game',   data 'properties trollhere'
  properties 15: name 'game',   data 'properties not trollhere'

Lines 5-14 could have been completely removed! This is why save/restore in a Quest game becomes very slow as the game goes on, and restore sometimes crashes.

Another problem: Using expressions in an array index doesn't work.

paul_one, why don't you just use TADS? It probably already has what you want, and if you can use Perl and C++, you should have little trouble picking it up.

I usually do not place myself in the middle of these kinds of debates, but I feel that I have significant information to offer here.

I have pushed Quest to limits that, to my knowledge, no one else has done before. In fact, there came a point where Alex had to write a patch because Quest would not longer accept another line of code. I had to delete a line of code from somewhere else to put a new one in. This problem has been fixed now, but there are still others that make me concerned.

For example, load times. I do not know how many of you are working on games for real, but the average text adventure game is less than 200kb. The average Quest game is something like 30kb. My file for the complete game of "Gathered in Darkness" (all nine chapters) is over 2500kb. There is no graphics or sounds...that is all plain ol' text. I have a fast computer but you do not want to know how long it takes to load that thing to work on it.

For last years contest I shaved off seven chapters and tried to release it as the first of a trilogy or something. To do this I copied and pasted what I needed from the large file to a new one. I still ended up with a file of around 1500kb and introduced many new bugs in the process. (I am not counting my spelling as a bug). There were many complaints about the time taken to save and load games. I dread the thought of what the load times will be on a completed version.

So why did I choose Quest in the first place. The honest truth is "flags." The use of flags really suited the way I think of programming. I have not found another interface that uses them as well though I am sure I can invent a workaround in some of the other programs. I think Quest has tons of potential but I am starting to realize that some the problems players are going to have with completed games can not be fixed by me...only by altering the structure of the program itself.

I am going to flatter myself for a moment and pretend that people are wondering why I did not release "Gathered in Darkness" in full after last years contest. I suppose I could, I have an test version of the whole thing sitting right here. I just do not feel that Quest can really handle something that big. If I am going to release it, I have to make it a trilogy.

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to recreate some of the more difficult coding moments in other systems. I am making test scenarios trying to figure it out but I have not solved all the problems yet. While I work on it I am making smaller games in Adrift and Inform and learning allot.

I am a big fan of Quest, but I no longer feel it is well suited for games of epic length and I wonder how it would really stand up against a gigantic RPG if someone ever finished one. I will continue to monitor Quest, kinda like David W, and wait and see what happens in Quest 5. I am not giving up on it forever, just for right now.

Michael Millsap

P.S. While we are all having milk and cookies here (that is what my Drill Sargent used to refer to whining as) I guess I can express my dismay at having created the two highest scoring Quest games of major competitions of all time yet not seeing them in the top ten list on textadventures. Must have been the spelling.

I wouldn't worry too much about your games not appearing in the top ten Quest games list. In an archive where drivel written by the likes of Gamer can get 5 out of 5 (and which clueless prick keeps rating them so highly?), you're better off not even bothering uploading your games in the first place.

And yes, your games are far and away the best ones written with Quest. But more fool you for not writing them with a different system

Dr.Froth wrote:So why did I choose Quest in the first place. The honest truth is "flags." The use of flags really suited the way I think of programming. I have not found another interface that uses them as well though I am sure I can invent a workaround in some of the other programs.

What is it you can do with flags in Quest that you can't do easily in other system?
(Personally, I think that global flags are generally a bad idea; they exhibit poor locality; if need be, you can produce the same effect with other means.)

Michael, could you email me your ASL file and some example slow-loading QSG files please? I'm doing a fair bit of refactoring on Quest and QDK at the moment and one of the things I'm keen to do is improve performance, so if you could send me the files it will give me something to work on.

Grab a book on compiler design, and do a complete rewrite.

And as for why it isn't at the top, Gathered in Darkness doesn't appear to be even listed the site.

davidw wrote:

So you choose to not make a Quest game, and not provide us with a decent game to put on the site? If you're not going to do anything about the problem, then stop complaining about it. Either do something or don't bother, but stop wasting all our time with YOUR drivel.

As I said before, why would I want to write a game with Quest in its current state? So my hard work can sit alongside some crap by Gamer or dther or one of the sword master games? No thanks. I doubt I'm the only one who feels like this way either. Or do you have a good explanation for why none of the big names in the IF world write their games with Quest?

Even if you manage the seemingly impossible and write a good game with Quest – like Dr Froth did – it only becomes lost amidst the associated drivel on the main site and forgotten about. The one genuinely decent game ever written with Quest and I bet most people here have never even downloaded it.

[quote]I've tried both Inform (which is horrible!) and TADS, which I thought was pretty crap. Quest would be a choice of the three, every time.

Now this I'm genuinely curious about. I don’t use either Inform or TADS myself, but even a non-programmer like myself can see their strengths when compared to something like Quest. Check the IFArchive and you'll find so many games for Inform and TADS, you'd never have enough time to play them all if you lived to be a hundred. There are resources and libraries for programming almost everything imaginable. There are detailed manuals and texts on the best way to achieve things. There are articles on writing games with Inform in computer magazines. Does Quest have any of these?

I'm still working on my game, which I've been working off and on for 3+ years now, people have played it and said it was great, begging me to make more.

I can show you good reviews of dozens of bad games. Your point being…?

The point of Quest is that you can do anything really with it, not just make rail-roaded games. Being able to program systems like battle engines yourself meaning you can make it exactly how to want. My battle engine is based on the riddle of steel roleplaying game, the only one approved and endorsed by the prestigious Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Can you do the same in Adrift? No, so back off until you prove otherwise.

The prestigious Association for… what? Yep, very prestigious. I mean, I bet everyone here has heard of them, right? So you’ve made a battle engine with Quest. So what? You make it sound like a major achievement. I've written games that people have liked. Are you impressed? Do you want my autograph?

Could the same sort of thing be done in Adrift? Who knows? Who cares? There's more to IF than a battle engine. Quick question: how many games have come in the top ten places of the yearly IFComp and featured a battle system? Slightly less than one I'm guessing.

To be honest, the very fact that you're a programmer who has chosen Quest over Inform or TADS speaks volumes.[/quote]

I have a question. Since the other textadventures.co.uk mods and I have finished categorizing all of the "drivel", the new Site with the categorized games and whatnot is under construction (I assume).

Once completed, are you actually going to write another game and post it onto the site? It wouldn't sit next to all the other crap directly, would it? Just a thought.

I have never used Adrift, TADS, Inform, PlayerRealms or anything else. I know ziltch about coding, and I don't have a "programmers" mind. Yet I have produced two games which have gotten a relative amount of good comments and reviews. Do I care that its sitting next to a huge pile of steaming dung? Hell no. Why should I? This is the fcking Internet, for christs sake. WHO CARES. Create an amazing, stupendous game for us, to show all the potential game makers out there that Quest isn't a pile of poop, as you seem to be pointing out. Just sitting there and complaining and whining about it doesn't get much done, does it? Stop and listen to yourself, because I can't recall a positive comment you have ever posted (apart for praise to Dr. Froth) about quest.

You simply havn't done anything helpful except point out that every other system is better than Quest due to "design flaws". If Quest is so crap, then how are there heaps of good games out there on the site? You only seem to be explaining how crap it is, not getting over it and admiring the decent games.

By the way, you ARE the only one who thinks this way. A queston to everyone else reading this: Who actually thinks that everything David has said has helped in any way the advancement of Quest?

*Awaits Personal Attack*

Thana

davidw hasn't done anything for Quest, but he has done plenty for ADRIFT. And what do you mean by the "heaps of good games"? I've played a few of them, but none really impressed me.

What were your two games?

Games such as the ones in the Top 10 List.

My two games where Assasinating Dr. Froth and Backstreet Boy.

The Mansion & The Mansion 2:
In the 80s, I would have rated these favorably, but by modern standards, they're average.
Gameplay consists of lock & key puzzles and thinly disguised variants thereof.
Writing utterly lacks mimesis; in the first game, the uncle's and the villains' actions make sense only as "their actions were contrived so the game could take place"; the uncle must have spent a few months setting up everything instead of fleeing; the villains don't think of just getting a battering ram and just breaking down the doors. The player doesn't notice the villains while he's searching the house, even though they're paying careful enough attention that they can tell exactly when he's opened up the path to the lab and get in ahead of him. The player is searching carefully, but can't find some things until explicitly told where they are. (The dead guard is carrying a hard drive, but the player won't find it until he reads the memo mentioning it.)

Operation Sleepover:
The mechanics of the layered clothing are well-implemented, but beyond that the gameplay isn't that much.

Spectrum:
Little cohesion and largely arbitrary.


Any example of a better game?

Thanatos wrote:I have a question. Since the other textadventures.co.uk mods and I have finished categorizing all of the "drivel", the new Site with the categorized games and whatnot is under construction (I assume).

Once completed, are you actually going to write another game and post it onto the site? It wouldn't sit next to all the other crap directly, would it? Just a thought.

No. I have zero interest in writing games with Quest until it gets a major upgrade. As it is now, it's probably almost on par with Adrift 3.9 which I stopped using 6 or 7 years ago because Adrift 4 was a whole lot better. The only system I'd consider switching from Adrift to would be Inform 7.

Why would I want to use Quest? It'd be a huge step down from a system I'm already familar with.

Thanatos wrote:I have never used Adrift, TADS, Inform, PlayerRealms or anything else. I know ziltch about coding, and I don't have a "programmers" mind. Yet I have produced two games which have gotten a relative amount of good comments and reviews. Do I care that its sitting next to a huge pile of steaming dung? Hell no. Why should I? This is the fcking Internet, for christs sake. WHO CARES.

So what are your theories on why none of the big names in the IF world have ever written a game with Quest? Mine are:

a) because it's not good enough.
b) because they take one look at the drivel on the main site and don't want anything they write sitting alongside it.

As for your games receiving a 'relative' amount of good comments and reviews, if that's the case then why did you post this a few days ago:

Thanatos wrote:I was wondering if anyone would like to review my first ever published game? Its been up on the site for a year and the only review I got was from dther9, who is a complete idiot.

One review and that's from a complete idiot. Yep, you certainly received a 'relative' amount of good comments and reviews there.

Thanatos wrote:Create an amazing, stupendous game for us, to show all the potential game makers out there that Quest isn't a pile of poop, as you seem to be pointing out. Just sitting there and complaining and whining about it doesn't get much done, does it? Stop and listen to yourself, because I can't recall a positive comment you have ever posted (apart for praise to Dr. Froth) about quest.

There's a very good reason for that, y'know. It's - you ready for this? - because Quest games *are* a pile of poop. Sorry to break that to you but I thought you had a right to know. Now, if someone wants to write a good game with Quest (as Dr Froth did before he came to his senses and went to the Adrift/Inform camps) I'll write a good review of it. If they want to write a bad game... well, you can probably guess how that sentence is going to end, can't you?

Thanatos wrote:You simply havn't done anything helpful except point out that every other system is better than Quest due to "design flaws". If Quest is so crap, then how are there heaps of good games out there on the site? You only seem to be explaining how crap it is, not getting over it and admiring the decent games.

Oh please. "heaps of good games". Where oh where are these heaps of good games? The main site is full of one piece of drivel after another. Funnily enough, two minutes of checking out your comments and reviews shows you have almost as low an opinion of Quest games as I have:

Thanatos wrote:Ugh. Im not even going to bother playing the damn thing.

Thanatos wrote:Appalling. *cough*sandpit*cough*

Thanatos wrote:Another peice of crap. Seriously, no grammer whatsoever. Many spelling mistakes.

*peice* and then comments about spelling mistakes. Hahahahah.

Thanatos wrote:Oh and heres the Rating. 1 - Appalling

Thanatos wrote:One of the more retarded and annoying games you have made. Once again, no correct grammer in sight.

Want me to go on?

Thanatos wrote:By the way, you ARE the only one who thinks this way.

Yes, you tell yourself that. I'm sure it'll be consolation to you and the other three Quest users out there.

Dr.Froth wrote:P.S. While we are all having milk and cookies here (that is what my Drill Sargent used to refer to whining as) I guess I can express my dismay at having created the two highest scoring Quest games of major competitions of all time yet not seeing them in the top ten list on textadventures. Must have been the spelling.

You can't judge any good games by viewing the top ten list in the archive. The tiny amount of good games have been battered by the revengeful 12 year olds who get bad ratings and they turn around and give a good game a score of 1 "just to show them". haha


On a side note, who is Pressence and how did he/she get the inside scoop of a stand alone runner? It may be in a thread that I haven't read yet so I guess I'll go look around....