Originally Posted By ThomaZz (27 JUN 2004 3:33pm)

If books can remain popular, why wouldn't IF? I'm sure that, with a little effort, IF can become more than just freeware known by a handful of people!

Originally Posted By Anne (27 JUN 2004 3:38pm)
Well,it might help if I knew what IF is.

And to be honest, I like the 'background'-position of the IF-genre. It's a small bunch of people that play the games, and only really a few that produce them. But the possibilities to talk with other IF-lovers, or to get in touch with the developers as you can now, add to the charm of the genre. If IF would become too popular, it would lose a bit of those appealing characteristics.

Originally Posted By Ron (27 JUN 2004 8:24pm)


As far as I know from personal experience, Interactive Fiction isn't a genre of games that's easy to learn to play. If a nice action game is packed in your Kellogs box, you install it and play away. With IF, the learning curve is quite a bit steeper. It has taken me quite a few tries of various games before I learned how to interact with IF effeciently.

And to be honest, I like the 'background'-position of the IF-genre. It's a small bunch of people that play the games, and only really a few that produce them. But the possibilities to talk with other IF-lovers, or to get in touch with the developers as you can now, add to the charm of the genre. If IF would become too popular, it would lose a bit of those appealing characteristics.

I do agree with your post if you would talk about of adventure games in general, and not just Interactive Fiction. Add a nice free point & clickgame in that crate of Heineken and prevent the adventuregenre from collapsing, but leave Interactive Fiction to be discovered by people who are really going to fall in love with it...

Originally Posted By rozencrantz (10 JUL 2004 3:07am)
That brings up a secondary point which might deserve its own thread. How do you feel about selling IF?

I personally think that it is very tricky territory. When I buy a book, I almost never buy it new unless I know for sure that it will be superb. And with IF, you can't know. If you aren't sure about a book, read the back, see if anyone you know reviewed it, and then read the first chapter in the store. With IF, not even the author is a reliable indication of whether or not it's worth anything. (I liked Photopia, but not Narcolepsy, So Far, but not A Change in the Weather, etc)

Another problem is that of size. The best IF games are somewhere around the size of a novellette, while your typical modern novel is at least 200 pages (up to 1000 for fantasy, down to 100 for Pulp Adventure). The only games that even approach this size are liable to become aggrivatingly large, such as Curses or Jigsaw.

And even beyond that, only two or three games have given enough back to be worth playing over, much less paying for. You can resell bad books, but you can't resell bad software.

Any other thoughts?

Originally Posted By Ron (11 JUL 2004 4:43pm)
Well, of course you can sell IF. It's just like any other piece of software that you can buy... But I doubt you can find many people to sell it to...

I guess the problem with it is that there are dozens of good text-adventures freely available. (Who hasn't been strolling around at http://www.wurb.com/if/index ?) You'll have to make quite a decent piece of IF and have good marketing skills to persuade people to buy a game instead of downloading a free one.

Note that in other game-genres, there usually is a big distinction between the quality of commercial games, and the 'free' ones. (sportsgames, First Person Shooters, RPG, etc.) In Interactive Fiction this distinction doesn't exist.

So even though i'd like to try '1893 - A World's Fair Mystery' and Howard's 'Pentari' and 'Greystone' once, I won't actually do so till I finished the free IF-jewels I can find...

Originally Posted By HowardS (22 JUL 2004 12:50am)

Once you've experienced them, I am confident you will see the clear distinction between free works and my works.  There certainly is one.  Your firsthand experience will be judge enough. The free works have their charms but they go just so far. My works take Interactive Fiction to the next level.

Originally Posted By JE (4 AUG 2004 12:51pm)


"Only go so far?"  What on earth are you talking about?  Are you actually suggesting that your games are somehow far better than the best freely available games?  I can only judge by your own free games (like the Pentari demo) and the "screenshots" on your homepage, but it is far from evident what "only go so far" you're talking about.

Originally Posted By HowardS (27 DEC 2004 11:37pm)
I think I made myself clear enough in the  original post.

Originally Posted By Fickfack (28 DEC 2004 4:20pm)
I just played the Pentari: First Light demo; based on that and the reviews of Mr. Sherman's previous game BOFH, I can only laugh at his suggestion that his works are superior in any way to the free works that are available.
It's doubly ironic that he's criticizing free works, because his compiler, interpreter, and even his documentation have been taken from free sources.

Originally Posted By Agustin (28 DEC 2004 4:58pm)

Actually, you havn't. I'd like to know why you think the free works "only go as far", because I'm at a loss here. I've recently played Anchorhead which is even better than some Infocom titles, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

If you don't wish to clarify this, it will look as if you're diminishing the free works to promote your commercial ones. And trust me, that won't look good.

Originally Posted By Fickfack (2 FEB 2005 3:40am)
Yes, but details of historical or geographical authenticity are really not important to the average player. They couldn't care less.
For example, Cryo's series of historical graphic adventures (Egypt, Aztec et al) are impeccably researched, with exhaustive resources detailing the games' historical basis. Most people didn't read all of this documentation. They wanted to play the adventure game. And the games themselves were flawed; poorly implemented timed sequences, pixel hunts and illogical puzzles.
That's what people notice. And that's the basis on which those Cryo games were reviewed.
I can't question the amount of work that you obviously put into your titles, but for the average player it doesn't matter how authentic the game is. They want quality writing and gameplay, and since many free works already have quality writing and gameplay, you'll need to demonstrate that yours is better before IF players will be willing to buy your works.

Originally Posted By HowardS (2 FEB 2005 2:34am)
Go see for yourself.

Originally Posted By Agustin (2 FEB 2005 7:19pm)

I'm sorry, but your capabilities as a researcher have nothing to do with your capabilities as a game designer. Mind you, I'm not saying your games are crap but this isn't enough reason. Not to mention the fact that not all games need 'research'. You can have a great game like Gabriel Knight which needs loads of research and another just as good like Grim Fandango that doesn't need it. Also, you speak of attention to detail, but I found the descriptions of Anchorhead strong and vivid regardless of being purely from the imagination of its creator. No research needed whatsoever to achieve that.

So allow me to rephrase my question: how your capabilities as a researcher make your games superior to the 'freeware' ones that go as far?

Originally Posted By Agustin (28 DEC 2004 4:58pm)

Actually, you havn't. I'd like to know why you think the free works "only go as far", because I'm at a loss here. I've recently played Anchorhead which is even better than some Infocom titles, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

If you don't wish to clarify this, it will look as if you're diminishing the free works to promote your commercial ones. And trust me, that won't look good.