Originally Posted By Agustin (4 FEB 2005 2:47am)
I think I made clear why I introduced the GK3 example - to prove a game can be equally entertaining and just as well designed regardless of its 'realistic' or 'well-researched' content. You're using your hability to research as a reason to dismiss the freeware games. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not a good enough reason!

Also, no need to try selling me your games every paragraph or so. I'm a member of the press and can't get them for free! <wink>

As for Anchorhead being better than some Infocom games, that should be obvious. I think Moonmist is a good point of comparisson. Anchorhead has a larger gaming area, better written passages, a more interesting storyline, some very good dramatic sequences (ie: the madman chasing you in the asylum) - I could go on for a while longer. Can't remember about the puzzles but Moonmist was also weak in that aspect. Needless to say, Anchorhead was a game that could've been easily commercialized with a good presentation. And it was successful regardless of any research Gentry did.

Can you see my point?

Originally Posted By HowardS (5 FEB 2005 12:40am)

Comparing either to Anchorhead is a bit unfair in some ways as Anchorhead is a Z8 game which, sadly, is a Z-machine platform that Infocom couldn't work with for various, valid reasons. As for the writing..... I'd have to say that Michael Gentry certainly has skill but I don't know if he stacks up to any of the original Imps.
If the original Implementers had the ability to release Z8 games, I think you, me and a lot of other people would be even more enamored with the works of Infocom than we already are.  To cut to the quick, the original Imps did the very best they could with what they had at the time. And they did some pretty amazing things.

Originally Posted By Agustin (6 FEB 2005 12:49am)
2) You asked me to explain why I think Anchorhead is better than some Infocom games. I don't think it's better than The Lurking Horror, but I do think it's better than Moonmist, which is also suspense, and I gave a number of reasons why.

An ornate receptacle sits at the foot of the altar.

>x receptacle
As sacred as the techcatl itself, this medium-sized ornate box would hold the human hearts and blood which would then be offered as sacred food to the gods.

>look in box
You cannot see inside, since the sacred cuauhxicalli is closed.

>open box
The receptacle is already open; it doesn't have a lid.

I mean, come on - those are really basic problems that any decent beta-tester should stumble over. Howard, I suggest that you give Azteca an overhaul and find better beta-testers - whoever you used for Azteca wasn't really competent. Check out the IF Newgroups if you don't know where to find them.

Originally Posted By JE (3 MAR 2005 5:05am)
There's little value in spilling out a whole bunch of anecdotal "errors" that anyone could find with a few minutes with Google. Any undertaking of any size - be it a novel or a movie - is going to have a few inconsistencies in it, or a few things that went unnoticed at the time. Someone could probably find "errors" in any movie or book.

The same goes for games. Almost every major game has its share of things that don't get caught at the testing stage. That's why there are patches and updates and whatever. The point is that, aside of the really terrible games that are labeled truly "buggy", any bugs in the games are minor enough that the average player probably won't encounter or at least not be troubled by them.

The point being made here is that your games are QUITE noticeably buggier than most decent free games. :-/ Sorry.