We already have a few of those - I'm talking about games like The Hollywood Murder. I just put those into 'PC', because there is a pre-compiled version for that system. However, the same game runs fine on many more systems, actually - using an interpreter.

I don't mean games which run in ScummVM, for example, here. There, interpretation on other systems is an afterthought. What I mean is those games which have been written in a language which natively builds into a format for which interpretation is the norm. Games written in Z-Code (Inform) or TADS. For those, the situation is the other way around: 'system native' compiled versions are an afterthought.

I don't really think the current system-centric hierachy can handle those games. I can think of two options (feel free to suggest others):

Add an 'interpreted' system

Add all games made for interpreters into a pseudo-system category (noting which interpreter it's for).

Add one system per interpreter

Treat each interpreter as its own section, i.e. have one 'Inform' section, a 'TADS' section, an 'ADRIFT' section and so on. Advantage: Clear disinction, technically correct. Disadvantage: Clutter on system level, some games come in different versions for different interpreters.

Obviously, there are two more options: Not to care about this at all and just squeeze such games in as it has been done so far or to stay away from those games and just not put them on the site. I don't like either of those, but for the sake of completeness...

Does it happen with anything else than interactive fictions? I would just put them on a platform depending on the interpreter it came bundled with. It is ready to play on PC, then it is the PC version. Otherwise we would have to offer the game file and some interpreters.

I think it's mainly Adventure games, yes. I agree that if there is a 'prefered' version, i.e. a system specific version the author bundles / distributes, it should / could be in the section of that system. However, there is a vast array of those games which are just distributed in the interpreter format without any system specific bundling - which makes perfect sense in most cases by the way.

You've given the perfect example yourself: What kind of interpreter would you bundle for a 'PC' game? One for MS-DOS? One for Windows 98? One for Windows XP? One for Linux (and which architecture then?)? Bundle them all? And then bundle them again and again for each single game?

The analogy would be disk images / ROMs of games plus offering an emulator for the system under 'applications' - just like we do with all the systems we have so far.

I definitely think it should either be "an interpeted category" or "one category for each interpetor". In essence, the interpretors are emulators & the games are roms, and I think they should be treated the same as (for example) SNES games, or atari 2600 games. The only way to play those games on ANY computer is via an emulator (comparable to the interpretors). The only real diff is that interpreted games were designed to run on "emulators" from the beginning, whereas SNES/2600/etc were emulated as an afterthought.
These can also be compared to java or flash games. Flash & java are essentially interpretors/emulators/VMs/etc, which have a version for most current OSes & allow one to play flash/java games on these VMs, regardless what OS you're using, just like interpretors & just like emulators. You wouldn't list a java game as "windows" or "linux" (granted, you probably wouldn't list a java game at all, but that's beside the point. )

I think treating each intrepretor as a seperate system would be the best choice.

Could also be read as "completeness on system level". Having nothing but PC games would eliminate all such "clutter", but would leave your site woefully incomplete. Including linux & amiga games on the site makes your site more complete, but increases the "clutter". Adding the interpretors as systems is no different.

1) I don't think that happens very often, which would mean it isn't a major concern.
2) So what? Many games come in different versions for PC, DOS, mac, linux, amiga, atari ST etc, etc, etc. This is no different.

Now this is getting spicy at last

In general, I perfectly agree with what Cypherswipe wrote (apart from the Java thing - those run nowhere ). The only reason I'm contemplating 'one section for all interpreters' as well for my own opinion is that I don't realistically see that many games being added for each interpreter. Really small sections get only little attention.

As you all will remember, I don't really see system level as a great way to split game entries anyway (refer to the ill-fated integration vs. fragmentation topic). The same grey area exists concerning different interpreters. In the end, it comes down to definition, i.e. what we define as a level of distinction.

Maybe Wandrell and Cypherswipe should fight this out as they seem to represent the two extremes in this discussion

Well, there are a great deal of games AVAILABLE for each interpreter (at least z-machine/infocom and TADS, haven't tried any others). I don't know how many of those games would actually get posted here though.

One drawback to listing such games at all is that there is a slew of homebrew games for each system, and they aren't clearly seperated. Sites which list IF games mix official games & homebrew games together as though they were all the same thing. This means you would either have to include homebrew games, spend a lot of time researching each entry to see if it's official or homebrew, or say "I'll only add [infocom] games", and omit ones from lesser known (but still official) publishers.

I think he means that, for example, this could happen:
Amiga: interpreter A, game version 1.2
PC: interpreter B, game version 1.0

Version 1.2 never was published on PC, but as their are interpreted you could just copy and paste the file and run with the PC interpreter.

Realistically, in almost 10 years of the site, I've been the only person ever to add text adventures to the site. I would like to add more (which is why I opened this topic), but I can't promise I'll add hundreds.


Homebrew / amateur / freeware games are already part of the site, so I don't see a problem there?


Uh... isn't that an argument in favour of having an 'interpreted' section?

From time to time I play some of the IF done in the last years, there are some great ones around. So maybe it could be a great idea. But still, would the older games be on the interpreted section even if they were published in certain platforms?

Maybe we could keep the interpreted section for the newer done on inform7 or any new language.

Personally, I'm always trying to put games into their 'original system' section. So I wouldn't put actual Infocom games into 'Interpreted' / 'Inform' / 'Z-Code' or whatever the other section might be. The games I've started reviewing for those sections so far are all 'interpreter native', i.e. (as Cypherswipe pointed out) specifically written for use with interpreters.

In the end, it could still be a decision of each reviewer, though. I never complained when you added IBM PC ports of games which are Amiga / C64 / Spectrum / whatever originals. I would never. It was your choice which version to review.

Maybe there is a line there, though I'm not yet sure what it is. I, too, wouldn't really like if anyone reviewed Monkey Island 'for ScummVM'. But how do we prevent it?

I haven't noticed any homebrew type games on thsi site, so I didn't think you included any. (Then again, I don't spend much time looking at the games here, so... *shrug*)

Blame on you!
The reviews are worth reading.

*shrug* I originally came here for the he-man comics, and have since kept coming back for the forum.

OK. That's a good excuse. But I didn't mean to offend you.

Who said I was offended?
All I am at the moment is bored. :-\

Write a few game reviews and send them in?

Ok, suggestion:

I'll establish one new system category called 'Interpreter'. This will cover all interpreted games, the type of interpreter will be mentioned in the review or something. Rule for this section: Only games which have explicitely been written for a generic interpreter format.

I'm aware that this rule does leave quite a bit of a grey area. All SCUMM games have been 'written for an interpreter', however, they are not meant there, because they were never officially distributed without a system specific one. I think common sense should be the guideline here.

As for the decision only to have one section: I think it's enough for now (and, though not very clearly, this option got most votes). If hundreds of game entries start flogging in, we can still split it up further fairly easily. A more basic discussion about system structuring is planned for next year anyway and then it'll all turn up again anyway. Then we can use the experiences made with this new section so far.

As I said, this is a suggestion. Please voice your protest until next weekend. Otherwise, I'll commit this change.

I'm still in favor of 1 section per interpreter, but all of them tossed together will do, at least until there are more such games listed on the site. (I imagine that if you did it that way right now, you'd have a bunch of systems with just 4 or 5 games each.)

On a related note, have you ever tried the online IF at rinkworks?
http://www.rinkworks.com/adventure/index.cgi