I tried making a random text adventure generator a while ago, where the idea was I would fill it with items and item combinations, and ask it to look for the most crazy/interesting chain of item manipulation puzzles e.g. key opens chest, to get the matchbook, to light the dynamite, to blow open the safe, to get the money, to buy the ticket.
I thought the idea was really promising at first but my finding was there's just not that many interesting puzzles based around real-life item interactions, so it wasn't fun to play (without going further by adding a plot, and graphics maybe).
If the item interaction is too everyday, it's too obvious and boring (like a key to open a door), and if it's too obscure it feels unfair (like a blowtorch to the neck of a wine bottle to open it), so it has to be somewhere in between and there's only a finite amount of these. When you look into it, you'll notice the same item interactions reused in lots of adventure games too e.g. boltcutters + chain, torch + batteries, spade + ground. Maybe sounds obvious when you think about it, but it wasn't obvious when I was prototyping.
I think this is one of the reasons escape room games devolve into obscure logic puzzles. And also why a lot of adventure games feature things like time travel and magic and NPCs,
as it lets you introduce new rules for item interactions. Another aspect is filling the game world with lots of items, locations and general red herrings so that the connection between items that is usually obvious isn't immediately obvious because you can't keep them all in your head.
If anyone's interested, here's a pretty good overview of Infocom's internal development tooling (how they got from the ZIL source code to a compiled story file). https://github.com/ZoBoRf/ZILCH-How-to
Additionally, this site is a really cool visualization that lets you play Zork while being able to see its internal game state and the corresponding source code to where you currently are. https://eblong.com/infocom/visi-zork1/
Weird to learn that the three Zork games were one game split, given that they're so tonally different. (the first having basically no narrative at all, the second being profoundly silly, and the third being fairly serious and dark)
Originally there was a Zork game, then a company was formed and they decided to repurpose their existing game as their first project/product because they had no other inspiration.
The existing content was too large to fit into the small computers available at the time, so only parts of the prior-art were used in the "new" game.
Zork [1] was popular so the idea of a sequel was raised, and of course the content which was left out was then used the second time around. And repeat.
I think it's fair to say there was no cohesive intentions to make three games initially, and you can kinda see that from the "plot".
I was working on a text adventure myself. It was before llms became a thing. My solution to the commands was to use simple words, not phrases. Pick key, walk north, look fireplace...
Instead of just a game I realize as I writing a game creator as well and the score kept getting bigger, so I decided to take a break. That was 4 years ago.
I like Zork a lot, but I've never made it even halfway through the game. Knowing that you can permanently lose by doing certain things (does breaking the mirror count? I can't remember) puts a damper on my enthusiasm. The infocom parser is pretty good, but I sometimes run into issues where I know what I need to do, but can't get the parser to accept my commands. This happened in planetfall where I needed to get a key under a grate, but eventually gave up and looked up what the parser wanted.
Some modern additions are automatic maps and fast travel so you don't get lost in an infinite labyrinth and have to write your own maps (it was fun once, but I wouldn't want to do it each game). Fast travel is nice, so I can get back somewhere without having to type N N E NE N and so on.
As for this thread and more relevant comments, I had no idea the parser variables were named after the authors. HN knowledge never ceases to amaze me. I wish there was a convention or something once a year.
If you’re a fan of the genre, Zork I is worth playing through (with hints if necessary) precisely because it’s an example (the example?) of the early explorations of the art — back when it was about, “Hmm, we should make the game do if someone tries to break the mirror” and then implementing a response.
It wasn’t so much about finishing the game, it was about exploring the playground.
Like you, I was never able to get into Zork. I really enjoyed it, until I inevitably became stuck. Hearing you say this could be permanent really seals it. It's one of those games that's more fun to recollect than to actually play.
>We can also make an educated guess that MARC refers to Marc Blank, who was one of the initial creators of Zork, but I couldn’t figure out who JW could be.
JW: That was probably Jerry Wolper. He was a coder and designer at Infocom in the later 1980s
I had forgotten Jerry actually worked at Infocom for a bit. And no one else with those initials comes to mind. He was part of the film committee that Marc and others were involved with as well.
The later Infocom games — I’m thinking especially Moriarty’s evocative Wishbringer, Trinity, Beyond Zork — have much improved writing in general; it might be interesting to see what an LLM actually does with those.
I thought the idea was really promising at first but my finding was there's just not that many interesting puzzles based around real-life item interactions, so it wasn't fun to play (without going further by adding a plot, and graphics maybe).
If the item interaction is too everyday, it's too obvious and boring (like a key to open a door), and if it's too obscure it feels unfair (like a blowtorch to the neck of a wine bottle to open it), so it has to be somewhere in between and there's only a finite amount of these. When you look into it, you'll notice the same item interactions reused in lots of adventure games too e.g. boltcutters + chain, torch + batteries, spade + ground. Maybe sounds obvious when you think about it, but it wasn't obvious when I was prototyping.
I think this is one of the reasons escape room games devolve into obscure logic puzzles. And also why a lot of adventure games feature things like time travel and magic and NPCs, as it lets you introduce new rules for item interactions. Another aspect is filling the game world with lots of items, locations and general red herrings so that the connection between items that is usually obvious isn't immediately obvious because you can't keep them all in your head.
Additionally, this site is a really cool visualization that lets you play Zork while being able to see its internal game state and the corresponding source code to where you currently are. https://eblong.com/infocom/visi-zork1/
If you’re interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/raldi/comments/10dtch/i_spent_my_we...
Originally there was a Zork game, then a company was formed and they decided to repurpose their existing game as their first project/product because they had no other inspiration.
The existing content was too large to fit into the small computers available at the time, so only parts of the prior-art were used in the "new" game.
Zork [1] was popular so the idea of a sequel was raised, and of course the content which was left out was then used the second time around. And repeat.
I think it's fair to say there was no cohesive intentions to make three games initially, and you can kinda see that from the "plot".
Instead of just a game I realize as I writing a game creator as well and the score kept getting bigger, so I decided to take a break. That was 4 years ago.
I do want to fishing it one day
I like Zork a lot, but I've never made it even halfway through the game. Knowing that you can permanently lose by doing certain things (does breaking the mirror count? I can't remember) puts a damper on my enthusiasm. The infocom parser is pretty good, but I sometimes run into issues where I know what I need to do, but can't get the parser to accept my commands. This happened in planetfall where I needed to get a key under a grate, but eventually gave up and looked up what the parser wanted.
Some modern additions are automatic maps and fast travel so you don't get lost in an infinite labyrinth and have to write your own maps (it was fun once, but I wouldn't want to do it each game). Fast travel is nice, so I can get back somewhere without having to type N N E NE N and so on.
As for this thread and more relevant comments, I had no idea the parser variables were named after the authors. HN knowledge never ceases to amaze me. I wish there was a convention or something once a year.
It wasn’t so much about finishing the game, it was about exploring the playground.
Got any recommendations?
Like you, I was never able to get into Zork. I really enjoyed it, until I inevitably became stuck. Hearing you say this could be permanent really seals it. It's one of those games that's more fun to recollect than to actually play.
https://ifdb.org/viewgame?id=4glrrfh7wrp9zz7b
JW: That was probably Jerry Wolper. He was a coder and designer at Infocom in the later 1980s
https://www.mobygames.com/person/336/jerry-wolper/credits/