idiotic Glulx question that has probably been asked a mill..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules (I.E: is
not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way of playing said
game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any multimedia in the blorb file
would be sacrificed in this case; however, would it still be possible to
play the game in a text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win
frotz?

--

_____

Why settle for the lesser evil? Cthulhu for president!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

James Bond wrote in news:10gdj5qqsoj9i19@corp.supernews.com:

> If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules
> (I.E: is not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way
> of playing said game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any
> multimedia in the blorb file would be sacrificed in this case;
> however, would it still be possible to play the game in a
> text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win frotz?

No. Glulx and z-code are different beasts, so a z-code terp can't do
anything with the glulx game.

Rikard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

James Bond wrote:
> If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules (I.E: is
> not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way of playing said
> game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any multimedia in the blorb file
> would be sacrificed in this case; however, would it still be possible to
> play the game in a text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win
> frotz?
>

No, a Glulx game won't run on a "Z-machine" interpreter; however, since
both Glulx games and Z-machine games are written in the same programming
language -- Inform -- with care an author can often compile the game for
both interpreters... At least this is my understanding. For some
technical details: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/inform-guide.txt

Asa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Asa Rossoff <asaATlovetour.info@x.x> wrote in message news:<10gjpaqave6u0de@corp.supernews.com>...
> James Bond wrote:
> > If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules (I.E: is
> > not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way of playing said
> > game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any multimedia in the blorb file
> > would be sacrificed in this case; however, would it still be possible to
> > play the game in a text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win
> > frotz?
> >
>
> No, a Glulx game won't run on a "Z-machine" interpreter; however, since
> both Glulx games and Z-machine games are written in the same programming
> language -- Inform -- with care an author can often compile the game for
> both interpreters... At least this is my understanding. For some
> technical details: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/inform-guide.txt

This is true. A simple game, like Roger Firth's Cloak of Darkness,
will compile to either Glulx or Zcode without changing a single
character in the source code. More complicated games can be made
to compile to both target machines using the techniques described
in the inform-guide document above.

Also note that you can pack a Zcode file (and any multimedia
resources it needs) into a Blorb file. If you don't need the
extra space or any of the Glulx-specific capabilities, consider
making it a Zcode game instead.

/Fredrik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On 30 Jul 2004 10:11:24 -0700, Fredrik Ramsberg <f.r@mail.com> wrote:
>Asa Rossoff <asaATlovetour.info@x.x> wrote in message
news:<10gjpaqave6u0de@corp.supernews.com>...
>> James Bond wrote:
>> > If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules (I.E: is
>> > not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way of playing said
>> > game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any multimedia in the blorb file
>> > would be sacrificed in this case; however, would it still be possible to
>> > play the game in a text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win
>> > frotz?
>> >
>>
>> No, a Glulx game won't run on a "Z-machine" interpreter; however, since
>> both Glulx games and Z-machine games are written in the same programming
>> language -- Inform -- with care an author can often compile the game for
>> both interpreters... At least this is my understanding. For some
>> technical details: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/inform-guide.txt
>
>This is true. A simple game, like Roger Firth's Cloak of Darkness,
>will compile to either Glulx or Zcode without changing a single
>character in the source code. More complicated games can be made
>to compile to both target machines using the techniques described
>in the inform-guide document above.
>
>Also note that you can pack a Zcode file (and any multimedia
>resources it needs) into a Blorb file. If you don't need the
>extra space or any of the Glulx-specific capabilities, consider
>making it a Zcode game instead.
>
>/Fredrik

I want to point out that, while the clever sorts of techniques used to
make the same code compile to glulx or Z-code are a good idea for
programming examples and library files, there's really no reason for
them to appear in an actual *game*. If your glulx code can be made to
compile to Z-code without degredation, then you really had no business
compiling to Glulx in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

lraszewski@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote in message news:<5YwOc.121$UN2.87@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> On 30 Jul 2004 10:11:24 -0700, Fredrik Ramsberg <f.r@mail.com> wrote:
> >Asa Rossoff <asaATlovetour.info@x.x> wrote in message
> news:<10gjpaqave6u0de@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> James Bond wrote:
> >> > If a certain glulx game does not violate any of the z-code rules (I.E: is
> >> > not too large or similar such constraint), is there a way of playing said
> >> > game on a Z-code interpreter? Obviously, any multimedia in the blorb file
> >> > would be sacrificed in this case; however, would it still be possible to
> >> > play the game in a text-only mode using a Z-code interpreter such as win
> >> > frotz?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, a Glulx game won't run on a "Z-machine" interpreter; however, since
> >> both Glulx games and Z-machine games are written in the same programming
> >> language -- Inform -- with care an author can often compile the game for
> >> both interpreters... At least this is my understanding. For some
> >> technical details: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/inform-guide.txt
> >
> >This is true. A simple game, like Roger Firth's Cloak of Darkness,
> >will compile to either Glulx or Zcode without changing a single
> >character in the source code. More complicated games can be made
> >to compile to both target machines using the techniques described
> >in the inform-guide document above.
> >
> >Also note that you can pack a Zcode file (and any multimedia
> >resources it needs) into a Blorb file. If you don't need the
> >extra space or any of the Glulx-specific capabilities, consider
> >making it a Zcode game instead.
> >
> >/Fredrik
>
> I want to point out that, while the clever sorts of techniques used to
> make the same code compile to glulx or Z-code are a good idea for
> programming examples and library files, there's really no reason for
> them to appear in an actual *game*. If your glulx code can be made to
> compile to Z-code without degredation, then you really had no business
> compiling to Glulx in the first place.

I didn't say it would have to be without degradation.

You can have a better version in Glulx, which has stunning graphics
and a big soundtrack, as well as nicer text effects. But since
everyone can't play Glulx games, you want to provide a Zcode
version too.

/Fredrik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

*snip*

> You can have a better version in Glulx, which has stunning graphics
> and a big soundtrack, as well as nicer text effects. But since
> everyone can't play Glulx games, you want to provide a Zcode
> version too.
>
> /Fredrik

(this is bordering on changing into a RAIF topic, but I'll leave it in
RGIF for now)

I disagree. I think one should choose Z-Code or Glulx. If Glulx is
needed due to size constraints or a need for graphics or sound, then
Glulx is needed. However, a "Z-Code version" would in that case be
inferior to the "real" version. If removing the graphics and sound and
extra objects does not make the game worse, they probably shouldn't be
there in the first place.

To use an unfair and extreme analogy, Valve did not make a 2D version
of Half-Life because of some people who do not have modern computers.
And yes, IF is great because it doesn't require much hardware... but
Glulx interpreters are available for all major modern platforms and do
not require much hardware. It is not out-of-line to assume players
will be willing to download glulxe.

Of course, all this is IMHO, and I'm sure there's someone out there
with a perfectly good reason why they are only playing IF on an Atari
800 and can't do it on the computer they use to download IF games.

Gregory Weir

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Gregory Weir wrote:
> *snip*
>
> To use an unfair and extreme analogy, Valve did not make a 2D version
> of Half-Life because of some people who do not have modern computers.
> And yes, IF is great because it doesn't require much hardware... but
> Glulx interpreters are available for all major modern platforms and do
> not require much hardware. It is not out-of-line to assume players
> will be willing to download glulxe.
>
> Of course, all this is IMHO, and I'm sure there's someone out there
> with a perfectly good reason why they are only playing IF on an Atari
> 800 and can't do it on the computer they use to download IF games.
>
> Gregory Weir

Ironically, I just finished reviewing a Glulx IntroComp entry, in which
I noted that I had to spend quite some time trying (and failing) to get
a Glulx interpreter to run on my Linux computer... I have a Windows
box handy, but there are certainly newer platforms than Atari 800s
(handhelds?) where Glulx will give people more trouble than standard Z-code.

--Aaron A. Reed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <cek0o8$9k9$1@news.xmission.com>,
Aaron A. Reed <aaron@aaronareed.net> wrote:
[..]
>Ironically, I just finished reviewing a Glulx IntroComp entry, in which
>I noted that I had to spend quite some time trying (and failing) to get
>a Glulx interpreter to run on my Linux computer... I have a Windows
>box handy, but there are certainly newer platforms than Atari 800s
>(handhelds?) where Glulx will give people more trouble than standard Z-code.

Hmm, the only way in which Glulx is more complicated for me on Linux
is that I have to download two files rather than one (ie, the glk
library of my choice as well as the glulx interpreter source). Other
than that it compiles out of the box. For that matter, if you don't
want to compile it yourself, I see the archive has Linux binaries
available.

>--Aaron A. Reed
--
Dan Shiovitz :: dbs@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Dan Shiovitz wrote:
> In article <cek0o8$9k9$1@news.xmission.com>,
> Aaron A. Reed <aaron@aaronareed.net> wrote:
> [..]
>
>>Ironically, I just finished reviewing a Glulx IntroComp entry, in which
>>I noted that I had to spend quite some time trying (and failing) to get
>>a Glulx interpreter to run on my Linux computer... I have a Windows
>>box handy, but there are certainly newer platforms than Atari 800s
>>(handhelds?) where Glulx will give people more trouble than standard Z-code.
>
>
> Hmm, the only way in which Glulx is more complicated for me on Linux
> is that I have to download two files rather than one (ie, the glk
> library of my choice as well as the glulx interpreter source). Other
> than that it compiles out of the box. For that matter, if you don't
> want to compile it yourself, I see the archive has Linux binaries
> available.
>

Well, it's my own fault for being a non-guru trying to run a guru-based
operating system, but on Mandrake 10 I can't get Glulxe to compile, and
the (3.5 year old) binary seems to need older versions of libraries than
the ones on my system.

The (slightly more on-topic) point is that anything making use of
graphics and sound is going to be less supported than something using
purely text-- so unless multimedia is absolutely essential to your
project, you might as well not include it and go for the simplest format
possible. (Hell, if interactivity isn't absolutely essential, just write
the thing in plain text and post it on your blog.)

--Aaron A. Reed

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Aaron A. Reed" <aaron@aaronareed.net> wrote in message news:<cemb1s$4bu$1@news.xmission.com>...
> The (slightly more on-topic) point is that anything making use of
> graphics and sound is going to be less supported than something using
> purely text-- so unless multimedia is absolutely essential to your
> project, you might as well not include it and go for the simplest format
> possible. (Hell, if interactivity isn't absolutely essential, just write
> the thing in plain text and post it on your blog.)
>
> --Aaron A. Reed

I see your point, but the sad fact is, Windows is the king* when it
comes to games. You want to game, you (more or less) need Windows, IF
being a rare exception. If/when I make a graphic game, IF or
otherwise, I'm not going to worry about whether Linux people can play
it, because, honestly, if they wanted to play graphic games to begin
with, they would have Windows. I would value the multimedia aspect of
my game more than the value of reaching a (relatively) few additional
Linux users with my game because gfx are just as much a part of a game
as anything else.

Actually, if I made a graphic game from scratch, I'd probably use one
of those gfx libraries that can compile on Windows and Linux and be
done with it. But Glk has problems on Linux, which is actually an
artifact of Linux itself, hence my previous point.

* Note I'm not saying Windows is inherently better at playing games;
just that more games are geared to be played on Windows platforms than
on Linux.

Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Aaron A. Reed" <aaron@aaronareed.net> wrote in message news:<cemb1s$4bu$1@news.xmission.com>...
> Dan Shiovitz wrote:
> > In article <cek0o8$9k9$1@news.xmission.com>,
> > Aaron A. Reed <aaron@aaronareed.net> wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> >>Ironically, I just finished reviewing a Glulx IntroComp entry, in which
> >>I noted that I had to spend quite some time trying (and failing) to get
> >>a Glulx interpreter to run on my Linux computer... I have a Windows
> >>box handy, but there are certainly newer platforms than Atari 800s
> >>(handhelds?) where Glulx will give people more trouble than standard Z-code.
> >
> >
> > Hmm, the only way in which Glulx is more complicated for me on Linux
> > is that I have to download two files rather than one (ie, the glk
> > library of my choice as well as the glulx interpreter source). Other
> > than that it compiles out of the box. For that matter, if you don't
> > want to compile it yourself, I see the archive has Linux binaries
> > available.
> >
>
> Well, it's my own fault for being a non-guru trying to run a guru-based
> operating system, but on Mandrake 10 I can't get Glulxe to compile, and
> the (3.5 year old) binary seems to need older versions of libraries than
> the ones on my system.


Not entirely your fault. Perhaps not at all.

Libpng versioning is a bit of a mess. libpng.so.3 introduced new
things that are, broadly, incompatible with libpng.so.2. This forces
programs to use either version 3 or version 2, depending on what
they're expecting, rather than the more useful method of making
version 3 a superset of the earlier version 2. In addition, these two
libraries won't always happily cohabit.

Now, your 3.5 year old binary wants libpng.so.2. But Mandrake Linux
dogmatically ships libpng.so.3, and not .2 because of cohabitation
problems. Moreover, the source to Glulxe expects version 2 functions,
not all of which are in version 3. So, not only will an old binary
not work on Mandrake, but oldish source code won't even compile
against a version 3 library.

To compound matters, it just seems hard to find the above documented
anywhere, though Mandrake discussion lists often touch on it. Some
Mandrake users report success by simply linking libpng.so.2 to
libpng.so.3. But not all.

I think some of your frustrations might be alleviated if you install
the appropriate libpng2 RPM from

http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/169581/com/libpng2-1.0.9-1mdk.i586.rpm.html

This will, I hope, be enough to let the older builds of glulxe run,
though it probably still won't let you compile the source for it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

you can try to d/l the debian packages of glulxex and convert them to
rpm. They work fine for me, without needing to compile the
interpreter.

> Ironically, I just finished reviewing a Glulx IntroComp entry, in which
> I noted that I had to spend quite some time trying (and failing) to get
> a Glulx interpreter to run on my Linux computer... I have a Windows
> box handy, but there are certainly newer platforms than Atari 800s
> (handhelds?) where Glulx will give people more trouble than standard Z-code.
>
> --Aaron A. Reed