Spring Thing games?

[Guest]

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

Has anyone played any of the games in the Spring Thing yet? If I read
the rules correctly, we are allowed to comment on them during the
judging period, but I haven't seen any posts on competition games.

I just downloaded the games a few days ago and am playing "Bolivia By
Night." It captures the setting well but feels a little constricted in
its interactivity. The amount of work that's gone into it is
impressive. I'm looking forward to playing the other games as well.

 

[Guest]

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

I'm working through them. From the rules, I think the topic title
ought to be a little more "herein lie spoilers," but whatever.

I hope more people are playing them - seems like a pretty impressive
prize list for only six games! The quality is pretty good, and I
certainly haven't gone 'this is garbage' the way I do when playing some
IFComp games.

(Bolivia By Night is easily the best of the four out of six I've played
so far, by the way.)

 

[Guest]

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

I'm playing them one by one. So far, I've gone through "Whom The
Telling Changed," and am working on "Threnody".

"Threnody" reminds me of "The Erudition Chamber," since you're
more-or-less allowed different possible solutions. However, it differs
from the latter because you're required to choose who you'll be at the
start, whereas in "Erudition," you only know what your character is at
the end (sort of) after tallying all the scores, so to speak. The
presentation looks very good, though, but I can't comment on the
puzzles yet... Still working through them.

I might just try "Bolivia By Night" next. =) Good luck!

--Arnel

 

[Guest]

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

Davis wrote:
> Has anyone played any of the games in the Spring Thing yet?

Played them all; wrote reviews for all of them; turned in my votes.

I haven't decided whether or not I'll wind up publishing my reviews,
though. It occurred to me that there might be a conflict of interest
between being a prize donor and a reviewer. (For this particular
prize, that is -- I'm donating six original sonnets.)

One thing that can definitely be said... there are no throwaway "I
wrote this in five minutes and it sux" entries. Not all of the entries
are equally polished or enjoyable, but they all obviously took a great
deal of effort, time, and care on the parts of their authors. I salute
the work involved.

 

[Guest]

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

"Davis" <bolobracegirdle@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1113798318.309204.140680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> Has anyone played any of the games in the Spring Thing yet? If I read
> the rules correctly, we are allowed to comment on them during the
> judging period, but I haven't seen any posts on competition games.
>
> I just downloaded the games a few days ago and am playing "Bolivia By
> Night." It captures the setting well but feels a little constricted in
> its interactivity. The amount of work that's gone into it is
> impressive. I'm looking forward to playing the other games as well.

I've played all five so far (my own was the sixth) and my feelings are
that the entries are pretty much hit and miss.

One game I really liked even though the over the top intro almost made
me quit. The whole thing didn't really make much sense but I liked it
all the same.

One I thought started off well but then went rapidly downhill the
moment you were born (kind of like real life...)

One I liked initially but lost interest in when it started introducing
some seriously strange elements - dark and mysterious powers, talking
t-shirts, etc. And don't even get me started on the camera.

One I was halfway through before I even realised I was supposed to be
doing more than tapping Z and waiting for the story to end. I can't
have been paying very close attention as I didn't realise the story
*was* the game - I'd figured it was just a prelude to the actual game
starting.

One game... just made me shake my head in despair.


I've written reviews for all the games and will post them here and on
my site as soon as the Comp is over.

 

[Guest]

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

The following post contains discussion of the games of The Spring Thing
2005 which is ongoing at the time of writing. While note massively
spoilery it does contain opinions on some of the games and should
probaly be avoided by those who have not yet (but may) played the games
and wish to keep their minds pure in that regard.

Arnel wrote:
> "Threnody" reminds me of "The Erudition Chamber," since you're
> more-or-less allowed different possible solutions. However, it
differs
> from the latter because you're required to choose who you'll be at
the
> start, whereas in "Erudition," you only know what your character is
at
> the end (sort of) after tallying all the scores, so to speak. The
> presentation looks very good, though, but I can't comment on the
> puzzles yet... Still working through them.

It's rather more like Heroes, especially since you have esentially
similar stock fantasy choices, but I hadn't thought of the connection
to Erudition. I liked Threnody much more than Erudition (the former is
my favorite of the Spring Thing whereas I rated the latter
significantly below most comp judges) both because the the engaging
writing and story as well as the rather easy and concrete puzzles (I
found Erudition's simply too abstract to visualize). It does have a
few rough edges though. I hope to have time to send the author a
detailed review/bug report.

> I might just try "Bolivia By Night" next. =) Good luck!

It's another excellent entry. (of course, I was a beta-tester so I
can't vote on it.) Well-written and well-designed overall, it
sometimes has difficulty finding the right note as it juggles its
various genres. It's not terribly groundbreaking (I don't actually
have preference for games that are groundbreaking but some people do)
but supernatural mystery travelogues with light political commentary as
commic relief are hardly an overtapped field.

I am also interested in people's comments about "Whom the Telling
Changed" which I felt was probably the most ambitious game of the
Thing. I really liked both the story and the concept of participatory
story-telling but felt the actual implementation was weak at several
points. It seemed to be an attempt to copy the (You can accept the job
offer or decline politely) syntax availible more robustly in TADS3 and
I often found the responces to commands less than obvious. I had
trouble saying what I intended and made more use of undo than I would
have liked.

One other thought, I just realized that all three games I discuss above
give the player the chance to choose the PC's gender, name and other
details. Is this a new trend in IF, moving away from the
individualized, named protagonist to giving the player more control?
What does it say about the IF community that stories about reporters,
adventurers, and ancient Near-Eastern warriors are felt to be gender
neutral?

Cirk R. Bejnar

 

[Guest]

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

<carolynmagruder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113849904.319118.190370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Davis wrote:

> Played them all; wrote reviews for all of them; turned in my votes.

I keep procrastinating, but plan to play them before voting ends. I actually
planned to enter, but just didn't have time to work on my entry. So, my
question is this: The contest was for medium to long-sized games. About how
long can I expect to spend playing each one, as an average player? Will any
of them take more than one evening to finish? That's part of the reason I've
waited, looking to find good blocks of time. Thanks.

---- Mike.

 

[Guest]

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

Cirk R. Bejnar wrote:
> The following post contains discussion of the games of The Spring
Thing
> 2005 which is ongoing at the time of writing. While note massively
> spoilery it does contain opinions on some of the games and should
> probaly be avoided by those who have not yet (but may) played the
games
> and wish to keep their minds pure in that regard.
[snipped my part]

A big OOPS if my post contained "massive spoilers" as you said. Sorry,
but I really didn't see that coming. I didn't intend for it to sound
like that, but, again, sorry to those who read & have not yet played.

Slight

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

below...


> It's rather more like Heroes, especially since you have esentially
> similar stock fantasy choices, but I hadn't thought of the connection
> to Erudition. I liked Threnody much more than Erudition (the former
is
> my favorite of the Spring Thing whereas I rated the latter
> significantly below most comp judges) both because the the engaging
> writing and story as well as the rather easy and concrete puzzles (I
> found Erudition's simply too abstract to visualize). It does have a
> few rough edges though. I hope to have time to send the author a
> detailed review/bug report.

The reason I more-or-less connected it to Erudition is the part that
"this set of puzzle solutions characterize you as a (either warrior,
mage, or thief)". In Erudition, though, you're given leeway, so to
speak, as to what path you will take. Here in Threnody, you already
pick what you will be at the onset.

> I am also interested in people's comments about "Whom the Telling
> Changed" which I felt was probably the most ambitious game of the
> Thing. I really liked both the story and the concept of
participatory
> story-telling but felt the actual implementation was weak at several
> points.

It does seem ground-breaking, doesn't it? It does help in the
replayability of the game. Probably the only gripe I have is when
you've missed the proper timing of the words/topics you're asking
about. You're right; you will need to use UNDO more than you'd like to.

> It seemed to be an attempt to copy the (You can accept the job
> offer or decline politely) syntax availible more robustly in TADS3...

Still learning TADS 3 but can you elaborate further here?

> One other thought, I just realized that all three games I discuss
above
> give the player the chance to choose the PC's gender, name and other
> details. Is this a new trend in IF, moving away from the
> individualized, named protagonist to giving the player more control?
> What does it say about the IF community that stories about reporters,
> adventurers, and ancient Near-Eastern warriors are felt to be gender
> neutral?

Good point.

I've added the Spoiler Space now; hope it's not too late

--Arnel

 

[Guest]

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

David Whyld wrote:
> I've played all five so far (my own was the sixth) and my feelings
are
> that the entries are pretty much hit and miss.

David, please don't discuss the games publicly until the voting is
over. Although players are allowed to do this, authors aren't.

Greg

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1113849904.319118.190370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
carolynmagruder@yahoo.com wrote:

> Played them all; wrote reviews for all of them; turned in my votes.
> I haven't decided whether or not I'll wind up publishing my reviews,
> though.

First, I'm one of the game authors; I wrote Flat Feet. I won't be
discussing it or the other games in this post.

That said, I've been anxiously watching r.g.if for any discussion of the
games. While I wrote my game for my own enjoyment, I'd like to hear how
other people feel about it.

The point I'm getting at is that I'd appreciate it if you would forward
your review of my game to me privately. I can't speak for the other
authors, but if they feel anything like I do, I'm sure that they would
like to see the reviews for their games as well. Seeing as how you've
taken the kindness to write them, then it would be nice if we could put
them to good use.

Cheers,
Piquan

 

[Guest]

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

> I haven't decided whether or not I'll wind up publishing my reviews,
> though. It occurred to me that there might be a conflict of
> interest between being a prize donor and a reviewer. (For this
> particular prize, that is -- I'm donating six original sonnets.)

I don't see the conflict of interest, Carolyn. Being a prize donor
demonstrates your support for the Spring Thing in general, but not for
any particular author, right? Especially if you've already voted, and
written the reviews prior to the awarding of prizes.

Or am I being obtuse?

I'm in the same boat as Joel, incidentally: I'm also a Spring Thing
author who's eagerly awaiting feedback, positive or negative.

Whether you choose to publish the reviews or not, I'd love to read them!

 

[Guest]

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

"Greg Boettcher" <WRITETOgregAT@gregboettcher.com> wrote in message news:<1113879771.756830.101390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> David Whyld wrote:
> > I've played all five so far (my own was the sixth) and my feelings
> are
> > that the entries are pretty much hit and miss.
>
> David, please don't discuss the games publicly until the voting is
> over. Although players are allowed to do this, authors aren't.
>
> Greg

Oops. Sorry. Missed that bit in the rules.

 

[Guest]

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

Arnel wrote:
>A big OOPS if my post contained "massive spoilers" as you said. Sorry,

>but I really didn't see that coming. I didn't intend for it to sound
>like that, but, again, sorry to those who read & have not yet played.

Read _not_ massively spoilery but I was refering to my comments rather
than yours anyway. You were pretty general but I wanted to discuss
specific points even if not spoil specific puzzles.

Arnel wrote:
>Still learning TADS 3 but can you elaborate further here?

I'm no expert but the effect that I'm talking about can be readily seen
in Return to Ditch Day and I think is included as standard with the
TADS3 library. Michael Roberts discusses the theory behind it here
(http://www.tads.org/howto/convbkg.htm)

Cirk R. Bejnar

 

[Guest]

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

Hey, please people: no more discussing my game at such length.
Seriously. If I have to read another hundred posts about my entry, I
think I'll scream...







If I'd written it in Tads, do you think it might have got a mention by
now?

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1113855713.282264.155240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Cirk R. Bejnar <eluchil404@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The following post contains discussion of the games of The Spring Thing
>2005 which is ongoing at the time of writing. While note massively
>spoilery it does contain opinions on some of the games and should
>probaly be avoided by those who have not yet (but may) played the games
>and wish to keep their minds pure in that regard.

I'm going to wait til after voting's over to discuss the games more
extensively, but a few responses:

[..]
>> I might just try "Bolivia By Night" next. =) Good luck!
>
>It's another excellent entry. (of course, I was a beta-tester so I
>can't vote on it.) Well-written and well-designed overall, it
>sometimes has difficulty finding the right note as it juggles its
>various genres. It's not terribly groundbreaking (I don't actually
>have preference for games that are groundbreaking but some people do)
>but supernatural mystery travelogues with light political commentary as
>commic relief are hardly an overtapped field.

Yeah, my feeling is this game would have been better off cutting out
most of the first two chapters and diving straight into the later bit,
which (I thought) fit pretty solidly (and delightfully) into
wacked-out 80s made-for-tv movie territory. I agree it's not
stylistically groundbreaking, but it's very funny, and although the
gameplay could definitely be made tighter it's a very good game. It
also does a good job of trying to make an educational/propagandistic
game that doesn't feel tedious to play.

>I am also interested in people's comments about "Whom the Telling
>Changed" which I felt was probably the most ambitious game of the
>Thing. I really liked both the story and the concept of participatory
>story-telling but felt the actual implementation was weak at several
>points. It seemed to be an attempt to copy the (You can accept the job
>offer or decline politely) syntax availible more robustly in TADS3 and
>I often found the responces to commands less than obvious. I had
>trouble saying what I intended and made more use of undo than I would
>have liked.

This was my favorite game of the comp. I agree with most of what you
say about the conversation system, but what it reminded me of most was
Space Under the Window. I don't think I used undo at all during the
game; I think the distinction is that I wasn't really trying for any
particular ending, I was more just exploring to see what happens, so
if a command gave an unexpected response it wasn't that big a deal.
The other thing that really appealed to me about this game was that it
was all about one question, which the PC discusses and explores the
implications of and finally gets to answer at the end of the
game. There are a lot of games out there where the PC makes a moral
choice at the end of the game, but almost all of them have virtually
no opportunity to think about that choice during the main part of the
game, so the question ends up feeling tacked on. Worse yet, most of
them have a single right answer to the question; this game at least
makes some steps away from that.

>One other thought, I just realized that all three games I discuss above
>give the player the chance to choose the PC's gender, name and other
>details. Is this a new trend in IF, moving away from the
>individualized, named protagonist to giving the player more control?
>What does it say about the IF community that stories about reporters,
>adventurers, and ancient Near-Eastern warriors are felt to be gender
>neutral?

I think it's one we've seen a bit in the past but it hasn't really
caught on. I don't really see the appeal myself: it's not like the PC
is "me", and customization doesn't change that. As somebody-or-other
pointed out previously, being able to customize the PC is basically
the next step in the progression of the nameless, genderless, etc
character. Even though the PC technically has a name, it can't have
any effect on the gameworld (unless it's Eyesnack) because the player
might set it to anything; similarly, the usual effect of being able to
customize gender is that the author writes a story where the PC's
gender makes no difference.

>Cirk R. Bejnar
--
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?)

dbs@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Shiovitz) wrote:

> In article <1113855713.282264.155240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Cirk R. Bejnar <eluchil404@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The following post contains discussion of the games of The Spring Thing
> >2005 which is ongoing at the time of writing. While note massively
> >spoilery it does contain opinions on some of the games and should
> >probaly be avoided by those who have not yet (but may) played the games
> >and wish to keep their minds pure in that regard.
>
> I'm going to wait til after voting's over to discuss the games more
> extensively, but a few responses:
>
> >> I might just try "Bolivia By Night" next. =) Good luck!
> >
> >It's another excellent entry. (of course, I was a beta-tester so I
> >can't vote on it.) Well-written and well-designed overall, it
> >sometimes has difficulty finding the right note as it juggles its
> >various genres. It's not terribly groundbreaking (I don't actually
> >have preference for games that are groundbreaking but some people do)
> >but supernatural mystery travelogues with light political commentary as
> >commic relief are hardly an overtapped field.
>
> Yeah, my feeling is this game would have been better off cutting out
> most of the first two chapters and diving straight into the later bit,
> which (I thought) fit pretty solidly (and delightfully) into
> wacked-out 80s made-for-tv movie territory.

Yes, I agree with this. I was expecting a wholly different game from the
introduction. Another game which suffers from this is Flat Feet; it
starts out merely whacky, a fable if you will; and it ends the same way;
but suddenly, in the middle, there's this odd, badly fitting magical
flying scene.

> I agree it's not
> stylistically groundbreaking, but it's very funny, and although the
> gameplay could definitely be made tighter it's a very good game. It
> also does a good job of trying to make an educational/propagandistic
> game that doesn't feel tedious to play.

Hmmm... yesno. I didn't find the propaganda all that convincing. Part of
this was that it came up so suddenly; but another part is that it seemed
to be an amalgamation of several propagandistic subjects, communist and
mystic back-to-roots contending for first place, which didn't help to
make me enthusiastic for "the cause".

> >I am also interested in people's comments about "Whom the Telling
> >Changed" which I felt was probably the most ambitious game of the
> >Thing. I really liked both the story and the concept of participatory
> >story-telling but felt the actual implementation was weak at several
> >points. It seemed to be an attempt to copy the (You can accept the job
> >offer or decline politely) syntax availible more robustly in TADS3 and
> >I often found the responces to commands less than obvious. I had
> >trouble saying what I intended and made more use of undo than I would
> >have liked.
>
> This was my favorite game of the comp. I agree with most of what you
> say about the conversation system, but what it reminded me of most was
> Space Under the Window. I don't think I used undo at all during the
> game; I think the distinction is that I wasn't really trying for any
> particular ending, I was more just exploring to see what happens, so
> if a command gave an unexpected response it wasn't that big a deal.

Ditto.

> The other thing that really appealed to me about this game was that it
> was all about one question, which the PC discusses and explores the
> implications of and finally gets to answer at the end of the
> game.

Also, you can (attempt to) take a middle stance on the question.
Precisely because the whole middle game deals with it, you can emphasise
different facets of it at different moments; the issue isn't treated as
an absolute binary, as some games (and too many real-world politicians
:-( ) do.
Unfortunately, it was marred for me because of a bug which meant that it
appeared to get stuck in the end game, probably because I dithered too
long.

My favourite was Threnody, but then, I do still like puzzle games.

Richard

 

[pj]

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

David Whyld wrote:
> Hey, please people: no more discussing my game at such length.
> Seriously. If I have to read another hundred posts about my entry, I
> think I'll scream...

Flirting with disqualification, eh? Then we can all enjoy another
round of conspiracy theories on why ADRIFT games don't win the
community-wide comps...

> If I'd written it in Tads, do you think it might have got a mention
by
> now?

No, you'd have to have written it in Inform, the language of the
"serious" game developer...


But seriously, folks. David does have a point here. Not concerning
TADS vs. ADRIFT, but as to the quality of his game. I'm surprised it
hasn't gotten more discussion, myself.

For me, the only two games worth considering for the top prize in this
year's Spring Thing are Whyld's Second Chance and Aaron Reed's Whom the
Telling Changed. Both are story-driven games with interesting
approaches to gameplay.

Comparatively, I wouldn't rate either game as high as the winners of
last fall's IF Comp, but if they had been in that Comp, I would have
rated both in the Top 10, maybe even the Top 5.

I will write longer reviews later, after playing them a few more times,
but I think Second Chance is marginally the stronger of the two. It
has a greater range of characterization and requires more thinking to
resolve to the "desirable" ending. My only complaint with the game is
that the facile tone of the writing and the quick resolution of the
"changes" were often inconsistent with the apparent seriousness of the
incidents being written about. Once you found the "right" approach,
BAM! everything changed and all was hunky-dory. Maybe a little too
pat.

On the other hand, Whom the Telling Changed is almost too ponderous in
building its case for "change." While the story is very interesting,
the "correct" moral choices are completely obvious from the start. The
challenge was to understand the interesting approach to commands in
order to bring that choice to the fore. I need to play it a few more
times to see how much I like the "incorrect" ending(s). (And, of
course, it is an Inform game, so it will get the double secret bonus
points for white words on a blue screen.)

The other games were too flawed, in my opinion, for serious
consideration. BBN was so bad and amateurish in the opening scene that
I just couldn't enjoy the rest of the game. Threnody was a decent
puzzlefest but nothing new, once you figured out what was going on in
the intro. Flat Feet was amusing but too much like trying to read a
SpongeBob episode instead of watching it. Didn't work for me. And
whatever Authority was trying to do, it failed. I could never get to
the end of it, for some reason, even after loading the right version of
the game and playing the walkthrough. The game simply was not
interesting, though that may have been the point, I suppose.

Consequently, I will probably break with precedent and vote an ADRIFT
game number 1 in this comp. And, if he wins, I'm sure David will
forgive me for holding my nose at the non-programming impurity of it
all

PJ

 

[Guest]

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

"PJ" <pete_jasper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1114081329.511619.207620@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Consequently, I will probably break with precedent and vote an ADRIFT
> game number 1 in this comp. And, if he wins, I'm sure David will
> forgive me for holding my nose at the non-programming impurity of it
> all
>
> PJ

Egads! One of the RAIF/RGIF saying a positive things about an Adrift
game? I'm feeling faint...


Seriously, thanks. I'll look forward to your review.

 

[Guest]

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

PJ wrote:
> While the story is very interesting,
> the "correct" moral choices are completely obvious from the start.
The
> challenge was to understand the interesting approach to commands in
> order to bring that choice to the fore. I need to play it a few more
> times to see how much I like the "incorrect" ending(s).

This I find unusual... one of the things I liked about Whom the Telling
Changed was that you could play it either for or against war and the
game seemed to make no moral judgements on you in either case. The
"other side" is painted as unrealistic pacifists if you're pro war, and
bloodthirsty warmongers if you're pro-peace. You can even change the
PCs enemy's mind (I didn't figure this out till the third or 4th time I
played.) It's a very deep game but I have the feelnig most people are
just playing it once and not seeing the complexity.......

 

[pj]

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

Davis wrote:
> PJ wrote:
> > While the story is very interesting,
> > the "correct" moral choices are completely obvious from the start.
> The
> > challenge was to understand the interesting approach to commands in
> > order to bring that choice to the fore. I need to play it a few
more
> > times to see how much I like the "incorrect" ending(s).
>
> This I find unusual... one of the things I liked about Whom the
Telling
> Changed was that you could play it either for or against war and the
> game seemed to make no moral judgements on you in either case. The
> "other side" is painted as unrealistic pacifists if you're pro war,
and
> bloodthirsty warmongers if you're pro-peace. You can even change the
> PCs enemy's mind (I didn't figure this out till the third or 4th time
I
> played.) It's a very deep game but I have the feelnig most people are
> just playing it once and not seeing the complexity.......

The command structure for WTTC was certainly complex, but I only
managed to bring about two significantly different endings in about 6
times through the game: war with a long, dark time between tellings,
and peace, with a new storyteller. To me, the key decision points to
go down one path or the other seemed pretty straightforward, depending
on how you were projecting the endgame to occur. Overall, I think the
game had a nice degree of complexity, but when the decision for peace
always ends up with a fairly nice outcome, and the decision for or
towards war ends up with a negative outcome, then I think that is
anything but a neutral stance on which the "correct" choice is.

It would have been interesting to see endings where the tribe
cooperates with the strangers, but does then end up getting murdered in
their beds. Or goes to war, wipes out the invaders, then goes on to
build an empire. I realize that building the game to lead to an even
richer array of outcomes would be difficult, but this could have been
randomized as a set of alternative text dumps for the finale/afterword.

At any rate, the game is well worth playing and I, for one, appreciate
it a little more each time I play it. I suspect the problem with the
"replaying" has more to do with the fact that sitting through the
Gilgamesh story multiple times is a lot more boring than the normal
rapid replay you do when you go through a game that is more hands on in
its action sequence and thereby less verbose. Unfortunately, sitting
through the story and playing with the keywords is the only way to
massage the game toward the alternative endings and a sense of how they
connect, so some people might be turned off by the seemingly passive
nature of it. It's actually not passive, as you are trying to "guide"
the telling by selecting the right keywords to ask about, but it's
certainly different from "take rock," "hit troll with rock," "take
gold," and move on the next task, or whatever.

It's also certainly an interesting contrast to David W.'s game, where
you know immediately what you are trying to do, but you are unclear as
to which "solution" actually changes the outcome for your life. I'm
not sure how many correct solutions for David's game exist, but you
don't get there without a lot of work and many false starts. It
reminds me in some ways of the movie "Groundhog Day." The disadvantage
of David's game is that the connections necessary for success are, at
least for one sequence, fairly tenuous. But the contrast is
intriguing: in one game, you are trying to do what's right for the
good of the tribe overall; in the other, you are trying to save your
own life by figuring out what's wrong in the lives of the people around
you and helping them steer clear of various dangers. One takes sort of
a holistic view of salvation, the other a very particular and
individuated view. Nice, for two games in one smallish sized comp, to
take such different approaches to answering the same type of large
question.

I would like to see a decision tree or something similar for WTTC, to
understand where all the key choices lie. Or the code, as I imagine
the code is fairly interesting.

PJ