Text Adventure

[durnurd]

No, I'm not trying to make a Text Adventure in SGDK  .  I wrote a Text Adventure Engine, which can currently be found (also in it's pre-alpha stage) here:

http://ta-engine.sf.net

I'd advise you to stay well away from the downloads section for now unless you have intermediate to advanced knowledge of Java.  It's kind of sloppy to get it to work right now if you don't have it already all set up (like I do on my computer).  But you can feel free to read the information about the engine itself and suggest ideas.  I don't have a forum up yet, but you can email me if you like.

[bat]

text adventure.... like GENESIS???  that would be cool!


genesis:
enter this in a telnet or mud client to play:

 http://genesis.tekno.chalmers.se

 port: 3011 

[durnurd]

Ehhh, not really a MUD.  Single-player only.  And more than a game, it's a framework to write games like the original Zork or Voodoo Island.  Also, this example you gave seems to be along the lines of an RPG in the sense that there is combat and strategy of that type involved.  Text adventures are very heavily based on adventure and puzzle solving strategies, like King's Quest, Space Quest, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango... I could go on.  The idea is that combat is negligible, sometimes non-existant, and the idea is purely seeing how you can do things.  A lot of "Light torch" or "Open door" kind of thing.

Not to say that combat would be impossible with the Text Adventure Engine, just highly unusual and not easy either.

[bat]

but it would still be the same kind of game play, right?

[bluemonkmn]

Maybe in the sense that Tetris has the same kind of gameplay as Mario -- they're both games with 2-D graphics.

But a MUD is a very different kind of game from a text adventure and the similarities end at about "they're both restricted to using only text to display words in a human language".

[Uhfgood]

Oh comon, they're not that far apart.  A M.U.D. is essentially a multiplayer text rpg.  Text adventures are sort of "dumbed down" MUD's that is, not only single player, but usually there are no skill levels or points.  An adventure is more pure as in it's an interactive narrative, where each puzzle should add to the main overall story.  I should say adventures are dumbed down rpg's.  You play a role in an adventure but usually it's of a single purpose, and it's to reveal more of the narrative.  Whereas rpg's may have many stories, and side quests who's only goal is to increase your skill set.  The current term for text adventures, however, is interactive fiction.

I'm developing a graphic adventure, in the vein of King's Quest or Monkey Island.

(btw graphic adventures rely on graphics but are still adventure because they're interactive stories).

Keith

[bluemonkmn]

OK, so I'm exaggerating a little.  But even though there appear very similar on the surface, I would still say that the fundamental motivation for the two types of game is quite different.  It's almost surprising that genres with such different motivations can be so similar.

Here's how I see it.  When I play a MUD it's because I want to build up a character, interact with lots of other players, and rain (reign?) holy terror on enemies.  And while a MUD has elements of a text adventure such as collecting and using items, they are primarily oriented around gaining power and developing the character.

When I play interactive fiction, I want to exprience a rich story, solve puzzles, and enjoy the intricacies and complexity of the environment (which I suspect generally extend far beyond what you'd find in a MUD, though I haven't played in many MUDs).

So if it says anything about the degree of similarity, if I am in the mood for a text adventure but all I have are a MUD and a graphical adventure, I'd be more likely to choose a graphical adventure over a MUD I think.

Now I must confess I have played far more interactive fiction than MUDs (I think I've only played 1 MUD), but given what I know, that's my current impression.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, BTW.  Certainly a MUD had a lot more technologies behind it with the networking and the real-time clock always progressing.  But whereas a MUD excels in technical feats and a finely balanced difficulty and statistics system, I think interactive fiction excels in artistry (obviously I'm not talking about visual arts or music here .  Seems like a left-brain / right-brain thing to me.

[durnurd]

Yes, I believe a Text Adventure requires a much better story, plot, and puzzles to solve than do most or all other games, since there's nothing else to hide that element.  First Person Shooters have amazing graphics and special effects, and some times fear involved to keep you interested, while it may have no story whatsoever.  An RPG revolves around character development, usually with a party, and a lot of "leveling up" or improvement of your character throughout the game so that you can finally defeat whatever "boss" there is in some final battle.  I'm not denying that RPG's don't have good stories / plots, but they have other things to keep you interested, like leveling up and seeing all the things you can do that you couldn't before now that you gained a level.

A text adventure on the other hand, doesn't have any of that.  So to keep you involved, it has to be a really engaging story, and the interest lies in finding out what you can do now that the door that was locked the entire game has now been opened.  There's no fighting to keep you interested or to keep you from leaving.  There's no internal clock that keeps things running at all times so an Imp could pop out at any second and start scratching you.  You could concievably leave whenever you wanted to.  So there always has to be some major and really enjoyable quest that you're on so that you don't just leave whenever you want to.  You want to see what happens after you put the talisman back in place.  And you feel intelligent for figuring out the puzzle, not just lucky that you skirted death by a few hitpoints because a random number generator rolled in your favor.

Perhaps the reason I don't like MMORPGs is because there's no driving story to keep you compelled to find out what happens next.  You can define your own story, which some people like, I guess, but I like a tailor-made plot-driven story, which is usually much more interesting than a generic world that has to be much more general to encompass anything you want to do, sacrificing story, plot twists, and specific "you-character" development throughout the main story of the game.