Re: It's that FAQing Jools again!


Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:12:59 +0100

Allison Weaver (aweaver@nova.umuc.edu) wrote:

> On 10 Sep 1995, Robert A. Pelak wrote:
>
> > Which brings me to a potentially controversial point: should the FAQ
> > list recommend some systems over others. I beleive that it should. I
> > think it would be a disservice if readers of the FAQ if they came away
> > with the impression that writing a game in figment would reach as large
> > an audience as a game in TADS. How to choose which systems to
> > recommend is difficult. I think my choices are apparent. Anyone else?
>
> We have a TADS/Inform comparison paper. Could the IF FAQ simply list the
> various systems with some pertinent info (available on which computers
> systems in general, current support by system author(s), etc) and then
> refer to a system FAQ like the TADS/Inform comparison that expounds on each
> system? Would current authors and porters be willing to contribute to
> a second FAQ of this type? Would users of systems no longer supported be
> willing to describe those systems?

Thanks for the comments so far. Keep 'em coming.

My own opinion is that the rai-f FAQ should not make comparisons between
systems. I think it ought to be as unbiased as possible, just telling the
readers what is available. That being said, certain systems are undeniably
more powerful or more popular (TADS, Inform) or easier for non-programmers
(AGT, ALAN, Archetype) than the pack, which is why I have made the
minor/major distinction at all. The support for users (both herre and from
the authors) and frequency of new releases is an issue too. Yes, maybe I
should put in a pargraph saying that some systems have advantages which
aren't immediately obvious from their listed features (ie, popularity). The
number of ports to different platforms is a good indication of popularity.

As Allison says, there is a TADS vs Inform FAQ (which the rai-f FAQ
mentions), and the good news is, that nice guy Bob Newell has said he will
update and expand it to include other systems. I quote:

> Well, I'll take it on, but fair warning: it will be the end of the
> year before it is done! I had planned on a 3-tier system similar to
> the way our expensive consultants rate computer companies:
> world-class frontrunners (Tads, Inform), good/good enough (Hugo, AGT,
> Alan) and also-rans (LADS, Gamescape, many more). Not sure about
> Archetype, seems like a dead-end.....
>
> I would keep the detailed review of Tads and Inform and do in-depth
> reviews and comparisons of the 2nd tier. I would merely comment on
> 3rd tier members as to why they are "also-rans" and would not
> particularly worry about whether I've included them all....

And just so you don't think I'm being terribly rude to Bob here:

> If you wish to post sections of this mail to rec.arts.int-fiction for
> comment gathering please feel free.

There is also Nathan Torkington's authoring systems FAQ (referenced in the
rai-f FAQ too). It's a bit out of date just now, but hopefully I'll be able
to ask him about updates next month, when he's back from his holiday.

-- 
Jools Arnold                                          jools@arnod.demon.co.uk