Interactive Fiction with Gargoyle for the Iliad

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The original name for this category of games was called Adventure games. People changing the name won't help as it's really still Adventure games. Always has been, always will be. I find the term interactive-fiction to be crud. It's so much nicer to say Adventure game. And it means more too even if the games themselves have evolved (the genre is still the same). The IF such as Colossal Cave and Zork were originally Adventure games. Now why change the genre name and call them something that sounds silly when the name they had (and always will have for those of use who know better) was perfect for them?

When I first started playing them in the '80s I knew them as Interactive Fiction, I never knew them by any other term. It seems to me that it's a bit after the fact to take exception to a name change that essentially happened 20 years ago.

I'm guessing here that Infocom coined the term "Interactive Fiction" to give their products a bit of distinction from the originals. It does describe the mechanism of the games better, in my opinion.

[RWood]

I remember the term "Adventure" but that was from the 1970s and was considered old hat by then ("old hat" being another old term.) I remember some descriptions by Muse Software of their Apple ][ games as "interactive fiction" in the late 70s/early 80s.

[NatCh]

According to the great repository of all (mostly correct) knowledge: Wikipedia, Interactive Fiction started with a game called "Adventure" (abbreviated to "advent" due to filename limitations) circa 1975.

The much-knowing Wikipedia describes IF as "a type of adventure game with text-based input and output." Further explaining that, "The term is sometimes used to encompass the entirety of the medium, but is also sometimes used to distinguish games produced by the interactive fiction community from those created by games companies. It can also be used to distinguish the more modern style of such works, focusing on narrative and not necessarily falling into the adventure game genre at all, from the more traditional focus on puzzles."

So, from that, I'd have to conclude that IF is probably most accurately a sub-genre of the adventure game genre, much as sci-fi is a sub-genre of fiction. So I guess I'd have to consider calling it IF to be a more specific label, much like I call most of what I read "sci-fi" rather than just "fiction." But we're really pickin' nits now.

[JSWolf]

I used to own a TRS-80 Model I. When these games were popular and text only, the catalogs (including Infocom) never (to my recollection) used the term IF. They used the term Adventure. The other biggies for the TRS-80 was from a company called Scott Adams Adventures. Not till after the advent of the 16-bit computer did I see the term IF being used after the term Adventure had been used first.

[Alajjana]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I used to own a TRS-80 Model I. When these games were popular and text only, the catalogs (including Infocom) never (to my recollection) used the term IF. They used the term Adventure. The other biggies for the TRS-80 was from a company called Scott Adams Adventures. Not till after the advent of the 16-bit computer did I see the term IF being used after the term Adventure had been used first.

A way back long before i was born they made this thing called a 'computer' and while there still make 'computers' now they go by many other names, but they are still computers. Here is an example ... iLiad by iRex. While still a computer as it has a keyboard, monitor, linux operation system, USB ports, WiFi it has become something different so we call it something different.

Its called progress. Renaming things to better suit what they actually are. Very simple concept for most...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Alajjana

A way back long before i was born they made this thing called a 'computer' and while there still make 'computers' now they go by many other names, but they are still computers. Here is an example ... iLiad by iRex. While still a computer as it has a keyboard, monitor, linux operation system, USB ports, WiFi it has become something different so we call it something different.

Its called progress. Renaming things to better suit what they actually are. Very simple concept for most...

A computer is what the iRex iLiad is. IRex is the brand name and iLiad is the model number/name.

[HarryT]

Might I respectfully suggest to all concerned that we bring this rather pointless discussion to an end, and each call these, er, "things", whatever we prefer.

As Mr. Shakespeare so appropriately said:

That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet

[Adam B.]

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Adam B.

Me too!

[nekokami]

Yeah.

[JSWolf]

This thread has had it.

[Sunn Sunn]

Parts of gargoyle are GPL, so distributing the binary without the source is illegal (not to mention inconvient for the users). What's done is done, but this is something to remember for future releases.

Thanks for your pointers, I'll look more into porting stuff when I have more time; the first step will be setting up a cross-compilation toolchain and test a few simple recompiles (I want to recompile busybox with ed support, among other things).

Step two will be to re-do your gargoyle port so I can change the window type and look into fixing a few crasches (sometimes crashes when restoring games), and maybe someday I'll even dev some original app (thinking about using Vala for this).

[Adam B.]

I highly doubt that anyone will care about this very minor GPL infraction. I've added maybe 4 lines of code the the standard Gargoyle release, and will be happy to work on the port again if someone has an issue with it...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sunn Sunn

Parts of gargoyle are GPL, so distributing the binary without the source is illegal (not to mention inconvient for the users). What's done is done, but this is something to remember for future releases.

As I read it, the GPL requires you to provide the source. It does not require you to distribute the source with the binaries. It is sufficient that you will provide the source on request, and you make it clear to the user you will do so. Most users neither need nor want the source, and don't have the toolchain installed to build it in any case. Every website I can think of for an open source project provides the source as a separate download, and doesn't bundle it with the binaries.

The only tricky part is that the user should be able to use the source you provide to recreate the binary you distribute, so the source you provide needs to be the same source you used to build the binary. It's probably a good idea to create a tarball for released code, and keep it separate from development code you are hacking for that reason.
______
Dennis

[Sunn Sunn]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

As I read it, the GPL requires you to provide the source. It does not require you to distribute the source with the binaries. It is sufficient that you will provide the source on request, and you make it clear to the user you will do so.

Right, now I remember (gosh, I used to really know this stuff a couple of years ago); however, that was not the case this time since the (albeit very small) edits have been discarded.

Originally Posted by Adam B.

I highly doubt that anyone will care about this very minor GPL infraction. I've added maybe 4 lines of code the the standard Gargoyle release, and will be happy to work on the port again if someone has an issue with it...

Sure, it's no big deal and no hard feelings intended, I just pointed it out as an aside to help prevent bigger infractions from you or others in the future. Thanks again for all your help.