intfiction.org

Not quite, but I get what you're driving at. I agree with the former part of your definition (players gets to choose "simple choice points") but not the latter ("in which they know that xxx will happen"). It does not follow that, simply because a player makes a choice, he knows the next plot twist. Indeed, the best crafted CYOA avoid just that. In any case, none of this applies to my game, because with my game you get exactly ZERO choice points. And choosing from ZERO options, is hardly a choice at all, now is it? No choosing, hence, not a CYOA.



Also agreed.



False dichotomy. There are plenty of other game genres besides "CYOA" and "IF". Take, oh I dunno, a simple riddle-solving game, for example.



I'll offer a "thanks" for the effort.

To me, zero options means literally zero options. If there are types of media that offer even fewer options than a riddle-game (and there are: like books, movies, etc), then it's hard for me to see a riddle-game as zero options, because zero is the lowest whole number. How can you have fewer options than zero? You can't, so there must be options in a riddle game, but they are just the simplest options possible -- so simple that they bear the closest possible resemblance to being zero options without actually being zero options. That's what makes it a borderline case.

Regarding the false dichotomy comment -- yes I agree; logic shouldn't force you to choose one category or another when they are not mutually exclusive. Depending on your viewpoint you can belong to both, one, or neither. This is my whole point.

Paul.

Because I think you're being rude to people who are trying to be helpful to you and who haven't done anything to deserve your rudeness.



*facepalm* I was saying, quite clearly, that your definition of CYOA is that a CYOA is a game in which the player can affect the plot/outcome. Your game is not a CYOA because it doesn't fit your definition of a CYOA.

Look, it's your privilege to react the way you want to when people offer a definition of CYOA that's different than yours, but if you're going to get hyper-argumentative about it you may find people less willing to engage with you. Which also means that they'll be less willing to help you with your code.

Of course I do not always engage in the most constructive internet interaction strategies myself, and I'm no I7 pro, so there's no reason for me to get up on a high horse. Best to live and let live, I suppose.

Well said.

_________________
"The thing I like about deadlines is the wonderful whooshing noise they make as they go past."
- Douglas Adams

This is clearly where we're talking past each other -- I thought we were talking about writing code the whole time:



Your initial post was asking for code advice, Ron's post was a suggestion for extension you could use to write code, and I agreed that the extension in question might be more useful to you, in writing code, than you might have thought. Sometimes it helps to reframe a problem in terms of a known solution (for example, using a conversational system as an attack system, even though conversation and attacking are two different things, because structurally they may show similarities in the context of IF).

Anyway, of course I don't care what you call your work. When you get right down to it, I don't care how you program your work either, any more than any of the other helpful people on this thread who've given more concrete answers than I have.


Assuming you're talking about me and not some dude, well, if my words really came across as that insistent or insulting (my "I just thought that it sounds structurally similar" vs your "It seems that you, too, have misunderstood the objective of my game. In no way, whatever, is it accurate[...]does not help your original argument one iota[...]I know perfectly well that you are mistaken."), then I apologize. I have no interest in making you sad or angry -- I'm sure there would be easier ways to troll this group if I wanted to do so. We'll clearly have to agree to disagree on the question of what constitutes branching or narrative choices, but that's fine by me, and shouldn't affect the happiness of either of us.


Yep, you've got it right, though the more I look into it, the more the explicit choice listing is clearly part of most people's expectations as well -- consider my opinion updated. Since I'm being a horrible meanie that is trying to force poor unsuspecting games into labels they don't feel comfortable with, though, I'll point out that the initial spec, along with all this one move to make business does not make it sound like the game supports examining objects, but instead gives the pertinent information all in one dump. But the spec is inconsistent through the thread, so what do I know?


I know, right?

Sure, I'm all for flogging a dead horse:



From Tigger's First Post:




(...and so on)


Ron Newcomb's first reply:





Tigger's FIRST reply back to Ron (verbatim):




Ron's reply (he still thinks, for some reason, that Tigger is making a CYOA):





Tigger's 2nd attempt (3rd overall) to explain his game concept. Directed at Ron:





Sensing that Ron needs help with his failed CYOA argument, tove steps in and thinks he can lend a helping hand:





Notice the number of mistakes tove makes here. #1. Since "CYOA" doesn't apply to my GAME (and he knows it) he is going to try to start up another argument (for reasons known only to him) by saying that my CODE has similarities to CYOA. Unfortunately, for reasons I've already outlined, describing CODE as CYOA is not very helpful, nor is it descriptive. CYOA describes gameplay, not source code. #2. He actually believes (or wants you to believe) that since my code is not similar to IF, then it must be similar to CYOA. False dichotomy. #3. (This is my favourite). tove thinks that "guessing the correct answer to a riddle" counts as Choosing Your Own Adventure because "there is a choice: the correct answer, or any of the wrong ones". Not only is tove's definition of CYOA mistaken, but clearly his definition of "choice" is out of whack, too. Recall my example from my FIRST POST: if I ask you "what does 2+2 equal?" you do NOT have a choice of answers. Good try, though. #4. He believes that staying still is the same as looping back. I'm not really sure what the hell he's driving at here, but it's obviously false. I was crystal clear in my descriptions: you REMAIN in the room until you answer the riddle. There is no looping back, because you've never left your starting point. You really put on your thinking cap for that one. Bravo.


I won't quote the rest of the posts, since they're all pretty much the same - weak arguments that are actually trying to defend (but fail at) describing my game as a CYOA.


Seriously folks, thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

Yes it was clearly a mistake and I won't make it again.