Interface Changes:
A Brief Look at the Evolution
of the Adventure Game Engine

Adventure games have gone through many changes since 1977, but is this progress enough to enable all games to be enjoyed by people with vastly different tastes?

Judging from recent discussions on comp.sys.*.games.adventure and rec.*.int-fiction, the answer is still "not yet." Many players think fondly of the flexibility of text games and see anything GUI-oriented as a step backward in interface design. Others detest typing, stress quickness of play control, and insist that graphics are the only way to go. Gamers everywhere agree that user-friendliness is the key to a satisfying computer adventure, but not all players are in agreement on how the term is defined.

Let's take a look at some of the more common (and a few of the outstanding yet very obscure) software packages, and investigate some of the advantages and disadvantages inherent in their play systems.

In the Beginning...

• The Infocom-esque "prompt-and-status-line" display. The general consensus is that this format is the most enjoyable text interface due to readability, spontaneity, and the ability to see the author's personal tastes reflected in the layout. A quality parser is necessary to maintain player satisfaction with this type of game.
• Split-screens, with one half devoted to room descriptions and the other to player's commands and game responses. Frequently objects and exits are listed following brief room text. This format includes the Scott Adams classics as well as many adventures that make use of the simple game engine. Two-word, noun-and-verb parsers, are commonly associated with this type of interface, and the somewhat mechanical listing of rooms, objects, and exits may turn some players off. Although the Scott Adams games are still played and enjoyed, very few new titles use this particular format.
• Windowed text environments, often combining elements of the split-screen and prompt/status-line layout. Often one window supplies valid directions, a second for the command prompt and resulting text, a third for the player's inventory, etc. Three particular commercial titles in this format merit discussion here.

Mastertronic's "Demon's Tomb," a lesser-known commercial PC text game (reviewed in XYZZYnews #2) combined optional windows with a prompt interface, essentially a simplified clone of Infocom's. Separate windows could be invoked for screen configuration and word selection. This allowed players to use the cursor and alphabet keys to select verbs, nouns, and prepositions to form a sentence, eliminating a large portion of typing. It's still something of a surprise to me that this interface didn't catch on, particularly with players who enjoyed text adventures but disliked typing. Perhaps, had it come into play during Infocom's height rather than in 1989, it may very well have.

One of the most unique and imaginative uses of the windowed play system was Paragon Software's "Guardians of Infinity," released in 1988, around the time Infocom was putting out their first graphic IF. The player in "Guardians" spent the game in front of a textual control panel, issuing commands to a set of time-travelling agents in an attempt to save President Kennedy. A single reply window displayed different colored text as each agent responded to the player's instructions, and control could be switched between each agent's window at any time. The interface was driven in real-time, similar to Infocom's "Border Zone," although the multiple character aspect was strongly reminiscent of "Suspended." Although I've never actually completed it, the game is definitely worth checking out for the sheer novelty of implementation.

The most common mass-market game of this type was Infocom's "Beyond Zork," which used windows for a map and prompt, as well as a customizable window for room descriptions, the player's inventory, or character statistics. The windowing aspect was optional, giving players the ability to switch it off and use the full-screen prompt instead. Interestingly, this had the side effect of causing the game to mechanically list all the exits from a particular location, since disabling the windows required disabling the map as well. In this respect, "Beyond Zork" is perhaps the only all-text game that makes extensive use of aspects of all three textual interfaces. (Then again, most versions of BZ did incorporate some simple graphics into the window and map, but BZ remains at heart a text game.

"Text Adventures With Graphics"

Although primitive -- it used a two-word parser, had several puzzles considered generic by today's standards, and the graphics were all black-and-white -- it's quite able to hold its own with the Scott Adams quests today (I'd recommend that IF history buffs pick up a copy if you can locate one).

The layout consisted of a picture of the player's location, occupying the entire screen with the exception of about four lines across the bottom, where the prompt was located. Pressing <ENTER> without typing anything temporarily cleared away the picture, allowing the player to refer back to previous text which scrolled up "behind" the graphic. Thus players could alternate between textual and graphic screens at their leisure, and even had the option of playing the game as a pure text adventure (by not tapping <ENTER> a second time to turn the graphics back on).

Sierra continued this format into the early 1980s with titles such as "Ulysses and the Golden Fleece" and "Wizard and the Princess." During this time, substantial improvements were made to the graphics, although the interface itself was somewhat lacking. The command prompt extended almost halfway across the screen, severely limiting the player's typing space. Limitations in text display were also apparent -- if the game attempted to display more than three lines of text at one time, part of it would inevitably scroll up behind the picture before the player had had a chance to read it, forcing him/her to tap <ENTER> constantly.

In 1984, Adventure International used a similar engine to re-release several of the Scott Adams quests, with graphic enhancements, calling the games S.A.G.A.S. (Scott Adams' Graphic Adventure Series). (I've played "Adventureland" and "Pirate Adventure" in this format, but am uncertain how many of the other titles were released.)

Where Sierra really struck gold, however, was with Roberta Williams' "King's Quest" series, which took the split-screen "picture and prompt" format to new heights, adding animation and pseudo-3D locations, and an on-screen alter-ego to represent the player.

The series was enhanced by a parser that, although nowhere near the power of Infocom's, permitted direct and indirect objects, articles, and reasonable synonyms. Games of this sort fell short of being pure adventure, however, as the need to move the character about the screen using the cursor keys provided ample opportunity for unfair arcade-style puzzles. Among the more irritating were the need to be immediately beside an object to interact with it, avoiding dangerous characters, and, most infuriating, maneuvering the character across tiny, winding paths where one slip meant instant death.

"King's Quest 4," the last of this particular class of Sierra games, was released in 1988, at about the time Infocom, through Mediagenic, first went graphical. During the next two years, Infocom surpassed its typical number of releases, issuing a steady stream of RPGs ("BattleTech," "QuarterStaff," "Journey") and graphical IF ("Arthur," "Shogun," "Zork Zero"). For the most part, the new IF format kept the classic Infocom features, while adding graphical puzzles, maps, screen borders, a compass rose, and pictures to complement the textual imagery.

When Infocom folded shortly thereafter, authors Steve Meretzky and Bob Bates teamed up to co-found Legend Entertainment, with the intention of continuing the commercial release of IF. By this time, though, graphics were (and still are) the hot topic, and many players, new and old, frowned on typing, despite the fact that countless Infocom fanatics still loved the old method of computer storytelling.

Bates and a couple other Legend employees completely redid the text adventure system architecture, splitting the screen into four parts -- a text window, a graphics window (which could also be made to display room descriptions or player inventories), a set of parallel vertical menus (one for nouns, one for verbs and prepositions), and a box containing a clickable compass rose and buttons for customizing the screen layout. If the player desired, it was possible to remove the word menus, leaving half the screen devoted to text, or even to remove everything and bring back the all-text interface.

This game engine gained attention and praise from the adventuring community immediately, because it catered to both typists and non-typists, to both graphics players and text players. One computer magazine even proclaimed that Legend "finally got the adventuring system right." For a short time longer, text adventures had mass-market appeal.

One disadvantage here was that, as Legend expanded their game engine, the increasing memory required to handle each package meant that players with very old systems could not run them. Legend's game format was nowhere near the efficiency of Infocom's method of Z-Code and interpreters. Another problem came about as more and more verbs were added to the menu bars. Non-typists would have to continually scroll down to find the location of the verb they wanted to use. (Although, for the most part, Legend avoided this by putting the commonly used verbs at the top, within easy access. However, in later releases, they then began bringing up obscure verbs when they became relevant to the game, which tended to give away puzzles.) Legend is not the only company that attempted to make the parser adventure more commercially accessible by adding bells and whistles. Virgin Games, after using a split screen for text and graphics in games such as "The Pawn" and "Jinxter," brought several of its titles into the "Magnetic Scrolls" format in early 1990. This GUI-based environment behaved similarly to Windows or the Macintosh operating system, with different windows for text, objects in the room, inventory, graphics, the compass, hints, and maps.

Unlike Legend, the Magnetic Scrolls windows were mobile and resizeable, allowing greater flexibility in the customization of the interface. A menu bar along the top replaced the status line and provided small, organized lists of common verbs, and a cut-and-paste option allowed players to highlight words in the text itself and copy them to the prompt.

Like Legend's engine, though, Magnetic Scrolls required more modern hardware to permit the usage of all its features. The animated graphics in particular were taxing to processor speed and memory, and, when using such features, a 386 was barely enough to squeak by.

Earlier attempts (mid- to late-1980's) at graphical IF interfaces included Interplay's "Tass Times in ToneTown" (co-authored by Michael Berlyn), and ICOM's windowed series, both of which appear to have influenced Magnetic Scrolls. ICOM's adventures ("Deja Vu," "Uninvited," "Shadowgate") were initially released solely for the Macintosh platform, but several years back found their way to PCs, and even the Nintendo Entertainment System. (Too bad the latter didn't support keyboards -- IF could have made a comeback!)

One other product deserves a special mention here -- Stuart Smith's "Adventure Construction Set," published in 1984 by Electronic Arts. ACS was the first serious attempt at distributing a piece of software that permitted users to create and play their own text/graphic adventures.

The computer-aided design system used a screen layout similar to Sierra's, but the interface was all its own. The graphic portion of the screen was divided into "blocks," each of which contained a stack of one or more "things" (there were 12 different classes of these) or creatures. Using the cursor keys (or mouse or joystick), up to four players took turns exploring the game world.

The combat system was quite RPG-oriented, but ACS was suited nicely to the construction of simple puzzles, provided that players were willing to take the time to learn how to make creative use of the design system. ACS had its limitations, but it was truly a remarkable piece of software.

The Graphic Revolution

LucasArts' "Maniac Mansion" and "Secret of Monkey Island" games, as well as Adventuresoft's "Simon the Sorcerer," among others, use this interface. Legend Entertainment's more recent releases ("Companions of Xanth," "Death Gate," and the soon-to-be-released "Mission Critical") use a similar game engine. Activision's attempt, used in "Return to Zork" (and, I expect, in their upcoming "Planetfall" game) has players connect an icon to other icon in a set, where each icon represents a particular item or action.

(Although I can accept most of the graphical games I've played as they are, I must admit, I really missed typing here.)Others, such as "Myst," "The 7th Guest," and Roberta Williams' latest offering, "Phantasmagoria," veer away from traditional puzzle-solving adventure and toward the newer medium of the "interactive movie." But that's another article.

Go to the next page in this issue

Flip back to the previous page

Go to the XYZZYnews home page