>Well, I bitched about this before, but it doesn't necessarily depend on the
>game or the market: it may just be that the interpreter sucks on many
>platforms. In the case of TADS, I seem to recall being limited by a
>less-than-wonderful parser as well.
Do you realize how frustrating these kinds of comments are? We spend 5
years writing IF and improving the tools, and you just step in and write it
off in a single paragraph. I know it's become fashionable to bash TADS,
but really: give me specific examples of parser problems. I've played lots
of text games, and the TADS games have historically had margainally
*better* parsing than their Infocom/Inform equivalents. (Carl Muckenhoupt
comments in his review page that a four-star rating is typical of TADS
games, and specifically praises the parsing, so I don't think I'm deluding
myself here.)
The one really serious TADS parsing glitch (which X do you mean: the X, or
the X) got fixed ages ago.
Personally, I think the TADS DOS run-time is much nicer than the Infocom
format readers, and it's as professional as the Humbug interface. (We were
talking about Adventions games as compared to Humbug, which made lots of
money.)
>Or it could be that the pricing structure is out of whack; what'd you pay
>for your last paperback?
$10 is so vastly different from $6?
Dave Baggett
__
dmb@ai.mit.edu
"Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
--- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)