Re: Authoring Systems Evaluation Criteria


Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:55:40 +0100

(bnewell@delphi.com) wrote:
> This provides a wonderful excuse to be even later with the FAQ than
> originally estimated, although very early 1995 is still the plan.

8)

> Source Code, Weight 1. Is source code for the system (as opposed to
> the libraries) available? As a practical matter this is only of
> importance to dedicated hackers or port maintainers, but can also be
> an indicator of the future viability of the system.

I'd maybe move the weighting up a notch. Reason: Inform and TADS are by far
the most popular systems, and are similarly powered, but Inform has quite a
lead when it comes to portability of games, and is now outrunning TADS in
terms of popularity, because there are more interpreters, and I believe
versions of the compiler, available for more systems. This in turn is
because Inform-type source code for both compiler and interpreters is freely
available, no questions asked, whereas TADS source is only available by
signing an NDA. Even so, some potential porters have not been allowed to get
it.

So, source code availability is a concern to the average user. If the source
is not available for a particular computer, there will be no port, and the
system is then not even an option for users of that computer, no matter how
highly it scores in other categories.

> Support, Weight 3. How well is the system supported by the author of
> the system? How much newsgroup support can you expect?

Again, maybe I'd give this a higher rating. I'm sure part of Inform's
success is due to the high level of support offered by Graham (frequent
upgrades to both library and compiler, several programming examples). This,
I think, has both led to and been encouraged by the high level of support on
raif. Support is very important to the average user. Without this author
and newsgroup support I'm sure I'd never get anywhere at all with it.

> Parser, Weight 5. As the primary interface to the player of the game,
> the quality of the parser is critical.

Perhaps you should also include parser expandability here. How easy/possible
is it to extend or add new verbs, alter the routines and default messages, or
incorporate features such as a third noun or enhanced conversation parsing?

> Run Speed, Weight 4. If the game runs slowly and ineffectively, the
> game playing audience, usually a fickle and argumentative lot, will
> desert ship quickly. Witness the discussion of "Legend" in mid-1995.

Yeah, as you say, fickle and argumentative. I personally wouldn't rate this
so highly, but as discussions have shown you're probably right to do so in
general.

I also think you should include a category for debugging features, weighted
at 3 or 4. Maybe a further category should deal with third party libraries
(WorldClass and Wadv.t for TADS) and contributions (Inform has a few at gmd).
I'd give this a 2.

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