Message-ID: <3AC48EAB.D2022F8D@csi.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:48:27 -0500
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
Organization: No Conspiracy Here...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr,ru,es,it,ga,de,ja,gd,eu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Games being forgotten (was: Nelson and Forman (was Re: Inform -
 GamePreRoutine))
References: <zCs2IIA+pnt6Ewvl@ntlworld1.com> <3abff067.253285897@news.newsguy.com> <99r0ia$lbt$1@news.lth.se> <3AC1F6C5.774C8380@csi.com> <9a04s0$3a0$2@news.lth.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 985960140 208.34.37.104 (30 Mar 2001 08:49:00 EST)
Lines: 82
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.online.be!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:84754

Magnus Olsson wrote:

> In article <3AC1F6C5.774C8380@csi.com>,
> John Colagioia  <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
> >Magnus Olsson wrote:
>
> >...And that brings me to my other point:  Comments like that--which are
> >often in the context of "reviewing" or otherwise discussing another
> >game--are easily misconstrued as calling the game-of-topic derivative or
> >cliche.  Consider, for example, if, in discussing some brand-new game
> >someone comments that, "Auntie Mae seems quite a bit like Planetfall's
> >Floyd," the writer of the game might feel it was meant as an insult.
>
> I don't really think so. Reviewers who do feel that a work is
> derivative tend to be quite explicit in saying so. And I hope most
> authors aren't so sensitive that they take comparison with the
> classics as insults - on the contrary, I think most authors would be
> flattered.

A matter of diplomatic phrasing, I guess.  I've seen reviews over the years that
seemed to skirt the line.


> But: there is - or rather was, because I haven't seen so much of it
> lately - one unfortunate trend, and that was to overestimate the
> importance of being original. People would go off on long rants about
> games not being original enough, or using too many cliches. On this
> point, I think C.E. Forman was right in his diatribes.

I agree totally.  Personally, I find it frequently enjoyable to see someone
else's take on traditional cliches.

Plus, it lets the really original stuff shine through, rather than turning
originality into a cliche, if you get my meaning.


> >> And we do actually _have_ classics in the IF field: most of Infocom's
> >> games, for example, and ADVENT, of course, and _Curses_. But there
> >> seems to be a boundary somewhere after that, after which it's at least
> >> become very hard to achieve the status of classic.
> >
> >Consider, however, the number of games from the same period (Level 9, Scott
> >Adams, Magnetic Scrolls, etc., etc.) that are not "classics."
>
> The Scott Adams games _are_ classics among at least a part of the IF
> community. I think the Magnetic Scrolls games don't have the same
> classic status simply because they're no longer available.

"...among at least a part..."

That's what I mean.  "Classic" and "excellent" are two different concepts.  By
"classic," I mean that the game is fairly well-known outside its field (i.e.,
this community).  "XYZZY" is a "cheat code" on several games, and a backdoor
password on several small database systems; people still talk about the Babel
Fish puzzle; occasionally, you'll actually hear people mention "Hucka-Bucka
Beanstalk"--these are definite classics.

The Scott Adams line were excellent, but they never really achieved any
"cultural status" to speak of.  Heck--I live a stone's throw from a major
commercial center (about a half-hour's drive from New York City), and I don't
ever remember seeing them for sale in a store, meaning that many people
certainly never saw them at all.


> >It's kind of like saying that "all that old Greek and Latin stuff is so
> >good--why aren't modern writers that consistent."  The answer is that they
> >are, but only the best literature from the ancient world survived.
>
> That's not at all what I meant. (And, besides, what ancient literature
> survived had a lot to do with pure luck; it's not true that the best
> and only the best survived).

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth--just showing a vaguely similar
view.  And phrased it poorly, besides.  So, let's try again.

People only see the best of the surviving older literature, and it's typically
known as "classical literature," suggesting to the lesser-educated that the
older stuff was unilaterally superior, whereas finding a decent book with a
recent publication date is not at all easy.  However, just try going to your
local bookstore and finding poorly-written classical Greek literature...


