Message-ID: <3c8b447f_2@corp-news.newsgroups.com>
From: CardinalT <cardinalt@helpmejebus.com>
Subject: Re: Making a parser - what are the minimal requirements?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 03:31:49 -0800
References: <080320022251507759%mborok@mindspring.com> <a6dlar$c6q$1@reader2.panix.com> <3c8af4da_2@corp-news.newsgroups.com> <u8m20ls814puf8@corp.supernews.com>
Lines: 99
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news4
X-Authenticated-User: 1001408008
X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support,  spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to <abuse@newsfeeds.com> You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.xnet.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!local-out2.newsfeeds.com!corp-news.newsgroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:101428

Kodrik wrote:

> Like you, I don't mind adapting my speech for Zork to understand my inputs
> but believe me it is a major issue with a lot of people.
>
> My wife, for example, wants to type in english full sentences with many
> useless words, she can't play the inform cloak of darkness because she
> wants to type in english:
> "Remove the cloak that I am wearing"
> "Hang the cloak on that hook"
> "Read the message inscribed in the sawdust"
> And from the feedback from phpzork, she is far from being alone.

This is a very good point. There's certainly a learning curve involved in
beginning to use the "smart" parsers that the "dumb" ones don't have
("smart" and "dumb" not being value judgments, but simply a way to
distinguish between those that insist upon understanding every word in a
sentence and those that don't much care what's typed). However, ask your
wife to type in "remove the cloak that I'm not wearing." I'd be interested
to hear her response after the game goes ahead and removes the cloak for
her. Maybe she doesn't care--I don't want to anticipate her response for
her--but I know I would have cared way back when if Zork had allowed
something like that. I wouldn't have taken the parser seriously in that
case, even as a rank newbie player with no pretensions whatsoever toward
grasping the underlying programming.

> It is hard for us programmers to understand that because we naturally
> follow strict language but it is not the case for the general public.

You may be right, but the player can't have his cake and eat it too. If he
truly wants to play games that don't recognize commands for one object that
they just a second ago understood for another then who can argue with that?
But if the player wants to be able to type whatever in the world he wants
to and have the computer actually *understand* it to boot--well, who's
being unrealistic now? :)

> When we play an IF game, some of our judgment criterias are how far the
> author pushed the limit of the engine and we actually enjoy playing "guess
> the right word and command structure".

This is not really true. While I know enough about IF languages to engage
in this guessing game, it's far from the case that I enjoy it. Like I said
in an earlier post, there's a lot to like about the notion of a "dumb"
parser.

> But I believe the the mass wants to dialog with their own words and would
> even prefer to talk than to type. They will rather not play than
> discipline their speech so much.

I don't see how your system eliminates the "guess the command" game. The
player still has to type in something the parser recognizes, right? All it
really eliminates are contextual error messages and the confusion they once
in awhile inspire. Part of that confusion is unavoidable, I think, so your
criticism is justified, but part of it also depends upon the skill with
which the default messages are written. I've seen some horribly written
default messages that could have easily been fixed with just a little more
forethought on the author's part.

> IF you type "read the message that is inscribed in the sawdust" in the
> inform version of Cloak of Darkness,  it will answer:
> "You discover nothing of interest in the scrawled message."
> We know better and would type "read message" that will tell us "You win".
> But a neophyte would have no clue and they would assume there is no need
> to read the message again or reword their sentence.

Yep, you're right, and not even necessarily neophytes.

> If you type "look at the hook on the wall", it will answer:
> "I only understood you as far as wanting to look at the small brass hook"
> Many people don't care about the mechanism of the parser, they just want
> the parser to understand them when they speack plain English (or whatever
> language).

But again, there's a tradeoff involved. They want the parser to understand
"plain English," yet how is it "understanding plain English" to look at the
hook on the wall in response to, say, "don't look at the hook on the wall"
or "look at the hook that's not on the wall?"

> I record everything that is typed in phpzork, you wouldn't believe how
> many people start playing the game typing sentences as if they were
> talking to a human being. Some quit, frustrated and some adapt their
> speech.
>
> What us authors and programmers see as the most convenient to play is not
> always what the non-initiated want.

Believe me, I understand the problem. That's not why I'm arguing what I'm
arguing. I simply think that unless you or me or someone else can come up
with a way to let the player have his cake and eat it too, the "smart"
parser approach ends up being the better, more popular approach among
*players*. True, rank newbies or players-in-passing aren't going to
gravitate to it, but I think those who perservere and become interested in
the genre eventually become frustrated with the limitations of the "dumb"
parser approach and end up consenting to the notion that they share a bit
of the responsibility in learning how to play.

--
--CardinalT
  Archbishop of Frith and Funeral Barker to the Stars
