Talk:Zork/Archive 1

Archive 1

General ambience

Hmm. This article should have a bit more about the general ambience of Zork. A few catchphrases, what it feels like to play. It's been too long for me to really remember, since I only played the game a few dozen times. (Moria all the way for me :) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Template sidebar

I've just created and added the Zork universe template sidebar (based on the Myst franchise one), which contains links to many of the Zork-related articles. It's designed to go on all the Zork pages. I hope this will be seen as a positive addition to the page, and not "clutter". I'm going to refrain from adding it to all the other pages until it receives some sort of approval. —EatMyShortz 03:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I support 100%. It looks great! -- BRIAN0918  03:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks very much. I see you've been busy adding it in already ;) —EatMyShortz 06:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zorkmid looks wrong, there is a big empty space before the rest of the content begins - I almost missed it. Is there a way to fix that? Grue 11:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the empty space in Internet Explorer or Mozilla. Can you take a screenshot and upload it here? -- BRIAN0918  11:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Here it is: Image:Zorkmidshot.png. The browser is IE 6.0. Grue 11:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see that at all; mine looks fine in IE 6.0. We're using the same monitor resolution too, so I'm not sure what the problem is. -- BRIAN0918  11:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It looks fine for me too, but there could be a potential problem for lower resolutions than 1024x768 - because then the images all go behind the bar and it gets really ugly. Perhaps we could move the bar lower on that page? --EatMyShortz 12:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've created stubs for Sorcerer and Spellbreaker because I couldn't stand the red links on every page. However I don't really know anything about these games. If you do, go and add some information. —EatMyShortz 23:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Done! Thanks for the work on these. -DynSkeet 14:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles?

For some reason, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth whenever I see the individual Zork games redirecting to this page. Is there any argument against reducing this to a page discussing the history and "flavor" of the series in general, and creating an individual article for each of the three games? -DynSkeet 14:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I believe they were intended to be a one game, but were split due to size limits of storage devices of these times. Most series of games have only one article on them (FIFA Series, Rollercoaster Tycoon and so on). Perhaps the template should be modified so it would show only one link instead of three? Grue 15:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think they should each have their own articles, or that all 3 should have one separate article, something like Zork trilogy. --brian0918™ 16:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The original game is actually called "Dungeon" and is still available online (not to download, just to play), but commercial sale they split and slightly changed it into three games so it would be smaller. Some things were added to Zork I, II, and III, and others were cut out completely and not used until Sorcerer or Wishbringer. 71.10.48.39 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (usually Alinnisawest)

What do I need to play zork

Okay i tried to install it but i'm receiving some weird messages. Is this game made for dos? Or do I need some kind of interpreter/emulator ? Thanks Xhami

You need an interpreter. There are several freeware ones available, and a couple of the more popular ones are Frotz and Nitfol. (There should be links to download them in each article.) -DynSkeet 12:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zork Trilogy is not freeware; the link should be removed.

This article currently links to http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/ stating: "These downloaded games can be played on almost any platform using an appropriate Z-machine interpreter."

The Zork Trilogy is NOT freeware. Activision made downloads of the games available as a promotion following the release of Zork: Nemesis and Zork Grand Inquistor. Each download contained the following license:

GRANT. Activision, Inc. ("Activision") hereby grants you a non-exclusive license to use the accompanying computer game, Zork: The Great Underground Empire, provided that you may not:

a. modify or create derivative works based on the Game;

b. copy the Game (except for back-up purposes);

c. rent, lease, transfer or otherwise transfer rights to the Game;

d. or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Game.

Sweetandy: Brief note, man! If you simply place your own copy (not a copy you make) in your webserver folder, other people can download it without you ever doing any copying. Also, you aren't transfering any rights at all; you're transfering the game. Yar.

After C|Net published an article that listed the Zork Trilogy among the Top 10 freeware games (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6464_7-6300449-1.html), I phoned Activision's legal department to ask if the games were really free when the license clearly states that the game can't be copied. They replied:

Back when we released either Zork: Nemesis, Return to Zork, Zork Undiscovered Underground, Zork: Grand Inquisitor and Zork 0 (all of which were back in the mid 90's), Activision did a sort-of "promotion" to help boost interest in the "new Zork" title. They released for a very short time, the three (3) Zork titles for D/L off their website.

As the "new Zork" title fazed away, Activision removed the titles from their website. Hence, the user could no longer download the games.

Since then ALOT of people have READ INTO this as being that we've essentially given these particular titles away, and that we have no interest in them. (ie- "Hey! They're giving it away.")

This simply isn't the case.

You'll also note that MOST, if not ALL of the Infocom titles are considered to be Public Domain as well, which also isn't the case.

They also said that they "reserve all our rights to pursue any legal measures we deem appropriate against the offending site(s)." I contacted C|Net and they contacted Activision to confirm. They removed the link with the following explanation:

Editor's note: CNET has been advised by Activision that the company's release of the original Zork titles was a limited promotion, and that the company "has since removed them from that 'free' status." As such, we have removed the download link that was originally presented here.

The Zork games on that site are still under copyright and cannot legally be distributed. Activision is a member of the ESA. Wikipedia should NOT be encouraging piracy by linking to this site. The University of Western Ontario, Activision and the ESA are now aware of the copyright infringement on that site, so hopefully Wikipedia can continue to link to the page for its valuable information once the illegal downloads have been removed.

In the meantime, anyone wishing to help make the Zork Trilogy available again, either for sale or as freeware, can sign the Zork Trilogy Petition.

If they don't sell it and they don't let us copy it and they don't let us download it, what do they expect us to do?! The reason for copyrights is so A) they won't lose profits and B) no one else will steal it and make money off it. They don't sell it any more so they aren't making profits anyway and no one else has stolen it and is selling it for money. It's abandonware, and while it's true that there's no legal standing for abandonware, there should be. If they don't want to sell it to us, then we're just going to copy it for free! 71.10.48.39 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I removed the link to the petition because it's blacklisted by Wikipedia. 71.10.48.39 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

The link to Bruce Daniels in the first paragraph of the page is wrong. I know Bruce Daniels (or knew him 25 years ago, anyway...) and I can assure you he is not an African-American, openly gay standup comedian who opens for Margaret Cho. Trust me. — Dimwit Flathead the Excessive 19:56, 20 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Its own Wiki

Who's with me on thinking that Zork could very well have its own Wiki? I'd be willing to start it up.

Sweetandy: I was going to do this, but I didn't because of the copyright issues I found in the back of the Encyclopedia Frobozzica. The first run of the wiki was going to be the Frobozzica, and the rest was going to be additional knowledge as found by fans. But the idea went down when, although there are MANY COPIES OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA FROBOZZICA ONLINE ALREADY, there are copyright laws concerning it in the back of the Frobozzica itself. I have a letter ready to send in to Activision, but my new printer refuses to print envelopes properly and I'm not hand-writing this business letter requesting the rights to put the Frobozzica on the internet with the intention of linking directly to the Activision website and stating that the rights are Activisions and Activision alone... blah de blah... but they're going to say no, I garuntee you, so give up now. I'll post back if it ever happens.

TiddlyWiki seems to be the best for this kind of project, though, if it does ever happen.

MEH!

Where's a walkthrough of Zork?! 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (by the way I put 5 tildes there on PURPOSE hahaha)

ΧYLOPHONE!!! XYLOPHONE!!!

Check out the if Archive at [ifarchive.org/if-archive/games]. If that looks a little daunting, try Baf's Guide, or just google 'walkthrough zork'. The first result I came up with had a good walkthrough. 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (by the way I put 4 tildes in there on PURPOSE... not that anyone cares hint hint...)

Zork at Ucyclopedia

Did anyone else know that Uncyclopedia has a Zork minigame? It can be found here:[1]

It's mentioned in the article, at the end of this section. Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole slew of games in Uncyclopedia's Zork game series. the one known on both Uncyclopedia and the Homestar Runner Wiki as Neox 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.237 (talk)

Graphical Zork I remake for Saturn / Playstation 1

Not much is known about it, since only a Japanese-language release was published, but some intrepid delver should be able to unearth more information and complete this page on the series. If it helps, it was also released as a two-game pack with Return to Zork for those late consoles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pseudo Intellectual (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, no one here was of any help, but we got a stub entry for it up at Mobygames. Something to make reference to if anyone does decide to take it on here. Cheers! Pseudo Intellectual 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inform 7 Port

http://i7-dungeon.sourceforge.net/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/i7-dungeon

Should this be included in the article somehow? 75.49.115.72 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the value. The original games are easily available online and are linked. Since it's a re-implementation, it will vary from the originals in at least minor ways. — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Is there any 'chronology' order according to which the games take place? For example Zork Zero must take place before the trilogy, being a prequel. What about the Wishbringer and the Enchanter trilogy? Do they take place before, after, or sometime in-between the episodes? Pictureuploader (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The different series are disconnected from each other enough that I doubt you'll be able to find evidence of the order. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much "geek" one has to be. The Zork universe has a definite timeline. My question is, whether the writers have placed each game in which position in the timeline. I understand that the sponoffs are not closely related, but still, since they belong to the same universe, thy must belong 'somewhen'. I know my question is very geeky but perhaps there has been an answer.Pictureuploader (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Zork Library External Link

To User:76.126.21.8: a number of different editors have changed your wording or removed your entry over the past few weeks. Personally, I think it's acceptable as an External Link, but apparently not everyone agrees. I realize that reverts and even edits can be frustrating, but that's just a fact of life if you edit at Wikipedia. My advice is to argue your points here, on the talk page, and not in the text of the article itself (like this).

If you believe this is a good link, and someone removes it, make your case here. I, for one, will likely back up your position (unless someone else makes a more compelling argument, that is). If you feel that your wording is superior to something that replaces it, then again you should come here to argue your case. Good luck. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...and then I realized that the site in question provides (likely) illegal downloads of the Zork games. That makes this an unacceptable link in WP per WP:ELNEVER. If you believe that this site is legally allowed to distribute these games (that means all of the games it offers for download, including the more recent ZGI and others), then please let us know here. Otherwise, the removal of the link (which I am repeating now) will have to remain in effect. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

^^ The link was being removed or the description being changed and it is MY entry. I don't go to wikipedia and modify data that isn't mine nor does anyone outright have the right to just change it to how they please. I don't know where you were looking, but I do not have a download of ZGI. As for the infocom games being on there, well then perhaps you should go and try to complain to the hundreds of sites that allow you to play it online for free...

I think you're misunderstanding the entire premise of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as "your" entry, or "my" article. They are all open to be edited by anyone, as long as they follow Wikipedia policies. Your changes are being removed because they do not follow policy (as discussed above, and on the Talk:Zork page. Please understand - this isn't a personal attack, or a vendetta against you. It's just how Wikipedia works.

I think you are also missing the point of the issue. I agree that plenty of sites allow you to play and/or download Infocom games for free. That doesn't make it legal, and if it's not legal, then Wikipedia doesn't allow links to such sites. Again, it isn't personal, it's just Wikipedia policy. See Talk:Zork#Zork_Trilogy_is_not_freeware.3B_the_link_should_be_removed. for more information. If you feel you have a case to make for why these downloads are legal (and can prove it), then you should do so on the Talk:Zork page. Unless you get concurrence on the Talk:Zork page, I would advise that you refrain from adding the link back as it will likely be deleted, and you could be reported to administrators for violating WP policy. Again, not a threat, just a friendly head's up of how the policy works. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

^^ I also find it humorous that my link is being removed but the first 3 links on the wiki page are for "illegal" copies or playable online copies of Zork 1-3, I'll promptly remove them for violation of the wiki, the same reason my site is being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.21.8 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, always remember the warning helpfully printed under "Please note" right below the edit box you're typing into: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it." 2. Your threat to delete other links sounds perilously clouse to editing to illustrate a point, which is a no-no. (In the event you actually don't understand the difference, the first two links are to the original release of Dungeon/Zork, not to the later Infocom releases. The original release allowed non-commercial distribution. It is also different from the later Infocom releases. The third link is suspect, and I suspect might not survive a challenge. However, they are only distributing the original three Zorks, which were released for a while (see above). At least one person claims that they were given permission to legally publically perform Zorks I through III. It is conceivable that the third link is legit. It has been online for a decade at a major university; if the current copyright holder wanted it down, it would have been trivial. The Zork Library, however, is offering a variety of Infocom releases, including many that were never freely available. Admittedly this is more of a judgement call, personally I would let the Zork Library be on the grounds that I don't know permission has not been granted. (Has it?) Other editors would err on the other side and, as noted above, and call for the removal of the third link. But hashing out such disagreements is exactly what talk pages are for.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

^^ Ive calmed down a bit thanks to Transity. My complaints here were simple, I was simply defending the fact that coming straight from the horses mouth so to speak, I felt that I was the best person for making the description. Its clear no one owns the rights to the page, but then I know thats a lie, there are plenty of people who do feel they are in charge and edit it to their liking. I simply was changing my link and only my link. Furthermore the link had been there for years without any issues, but now for some reason everyone seems to be in a huff over the fact that I want to edit my link description and theres others that feel they like something better. This is like a 2 year olds argument... if its not yours then why edit it at all? Legality is another issue altogether when it comes to abandonware, I am a firm believer about warez being illegal, I havent done any for 5 years. I love Zork and have run my site for a long time and just want to share the experiences with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.21.8 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere Gaming remakes

In this edit an anonymous editor noted that Nowhere Gaming is working on an RPG Maker remake of the Zork titled. I removed it under the grounds that it was fan content. The editor replied on my talk page; I'm moving his reply here so that others can voice their opinions. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm a little confused as to why you removed my addition of the upcoming Nowhere Gaming version of Zork. You said that "A fan remake isn't really noteworthy". Yet under the releases section in Zork I, the last line states: "Fans remade Zork I as a 3d game using the Neverwinter Nights game engine. The remake is titled Zork I: The Great Underground Empire.".

Secondly, it isn't exactly a fan remake. Nowhere Gaming has a copyright under "Nowhere Enterprises" at the bottom of their website. They are actually developing several games, including the Zork Trilogy, Ghostbusters, and Masters of the Universe.

Thirdly, the fact that it is going to be a graphical version that very closely matches the original game (with the same maps, puzzles, and gameplay), makes this an important release, considering that Zork was a text-based game to begin with.

Please reconsider the edit, as I am sure that many Zork fans, including myself, would be very excited to know that there is an upcoming graphical release of the game that closely follows the original game (unlike Legends of Zork). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.42.129 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Zork has lots of fans doing remakes, art, fan fiction, and more. And regrettably most of it will not prove to be notable in the long run. We can't describe every Zork fan creation ever. This is most certainly a fan remake. As best I can tell, Nowhere Gaming does not have a license to produce the game. Activision, the current copyright and trademark holder for the games, has not authorized it. It is being produced without any intent to profit. It's being produced in RPG Maker. I would be hard pressed to identify a better example of a fan remake. (That they are claiming copyright is irrelevant, and sadly naive as they infringe on Activision's copyright and trademark.) If it receives some non-trivial third party press coverage (even in form of "Activision crushes fan remake"), it will certainly be something we should cover. But right now it's a fan project of no particular note. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nowhere Gaming, but I hate to tell you that using wikipedia seems to be a WASTE of time. If you notice all the talk about my Zork Library link being removed (see above) you'll understand how contrived it is. The bottom line is that several people feel as though they are in charge of content on wikipedia(eg. Zork) when they are in fact NOT, they forget the simple fact that the content is not owned and so you technically have the right to add/edit the content as you see fit even if they do not like it. The site is supposed to be community based but all I have seen is BS in actually letting that be the case. Good luck Nowhere Gaming but you're wasting your breath. 76.126.21.8 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, 76.126.21.8, but the link to your site was removed because it contained links to download Infocom games that aren't freely available for download. This has been explained to you above, and I personally went into great detail about this on your talk page. Please don't falsely accuse people of ownership issues when the real reasons for removing your link have been clearly laid out. And remember - the fact that everyone can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that everyone's edits will remain, themselves, unedited, especially in the case of clear policy violations. If you want to add your link back (a link to your own site, which seems like a conflict of interest to me), then your best bet is to follow the advice I wrote on your talk page - show us that the downloads you link to are freely available. Complaining on threads about other issues, and tossing around insults is not the way to go. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Whole Universe is a Zork

If "Zork" means "unfinished program," then the whole Universe is one big Zork. Das Baz. Das Baz 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally left blank

'certain on-screen hint pages were "intentionally left blank."'(diff) Can anybody provide a citation? Could this have anything to do with the name Mark Blank? Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than the Solid Gold release of Zork I in 1987, the Zork games have no on-screen hints. The hints in that release were taken from the printed Invisiclues. Neither contains the phrase, although it is in the Invisiclues for three later Infocom games: Sorcerer, Suspect, and Leather Goddesses of Phobos. Ntsimp (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already some speculation (yikes) on this in the Quotes section of the Zork I article. Do we really need to replicate that here, especially considering Ntsimp's comment above? Energy Dome (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I made an error. The phrase does appear in the on-screen hints for Sold Gold Zork I, as the second answer to "What do I do with the axe?" (which has only 1 answer in the Invisiclues). But we have no source for the notion that it had anything to do with Marc Blank, and the joke works well without any such connection. Ntsimp (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I wasn't suggesting any edits, I was merely trying to get info on the linked diff I quoted from. I don't know the game, but the quotes section is talking about a "message on an inside wall of the house", rather than "second answer" to a question. Is there any way to source either? Marc Blank was just something I noticed. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change from Dungeons

The article contradicts itself over the reason for the name revert to Zork, the top paragraph says Dungeons and Dragons and the Bottom says Dungeons!. Which is correct? 88.111.146.238 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. I would assume it is the second one, "Dungeons!" as it is much closer to the word they were trying to use than "Dungeons & Dragons" is. I do not however actually have any sources to confirm that.

Potatoj316 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just two cents here folks: the conflict was with the board game "Dungeon!" that TSR, which also sold D&D, was selling. Pseudo Intellectual (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Zork_I twitter account

I was going to add a link to the Zork I twitter account and it's corresponding @textadventurer account to the External Links sections. Is a pop-culture reference appropriate or is this unencyclopedic? Jghaines (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:ELNO I'd say it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 16:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some external links removed....

I removed external links to sites offering downloads or "play online" versions of Zork I, II and III. Although Activision has previously made the Zork Trilogy available for free download, the company has since stated that "the company's release of the original Zork titles was a limited promotion, and that the company "has since removed them from that 'free' status." Source (see Activision response to CNET). Moreover, Activision still sells a collection of Zork games (which includes Zorks I,II,III) through GOG.com.

In short, Zork I,II,III are not currently freeware or freely redistributable; they are still commercial games available for sale. Therefore it would appear that links to downloads or playable online versions of the Zork games violate Wikipedia's policy on external links. (However, I left the link to a download for the original mainframe version of Zork up, as it was published before Infocom was founded and, according to Infocom's Wiki entry, "is generally assumed to be in the public domain".) --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary on Name

Basically, Zork was supposed to be Dungeon but TSR had it trademarked. 99.101.113.32 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to the original Zork source code in MDL

I suggest linking to the original Zork source code in MDL which is available here:

http://retro.co.za/adventure/zork-mdl/

Is it OK to link to that source code from Wikipedia? I don't know who officially owns it, though. It was never a commercial product, and was developed at MIT. As the Zork article mentions, the Zork source code was leaked way back in 1977, so the cat's been out of the bag for a long time. A link to the actual source code would be a nice thing to cite in that section.

It is fascinating to read, and really beautiful code, quite understandable even if you don't know MDL, and practically a form of literature.

I played the original Zork on MIT-DM and also the Infocom versions of course. Reading the source code is like seeing the behind-the-scenes underground rooms and passages at Disneyland!

While I was playing Zork, I found a bug. First some context: when you're battling the troll, you can give things to him, and he eats them! Sometimes he drops his axe, and you can pick it up and kill him with it. He blocks the exits until you kill him.

So I tried "give axe to troll," and he ate his own axe, then cowered in terror: "The troll, disarmed, cowers in terror, pleading for his life in the guttural tongue of the trolls."

Not satisfied with that, I tried "give troll to troll", and he devoured himself: "The troll, who is remarkably coordinated, catches the troll and not having the most discriminating tastes, gleefully eats it."

...Except that I still could not get out of the exit, because every time I tried, it said "The troll fends you off with a menacing gesture."

I figured there must be a troll flag that wasn't getting cleared when the troll devoured itself. And sure enough, I found it in the code, and it's called "TROLL-FLAG!-FLAG"!

Here is an excerpt of the MDL troll code, where you can see the bug, where it should clear the troll flag when the troll devours itself, but doesn't (well that's how I would fix it!):

               <COND (<VERB? "THROW" "GIVE">
                      <COND (<VERB? "THROW">
                             <TELL
"The troll, who is remarkably coordinated, catches the " 1 <ODESC2 <PRSO>>>)
                            (<TELL
"The troll, who is not overly proud, graciously accepts the gift">)>
                      <COND (<==? <PRSO> <SFIND-OBJ "KNIFE">>
                             <TELL
"and being for the moment sated, throws it back.  Fortunately, the
troll has poor control, and the knife falls to the floor.  He does
not look pleased." ,LONG-TELL1>
                             <TRO .T ,FIGHTBIT>)
                            (<TELL
"and not having the most discriminating tastes, gleefully eats it.">
                      <REMOVE-OBJECT <PRSO>>)>)
                     (<VERB? "TAKE" "MOVE">
                      <TELL
"The troll spits in your face, saying \"Better luck next time.\"">)
                     (<VERB? "MUNG">
                      <TELL
"The troll laughs at your puny gesture.">)>)
              (<AND ,TROLL-FLAG!-FLAG
                    <VERB? "HELLO">>
               <TELL "Unfortunately, the troll can't hear you.">)>>

Xardox (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can give something that you don't have? I was under the impression that it wouldn't work. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You can give anything that's in the room or your inventory to the troll. So if his axe falls on the floor, "give axe to troll" will work without having to pick it up first, which is supposed to work. But even before he drops the axe you can go "give axe to troll" and he'll eat it while he's holding it, since it's transitively in the room. That's the first thing I did, that made me think of typing "give troll to troll"! Xardox (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" Section?

I was thinking that an "In Popular Culture" section would be appropriate -- Zork played a major role in the development of Season (1?) of Chuck, and Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory plays a game which seems to be based on the Zork. If we could get some other pop culture references, I think it would be a valid and informational section. ☠  Travis McCrea ^(T)(C) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It additionally plays a role in the plot of Ready Player One. Arzg (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User Serols reverting reliable sites

Why is Serols (talk) persisting in removing sites from the external links that have been part of this page for eternities and are proven reliable sources on the subject:

• Infocom-if.org's entry for Zork I
• Zork I review at Adventure Classic Gaming

Dude, are you on a powertrip? 2001:AC8:36:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Serols's behavior is unacceptable (such as his violating WP:TPO), but both of you are violating WP:3R. Neither of the above links belongs in an External links section; even if they did, they would belong in the Zork I article anyway. Ylee (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ylee, please inform yourself before you accuse someone of edit-war. The IP tried on Wednesday to enter the links and latest here, he knew what he is doing, he just overwrote existing links, after my edit. Only after four warnings can you report an IP in the VM page - see here, and here are the warnings. After the fourth warning, I have not deleted his editing, you have done. Comment like - Dude, are you on a powertrip? and link-spam is for me only vandalism. Therefore, his question here on the discussion page is only cheeky. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat: You violated WP:TPO and WP:3R, which are both very, very bad things to do. The list of exemptions to the 3R ban is short and the IP editor's behavior is not on it. Your deleting his Talk comments is just as egregious. Please stop. Ylee (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read everything on this page, not only WP:3R -> Reverting vandalism is not edit warring -> Types of vandalism. You have also deleted his links. Besides, you are not accosted on this discussion page and were not bothered on your discussion page. Therefore the cancellation was justified. Thank you for bringing this back. --Serols (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PlayStation?

PlayStation is mentioned in the infobox as well as in the list of categories at the bottom of the page. It is not mentioned at all within the text of the article. Has Zork ever been available for PlayStation? The timeline doesn't seem right... 198.202.137.38 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not that difficult to find. "zork playstation mobygames" reveals: Zork PlayStation remake. Kind regards, Grueslayer 21:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Zork III: "the second and only time"

The description of Zork III contains the sentence "Here the 'elvish sword of great antiquity' is used for the second and only time to block the beam in the Beam Room." Never having played the game, I can make little sense of this. How can the second time be the only time? Should it be "first and only time" or should it be "second and final time"? --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been years so I can't recall the sword, but that sentence doesn't make any sense so I've removed that wording, especially sense I couldn't find a source to clarify one way or the other. - Aoidh (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire plot entry to Zork III seems overly detailed, like a turn-by-turn walkthrough rather than a summarized overview of the game. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to be less detailed (and with so many spoilers). Crimson667 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case (although almost six years late), you do not actually have to use the sword to block the beam. The can of grue repellent works just as well, for example. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Original combines plot elements from all 3 Zork games

One more in fact: the Sooty Room puzzle in the original is not in the Infocom Zorks. But it is in Sorcerer (where it became part of the Slanted Room puzzle). Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And the New Zork Times mentioned one more: "sending for the brochure" (which presumably became sending for the vilstu potion). Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of recent merger/overhaul of this article

A few days ago, I moved an overhaul of the Zork article that I'd been working on in article space into this page. As part of that, I merged in the articles for the three episodes (Zork I, Zork II, and Zork III) on the basis that, as the game was originally developed as a single game before being split into episodes and a good chunk of the legacy was as a unified subject, it made the most sense to have them all in one article, especially since none of the three subarticles had a ton of information that wouldn't fit here. At the time, they looked like this: I, II, and III, e.g. I was mostly reception, while II and III were mostly gameplay/plot summary. This article looked like this.

Since then, Grueslayer has objected to the merge on the basis that the articles have been around for years and I did not get consensus before merging, which, fair enough, since none of the articles were being actively worked on any time recently I didn't. So, this discussion is to get a consensus one way or another- should this be 1 article or 4? --PresN 14:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, PresN. Kind regards, Grueslayer 14:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking for a start that for the original 3 articles, there is too much plot/gameplay, and almost no significant separate development, reception or legacy for the last two eps, the merge into one makes a lot of sense. If the individual episodes had more reception or dev info on their own, that would be different. Masem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: Is that something where you would want to bring in your expertise? Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I understand PresN's thinking—the first three Zork games were, in fact, developed as a single game and then split into multiple games. And a lot of great work has been done on this article. But I have serious doubts about merging the three games into one, single page. Just as The Lord of the Rings was written as a single book and published as three, the Zork trilogy exists as three separate units. That's both a market reality (in terms of how they sold, when they sold, where they sold) and a reality in the coverage: third-party sources reviewed them and reported on them as individual games. It's convenient shorthand to refer to just "Zork" when we talk about the Zork trilogy, but these are separate games that were each widely covered in their own right. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

PresN's work is infinitely better than the unmerged individual articles. I'm honestly quite shocked how much good info is here, it's often hard to get so much for such an older subject from before the internet era. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Merged version looks good to me. That the separate articles have been around for years is not a strong argument. Thanks, PresN, for being bold and merging. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the bold merge is fine. The combined article is 32KB of readable prose, so WP:SIZE issues aren't a concern, and the article makes a convincing case the best way to talk about them is in aggregate, especially in regards to how its legacy is perceived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - each of the original games got something on the order of 10 reliably sourced reviews, and there is more than enough material to make a full-sized article on each. We aren't talking about minor licensed cruft here. It might be a bit more work to get each individual article up to snuff, but there is no clear rationale for merging them all into one article per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NORUSH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I defer to the opinions of editors who actually put in the work when it comes to "no rush". The end result of PresN's work is one much, much better article instead of three incredibly poor ones. If someone comes along at some point and expands this article to the point they can write a good article on each episode, then that's great. Until then, the change is preferable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand how NORUSH applies here- we're talking about if a merge is acceptable, not trying to get changes through in a hurry about a 40+ year old game. NORUSH in that case just sounds like "don't change things ever because maybe we'll want to change things again years down the road" - you could apply that to any edit.

As far as the sourcing and content goes, though, I'm generally disinterested in "maybe in the future there will be sources to support 3 other articles" arguments, here or elsewhere. Like, I'm not 100% done with this article, but at this point I'm not seeing lots of sources specific to individual episodes that aren't being used. I didn't merge them because I just really didn't want 4 articles, I merged it because, organizationally, given the content and sources that are available, it made more sense to me to keep them all together as a trio. All of those reviews mentioned are still used now- I just chopped down the lengthy pull quotes. --PresN 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is important value in completeness and comprehensiveness that also must be weighed against notability for determining if standalone or one single article makes sense. Each episode of Zork meets the GNG, but it is far more comprehensive to talk about the game as originally released, and then discuss episode specific details. It would definitely be different if the episodes were released first followed by the overall game, but instead we have the current situation Masem (t) 19:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit ludicrous to imply that I am not an editor who "puts in the work" when it comes to improving articles, although early text adventures don't appeal to me. However, I am simply saying that if they did or I one day had a change of heart and decided to work on it, making several full articles would not be an issue, so the idea of merging them is unnecessary and stifles any potential expansion of any one game. In my opinion, comprehensiveness can still mean several articles linked together by an infobox, that's what hyperlinks are for. It just makes navigation and reading easier when they are split into their respective games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to read Wikipedia in an online mode, so one has to consider comprehensiveness of a single article. There are still appropriate uses for hyperlinks - I would not go into a history of Infocom in discussing Zork outside of how the company's history overlaps with it. But in this case, the overlap of content between the three episodes does make a lot more sense to keep to one article and avoiding wasting the reader's time to follow hyperlinks about overlapping topics. Masem (t) 12:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per the reasoning of Zxcvbnm in this case. I did find some more reviews for each of the games in the series, including for Zork I: PC Mag, Softalk, Softside, Family Computing, and The Rainbow, and for Zork II: Softalk, and for Zork III: Softalk, PC World. There are probably a bunch more, but I think these have plenty of room to be developed further. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. The volume of reviews for the individual games does not indicate that we need separate articles. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MERGEREASON, the page is not a duplicate, the games do not overlap, and the games' articles are not one or two sentences. Nor do they require massive amounts of context to understand them. So there is quite literally no merge reason for each Zork game beyond one editor's opinion. In fact per WP:NOTMERGE, "Merging should be avoided if: the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"the games do not overlap" - uh, yes they do, that's the reason that I merged them in the first place. They were developed as a single game in 1977, and in late 1979 Lebling drew a line around half of the game map and called that Zork I because they couldn't fit the whole thing in a computer's memory. He did then go on to add bits to the second half so that it needed to be split again, and they did sell it in 3 releases, so I get where JimmyBlackwing's coming from, but the 3 episodes clearly overlap- the first 10 out of 15 paragraphs of development are about the game as a unified whole, the reviews may be mostly split but the legacy section has them as a single concept. It's reasonable to think that they'd be better as three articles (even if I disagree), but MERGEREASON (which isn't even a guideline, it's just a reference essay) doesn't apply here like that. --PresN 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Something that was cut content from a previous game is still not an "overlap". Something like a DLC or expansion pack would (possibly) be an overlap. The developers still made a judgement call about what to include in the first game and what to put in a sequel.

MERGEREASON is not a guideline, but not an "essay" as you claim. It is an information page reflecting current consensus, so it goes beyond one person's opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That may make sense in other scenarios, but absolutely not for Zork, given the time frame it was created (DLC? Expansion packs?), the way the game is played (the split of the three parts is nearly necessitated by how Zork is constructed as a game), and simply that the game is so far in the past that we should not expect any new information to come about as to make a potential home for episode-specific information.

Heck, consider that we do not have separate episode articles for the various Telltale Games episodes despite each having its own bit of reception - its because the game's larger aspect of development, gameplay and plot all overlap so having tiny, piecemeal articles on each episode would be more harmful. Masem (t) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think these three articles could be recreated, but it would take a lot of work to make them nearly as nice as the main article now is. The current setup of the main article looks good, so I wouldn't recommend cutting much from it even if the three sub-articles are recreated. If editors think that the subarticles can go in significantly more detail than the main article through the sources available, then I would love such articles to be written! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Waxworker: Would you have an opinion on this?

(Since the three games were released and marketed as three individual games over the course of three years I would appreciate it very much if there were four articles of the quality of PresN's new overview article, but I won't be able to invest the necessary time myself and of course I cannot issue orders to anyone, so I'll live with whatever the consensus is.)

Kind regards, Grueslayer 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support retain merge. I read the opposing arguments and opinions related to merging guidelines. What's important to me is that the merge improved Wikipedia. The result is much better than the previous sum of the parts. Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether something has been "improved" is subject to individual beliefs. I believe that, while the main Zork article was arguably made better, the articles on the sequels were not improved but in fact ignored. Is this a net improvement? Depends on your point of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have my point of view on record now. Airborne84 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support merger I suggest that as the editor who did the scholarly research about this game and created an astonishingly comprehensive article, PresN has earnt the right to make an editorial decision to merge based on their personal assessment. Perhaps the individual games do pass GNG, maybe they don't. It's not really relevant at this stage - the Zork article as structured renders individual game articles obsolete, and it would require a complete overhaul to do otherwise. A Godfather article containing comprehensive coverage on the entire trilogy would be long and overkill, but a Zork article doing much the same seems to be of suitable length based on available sourcing so I'm in favour of it. Sure, articles on individual games 'could' exist, but due to this brilliant piece of writing, they would look like unworthy spin-off stubs in comparison.--Coin945 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Plus, from the way in which PresN described the sequels (II is the second half of I with some added puzzles, and III is much the same), it could be argued that they are more akin to expansion packs than stand-alone games, which generally don't get their own articles anyway.--Coin945 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge - The oppose arguments seem to hinge on the reasoning that if we wanted to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III, we have enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements, whereas from what PresN has written, the motivation for the merge is that it doesn't make sense to have individual articles on Zork I, II, and III because the three are most logically treated as a single subject, so the "if" in the oppose argument doesn't come into play (or at least, it shouldn't). I don't see any need to break the current version of the article down into smaller articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge - Some sad comments in this thread. An editor volunteered dozens of hours to improve the coverage of this subject. Was their editorial decision to merge the wrong call? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because the new merged iteration is so obviously better in quality that there's no way in hell we are going back to the previous stub splits, the only other option available to us. If you think split articles would be an improvement, you put in the work and create those articles. That's what this editor did. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zork/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the busy side, but I always enjoy reviewing articles with a bend towards video game history. Going to try to get to this soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patience. Going to work through this section by section. Will circle back to the lead, later. The article is very well written and researched, and these comments will help it get to the next level.
• Gameplay

• It would help to introduce the concept of a text parser is before you explain what it means to type in commands. (e.g. "Using a text parser, the player..." or "The player types commands into a text parser, which allows them to")

• I guess I do need to explain more, because the player doesn't "use" the text parser- the parser is the code in the game that takes the text that the player typed and interprets it. Expanded a bit when I use the word "parser"

• "If it does not understand" -> "it" becomes ambiguous in this sentence, and it might help to restate the noun -- "the program", "the text parser", "the interface", or even "the game"

• Done

• Semi-colons make things harder to read and understand, and two sentences are preferable.

• I think semicolons are a handy way to join related clauses, but it does get away from me sometimes. Reduced the overall use of them.

• "Zork also contained multiple ways" -> this is a little ambiguous too. Did you mean the original Zork?

• Clarified, but yes

• "to use and fight with" -> "to use in combat". or "to use against enemies"

• Done

• "a thief character wanders the underground maze as well, and will steal items that the player has dropped on the ground" -> "a thief character will wander the underground maze, stealing items that the player has dropped on the ground"

• Made as "is wandering" so as not to make that future tense, but done

• "earns the player points, which keep rough track of how much of the game has been completed" -> "count towards the player's score, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed."

• Done

• Plot

• Once again, I think the semi colons read awkwardly, and would be more readable broken into separate sentences.

• Done

• "Location and item descriptions, as well as the manuals in later versions of the game," -> "Most of the setting is established through the game's written descriptions of items and locations, as well as manuals in later game releases." (full stop.)

• Done

• "The player is given little instruction, but exploring the game world leads them into the Great Underground Empire. The first episode has little plot, but has nineteen treasures scattered throughout the game world behind puzzles, some of which require other treasures to solve." -> The "but" reads weird here, both times. Try "The first episode has little plot, and the player is given little instruction. As the player explores the game world, they reach the Great Underground Empire, where they find nineteen treasures scattered throughout the game world."

• Done

• "through descriptions of items and areas" -> can drop this, as this is explained in the gameplay, and again in the first paragraph in this section about the setting

• Done

• "with varied effects." -> are these effects harmful? helpful? Maybe some examples would help.

• Done

• "is trying to gather" -> "the player character is trying to gather the garb of the Dungeon Master and prove themselves as worthy of being their successor" -> "the player gathers the garb of the Dungeon Master to become their successor."

• Done

• "their puzzles" -> does "their" refer to the Dungeon Master? This is ambiguous.

• Done

• "the twist that one of them" -> this probably makes sense as its own sentence, as it's joined awkwardly to the previous thought.

• Done

• "transforms the player into a duplicate of himself" -> the meaning here isn't clear

• Done

• Development/MIT

• What is the Dynamic Modelling Group, and what do they do? It helps give context to what their actual software experience was before starting game development.

• Done

• I feel like there is a more succinct way to describe the influence of Colossal Cave Adventure. Right now it feels like it goes on a tangent, but it is important to state what it is and how popular it was, to demonstrate how it would have influenced Zork.

• Done

• There is a lot of asterisks beside every game that claims to be the first 3D game ever made, so it's worth giving the reader more context about what kind of 3D. Only needs one or two words. (Maybe "wireframe"?)

• I don't think there's any asterisks needed here? It was the first 3D game. Full stop. Asterisks would be for later games- first 3D game with smooth motion, first with non-90 degree angles, first with textured walls... but Maze was just... the first 3D game.

• "Lebling then left for a two-week vacation, and in his absence Anderson, Blank, and Daniels..." -> "While Lebling took a two-week vacation, Anderson, Blank, and Daniels..."

• Done

• You say "in the final game" twice and it's not needed

• Done

• The Anderson quote is long enough that it would read better as its own sentence, or summarized in fewer words.

• Done

• "the community" -> which community? MIT?

• Done

• "referring to themselves as the "implementers" -> is this important?

• Kinda, like, it's not, except that they kept referring to designers as that even when running Infocom, so that was the term used by the public as well- it's in every source. So it's trivial, but textually relevant.

• "grues" -> this needs context for the reader to understand

• It was mentioned in Gameplay

• "which were added by Lebling after to replace falling into pits after his character fell into a pit while inside the attic of the house" -> this reads awkwardly

• Done

• "large community of players for the time" -> this could be more specific.

• No numbers exist. It's described in the source as "it had a relatively large user community from all over the country."

• "The group had added several sections, such as the river, volcano, and coal mine sections, and then took a break from adding new content. For the next couple months, they instead improved the engine of the game, and added the ability to save the player's progress in the game. " -> "The group added locations such as a volcano and coal mine, and soon shifted their efforts to improving the game's engine. An important feature was saved game functionality, to store the player's progress in the game."

• Done

• Ted Hess at DEC -> here comes a new challenger! Was Ted Hess a new team member, or was he a volunteer from the wider community?

• Done

• "He released it in March 1978, thereby making the game available to a wider set up players outside of those with access to a PDP-10 mainframe" -> this one is hard to read

• Done

• "At the time, the team had decided to give the game an actual name besides "zork", and named the game Dungeon; this name was used for the Fortran version, which was spread through the DEC users group, DECUS, and became one of the most popular pieces of software distributed through the group." -> even after changing the semicolon to two separate sentences, this one is hard to read.

• Done

• "The name change was soon rescinded for the main game, however, as TSR Hobbies, the publishers of Dungeons & Dragons, claimed the name violated their trademark, and Zork became the official name for the game." -. "However TSR Hobbies claimed the title violated their trademark in Dungeons & Dragons, leading the game to return to its original title."

• Done

• "megabyte" -> used to seeing a number beside this, so did you mean that there's only a single megabyte?

• Yes, done

• "Lebling claims" / "Anderson agrees" -> Attributing the same ideas to different sources, you could probably get away with shortening this to a single sentence, instead of repeating it.

• They're not quite the same ideas- Anderson agreed one one point, but had a subtly different interpretation of who did what otherwise

• "The player character was purposely left undescribed, with the developers removing any accidental descriptions or gendered pronouns introduced, in order to help the player be immersed in the game" -> "In order to immerse the player in the game, the developers decided not to describe the player character, removing any accidental descriptions or gendered pronouns."

• Done

• "The text responses to the player's commands were frequently opinionated and sarcastic as a design choice in addition to mirroring the group's speaking patterns,as they felt it would both make the system feel less like a computer and also train the player to write commands in a way that the parser could understand rather than ways it would misinterpret" -> This is a long sentence and would read better as two separate sentences.

• Done

• The last paragraph here about influences might go better at the beginning of the section, in the context of their influence from Colossal Cave Adventure

• I don't think it fits there before it discusses the genesis of the game, but moved it up a few paragraphs to right when they started actually making the game

• Development/Infocom

"In 1979, eight members of the Dynamic Modelling Group, including Anderson, Blank, and Lebling, incorporated Infocom as a software company for members to join after leaving MIT" -> "In 1979, Anderson, Blank, and Lebling incorporated Infocom with five other members of the Dynamic Modelling Group, thus creating a software company for MIT alumni."

• Done with changes

• "for minicomputers, smaller mainframe computers" -> this might work better as a piped link instead of a comma

• Done

• "having graduated and moved to Pittsburgh" -> is this important?

• Done

• "they felt that a combination of a custom programming language for the game as well as the use of floppy disks could make the project viable if the game was cut into two pieces" -> "they felt the project might be viable on two floppy discs with the help of a custom programming language."

• Done with changes

• "This meant that getting ZIL-based games to run on a different type of microcomputer just required a new interpreter program instead of rewriting the games for a different operating system." -> This meant that ZIL-based games could use a new interpreter program to run on new types of microcomputer, instead of rewriting the game for each operating system."

• Done

• "Lebling separated out half of Zork from the rest" -> is this in reference to the two floppy discs? I feel like this could be stated more clearly.

• There wasn't two floppy disks. Reworded that and above to make it more clear- they didn't make the game into disk 1, 2, 3, they cut out the first half of the game and sold it as part 1 on a single disk. Each part of the game was standalone.

• "By the end of 1979, the core game was complete, though it had only been run on DECSYSTEM-20 and PDP-11 mainframe computers, and Berez was elected the company's president." -> "By the end of 1979, Berez was elected the company's president. The core game was complete, though it had only been run on DECSYSTEM-20 and PDP-11 mainframe computers." (avoid combining disjointed thoughts using "and".)

• Done

• "and Blank and Scott Cutler wrote an interpreter program and successfully ran the game" -> which could run the game after Blank and Scott Cutler created an interpreter program."

• Done

• " Infocom began preparing to release the first section of Zork under the title Zork: The Great Underground Empire - Part I, and got Mike Dornbrook to test the game as an audience surrogate, as he had never played it." -> similar sentence issue here. Would flow better with less density, or as separate sentences.

• Done

• "sending the company an advance on the game as their first revenue." -> "sending the company an advance payment".

• Done

• "The first sale of Zork I was earlier in the year, however; since Personal Software declined to publish the PDP-11 version of the game developed in 1979, Infocom announced it to various PDP-11 user groups, and sold some copies—later recalled by Lebling as around 20—directly as a floppy disk with a typewritten manual by Anderson." -> this sentence is a hard read too.

• Done

• "While as late as December 1980 he told Byte that it would be a two-part game, Zork: The Great Underground Empire - Part I and Part II," -> Could probably drop this without losing the overall story

• Shortened

• "Zork II was offered to Personal Software in April 1981 and the contract was signed in June, as Berez became the first paid employee of the company, but Infocom began to be wary of continuing the relationship with Personal Software." -> this one is also a hard read

• Done

• "The Infocom team felt that Personal Software was not advertising Zork I very strongly, and did not seem excited about Infocom's plans to release Zork III and then follow it with several other planned text adventure games such as Deadline and Starcross. This feeling was correct, as Personal Software had plans to stop publishing entertainment software altogether and rebrand as VisiCorp to align with its VisiCalc spreadsheet software, which it did in 1982. Rather than find another publisher, Infocom decided to self-publish its games and began renting office space and contracting with production facilities." -> This is reading pretty long, and seems easy to shorten -- if they had a feeling something would happen, and then it happened, you don't need to say it twice.

• Done

• The development section is pretty long and might warrant splitting into more than two. For example, you start with a subsection just about the team and their influences, and you could end with a subsection just about Zork II and III.

• Split up into 3 sections - I think the Infocom section was fine, but the MIT was pretty hefty

Let's pause here. Once again, this is a really solid article. There's just a lot of it, so it will take some time to work through. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Starting on this, marking off as I go. --PresN 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Okay, sorry for taking so long, but I've now addressed all of the points listed here. --PresN 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: reminder. --PresN 18:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patience. Let's keep this going.
• Reception/Sales

• "moderate amounts" feels like a hard thing to quantify or verify. I think it's enough to document the sales as a number, and then mention the dramatic increase, as you did.

• Done

• Additionally, unlike most games, sales of the game increased over the next few years rather than decline as the market for personal computers expanded. -> Zork sold even more copies as the market for personal computers expanded.

• Done with changes

• The sentence about 1986 feels out of sequence with the rest of this section.

• Moved to the end with changes

• "Based on sales and market-share data" seems redundant -- we should assume these sources are basing their facts on verifiable data.

• Done

• As we wrap the section up, do we have an overall estimate that sums it all up?

• By moving the 1986 sentence, I changed it to be a summation for that paragraph; also adjusted the final sentence of the section to be a bit more conclusive.

• Reception/Reviews

• This section feels like it needs an intro or topic sentence. For modern games that would be something from Metacritic summing up the overall reception of the game, so I understand it's less obvious how to handle this older game.

• Done

• There's a sentence where you use "praised" twice, nearly back to back.

• Done

• "while noting that Zork II was both a sequel and a second segment of the original Zork" seems unnecessary, since it's something we already know, and doesn't really add anything to the review

• Done

• "Another Softalk reviewer in September of that same year" -> "An additional Softalk review..." (should be clear from context that it's an additional review for Zork 3)

• Done

• Some of the "best of all time" lists seem like they belong in legacy, and not reception. Reception is how something is received at the time, while legacy is how something is remembered in the context of all of video game history.

• Done

• Overall, this section flows well. But I'd say the first paragraph is a little chunkier, due to the longer quotes, and multiple sentences per review. I might suggest you replace some of the quotes with summaries, or otherwise summarize the main point of each review, just to match the flow of the better paragraphs.

• Done

• Legacy

• There is a lot of weight on Barton, giving him almost half the paragraph. Is there a way to cover his main point more quickly?

• Condensed

• I might break up the sentence about the adaptation for a variety of systems, and the inspiration for text parsers and chat bots. Those really are two separate thoughts.

• Done, and also moved

• The library of congress piece also feels a little chunky -- do we really need to cover that the New York Times reported it, or can we just say that the library of congress did it?

• Done

• "tens of thousands of copies at minimum" -> this reads a little weird. Maybe just drop "at minimum"?

• Done

• The second paragraph could use a topic sentence just summing up what Zork meant to Infocom as a company. (The details you have would follow from this.)

• Done

• Similarly, the third paragraph could use a topic sentence, explaining that Zork did become a series. (You might need to edit the current first sentence, just for flow. Saying that initially, there was no official follow up to Zork.)

• Done, and also moved stuff around for flow

• "Zork games have been released" -> "The original Zork games have been re-released"

• Done

• When talking about the books, is it really important to know the different publishers in every country? It breaks up the sentence, and seems like an excessive detail. (If you still thought it was important, I might break this into two separate sentences.)

• Done

• "rather than being read straight through like a novel" feels redundant -- it's already explained and linked.

• Done

• "based on Zork" -> "based on the original game" (less repetition / more readability)

• Done

Let's pause here. I'll try not to keep you waiting as long, as I'm sure you're looking forward to wrapping this up. It's a really solid article and it's very close to good article status. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Done, thanks! --PresN 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Going to review the lead, and give everything one more pass. I think we're in good shape.

• Lead

• "They and several other staff and students at the MIT computer center founded Infocom in 1979 to develop software programs, and Blank and Joel Berez created a way to run a smaller portion of Zork on a microcomputer. The parts of Zork were Infocom's first products. " -> "In 1979, they founded Infocom with several other colleagues at the MIT computer center. Blank and Joel Berez created a way to run a smaller portion of Zork on a range of microcomputers, allowing them to commercialize the game as Infocom's first products."

• Done

• "Several more games in the Zork series were released beginning in 1987, as well as books and gamebooks." -> "Infocom was purchased by Activision, leading to new games in the Zork series in 1987, as well as a series of books."

• Done

• "calling them the best adventure game" -> "calling Zork the best adventure game" (avoid guessing whether a singular or plural pronoun is appropriate)

• Done

• "It is regarded as one of the greatest games of all time, based on its prevalence on such lists by critics." -> the second part feels unnecessary (though you should say who regarded it)

• Done

• "Later historians have noted the game as having a large influence on the adventure game genre of the time, and along with Adventure influencing the MUD genre and through it the more recent massively multiplayer online role-playing game genre." -> "Later historians have noted the game as a foundation for the adventure game genre, as well as influencing the MUD genre and massively multiplayer online role-playing game."

• Done

• Gameplay (part 2)

• "The player types in commands to move their character through the locations, interact with objects in the cave, pick up items to put into their inventory, and perform other actions." -> "The player types in commands to perform various actions, such as interacting with objects, picking up items, or moving their character through the locations."

• Done with changes

• "The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork," -> should probably use a full stop here. The sentence gets long, and the next part would be more readable as a separate phrase.

• Done

• "Puzzles may have" -> "Several puzzles have"

• Done

• "In the first section, or Zork I, a thief character is wandering the underground maze as well, stealing items that the player has dropped on the ground." -> this might flow better as before the previous sentence -- before zork II

• Done

• "Collecting treasures earns the player points, which count towards the player's score, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed" -> "The player earns a higher score as they collect treasures, as a rough measure of how much of the game has been completed"

• Done

• Plot (part 2)

• "in the GUE" -> can drop this, as you explain the setting more clearly lat

• Done

• "A century later his and his descendants' spending caused the empire to collapse and all of the residents left." -> "A century later, the empire's overspending caused it to collapse, with all the residents leaving."

• Done

Development (part 2)

• "a computer science research division," -> can drop the comma

• Done

• "They were inspired to create the game by" -> "Their work was inspired by"

• Done

• "a text-based adventure game which is the first well-known example of interactive fiction, as well as the first well-known adventure game." -> "a text-based game which became celebrated as the first well-known work of interactive fiction, as well as the first well-known adventure game." (you say adventure game twice in one sentence, and trying to make this flow better)

• Done but without the "celebrated"

• "Lebling had been heavily involved with Maze (1973), a multiplayer first-person shooter and the first 3D first-person game ever made, while Blank and Anderson had worked on Trivia (1976), a multiplayer trivia game." -> "Blank and Anderson had worked on a multiplayer trivia game called Trivia (1976), and Lebling was heavily involved with Maze (1973), a multiplayer first-person shooter and the first 3D first-person game ever made." (might flow better)

• Done

• "This prototype contained many of the concepts of the final game, such as puzzles and locations, but was simplified." -> "This prototype contained simple versions of many concepts seen in the final game, including puzzles and locations"

• Done

• "Lebling claims that the group had few direct influences when creating the game beyond Adventure, as there were few other games to emulate at the time" -> "As there were few other games to emulate at the time, Lebling claims that Adventure was one of Zork's only influences"

• Done

• "he does admit to basing the combat on Dungeons & Dragons, but says that the other members had never played it" -> this might flow better after explaining the leaflet, and flowing into the comparison between the dungeon master and the text parser

• Done

• "including adding" -> "also adding"

• Did "as well as" instead

• "reverted the name change back to the original title" -> "reverted the name back to the original title"

• Done

• "Lebling claims" / "Anderson agrees" -> if multiple sources are in agreement, I think we can leave out the attribution. Just tell us what people did.

• Tweaked, but maybe this is from working on other older games but I think it's important to specify who said what when they slightly disagree, though in this case it's more like remembering different details.

• "incorporated" should be linked, for those who need to know how that works

• Done

• "It got Mike Dornbrook" -> "The team got Mike Dornbrook"

• Done

• "The first sale of Zork I was earlier in the year" -> this phrase feels out of context and unclear. If it's relevant to the next part, perhaps there is a way to rephrase?

• Reworded

• "the result of the split and additions was that each part of the game had a different atmosphere" -> "splitting the game into episodes led to different atmospheres"

• Done

• "who added gameplay changes and the modified point system" -> "who added gameplay changes such as the modified point system"

• Done

Reception (part 2)

• "The Personal Software versions of Zork I for the TRS-80 version sold 1,500 copies in the nine months after its release in December 1980, and the Apple II version sold 6,000 copies in the same period." -> "In the first nine months after the game's release in 1980, Personal Software sold 1500 copies of Zork for the TRS-80, and 6000 copies for the Apple II."

• Done

• "Sales declined after that point, and total Zork I sales reached 380,000 copies by 1986" -> "Although sales eventually declined, Zork I had sold 380,000 copies by 1986."

• Done with changes

• "and more than 680,000 copies through 1986, including the 1986 Zork Trilogy compilation release," -> full stop here, for readability and flow

• Done

• "Zork overall comprised more than one-third of Infocom's two million total game sales between 1982 and 1986" -> " Between 1982 and 1986, the Zork trilogy comprised more than one-third of Infocom's two million total game sales"
• "Zork I continued to be reviewed for several years after its wide release" -> "Zork I earned additional reviews several years after its release."

• Done

• "As late as September 1983, reviews for the episode still praised it, with Mark Renne of SoftSide that month claiming it was difficult and a "must have", with a parser that was one of the best available, and Eric Grevstad of Family Computing terming it already a classic of the genre" -> "As late as September 1983, reviews for the episode still praised it, with Eric Grevstad of Family Computing proclaiming it a classic of the genre, and Mark Renne of SoftSide calling it a "must have" game with one of the best text parsers available." (flow)

• Done

• "The second and third parts were similarly praised; Softline applauded Zork II's "well-balanced mix of humor, wit, and wry puns" in May 1982 and recommended the game to both new and experienced players" -> "The second and third parts were similarly praised. In May 1982, Softline recommended Zork II for its "well-balanced mix of humor, wit, and wry puns".

• Done

Legacy (again)

• "Other historians, as well as Lebling," -> maybe leave out Lebling. It doesn't add anything, and other historians have said it

• Done

• "PC Gamer, in 2016, claimed Zork as one of the 50 most important video games ever made, on the basis that in addition to being the foundation of Infocom, that it had "defined" adventure games for an entire generation" -> " In 2016, PC Gamer ranked Zork as one one of the 50 most important video games ever made, for establishing Infocom as a studio, and defining an entire generation of adventure games."

• Done

• "Zork was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time" -> "Zork was listed among the ten most important video games of all time"

• Done

• "Instead, following its initial plans to make software in general rather than just games, Infocom invested heavily in creating Cornerstone (1985), a relational database software product which had poor sales. This resulted in financial difficulties and the company being sold to Activision in 1986; it was shut down entirely in 1989" -> "Instead, Infocom diversified into professional software by creating a relational database product called Cornerstone (1985). Poor sales led to financial difficulties, and the company was sold to Activision in 1986, before shutting down entirely in 1989."

• Done with the split

• Further to above, maybe the shut down belongs after the sequels created by Activision. But I leave this to your discretion.

• Done

• Are you familiar at all with Legend Entertainment? It might be worth mentioning that many Infocom veterans moved on here, and might fit in context with the shutdown.

• I didn't mention it because the named people from MIT didn't go there, so it would just be "Infocom employees who didn't work on Zork formed another company that's considered kind of a spiritual successor", which would fit in an article about Infocom but not really this one.

• "and taking place in the Zork world" -> this is implied?

• Without it, it implies that it follows the "plot" of the games themselves rather than just the worldbuilding

That's a lot, but that will take us across the finish line. Thanks again for your hard work and patience. This was a pleasure to read. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Done, thanks again! --PresN 01:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Very happy to give this a pass for GA. Thanks for your hard work and patience. In fact, I think it might already be within a good shot of FA status. I hope you'll go for it when you find the time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Elvish sword of great antiquity" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elvish sword of great antiquity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 21#Elvish sword of great antiquity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zork Box.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)