Talk:Colossal Cave Adventure

Video games

User:Masem reverted my change from "video game" to "computer game", saying that on WP, computer games and video games are the same thing.

Firstly, I would like a citation for that claim.

Secondly, note that in video games, it says: "Computer games are not all video games—for example text adventure games, chess, and so on do not depend upon a graphics display." So the WP article on video games implicitly notes that video games are computer games that require a graphics display. ADVENT does not.

ADVENT arrived at a time when there were essentially no video monitors. There were no PCs. Silicon Graphics, Jupiter, and Tektronix terminals hadn't been invented. I first played ADVENT on a machine with a 20x8-character gas-discharge display, and a console printer (Supervisory Printed Output, or 'SPO'). The game output went to the SPO. A completed game required several inches thickness of fanfold paper. You couldn't imagine playing on the display, which was really just for echoing input. So is the claim that printed output is 'video'?

You could certainly play on a glass teletype; but to refer to a glass teletype as a 'video' is stretching it.

So, User:Masem, would you please restore my edit? Thanks.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because you may have played it on a teletype printer, doesn't mean it wasn't also playable on video screens. More importantly, you went through every use of "video game" and replaced that with "computer game" which broke several links and context ([1]). --Masem (t) 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean that; there were no "video screens" when the game was made. Not even graphics terminals; there were text-mode terminals ("glass teletypes"), but most people didn't have them.

Furthermore, there is a direct contradiction between referring to ADVENT as a video game, and the clear statement in video games that text adventures are not video games. The right article to fix is this one, not that one.

If I screwed up some links, that's my bad; I should have delinkified them. Sorry.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You should't use WP as a reference for this stuff, but if you're still talking the statement over at video game, that statement related to text adventure games does not say they are not video games, but may be considered computer games since they can be played without a monitor. But they can still be video games. The problem that we have had in the past is that being too specific on the line between computer and video games led to edit wars over how to classify games, and project wise, we have taken the stance that all computer games belong in what people recognize as "video games" including games that lack a monitor. As PresN points out, we can be clear CCA was intended as a teletype game, but since has been ported to monitor-based systems. --Masem (t) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Video screens absolutely existed at the time; even the PDP-1 that Crowther used for his maps could have had them. Spacewar! (1962) required the use of one, since it had real-time updating graphics. By 1971 there were 1000 computer installations with CRT monitors (though obviously of a different type), and by 1976 there would have been much, much more. Heck, Spasim (1974) was also a graphical computer game, since the PLATO system had thousands of monitors on its own. It's not that they didn't exist, it was that they were very expensive compared to teletypes to have every employee on the mainframe have their own, and there wasn't a business need since all the programs were text-based anyway. So, CCA was largely played over teletypes at the time. But: can you prive that no one played it on a monitor at the time? Can you prove that no one ever played the Woods version on a monitor between 1977 and 1995, when he stopped updating the Fortran code? Can you explain what exactly changed in the game when the same code was played on a monitor vs a teleprinter that made it into a "video game" instead of a "computer game", as if video games haven't played on computers of every type ever since their inception?

"Computer games" had a different lineage in the 1970s than "video games" did, which is why they used to be considered different things, but conceptually they are the same. If video game says otherwise, it is wrong- and it contradicts both early history of video games and history of video games to do so. --PresN 16:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, additionally while in prior decades there was a distinction made between "computer" games and "video" games, in modern parlance they're equivalent. The definition of "video game" to be a game that involves real-time updating graphics on a monitor isn't one that's really used any more, any more than the definitions that essentially limited it to arcade and console games. That said, CCA is obviously a text game and was designed and originally played on teletypes, and I wanted to make that clear; unfortunately so far I haven't found a good source that calls that out. For some 70s games sources make a point of it (e.g. The Oregon Trail (1971 video game), or Spacewar! specifically calling out that it couldn't be played on a teleprinter), but for many, and it seems this is one, sources just... assume that you know that. Still looking, though, because I think it's important to give context to modern readers what playing the game was actually like at the time and how that differs from loading up a modern port. --PresN 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit- and of course as soon as I type that and specifically go looking for "teleprinter" CCA instead of just CCA sources I find one. Give me a bit to integrate it. --PresN 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a source too that I've put in as well. --Masem (t) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Please provide a diff for the source you put in (at some unstated article or talk page or something). Also please provide an RfC that agrees with your position that a computer game is always a video game even if no video hardware is needed to play the game.

If you want to apply current language to old games, I could argue that any game that isn't played on an athletic field is a video game; Grand Theft Auto shouldn't be called a video game, it's just a game. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The line between "video game" and "computer game" is extre.ely vague to the point that trying to explitly define it would be a problem...this is either because "video game" had broadly included nonvideo computer games, or where predominately in Europe "computer games" included video games. The terms are too diffuse with each other and hence we general call any such game a "video game", the more common term. See the nomiculture section in video game for sources.

but even with that, while CCA was originally developed as a teletype game, its legacy is know as a text based video game in broader terms. Hence the short description should reflect how it is readily known and not its original instance. --Masem (t) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And the diff alluded to above ends here [2] but you can see the source added a few more diffs back that day. --Masem (t) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review on. If I don't get back with comments in a week, please ping. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: I can't see anything major holding this back. Instant Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bonus point = 351?

It's been decades since I last played ADVENT - certainly 20th century - and I only know this because I read the source, but the version I saw (still in FORTRAN) had a trick that gained you an extra point. It may have had something to do with going back to the bear. Can anyone confirm it was in their version, or was this something added to the branch that ended up on my desk? David Brooks (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

For the original Fortran, and in Knuth's CWEB version, the various treasure points, staying alive, reaching the end-game, exploring the cave thoroughly, etc. only came to 349 points. The special single bonus point was obtained by moving the magazine 'Spelunker Today' from the Anteroom to Witts End. You then had the additional problem of getting out of Witt's End without paying penalty points for advice! Murray Langton (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Another name for the Apple II?

I played it in maybe 1980, 1981, or 1979, on an Apple machine, possibly Apple II. But I didn't recall it being called "Microsoft" anything, but possibly with the word "Cave" in it; maybe with the word "Adventure" in it. I remember it beginning with something like "You are standing outside a cave." The article mentions only the MS version of it on the Apple. Could the one on the Apple have had another name, perhaps a name with the word "Cave" in it? Misty MH (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

help

could someone tell me where i can play this today? Allaoii ^talk 20:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an option within the EMACS editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

EMACS editor? Allaoii ^talk 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a Linux system, it goes under the name 'adventure'. You might need to download it. Murray Langton (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

whats Linux? Allaoii ^talk 20:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Some clarification.

First, the game entitled 'adventure' on Emacs is not colossal cave adventure.

Second, there appears to be an internet version: https://grack.com/demos/adventure/

I haven't played that version out completely so I don't know how complete it is.

Third, Linux is an operating system and can be used as an almost free alternative to Microsoft Windows. In fact the Linux kernel underlies Android on mobile phones and also underlies Apple Mac software. Murray Langton (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Another internet version is at: https://rickadams.org/adventure/advent/ Murray Langton (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

never mind i installed the app Allaoii ^talk 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Plugh

I distinctly remember entering “plugh” and “xyzzy”. What did “plugh” do, and why is it not mentioned?

I played it on a Data General MV8000 around 1980. 2601:647:8100:30BB:1965:93E:CBE5:9231 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"plugh" teleports you between the Y2 room and the cabin (both ways), like "xyzzy" does with 2 other locations; it's not mentioned because sources don't really talk about it, it's kind of a minor detail that's less remembered than xyzzy. --PresN 22:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In the 360 point version, whenever you visit the location "Y2" there is a 25% chance that you will receive the message: "A hollow voice says 'plugh'". Using this magic word allows you to get well into the cave. Murray Langton (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The 1987 PDP-11 Windows port link needs clarification

The link says "1987 Windows port of the PDP-11 version of Colossal Cave Adventure for DOSBox". Many people will assume that this means DOSBox will need to be installed before the game itself is installed. Actually this .exe installs and sets up DOSBox and the game automatically (similar to a Good Old Games game setup file). This means the user won't need anything and the game will be running in seconds. Maybe someone can figure a way to mention this without a bunch of words? Thanks! 97.113.157.8 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

TNIX version

I worked in the Microprocessor Development Products division at Tektronix in the early 1980s and we played this game on our TNIX-based systems. (TNIX was Tektronix' proprietary version of UNIX.) It was called "dungeo" on our systems, but was clearly either the exact same game or an embellished version. I actually found this Wikipedia page while searching for "a maze of twisty passages, all alike", which does tend to stick in ones memory. (I don't remember the word "little" in that phrase.) I suspect that the file was just renamed or something. The interaction on the screen in the photo in this article looks exactly like what I remember. Anyway, "RUN DUNGEO" often started an enjoyable lunch break. FatBear1 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thesis

User:PresN It is a fair point you made about the eponymous nature of the game being mentioned in the last sentence of the lead. I somehow failed to notice that. Go me. I am not however aware of any reason I cannot use the source to which you objected. It is a published, peer reviewed academic source which contains information about the subject of the article. If I am for some reason in error I would be most obliged if you could direct me to some documentation as to why. Can you please explain why you also removed another citation for this same point? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we typically do not use thesis for sourcing until there's a really good reason too. Masem (t) 03:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The good reason is that there are a dearth of sources for this material. This is a good source of the information. To address the points raised in WP:SCHOLARSHIP; it is publicly available, peer reviewed, and a secondary source on the material. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: Ok, so, for clarity, we're talking about this edit. This did two things: 1) said it was "the eponymous" adventure game, which duplicates later in that paragraph where it says "for which it was also the [[eponym|namesake]]." and 2) said it was the "first" adventure game. The same later sentence calls it "the first well-known example of interactive fiction", and for good reason- it wasn't the first. The lede summarizes the body of the article, and this bit is summarizing the end of the first paragraph in "Legacy": "The game is the namesake and the first well-known example of an adventure game, as it combined the interactivity of computer programs with the storytelling of literature or role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, despite its lack of linear plot.[5] The only text adventure game known to precede it is Wander from 1974, which did not have the spread or influence of Adventure.[12]". [5] is the journal article "Adventure before adventure games: a new look at Crowther and Woods's seminal program", while [12] is the They Create Worlds book, pp. 383–385. Wander may not be as well-known, but calling CCA the "first" adventure game just isn't technically true, even if it was basically the first most people saw.

In any case, since what you had was duplicative and slightly wrong, and cited to 1) and entire book with no page numbers, and 2) a phd thesis (your own), I reverted it. In the end, we don't add sources just to say we have them, we add them to back up information that needs it, and CCA's influence on the genre is already there and sourced. --PresN 11:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are fair points. But you didn't answer my question. Is there a reason I can't cite a source I wrote? It is a published, peer reviewed, secondary source. I have looked all though the documentation about reliable sources and can find nothing that says one can't cite a work just because one is the author. But you keep bringing this point up as if it is a thing. If it is please direct me to the documentation.Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a peer reviewed source, though? I guess WP:SELFCITE says that you can cite a source you wrote yourself, but a phd thesis isn't generally "peer reviewed", in the sense that it's not been formally reviewed by other scholars, as in submitted to a formal review process like a journal or even usually reviewed/critiqued at a conference (your dissertation committee or ad-hoc readings do not count). I'm not seeing any evidence of the thesis being reviewed at the link, though you would know better: where was it peer reviewed?

Also, what do you intend to cite with it? It doesn't seem to add any new information, so it would be just a secondary cite to something already covered, which is ok. Page 22 has that it was "the precursor for the entire genre of role playing adventure games", so I guess it could be a secondary cite for that bit of legacy.

I note, though, that then goes on to say that Adventureland was the first version of Adventure for personal computers, and added graphics unlike CCA, which is a) wrong in that it's a different game than Adventure, and b) misleading in that while it was likely the first adventure game for personal computers (Zork beat it, but was on mainframes until 1979; CCA itself was in C and other languages by 1977, but wasn't released commercially or as a package for a microcomputer/PC system as far as I can tell before Adventureland was), but it didn't have graphics until 1982—Mystery House (1980) was the first adventure game with graphics. --PresN 01:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? It is quite frankly ridicuolous to assert that a PhD is not peer reviewed. It is absolutely peer reviewed. A PhD is thoroughly reviewed by the markers. It is the ultimate peer review. It is a declaration that one is a bona fide researcher and an accredited member of the academic community.

You do know about WP:SELFCITE then. So your original remark calling into question my adding a citation from my PhD was completely unecessary and rude. Not presuming good intent at all. In fact it calls to mind "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

We are not here to argue about other parts of my thesis. We are discussing one citation for one statement. It seems that now you recognise that my citation was both allowed and a valid citation for that information. This seems to indicate your removal of it was not reasonable. I suggest it be returned to the article as a citation. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the confusion here is that in Australia, PhD theses are reviewed differently than dissertations are reviewed in the United States. In the U.S., dissertations are reviewed by a committee consisting of faculty members of the university the student is attending, which is not considered a peer review. In Australia, there are supervisors instead of a dissertation committee, and the thesis is evaluated by external examiners who are experts in the field. This is quite similar to the peer review process employed by academic journals and university presses. Even if this process were still not technically considered peer review, I feel there is no reason to exclude a PhD thesis on these grounds, which has undoubtedly undergone a more rigorous review process than many journalistic and popular history sources frequently cited on Wikipedia.

That said, a thesis still needs to be evaluated like any other source. In this case, it appears the subject matter is ethnography and ontology as they relate to interactions in Second Life rather than a study of computer game history in general or Colossal Cave in particular. The history is perfunctory background material and contains several inaccuracies not limited to those already described above, which I doubt the supervisors or examiners would have been equipped to identify seeing as computer game history was likely not the field of anyone involved. I have no doubt the thesis is well executed in relation to its actual academic field, but it is not a high-quality source of information on Colossal Cave Adventure. Sources exist for this info that are far more on point.

As Adventure is not the thrust of the thesis, including it does raise the specter of self promotion. We must assume good faith, of course, but even if the inclusion was innocent, it still casts an unnecssary shadow over the article. User:PresN was completely justified in removing it. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up for PresN that this thesis has been peer reviewed.

But let's look at what you are saying here Indrian. You are saying that a published PhD thesis about video games, with a chapter devoted to the history of video games, which you acknowledge has been through a process of peer review by experts, should not be cited because you think it is in error, because you made an assumption that you doubt that the markers had expertise about the topic because you think it has errors. Have you even read WP:RELIABLESOURCES? I am guessing not or you would have seen this "This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." I'm not claiming my thesis is perfect, but it has been peer reviewed and published and it is not up to you to judge it it's accuracy. This kind of behaviour is exactly why academics deride Wikipedia.

PresN has already acknowledged that WP:SELFCITE allows this source and has also acknowledged that the citation is an accurate citation for the information. I again suggest the citation be returned to the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: I apologize for assuming that Australian theses are not peer-reviewed; I'm connected to the academic system here in America so I was thinking of that system. Rather than drag this conversation out further, I went ahead and added your paper to the article (this time without the typo in the title). You didn't respond with what you wanted to cite with it, so I added it as a secondary source to the section talking about it being the namesake and (almost) first, along with the source you cited for that information (which was already in the article, but wasn't being used a secondary source for that bit.

In the future, as a gentle suggestion, if you're adding a source to an article, particularly one you wrote yourself, consider adding it to a bit that's unsourced (note that the lede is the equivalent of the abstract of a paper, and does not generally have references), or else add new information along with your citation, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion or at least to avoid being reverted. --PresN 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PresN, I don't see any reason to treat this thesis (or, in the US parlance, dissertation) any different from the US/UK ones. Neither are "peer-reviewed" in the way we mean "peer-reviewed" when we talk about academic publications in journals or with presses, and "published" for a thesis/dissertation--well, a dissertation can be published by an academic press, but I don't see any evidence that this one was. In addition, but this is by the by, in Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, dissertations are often published as a book--but not by the same presses and in the same way as academic books are published. So sure, we can accept something from something if there is a good reason to do so, but "it's peer-reviewed and published" is not such a reason, because it's not peer-reviewed and published in the way that an article, edited collection, or monograph is. I think I am really confirming what you said earlier, and I think it is important to make that point here. BTW I have no stake in this article or its content. Oh, User:Morgan Leigh, many academics scorn Wikipedia, but I don't think that "I can't cite my own thesis" is one of the common reasons for that. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

New reimagining

There’s a new version https://www.colossalcave3d.com/ Ashareem (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So that's why there's this Colossal Cave Adventure#Later versions paragraph! Kind regards, Grueslayer 20:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A version on yet another system

More than forty years ago now, I was an I-series analyst for the NCR corporation in Australia. We had a version of the game on those systems that sounds very very very similar. It is probably safe to assume that it was converted from one of the systems already discussed, and is therefore likely to have been the "same" game. On it O was able to get all the treasures. I wont repeat anything anyone else has said, but will add a few things.

Our version was written in COBOL and the name of the associated file was MESSAGES. It was an indexed file with 80 character text records.

The "help" on our system said it was a "magic" cave because if you went in one direction and then went in the opposite one, you would not always necessarily end up back where you were.

You started at a quasi random location in the woods every time, so the first few steps to get out of the forest were not always the same. This was deliberately done to prevent automated "attack" on the cave.

There were three magic words in our system: plover, plugh and xyzzy. They did not work everywhere, and they did not work at all times. I no longer recall where they took you to/from. I dont recall whether you had to issue a command "say xxxxx" or simply "xxxxx" as the command.

Being an analyst, it was trivial to edit the MESSAGES file to, for example, add distinguishing features or numbers to the maze of twisty little tunnels. This enabled mapping of the maze. The maze in particular was one area where reversing your steps did not necessarily put you back where you were, so it truly was a "magic" maze.

There were two commands "long" and "short" that enabled, respectively and obviously, long and short descriptions. If you had short descriptions and were in the maze you only got something like "you are in a maze" for all locations in the maze.

I am quite sure that there were no "points" per se in our version of the game. When you exited, you got only a-one word analysis of your exit level, and that was all.

The funniest part that I remember was a "troll bridge". Guarded, of course, by a troll. A sign said "Stop! Pay troll". If you threw a treasure at the troll, he would shriek with delight, take the treasure, and run away. The treasure was thus lost to you. However, if you waved your sword at the troll, he would run away and you would not have to pay the "troll".

There was a limit as to how many objects at once you could carry. I think it was seven. So once you had your hands full, you had to use one of the magic words to get out of the cave and then "drop" objects at the destination point outside of the cave. If you dropped the vase, it would shatter into many pieces of worthless shard. You had to drop the velvet pillow first, and then drop the vase onto the pillow.

On another matter. There was a DOS version of the game, in which if you mapped out the maze, it spelled out the letters TNSTAAFL which of course expands to "there's no such thing as a free lunch" . 2001:8003:E40F:9601:A4EC:39F0:CF08:A5B7 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The version you describe does not quite match the canonical 350-point version. Almost everything you mention matches, except for following:

You always started above ground outside the building.

There was no sword available, but one particular treasure could be retrieved from the troll and returned to its original location via a suitable incantation.

On finishing (or getting killed too many times) you got a score and a grade. Murray Langton (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We know there are a lot of variants of Adventure, see [3]. However, there is very little documented by secondary sources save for the original 350pt and the Woods update. We do mention about many variants existing in the article already, but without detailed reliable sources we really can't go into their differences. Masem (t) 23:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)