I’m not so sure I’d go so far as to say that nobody cares if you use a text parser or a context-sensitive drop down menu, however. While I do think a lot of people would agree with that, I do think there are many (myself included) who see some small advantages to parser-based input.

Some of that relates back to one of Al Lowe’s comments, that the parser is like the DOS prompt: “Our games were that way. The cursor would flash, and you’d think, ‘What am I supposed to do now?’” It’s part of the puzzle. And in many cases, context-sensitive drop downs that provide you with the possible verbs for a given situation remove some of the possibilities.

Of course, on the flip side, poor game construction would just lead to infuriating “guess the verb” problems which have plagued many IF games over the years. But done well, and fairly, the parser can in a small way add to the challenge and open-endedness of these games.

Granted, it’s a small benefit, but one which I think many people can still appreciate.

Starting at the bottom. I can’t tell for sure, so perhaps I’m off base, but it sounds like what you’re saying is that adventure games got the accessibility part right when the keyboard was abandoned and the user interface simplified, and now all they need to do is get the inspired content part down and sales will follow.

I think there is some truth to that, although I might argue that a simplified interface does not always equate to a better interface. More efficient, perhaps, and probably more preferred, but I think the interpretation of better depends on your perspective. From a market perspective, I would say it’s the preferred one; from a niche product perspective, I suppose it’s whatever best achieves your goals.

Related to this is your first comment, that “there’s no reason to go back.” A strong statement, for sure, and I’m not so certain I agree.

I think many people may find no reason to go back, and I wouldn’t dispute that there are a majority of adventure gamers that would agree. But I think there are a number of interactive fiction players who might disagree, and perhaps a number of individuals who find the simplified point-and-click interface to be shallow and unsatisfying. That’s something I was planning on touching upon in a future blog. And of course there are still a lot of Linux/Unix users out there who continue to enjoy the command-line interface, although this certainly represents more of a niche group.

I think, perhaps, it would be more applicable to say that there is no economic reason to go back to text entry — I think the market has shown that the simplified point-and-click interface is probably the best bet for making a profit. I also suspect the market is probably not large enough to make a useful profit from a text-based-entry game, although I suppose we’ll find out once Textfyre is off and running.

That is, in the end, part of the experiment here, though. And I think it should be pointed out (which I will get to eventually, someday) that Vespers will not be text-entry-heavy. It’s likely that the mouse and single-key commands will account for the majority of player actions, leaving the keyboard for the less common commands.

“Perhaps the old text interface allowed people to be more comfortable with this type of system interaction.”
Not really. It’s just that you were already selling your game to a small niche, that didn’t mind obtuse irritations as long as it got to play a game. People don’t have to put up with that any more, because the market has accommodated people outside the initial niche.

“Won’t it be wonderful when 10% of American households have a computer? Think how great sales will be?”
People will always buy your game if you give them what they want. The adventure game isn’t dead, it’s just that people don’t put the effort required to make it fun again (which first of all requires accessibility, then inspired content).