Talk:Zork

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some external links removed.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: It additionally plays a role in the plot of Ready Player One. Arzg (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Popular Culture" Section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to the original Zork source code in MDL 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zork III: "the second and only time" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  User Serols reverting reliable sites 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original combines plot elements from all 3 Zork games 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Elvish sword of great antiquity" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is there a reason we're using the Atari ST cover rather than the original TRS-80 or Apple II cover (which has the benefit of being more visually interesting)? Only real argument I could see is that the black Infocom cover sold more copies than the Personal Software early edition. But it's a text adventure game so not sure how much either cover is realy doing to "identify" the subject for the purposes of the WP:NFCC rationale. czar 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because the Infocom covers, while not being the first, were the most recognizable/seen covers, by a factor of about 100 to 1. As a physical-only product, the box art is even more representative than a modern game. I'm not sure what it being a text adventure has to do with it- Prince of Persia or EverQuest certainly didn't look like their covers, for example, despite having graphics; in fact, given the lack of memorable graphics, the box art is even more recognizable due to a lack of competition. Also, this article covers all three episodes (and the original), and PS only sold Zork I- the Infocom covers to II and III are in a similar style to I, so there's a bit more general coverage by not using a cover style that only applied to one episode. --PresN 17:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good czar 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover art 

message: , I added the added Drew reference to a Further Reading section (optional at MOS:FURTHER). It wasn't clear if the sources were all being used in the article since there is underlap between those and the references. Since they are, a further reading section is indeed more appropriate for the ref. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: do you have a link to an archive of that source? There's not much point adding a further reading article if it doesn't have information that's not present in the article, never mind that the vast majority of readers aren't going to have access to a 1983 magazine article. --PresN 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't have an archive link. But it is there for (1) anyone to use as a source in the future, and (2) to show readers the different sources that published on this topic. That seems to generally be the purpose of a Further Reading section. Airborne84 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, well, if you don't have a link... then what is in the source that isn't in this article? The purpose of a "further reading" section isn't just to list sources that aren't used in the article- otherwise most articles on mainstream topics could have a section with thousands of books, articles, and links. The purpose is to say "here's a source that contains further detail, that may be too in-depth for a general-audience article". I don't see how an article in an obscure magazine about play-by-mail games is likely to have further detail for readers beyond the sources that are already in use in the article, especially since 0% of readers will have the ability to read it seeing as it is a 40-year-old niche magazine that had at its peak 3000 readers and isn't available in archives. --PresN 01:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear to me what the issue is here. Listing this review is encyclopedic. I won't comment on what your statement of "0% of readers" implies related to me (I have access to it). Consider also that WP:V states that "Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." But you could seek additional opinions if you feel strongly that Wikipedia is improved if this reference is removed. Airborne84 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If the purpose of listing it is simply to exhort future editors to include it in the article, then use  on the talk page. I agree with PresN's conception of the Further reading section's purpose. It sounds like the source in question is just a contemporary magazine review, which is unlikely to reward dedicated readers' efforts in tracking it down. Since you're the only one here with direct access to it, why not simply incorporate it yourself somewhere if you think it says something not covered by other sources, or failing that, scan/transcribe it so someone else can make that determination? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I listed two purposes for including the article. It also shows coverage of the topic across sources. In this case, the source is primarily for play-by-mail articles, but provided coverage of a video game as well, which was somewhat unusual. If no one thinks that's encyclopedic, happy to go the refideas route. Airborne84 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Just here to echo that "further reading" and "see also" sections add less value than integrating reliable information into the article. It might be worth emphasizing this in the video game manual of style. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll push back on this to say that the state of game reviews was not great across the board in 1983 and few publications would pass a 2023 bar of reliability. There is some intrinsic value to a contemporary review from (near) when the game came out, just to get some sense of what people of that era thought, even if the writer/publication does not meet our current definition of reliable. I don't know the content of the review though, so I can't say if it provides anything more than is currently written in the #Reviews section of the article. If not, then it wouldn't make sense to include, but not on RS grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that games journalism was not great at the time. I also agree that showing a contemporary viewpoint would be nice, but how is that not WP:ILIKEIT? If the source is low-quality or unreliable, is it a valuable resource? I don't think so, personally. Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no objective measure for quality. Maybe it's the best review/publication of its time and nothing else meets today's bar for reliability. I don't know, I haven't done the due diligence. Published contemporary viewpoints are crucial to include because they are not replicable by any source going forward. Things cannot become "cult status" or have "aged poorly" if there's no record of how it was received at the time. Contemporary viewpoints, even poor quality ones, give some indication of that reception. This discussion is all academic though, since I have no idea about this particular source and can't speak to its quality or usefulness. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to drop it and revisit if or when we can all review the source. Until then, should the "further reading" listing be removed from the article? Woodroar (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally pulled out the magazine again. The review is fairly critical, with both positives and negatives for the game. I think the most useful part would be the contemporary thoughts on its difficulty at the time as an emerging game related to other games of the period. But I moved it to refideas for now until I have time to look at it further. I appreciate the comments. Airborne84 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading