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)