Po. Prune wrote:I'm not sure how big a competiton I7 and Twine really is.
Adrift is (or in somes opinion used to be) for the "uneducated" of us who wish to concentrate on the story and puzzles rather than having to do a lot of coding. For me, that was the major reason for using Adrift in the first place
That was what originally attracted me to ADRIFT as well, way back in the v3.9 days. I tried TADS 2 first and maybe Inform 6 but the fact that they were programming languages and I wasn't a programmer meant they were pretty intimidating. ADRIFT was much more to my liking as I could just concentrate on writing my games and not worry about how
to write them. I guess if ADRIFT hadn't been around, I'd have bit the bullet and learnt how to code because I really wanted to write games and if it had to be with a programming language, then so be it.
It's hard to know how much difference Inform 7 and Twine have made to ADRIFT's decline, but I guess any alternative isn't good for a system that's only irregularly updated and has been largely in decline for years now. At one point, if you weren't a programmer, you had precisely two options for writing IF games: ADRIFT and Quest. ADRIFT was much better and had a far larger player base, so it was the obvious choice. Now you have much more choice. Inform 7 is certainly much harder to use than ADRIFT v4 but I found it easier to figure out its natural language approach than I did the rocket science of ADRIFT v5. Generally whenever someone explained how to do something with Inform 7, I could see the logic behind it; with v5, I used to just scratch my head a lot of time. No matter how many times the rocket science stuff was explained, it still didn't make much sense to me. As for Twine, that was easier still, though it's for CYOA style games and not IF games so if you want to write IF, it's not really a good choice.
Po. Prune wrote:Why Adrift has faded away? I believe that one major contributing factor was the roaring silence from Campbell regarding Adrift 4 while he was creating V.5
Personally I wouldn't have mind waiting for V.5 if it meant that Campbell was still updating V.4 while working on V.5. I'm sure it would have kept people with the comunity.
I think Campbell expected the uptake from v4 to v5 to be pretty similar to what it was with v3.9 to v4 – i.e. pretty much everyone dropping the old system like the plague and embracing the new one – so he didn't spend a lot of time worrying about v4's continued existence because he didn't think it would have one. The backwards compatibility issue was likely something he intended to fix at some point in the future once everyone was happy using v5, but of course that never happened.
Dropping support for old systems is never a good idea. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft brought out Windows 11 tomorrow and immediately stopped all support for the old versions? There'd be people rioting in the streets. At the very least, Campbell should have carried on supporting v4 until v5 was fully out of beta. Dropping it the way he did left the whole ADRIFT scene in a mess.
These days, the ADRIFT scene is still in a mess. You have my preferred system, v4, which is unappealing to newcomers because it isn't supported and hasn't been updated in a long, long time, and you have v5 which, with a few exceptions, has never appealed to many people full stop (and which also hasn't been updated in quite a while and whose future development is pretty uncertain). If I was new to the IF scene and came here looking for a system to use, which would I pick? Probably neither.