Talk:Zork I

Redirects

Why the heck does pot of gold re-direct here? Shouldnt there be some sort of seperate article?

And 'Ancient Map' also redirects here. Vandalism and promotion by fans of the game? This needs to be changed/fixed/explained.

link is to a non-functional game. http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/zork1.html is a java version of the game.

Zork I cannot be legally distributed

I removed external links to online copies and downloads of the game. I know that a lot of people think that the Zork Trilogy is freeware because of a promotion that occurred around the time of Zork: Grand Inquisitor, but the Zork Trilogy is NOT freeware. The accompanying license file included with each game stated:

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:

1. modify or create derivative works based on the Game;
2. copy the Game (except for back-up purposes);
3. rent, lease, transfer or otherwise transfer rights to the Game;
4. or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Game.

Infocom-if.org (one of the links I removed) looks legitimate, even using the Infocom logo, so I emailed Activision about the legal status of the games and got this response:

I just wanted to share with you the response that I was given from my business licensing group:

Back when we released either Zork: Nemesis, Return To Zork or Zork: Grand Inquisitor (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.

So, as you can see, your instincts were correct to question the legitimacy of the free download. At this time, Activision's legal department is going to look into the matter and reserves all our rights to pursue any legal measures we deem appropriate against the offending site(s).

Since it's illegal to distribute the games, Wikipedia shouldn't be linking to such site and supporting software piracy. DOSGuy (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

DOSGuy,

Your efforts to educate people on the realities of copyright are commendable. It is sometimes frustrating to see the very basic misconceptions floating around. However, as the owner of iFiction.org, I can assure you that every one of the games in the Infocom section of that site are there with the explicit permission of Activision. I made a point of obtaining that permission before putting those games online back in 2000. Diggernet (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Diggernet's comment, I've re-added the links. There is a reasonable claim that they're legal. The files have been up for at least 7 years. We can leave it to Activision to police their own copyright. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan,

Based on this and your comment on my talk page, I'm afraid there's been a bit of a misunderstanding... My comment is relevant only to the games playable at ifiction.org, in response to DOSGuy's edit summary that "It isn't legal to distribute the Zork games, and making them playable online is a form of distribution". I have no connection to infocom-if.org, and can not speak for the content there. Diggernet (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I confused ifiction with infocom-if. Thanks for catching that. I've corrected which links I added, pulling the currently unknown legal status infocom-if. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello discussion from two years ago. From my understanding, Zork games still aren't freeware, but it's never made obvious anywhere in the article or in the external links section. If for nothing more than thoroughness, there should really be mention of Zork's legal "situation". --Peglegpenguin (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi discussion from 8 years ago, I will read the legal notices (gasp!) and put in a link there to external references. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind can't find it. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

228 moves?

I checked the reference. The 228-move solution requires the player to exploit a glitch. What is the minimum number of moves for a true solution? An elite (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. We can cut one move by typing "CROSS RAINBOW" instead of going west twice to cross the rainbow from Aragain Falls, making 227. Now the glitch happens in the maze, so we need to find away to get the same effect without exploiting the glitch. I think the fastest way would be (from the Troll Room) "SAVE. W. S. E. U. GET COINS. SW. E. S. SE. ULYSSES." (If the thief doesn't steal the egg from you early enough, restore. You need him to do it early enough that when you kill him it will have been opened already.) "SAVE. U. ATTACK THIEF WITH SWORD." Restore and repeat until you kill him in one move. Then "SAVE. GET ALL TREASURES". That saves another four moves, making 223. However, I have not checked if this works (and I think you'd have to go through a lot of saving and restoring to kill the thief in one hit, seeing as you have don't have very many points at this stage). Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You can also save a few moves by fiddling with the dam before first traversing the Loud Room, then getting the "It is unbearably loud in here..." message and going where you need to go. Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about it a little, this doesn't actually work, since you need to get the platinum bar at some point, and never need to go through the Loud Room more than once. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that this differs depending on the version of the game you are playing, but in my attempts to achieve what you did above (I did it before reading this so it is possible that I may have done something slightly differently) I found it was impossible to kill the thief with the sword because your inventory is full so you could not pick up the coins, which is why I usually drop the sword after killing the troll. Therefore in order to get this few moves without the glitch, you would have to use moves to either dispose of the coins in the case or get the knife from the attic. (User zorkdork) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorkdork (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I just tried doing this on revision 88 (on the above-mentioned iFiction site) and I have no problems picking up the coins even if I haven't been robbed yet. It is true that you need to be in perfect health to carry everything. I am beginning to have doubts myself whether what I suggested is plausible, but not because of inventory management; rather it's because it's very hard to get the thief to rob you at the right moment. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention killing the thief in one hit (I start to doubt it is possible, though haven't checked the code, only tried it empirically). Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously OR, but a 230-move solution is possible. Follow Bill Piercy's until move 48 (and dump the knife the next time you drop something), then jimmy_haha's for the rest of the game, remembering to CROSS RAINBOW as I suggested above instead of making two moves west from Aragain Falls to End of Rainbow. This assumes you kill the thief in two hits (which can be done; try to get the message "Slash! Your blow lands! That one hit an artery, it could be serious!" on the first hit). Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research?

I played the game myself on an Apple //e. Does it count as "original research" if I use that experience of actually reading the text of the game to correct an error? The response to "xyzzy" was not "Fool!", it was "Cretin!" 173.71.10.232 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Both are correct. They changed it from "cretin" to "fool" in version 75. Ntsimp (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Notes"

Any objection to removing the "Notes" section? It does seem a bit like original research to me. Scottman 01 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

§ 1 is OR, §§ 2+3 should go into "Reception" and be stuffed with citation there. So, no, no objection. Games generally don't have a "Notes" section. Kind regards, Grueslayer 23:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)