Talk:Colossal Cave Adventure

Video games

User:Masem reverted my change from "video game" to "computer game", saying that on WP, computer games and video games are the same thing.

Firstly, I would like a citation for that claim.

Secondly, note that in video games, it says: "Computer games are not all video games—for example text adventure games, chess, and so on do not depend upon a graphics display." So the WP article on video games implicitly notes that video games are computer games that require a graphics display. ADVENT does not.

ADVENT arrived at a time when there were essentially no video monitors. There were no PCs. Silicon Graphics, Jupiter, and Tektronix terminals hadn't been invented. I first played ADVENT on a machine with a 20x8-character gas-discharge display, and a console printer (Supervisory Printed Output, or 'SPO'). The game output went to the SPO. A completed game required several inches thickness of fanfold paper. You couldn't imagine playing on the display, which was really just for echoing input. So is the claim that printed output is 'video'?

You could certainly play on a glass teletype; but to refer to a glass teletype as a 'video' is stretching it.

So, User:Masem, would you please restore my edit? Thanks.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because you may have played it on a teletype printer, doesn't mean it wasn't also playable on video screens. More importantly, you went through every use of "video game" and replaced that with "computer game" which broke several links and context (). --Masem (t) 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean that; there were no "video screens" when the game was made. Not even graphics terminals; there were text-mode terminals ("glass teletypes"), but most people didn't have them.

Furthermore, there is a direct contradiction between referring to ADVENT as a video game, and the clear statement in video games that text adventures are not video games. The right article to fix is this one, not that one.

If I screwed up some links, that's my bad; I should have delinkified them. Sorry.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You should't use WP as a reference for this stuff, but if you're still talking the statement over at video game, that statement related to text adventure games does not say they are not video games, but may be considered computer games since they can be played without a monitor. But they can still be video games. The problem that we have had in the past is that being too specific on the line between computer and video games led to edit wars over how to classify games, and project wise, we have taken the stance that all computer games belong in what people recognize as "video games" including games that lack a monitor. As PresN points out, we can be clear CCA was intended as a teletype game, but since has been ported to monitor-based systems. --Masem (t) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Video screens absolutely existed at the time; even the PDP-1 that Crowther used for his maps could have had them. Spacewar! (1962) required the use of one, since it had real-time updating graphics. By 1971 there were 1000 computer installations with CRT monitors (though obviously of a different type), and by 1976 there would have been much, much more. Heck, Spasim (1974) was also a graphical computer game, since the PLATO system had thousands of monitors on its own. It's not that they didn't exist, it was that they were very expensive compared to teletypes to have every employee on the mainframe have their own, and there wasn't a business need since all the programs were text-based anyway. So, CCA was largely played over teletypes at the time. But: can you prive that no one played it on a monitor at the time? Can you prove that no one ever played the Woods version on a monitor between 1977 and 1995, when he stopped updating the Fortran code? Can you explain what exactly changed in the game when the same code was played on a monitor vs a teleprinter that made it into a "video game" instead of a "computer game", as if video games haven't played on computers of every type ever since their inception?

"Computer games" had a different lineage in the 1970s than "video games" did, which is why they used to be considered different things, but conceptually they are the same. If video game says otherwise, it is wrong- and it contradicts both early history of video games and history of video games to do so. --PresN 16:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, additionally while in prior decades there was a distinction made between "computer" games and "video" games, in modern parlance they're equivalent. The definition of "video game" to be a game that involves real-time updating graphics on a monitor isn't one that's really used any more, any more than the definitions that essentially limited it to arcade and console games. That said, CCA is obviously a text game and was designed and originally played on teletypes, and I wanted to make that clear; unfortunately so far I haven't found a good source that calls that out. For some 70s games sources make a point of it (e.g. The Oregon Trail (1971 video game), or Spacewar! specifically calling out that it couldn't be played on a teleprinter), but for many, and it seems this is one, sources just... assume that you know that. Still looking, though, because I think it's important to give context to modern readers what playing the game was actually like at the time and how that differs from loading up a modern port. --PresN 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit- and of course as soon as I type that and specifically go looking for "teleprinter" CCA instead of just CCA sources I find one. Give me a bit to integrate it. --PresN 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a source too that I've put in as well. --Masem (t) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Please provide a diff for the source you put in (at some unstated article or talk page or something). Also please provide an RfC that agrees with your position that a computer game is always a video game even if no video hardware is needed to play the game.

If you want to apply current language to old games, I could argue that any game that isn't played on an athletic field is a video game; Grand Theft Auto shouldn't be called a video game, it's just a game. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The line between "video game" and "computer game" is extre.ely vague to the point that trying to explitly define it would be a problem...this is either because "video game" had broadly included nonvideo computer games, or where predominately in Europe "computer games" included video games. The terms are too diffuse with each other and hence we general call any such game a "video game", the more common term. See the nomiculture section in video game for sources.

but even with that, while CCA was originally developed as a teletype game, its legacy is know as a text based video game in broader terms. Hence the short description should reflect how it is readily known and not its original instance. --Masem (t) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And the diff alluded to above ends here but you can see the source added a few more diffs back that day. --Masem (t) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colossal Cave Adventure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review on. If I don't get back with comments in a week, please ping. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: I can't see anything major holding this back. Instant Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bonus point = 351?

It's been decades since I last played ADVENT - certainly 20th century - and I only know this because I read the source, but the version I saw (still in FORTRAN) had a trick that gained you an extra point. It may have had something to do with going back to the bear. Can anyone confirm it was in their version, or was this something added to the branch that ended up on my desk? David Brooks (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

For the original Fortran, and in Knuth's CWEB version, the various treasure points, staying alive, reaching the end-game, exploring the cave thoroughly, etc. only came to 349 points. The special single bonus point was obtained by moving the magazine 'Spelunker Today' from the Anteroom to Witts End. You then had the additional problem of getting out of Witt's End without paying penalty points for advice! Murray Langton (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Another name for the Apple II?

I played it in maybe 1980, 1981, or 1979, on an Apple machine, possibly Apple II. But I didn't recall it being called "Microsoft" anything, but possibly with the word "Cave" in it; maybe with the word "Adventure" in it. I remember it beginning with something like "You are standing outside a cave." The article mentions only the MS version of it on the Apple. Could the one on the Apple have had another name, perhaps a name with the word "Cave" in it? Misty MH (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It was "Apple Adventure!" apples port of Colossal Cave ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

help

could someone tell me where i can play this today? Allaoii ^talk 20:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an option within the EMACS editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

EMACS editor? Allaoii ^talk 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a Linux system, it goes under the name 'adventure'. You might need to download it. Murray Langton (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

whats Linux? Allaoii ^talk 20:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Some clarification.

First, the game entitled 'adventure' on Emacs is not colossal cave adventure.

Second, there appears to be an internet version: https://grack.com/demos/adventure/

I haven't played that version out completely so I don't know how complete it is.

Third, Linux is an operating system and can be used as an almost free alternative to Microsoft Windows. In fact the Linux kernel underlies Android on mobile phones and also underlies Apple Mac software. Murray Langton (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Another internet version is at: https://rickadams.org/adventure/advent/ Murray Langton (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

never mind i installed the app Allaoii ^talk 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Plugh

I distinctly remember entering “plugh” and “xyzzy”. What did “plugh” do, and why is it not mentioned?

I played it on a Data General MV8000 around 1980. 2601:647:8100:30BB:1965:93E:CBE5:9231 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"plugh" teleports you between the Y2 room and the cabin (both ways), like "xyzzy" does with 2 other locations; it's not mentioned because sources don't really talk about it, it's kind of a minor detail that's less remembered than xyzzy. --PresN 22:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In the 360 point version, whenever you visit the location "Y2" there is a 25% chance that you will receive the message: "A hollow voice says 'plugh'". Using this magic word allows you to get well into the cave. Murray Langton (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The 1987 PDP-11 Windows port link needs clarification

The link says "1987 Windows port of the PDP-11 version of Colossal Cave Adventure for DOSBox". Many people will assume that this means DOSBox will need to be installed before the game itself is installed. Actually this .exe installs and sets up DOSBox and the game automatically (similar to a Good Old Games game setup file). This means the user won't need anything and the game will be running in seconds. Maybe someone can figure a way to mention this without a bunch of words? Thanks! 97.113.157.8 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

TNIX version

I worked in the Microprocessor Development Products division at Tektronix in the early 1980s and we played this game on our TNIX-based systems. (TNIX was Tektronix' proprietary version of UNIX.) It was called "dungeo" on our systems, but was clearly either the exact same game or an embellished version. I actually found this Wikipedia page while searching for "a maze of twisty passages, all alike", which does tend to stick in ones memory. (I don't remember the word "little" in that phrase.) I suspect that the file was just renamed or something. The interaction on the screen in the photo in this article looks exactly like what I remember. Anyway, "RUN DUNGEO" often started an enjoyable lunch break. FatBear1 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thesis

User:PresN It is a fair point you made about the eponymous nature of the game being mentioned in the last sentence of the lead. I somehow failed to notice that. Go me. I am not however aware of any reason I cannot use the source to which you objected. It is a published, peer reviewed academic source which contains information about the subject of the article. If I am for some reason in error I would be most obliged if you could direct me to some documentation as to why. Can you please explain why you also removed another citation for this same point? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we typically do not use thesis for sourcing until there's a really good reason too. Masem (t) 03:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The good reason is that there are a dearth of sources for this material. This is a good source of the information. To address the points raised in WP:SCHOLARSHIP; it is publicly available, peer reviewed, and a secondary source on the material. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: Ok, so, for clarity, we're talking about this edit. This did two things: 1) said it was "the eponymous" adventure game, which duplicates later in that paragraph where it says "for which it was also the [[eponym|namesake]]." and 2) said it was the "first" adventure game. The same later sentence calls it "the first well-known example of interactive fiction", and for good reason- it wasn't the first. The lede summarizes the body of the article, and this bit is summarizing the end of the first paragraph in "Legacy": "The game is the namesake and the first well-known example of an adventure game, as it combined the interactivity of computer programs with the storytelling of literature or role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, despite its lack of linear plot.[5] The only text adventure game known to precede it is Wander from 1974, which did not have the spread or influence of Adventure.[12]". [5] is the journal article "Adventure before adventure games: a new look at Crowther and Woods's seminal program", while [12] is the They Create Worlds book, pp. 383–385. Wander may not be as well-known, but calling CCA the "first" adventure game just isn't technically true, even if it was basically the first most people saw.

In any case, since what you had was duplicative and slightly wrong, and cited to 1) and entire book with no page numbers, and 2) a phd thesis (your own), I reverted it. In the end, we don't add sources just to say we have them, we add them to back up information that needs it, and CCA's influence on the genre is already there and sourced. --PresN 11:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are fair points. But you didn't answer my question. Is there a reason I can't cite a source I wrote? It is a published, peer reviewed, secondary source. I have looked all though the documentation about reliable sources and can find nothing that says one can't cite a work just because one is the author. But you keep bringing this point up as if it is a thing. If it is please direct me to the documentation.Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a peer reviewed source, though? I guess WP:SELFCITE says that you can cite a source you wrote yourself, but a phd thesis isn't generally "peer reviewed", in the sense that it's not been formally reviewed by other scholars, as in submitted to a formal review process like a journal or even usually reviewed/critiqued at a conference (your dissertation committee or ad-hoc readings do not count). I'm not seeing any evidence of the thesis being reviewed at the link, though you would know better: where was it peer reviewed?

Also, what do you intend to cite with it? It doesn't seem to add any new information, so it would be just a secondary cite to something already covered, which is ok. Page 22 has that it was "the precursor for the entire genre of role playing adventure games", so I guess it could be a secondary cite for that bit of legacy.

I note, though, that then goes on to say that Adventureland was the first version of Adventure for personal computers, and added graphics unlike CCA, which is a) wrong in that it's a different game than Adventure, and b) misleading in that while it was likely the first adventure game for personal computers (Zork beat it, but was on mainframes until 1979; CCA itself was in C and other languages by 1977, but wasn't released commercially or as a package for a microcomputer/PC system as far as I can tell before Adventureland was), but it didn't have graphics until 1982—Mystery House (1980) was the first adventure game with graphics. --PresN 01:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? It is quite frankly ridicuolous to assert that a PhD is not peer reviewed. It is absolutely peer reviewed. A PhD is thoroughly reviewed by the markers. It is the ultimate peer review. It is a declaration that one is a bona fide researcher and an accredited member of the academic community.

You do know about WP:SELFCITE then. So your original remark calling into question my adding a citation from my PhD was completely unecessary and rude. Not presuming good intent at all. In fact it calls to mind "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

We are not here to argue about other parts of my thesis. We are discussing one citation for one statement. It seems that now you recognise that my citation was both allowed and a valid citation for that information. This seems to indicate your removal of it was not reasonable. I suggest it be returned to the article as a citation. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the confusion here is that in Australia, PhD theses are reviewed differently than dissertations are reviewed in the United States. In the U.S., dissertations are reviewed by a committee consisting of faculty members of the university the student is attending, which is not considered a peer review. In Australia, there are supervisors instead of a dissertation committee, and the thesis is evaluated by external examiners who are experts in the field. This is quite similar to the peer review process employed by academic journals and university presses. Even if this process were still not technically considered peer review, I feel there is no reason to exclude a PhD thesis on these grounds, which has undoubtedly undergone a more rigorous review process than many journalistic and popular history sources frequently cited on Wikipedia.

That said, a thesis still needs to be evaluated like any other source. In this case, it appears the subject matter is ethnography and ontology as they relate to interactions in Second Life rather than a study of computer game history in general or Colossal Cave in particular. The history is perfunctory background material and contains several inaccuracies not limited to those already described above, which I doubt the supervisors or examiners would have been equipped to identify seeing as computer game history was likely not the field of anyone involved. I have no doubt the thesis is well executed in relation to its actual academic field, but it is not a high-quality source of information on Colossal Cave Adventure. Sources exist for this info that are far more on point.

As Adventure is not the thrust of the thesis, including it does raise the specter of self promotion. We must assume good faith, of course, but even if the inclusion was innocent, it still casts an unnecssary shadow over the article. User:PresN was completely justified in removing it. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up for PresN that this thesis has been peer reviewed.

But let's look at what you are saying here Indrian. You are saying that a published PhD thesis about video games, with a chapter devoted to the history of video games, which you acknowledge has been through a process of peer review by experts, should not be cited because you think it is in error, because you made an assumption that you doubt that the markers had expertise about the topic because you think it has errors. Have you even read WP:RELIABLESOURCES? I am guessing not or you would have seen this "This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." I'm not claiming my thesis is perfect, but it has been peer reviewed and published and it is not up to you to judge it it's accuracy. This kind of behaviour is exactly why academics deride Wikipedia.

PresN has already acknowledged that WP:SELFCITE allows this source and has also acknowledged that the citation is an accurate citation for the information. I again suggest the citation be returned to the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: I apologize for assuming that Australian theses are not peer-reviewed; I'm connected to the academic system here in America so I was thinking of that system. Rather than drag this conversation out further, I went ahead and added your paper to the article (this time without the typo in the title). You didn't respond with what you wanted to cite with it, so I added it as a secondary source to the section talking about it being the namesake and (almost) first, along with the source you cited for that information (which was already in the article, but wasn't being used a secondary source for that bit.

In the future, as a gentle suggestion, if you're adding a source to an article, particularly one you wrote yourself, consider adding it to a bit that's unsourced (note that the lede is the equivalent of the abstract of a paper, and does not generally have references), or else add new information along with your citation, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion or at least to avoid being reverted. --PresN 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PresN, I don't see any reason to treat this thesis (or, in the US parlance, dissertation) any different from the US/UK ones. Neither are "peer-reviewed" in the way we mean "peer-reviewed" when we talk about academic publications in journals or with presses, and "published" for a thesis/dissertation--well, a dissertation can be published by an academic press, but I don't see any evidence that this one was. In addition, but this is by the by, in Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, dissertations are often published as a book--but not by the same presses and in the same way as academic books are published. So sure, we can accept something from something if there is a good reason to do so, but "it's peer-reviewed and published" is not such a reason, because it's not peer-reviewed and published in the way that an article, edited collection, or monograph is. I think I am really confirming what you said earlier, and I think it is important to make that point here. BTW I have no stake in this article or its content. Oh, User:Morgan Leigh, many academics scorn Wikipedia, but I don't think that "I can't cite my own thesis" is one of the common reasons for that. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

New reimagining

There’s a new version https://www.colossalcave3d.com/ Ashareem (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So that's why there's this Colossal Cave Adventure#Later versions paragraph! Kind regards, Grueslayer 20:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A version on yet another system

More than forty years ago now, I was an I-series analyst for the NCR corporation in Australia. We had a version of the game on those systems that sounds very very very similar. It is probably safe to assume that it was converted from one of the systems already discussed, and is therefore likely to have been the "same" game. On it O was able to get all the treasures. I wont repeat anything anyone else has said, but will add a few things.

Our version was written in COBOL and the name of the associated file was MESSAGES. It was an indexed file with 80 character text records.

The "help" on our system said it was a "magic" cave because if you went in one direction and then went in the opposite one, you would not always necessarily end up back where you were.

You started at a quasi random location in the woods every time, so the first few steps to get out of the forest were not always the same. This was deliberately done to prevent automated "attack" on the cave.

There were three magic words in our system: plover, plugh and xyzzy. They did not work everywhere, and they did not work at all times. I no longer recall where they took you to/from. I dont recall whether you had to issue a command "say xxxxx" or simply "xxxxx" as the command.

Being an analyst, it was trivial to edit the MESSAGES file to, for example, add distinguishing features or numbers to the maze of twisty little tunnels. This enabled mapping of the maze. The maze in particular was one area where reversing your steps did not necessarily put you back where you were, so it truly was a "magic" maze.

There were two commands "long" and "short" that enabled, respectively and obviously, long and short descriptions. If you had short descriptions and were in the maze you only got something like "you are in a maze" for all locations in the maze.

I am quite sure that there were no "points" per se in our version of the game. When you exited, you got only a-one word analysis of your exit level, and that was all.

The funniest part that I remember was a "troll bridge". Guarded, of course, by a troll. A sign said "Stop! Pay troll". If you threw a treasure at the troll, he would shriek with delight, take the treasure, and run away. The treasure was thus lost to you. However, if you waved your sword at the troll, he would run away and you would not have to pay the "troll".

There was a limit as to how many objects at once you could carry. I think it was seven. So once you had your hands full, you had to use one of the magic words to get out of the cave and then "drop" objects at the destination point outside of the cave. If you dropped the vase, it would shatter into many pieces of worthless shard. You had to drop the velvet pillow first, and then drop the vase onto the pillow.

On another matter. There was a DOS version of the game, in which if you mapped out the maze, it spelled out the letters TNSTAAFL which of course expands to "there's no such thing as a free lunch" . 2001:8003:E40F:9601:A4EC:39F0:CF08:A5B7 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The version you describe does not quite match the canonical 350-point version. Almost everything you mention matches, except for following:

You always started above ground outside the building.

There was no sword available, but one particular treasure could be retrieved from the troll and returned to its original location via a suitable incantation.

On finishing (or getting killed too many times) you got a score and a grade. Murray Langton (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We know there are a lot of variants of Adventure, see . However, there is very little documented by secondary sources save for the original 350pt and the Woods update. We do mention about many variants existing in the article already, but without detailed reliable sources we really can't go into their differences. Masem (t) 23:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Literature

Hi PresN,
just a throw-in from the sideline: It has not been decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic literature#Visual novels that interactive fiction video games are not electronic literature.
Kind regards, Grueslayer 17:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

"Twisty little maze of passages" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Twisty little maze of passages has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 25 § twisty little maze of passages until a consensus is reached. Oreocooke (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request re: Colossal Cave remake (COI disclosure)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello! I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure: I am affiliated with Cygnus Entertainment, so I am requesting these factual updates rather than editing the article directly.

I would like to request two brief, well-sourced corrections to the paragraph discussing the 2023 remake:

1. Company Name Accuracy: The text currently mentions the "co-founders of Sierra Entertainment". It would be historically more accurate to state "co-founders of Sierra On-Line" (as the studio was originally On-Line Systems and later Sierra On-Line; "Sierra Entertainment" was a much later corporate branding). This aligns with the terminology used on the individual biographical pages for Ken and Roberta Williams.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Entertainment

2. Platform Updates: The paragraph lists the initial launch platforms but could be updated to accurately reflect that the game later expanded to PlayStation VR 2, iOS, Android, and upgraded for Meta Quest 3.

Sources for platform verification:

https://www.meta.com/experiences/quest/developer-post/2726568974161733/ https://store.playstation.com/en-us/product/UP7553-PPSA17148_00-0159450932476728 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/colossal-cave-3d/id6443992938 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cygnusentertainment.colossalcave3d

Thank you for your help in keeping this history accurate!

DJ Cygnus (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is written by human beings. See also WP:WINARS –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm approaching this incorrectly. I'm human. I'm not an LLM. I'm trying to be formal, but the request is sincere and from humans (for humans). Both Colossal Cave (ADVENT, Colossal Cave 3D, Adventure, etc.) AND Sierra (Sierra Online, Online Systems, etc.) have had lengthy series of name changes and rebranding over the years. I'm simply trying to narrow the naming during their era to them in a cleaner fashion.

Other sources:

https://www.sierragamers.com/

https://www.eurogamer.net/sierra-on-line-founders-ken-and-roberta-williams

Is this more helpful or accurate? First time offender. I hope this second round is closer to how it's done?

P.S. I'm Ken and Roberta Williams' son. Definitely human. Thank you for any attention this receives. DJ Cygnus (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Both done; since I wrote this article I've written a bunch of the King's Quest articles, so I agree that in the context of the Williams it's usually "Sierra On-Line". --PresN 19:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I apologize for the confusion. Appreciated! DJ Cygnus (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

circa

@PresN: MOS:CIRCA presents a number of templates for abbreviated forms of uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates before stating that "[o]ther forms of uncertainty should be expressed in words [...]". To me, this clearly implies that the aforementioned forms, to which the c. template belongs, should be preferred over writing the words out. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If MOS:CIRCA wants to ban the use of the word circa on Wikipedia, I would be opposed, but it should say so explicitly. What it actually says is "the use of the circa template is preferred at first occurrence over just c." - but the article doesn't use "c.". It uses the word circa, and it uses it only once. I agree that if on subsequent occurrences the article used "c." that it should use the template instead, re: "At later occurrences, c. is preferred over circa, c, ca, ca., around, approximately, or approx.", but the MOS does not say that the only use of the word circa should be replaced with an abbreviation with a tooltip. --PresN 01:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Roberta Williams did not play Apple Adventure, or at least it was not the version she played that inspired Mystery House

To the anon that keeps adding this false fact based on a 2024 video interview, please stop. Doing this once is an honest mistake; doing it repeatedly is becoming a deliberate spread of misinformation. I get that it seems like she is saying she played Apple Adventure in the video, so this started as a good faith edit, but this seems to be an issue with the conceit of the interview, which is discussing games while holding up box art. She holds up boxes for both the Microsoft and Apple versions, which makes sense seeing as there is no box for a free game distributed through early networks and timesharing systems.

Now, to further put a fine point on this, let's see what the Williamses said in interviews far closer to the events in question:

Hackers by Steven Levy (1982)

Then one night Ken, who had brought a computer terminal home, called Roberta over to show her this program that someone had put on the IBM mainframe computer he was connected to. “Come on over here, Roberta,” he urged, sitting on the green-carpeted floor of the spare bedroom where he’d put the terminal. “See this—it’s a really fun game.” Roberta didn’t want anything to do with it. First of all, she didn’t like games too much. Second, it was on a computer. Though much of Ken’s life was spent communicating with computers, they were still unfriendly ciphers to Roberta. But Ken was persistent, and finally cajoled her to sit at the terminal to see what this thing was about. This is what she saw:

YOU ARE STANDING AT THE END OF A ROAD BEFORE A SMALL BRICK BUILDING. AROUND YOU IS A FOREST. A SMALL STREAM FLOWS OUT OF THE BUILDING AND DOWN A GULLY.

It was Adventure, the game written at the Stanford AI lab by hacker Don Woods, the Tolkienesque game which lured hackers and users into immersing themselves in a magical dungeon world. And from the moment Roberta Williams tentatively poked GO EAST she was totally and irrevocably hooked. “I just couldn’t stop. It was compulsive. I started playing it and kept playing it. I had a baby at the time, Chris was eight months old; I totally ignored him. I didn’t want to be bothered. I didn’t want to stop and make dinner.”

Antic Magazine (December 1983)

A: This was before Sierra On-Line. You began to get the notion that you could write a story that could be played on the computer. This was before adventure games had really hit?

W: Yes. In fact. Colossal Cave made my life. At the time. Ken programmed a computer in LA, a big IBM. He used to bring home a terminal every night. The computer had games on it, and one of them was something called Colossal Cave. We played it at home, on the terminal. But, we didn't have a monitor; we used a printer.

A: And then you decided to write Mystery House. How did that come together? Did you say, "Gee I could do that?”

W: Yeah, that's what I said.

So yeah, this is pretty cut and dried. Whether Roberta misspoke, misremembered, or was going along with the box art theme in that 2024 interview, any references to being exposed to Adventure through an Apple II port are not correct. She played it on a terminal hooked into a mainframe, which both Williamses testified to close to the events in question as opposed to more than 40 years later. Indrian (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You are conflating two completely different claims, and then dismissing an explicit first-person statement because it conflicts with the interpretation you prefer.

Nobody is disputing that Roberta Williams first encountered Colossal Cave Adventure through the terminal/mainframe version, or that this experience inspired her to create Mystery House. The 1982 and 1983 sources establish that perfectly well.

That is NOT the point being disputed here.

The separate factual question is whether Roberta Williams also played Apple Adventure! on the Apple II in 1980. On that point, the 2024 source could hardly be more explicit.

In the video she says, in sequence:

“Here’s Microsoft Adventure. Here’s Apple Adventure. It’s the same game. This is the game.”

Then:

“I actually played Apple Adventure from end to end on our Apple II that we had in 1980.”

And immediately afterward:

“And this is the game that got me into the industry, into designing games.”

She then clarifies:

“They called it Apple Adventure, but it was Colossal Cave”

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNiqcSUrAOo

This is not an inference from “a bit of box art.” She names Apple Adventure verbally, says she played Apple Adventure from end to end, identifies the hardware (their Apple II) and gives the year (1980).

Your suggestion that she “misspoke, misremembered, or was going along with the box art theme” is not something established by any source you have provided. That is your own speculation about why her explicit statement should be disregarded.

The older sources establish:

1. Her FIRST exposure to Colossal Cave was the terminal/mainframe version.

2. That experience inspired Mystery House.

The 2024 source additionally establishes:

3. She says she also played Apple Adventure from end to end on their Apple II in 1980.

Those statements are not mutually exclusive.

What would be incorrect is saying that Apple Adventure was necessarily her first exposure to Colossal Cave, because the contemporary sources contradict that. I am not proposing that wording.

What is equally incorrect is your statement that “Roberta Williams did not play Apple Adventure”, because Roberta Williams herself explicitly says that she did.

The neutral encyclopedic treatment is therefore to report both pieces of evidence, not to erase the later statement because an editor personally believes Williams must have misremembered.

I propose the following wording:

“Williams first encountered Colossal Cave Adventure through a terminal connected to a mainframe, an experience she credited with inspiring Mystery House. In a 2024 retrospective, she also explicitly recalled playing Apple’s 1980 Apple Adventure! version ‘from end to end’ on the couple’s Apple II.”

That wording preserves the well-documented original chronology while also accurately reporting Williams’ later explicit statement. If there is a reliable source stating that Williams did not play Apple Adventure, please provide it. Speculating that she must have misspoken is not a substitute for one. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

PresN, understood on process. For clarity, do you object to the proposed compromise wording itself, or only to implementing it before this discussion concludes? The wording preserves the documented mainframe/Teletype first exposure and Mystery House chronology, while only adding Williams’ separate explicit 2024 statement that she played Apple Adventure from end to end on their Apple II in 1980. If there is a substantive objection to that wording, please state it so we can resolve the actual content issue. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@PresN: Just pinging you here because I realized my previous reply may not have notified you. My question is whether you object to the compromise wording itself, or only to implementing it before the discussion concludes. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Both. My issue with the wording is that if CCA was what inspired Mystery House, then what importance is it that she played the same game again on the Apple II? Never mind that we don't know that she played the Apple II version before designing the game (the chronology is vague, but the Williamses got an Apple II in January 1980, and Mystery House was completed by the start of May ("Let's Begin Again: Sierra On-Line and the Origins of the Graphical Adventure Game". American Journal of Play. 10 (1), pages 83-84)), even if she did, so what? The Apple II version is the same game. She played the same game twice. This article is about CCA, and is should not be focused on how many times for different systems Roberta Williams played the game before or after making Mystery House, a game that this article is not about. --PresN 18:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate that we are all on the talk page looking at a reasonable compromise, I, too, still have issues. In addition to PresN's points on the notability of the information, I still very much doubt that she even played Apple Adventure. I still think there is some conflation and confusion caused by that 2024 interview's format. Understand, Apple Adventure has NEVER been mentioned in this context anywhere else in 45 years. Now, new info on historical events gets unearthed all the time, but the problem here is both Williamses have done press interviews, oral histories, memoirs, and a wide variety of other media over the course of four decades without ever mentioning this game except in this one place 44 years after the fact, so it is unlikely a newly uncovered piece of the narrative as opposed to some kinda of misremembrance ("I played this on the Apple II, so it must be this version" when in fact she played it on an IBM mainframe via a time-shared terminal). In terms of stating what the sources say, that is really about contradictions in the secondary literature. None of the secondary literature mentions this claim; I am sure in part due to how recent it is. Until the secondary sources weigh in, this feels like an outlier misremembrance or conflation rather than a verifiable fact that demands inclusion. Indrian (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

And to the basic point - exactly which version of CCA that Williams was inspired by is of little consequence, only that she has repeated said she was influenced by it for Mystery House. Masem (t) 18:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this actually clarifies the disagreement, because there are now two separate questions being discussed here and they should not be blurred together.

First: did Roberta Williams say she played Apple Adventure?

Yes. Explicitly.

She says:

“Here’s Microsoft Adventure. Here’s Apple Adventure. It’s the same game.”

Then:

“I actually played Apple Adventure from end to end on our Apple II that we had in 1980.”

That is not an inference from box art, and it is not ambiguous. She names the program, names the computer, and gives the year. The 1982/83 sources establish something different: that her first exposure to Colossal Cave, and the experience that originally inspired Mystery House, was through the mainframe/terminal version. I agree with that chronology and I am not proposing otherwise.

What those older sources do not establish is that she never subsequently played Apple Adventure. Saying that the 2024 statement must therefore be a false memory or conflation is an interpretation by editors, not a conclusion published by a source.

Second: is the Apple Adventure detail relevant enough to include?

I think it clearly is, especially in the section titled “Later versions.” That section already identifies specific commercial versions by name and gives version-specific historical details: Microsoft Adventure’s release history and IBM PC launch status, Apple Adventure’s 1980 Apple II release, The Software Toolworks version and its royalty arrangement, and Level 9’s additions. So this section is already doing exactly that: documenting historically relevant facts about particular ports.

A single sentence saying that Roberta Williams later explicitly recalled playing Apple Adventure “from end to end” on her Apple II is hardly undue weight in that context, particularly when this same article already discusses Williams, Mystery House, and Colossal Cave’s influence on her elsewhere.

I am not arguing for:

“Apple Adventure was the version that first inspired Mystery House.”

I am proposing only the much narrower, directly verifiable statement:

“In a 2024 retrospective, Williams also recalled playing Apple’s 1980 Apple Adventure! version ‘from end to end’ on the couple’s Apple II.”

That statement requires no historical reconstruction, no synthesis and no judgment about which memory is “more correct.” It simply reports what Williams explicitly said.

Wikipedia’s own primary-source policy allows a primary source to be used for a straightforward descriptive fact that any reader can verify directly, provided editors do not add their own interpretation. That is exactly what this sentence does. The interpretation would actually be the opposite: deciding, without a source saying so, that Williams must have misspoken and therefore her statement should be suppressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

If the concern is still undue weight, I am happy to keep it to that single sentence and nothing more. But I do not think “she may have misremembered” is a valid basis for treating an explicit first-person statement as if it was never made. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the statement is actually true or not (and believe me, interview subjects say factually incorrect things all the time about everything under the sun due to the way memory works so "but she said it" means nothing on its own), this is an article on Colossal Cave Adventure. It does not matter how many different versions of the game she may have played. It's irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is neither Roberta nor her game catalog. And before this becomes "what about putting it in some other article instead," its really is not relevant to anything. Mystery House was inspired by playing the Adventure on a mainframe, as is well documented. Even if it is true she played it in other formats, it is a trivial detail that would not add anything to this or any other article I can think of absent some additional context. Indrian (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Indrian, PresN, and Masem: I found an earlier source that I think materially changes this discussion, and also helps explain why I believe the specific port is relevant.

Laine Nooney's 2017 American Journal of Play research cites a 1987 Smithsonian interview with Roberta Williams in which Williams said she began playing Adventure on a teletype and finished it on an Apple II. Nooney specifically discusses the conflicting accounts and considers the possibility that Williams first played it on the teletype and subsequently played it again on a microcomputer.

https://www.museumofplay.org/app/uploads/2022/01/10-1-Article-3-Lets-begin-again.pdf

This is important because the Apple II recollection clearly did not suddenly appear in 2024. It was part of Williams' account by 1987.

The 2024 video then becomes particularly significant because she identifies the version much more specifically. I would encourage everyone to watch the actual segment, roughly 6:00–9:00, rather than considering the quotation in isolation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNiqcSUrAOo

With the physical releases in front of her, she says:

“Here's Microsoft Adventure. Here's Apple Adventure. It's the same game. This is the game. I actually played Apple Adventure from end to end on our Apple II that we had in 1980.”

She immediately follows that with:

“And this is the game that got me into the industry, into designing games.”

and later clarifies:

“They called it Apple Adventure, but it was Colossal Cave.”

Transcript:

https://a2central.com/2024/05/kings-quest-turns-40/

So this isn't an inference from box art or simply a vague recollection that she played Adventure “on an Apple.” In 1987 she was already saying teletype → Apple II; in 2024, while physically distinguishing Microsoft Adventure from Apple Adventure!, she specifically identifies Apple Adventure! as the version she played “from end to end.”

This does not mean Apple Adventure! was her first exposure, and she may also have played Microsoft Adventure. Neither point contradicts the proposed statement.

As to why the specific port matters: I think we're underestimating the historical significance of the ports of this particular game. Colossal Cave Adventure directly inspired Scott Adams to create Adventureland, the MIT group to create Zork, Warren Robinett to create Atari Adventure, and Williams to create Mystery House. Its migration from mainframes into personal computing is therefore part of the history of how its influence spread.

The article already recognizes this with an entire “Later versions” section. And these versions can have major historical significance in their own right: the 1981 IBM PC release of Microsoft Adventure is generally regarded as the first commercially released game for the IBM PC. Apple Adventure! was Apple's own 1980 commercial Apple II implementation of the same foundational game.

So this isn't trivia about which random port a famous person happened to play. We're talking about an early commercial manifestation of one of the foundational games of the medium, specifically identified by one of the major designers whose career Colossal Cave directly inspired, in a section already devoted to those commercial versions.

I therefore think one sentence is entirely proportionate:

• • “Williams first encountered Colossal Cave Adventure through a teletype connected to a mainframe. In a 1987 Smithsonian interview, she recalled beginning the game on the teletype and finishing it on an Apple II. In a 2024 retrospective, while comparing Microsoft Adventure and Apple Adventure!, Williams specifically recalled playing Apple's 1980 Apple Adventure! version ‘from end to end’ on their Apple II.”**

That preserves the mainframe-first chronology, doesn't claim Apple Adventure! was her first exposure, and simply reports what the historical sources actually say. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That works for me. I appreciate you digging deeper. I tend to be skeptical of these things without corroboration, and that is good corroboration. Indrian (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'm convinced as well. I'm a little fuzzy on where to put it, which isn't new- it's awkward that the remake is introduced before the legacy section that explains that CCA inspired Williams/Mystery House, so adding more about her feels odd in either place. I think maybe that last paragraph about the remake should be moved down to the end of Legacy/video games, and then this new bit can be put right after Mystery House is first mentioned. --PresN 13:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@PresN and Indrian: Thanks PresN and Indrian, I really appreciate you both taking another look at it after the additional source turned up. I agree that placement after the first mention of Mystery House makes sense, and moving the remake material there as well sounds cleaner structurally. ~2026-50186-64 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)