Ick. I hate this like I hated Facade. Games are supposed to be fun, not pretentious "art" crap. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be doing here - there's absolutely no context. Plus, I can't even ask something elemental like "Who are you?" because the parser doesn't support it.
 

I think you might have nailed the problem with text adventures / Interactive Fiction and why the community seems pretty niche. The pseudo-natural-language parsers promise open-ended input, but newcomers are disappointed and frustrated by it. I'm sure experienced IF players are used to the conventions and common permutations, and can jump right in. But there's probably a much steeper learning curve there on text parsers than it is normally given credit for.

As far as Galetea is concerned, I didn't really think of it as being "artsy." Experimental, sure... it seemed more of a technical challenge to see how believable she could make the conversation using canned responses and a state machine. Trying to simulate believable responses from human-like characters in games has always been a fascination of mine.

I thought it was a little more interesting talking to a statue than talking to Trip and Grace, personally.
 

Eh, Viridian hates NetHack, too. B-)

I enjoyed it, and I never really played IF that much. I accidentally typed "get up" when trying to find out how to stand on the pedestal with Galatea, and unfortunately that command makes you walk away without even saying good bye. I'm sorry, Galatea!

A good find!
 

Personally, I find a lot wrong with viridian's comment. But rather than get into a long discussion about what games are supposed to be and whether games can or should be considered art (pretentious or not), I would just suggest taking a peek at Water Cooler Games (http://www.watercoolergames.org/) to at least get an idea that there are games and gamemakers out there that don't necessarily conform to those preconceptions.

I would also argue that there is quite a bit of context, as provided by all of the instructional material on the game's web page and through the links offered there. But regardless, it's an experimental piece and, as such, it's bound to attract criticism, even if that criticism largely misses the point -- everyone's entitled to their opinion.

That said, I do agree that the parser issue is and will likely continue to be a problem for a lot of people. I will say these two things in its defense, however: first, that I wouldn't say the parser promises open-ended input -- rather, it only gives the illusion of open-ended input; and second, any game's system of input presents a challenge to those unfamiliar with it. Which game's input is easier to learn: an interactive fiction game, or the PC version of Halo? Or the console version, for that matter, for someone like me who has never owned or played a console?

The real issue with IF games, IMO, is not learning how to communicate with the parser -- once you've done it a bit, you understand its limitations. Rather, it's the frustration of learning that the programmer didn't (or wouldn't) take into account the ideas, actions, and solutions that you came up with while playing.

To me, Galatea is fascinating because there are so many different pathways and endings to the game, many of which depend on the mood of the NPC and the order in which questions are asked. I agree that it would have been less frustrating if more of the discussion topics that I came up with were included in the design, but to me that's also part of the puzzle -- learning the system, its triggers, and its boundaries.

I didn't like Facade as much as I thought I would. While that game also has a number of possible pathways and results, my overall impression was that I had a hard time making a real impact on the story because of the limitations of their parser. The only time I felt like I could steer the story was by providing a simple one-word response -- anything more complex seemed to get ignored or misinterpreted, and I found that disappointing.
 

I have a bit of a visceral negative reaction to the idea of "game as art" and this struck that chord, which was why I was initially dismissive. Well, I stuck with it. I will say that it represents a whole lot of very intricate work by the author and thus is worthy of respect. But I would have enjoyed it more if...

A) If I'd had a little more context to start with. It would have been nice to know from the beginning that I am an art critic at an exhibit showcasing various artificial intelligences as pieces of art. By the same token, the page you play it from doesn't even tell you all the little shortcuts that make playing the game easier, like "x" for "examine", "z" for "wait a turn" and "g" for "repeat last action".

B) If the dialogue had just a little more "pull" to it. Far too often I would ask Galatea about something and get a response, only to have the response apparently contain no keywords that will allow the conversation to continue. Which leads to...

C) If Galatea's "realness" didn't get in the way of actually trying to interact with her. Asking her about topics you've already covered causes her to get huffy and makes it harder to interact with her further. I once got an ending (the ONLY ending I reached without a walkthrough) where, during the course of me trying to figure out what happened to her artist, she decided to commit suicide. If you look through the walkthroughs you'll see that several of them hinge on you asking things in a very specific order...sometimes with very specific pauses during the conversation. I'm not sure how a player could ever uncover those endings without a walkthrough.

After playing it a bit more and doing some of the walkthroughs I actually do think it's far superior to Facade.
 

For what it's worth, I agree with Viridian's suggestions.

As for the parser - yeah, I think it's for hardcore players. Much like Halo is also for hardcore players.

Which brings up the problem: How do you get more hardcore players? Where do they start? Particularly with all the competition from other genres today that didn't exist in 1980...
 

Several weeks late, but never mind...

The context is actually given away in the title "Galatea". She was the statue created by Pygmalion which came to life and he subsequently married.

Of course that does rely on you knowing your classics, which I didn't either.
 

You know, the names are familiar (well, Pygmalion's is, Galatea's not so much), and I vaguely remember the story from LONG ago, but I never made the connection.