Most happy offices, if they’re lucky, have one guy (or girl) who’s more important for the way he helps others enjoy coming to work than for the actual work he gets done personally when he’s there. He’s the guy who remembers birthdays and graduations; who organizes the softball team and the potlucks and the rotisserie baseball league and the NCAA basketball pools; who’s always willing to fetch lunch or (after working hours, hopefully!) a keg of beer; who’s always available for a meeting around the proverbial water cooler to laugh at a great new joke or commiserate with old disappointments. For Infocom, which for most of its lifetime was possessed of a very happy office indeed, that guy was “Hollywood” Dave Anderson.
A California boy through and through — one only had to hear his nickname or look at the loud beachwear he wore to work every day he could get away with it to divine that — Anderson had first come to Boston in late 1982 with his buddy Jeff O’Neill, executing a reverse Manifest Destiny to seek their promised land to the east. He was working in a sawmill a few months later when he saw an advertisement in the newspaper from a company he’d never heard of called Infocom, looking for game testers. He didn’t know much of anything about computer games, but getting paid to play them all day certainly sounded a lot better than life at the sawmill. He became one of Infocom’s first full-time testers, taking over from Steve Meretzky, who was already moving on up to write Planetfall. Soon O’Neill joined him in the same role. Hollywood was good at his job, thorough and insightful in everything from spotting typos to bigger questions of design and puzzle fairness. With the testing department growing rapidly around him in Infocom’s first bloom of major commercial success, within six months he was the old man of the group, officially given the title of Lead Playtester.
Something else that happened at nearly the same time does much to explain the even more important role that Anderson was already playing at Infocom. One day in November of 1983, he decided it was high time that somebody clean up the stagnant goldfish pond located outside Infocom’s Wheeler Street offices. He scooped out the three fish, moved them to a temporary holding tank, drained the pond and diligently scrubbed it clean, and put fresh water back in. Anyone who knows anything about fish — a group that apparently didn’t include Anderson or anyone else at Infocom whom he might have talked to about his scheme — can probably guess what happened when he put the fish back in the next day. They all promptly died, undone by a screwed-up pH balance or incorrect oxygen content or bad karma or whatever it is that makes domestic fish die if you so much as look at them wrong (one wonders how evolution ever spared this bunch). The others at Infocom decided to prosecute him for the fish’s murder, with Marc Blank acting as prosecutor, Steve Meretzky as his defense attorney, Mike Dornbrook as fishy expert witness, and nine upright Infocom employee/citizens as the jury. After a lengthy — okay, not really lengthy — trial, he was found not guilty, the victim of a frame job by the real murderer, a Micro Group programmer — and jury member to boot! — named Poh Lim. Lim was sentenced to life in the Graphics “Group,” a truly solitary confinement given the state of the company’s graphics technology at the time.
Hollywood’s trial passed into Infocom lore as one of the first grand comic absurdities of the sort that their staffers would raise to a high art. It also says much about his own role in daily life in the office, from the energetic helpfulness that led him to clean the pond so thoroughly in the first place to the gleeful way he jumped aboard to play his role in the whole (mis)carriage of justice. His name didn’t appear on the game boxes, but faithful readers of Infocom’s New Zork Times newsletter, if they were really paying attention, would have noticed that his name and sometimes picture crop up over and over in accounts of the cheerful insanity that was daily life at the company. He doesn’t hog the limelight — he wasn’t that kind of guy, not at all — but he’s always there, as a participant and as often as not an instigator.
It was for example Hollywood who, after seeing the noble sport at a lounge in his namesake city in California, brought hermit-crab racing to Infocom. Teams were established, and a prize collection of crabs bought by Hollywood at a local pet store auctioned off to each to carry its standard at Drink’em Downs raceway, constructed in the ample space left over inside the CambridgePark Drive offices after Cornerstone had come and gone.
But Hollywood’s most legendary exploits took place on the softball field. He was instrumental in setting up Boston’s Software Softball League, which included along with Infocom the likes of Spinnaker and Lotus. Hollywood became the coach of Infocom’s team, making the official uniform, inevitably, a loud floral shirt. The games became a pivotal part of Infocom’s social calendar, a bonding experience notable even by the company’s usual close-knit standards. In trying to explain how it was at Infocom during the early years when everything they touched seemed to turn to gold, many old employees turn back to those sun-kissed summer days on the softball field when a ragtag bunch of them would show up with several coolers full of beer and little idea who was even playing what position to compete against companies often several times their size, companies that held actual practice sessions and even had actual uniforms — and, much more often than not, Infocom would win. That said, those chalking the wins purely up to Infocom’s charmed early life were doing something of a disservice to their best player. It seems safe to say that Hollywood all but won some games by himself, what with his eye-popping yearly batting averages of .800 or better and his habit of hitting home runs by the handful.
The story of Hollywood Anderson at Infocom is to everyone who was actually there and, indeed, to him as well largely the story of an all-around good mate, not of a game designer. This fact highlights a distinction that perhaps isn’t always appreciated enough, setting into stark relief just how differently Infocom was and is regarded by those who were inside the company in contrast to those who just loved the games. The company that people like me love to idealize as visionaries of interactive storytelling was for the people there first and foremost just a great social experience, for many or most the very best of their entire lives. To them Infocom was about computer games only secondarily. The Infocom that they knew is one that we cannot — and, what with them being so hopelessly close to the sausage-making that led to the games, the opposite is also true. When interviewed by Jason Scott for his Get Lamp documentary, Hollywood didn’t seem to want to talk about his one and only game Hollywood Hijinx so much as all the memories he has of Infocom as a place, memories that often deal only tangentially with the actual nuts and bolts of making interactive fiction.
Even taken on these terms, however, the story of Hollywood’s transformation from tester and life of the Infocom party to Implementor is an unusual one in comparison to that of his peers. Unlike Steve Meretzky or Jeff O’Neill, talented writers and frustrated artists who worked hard to get out of the testing department, and still less like Brian Moriarty, who accepted a job in the Micro Group with the secret agenda of becoming an Imp by hook or by crook, designing his own game just seemed to kind of fall into Hollywood’s lap. He was good at his job and took it seriously, but his passion for the medium didn’t exactly burn with the heat of a thousand suns. He himself notes that the staff was divided between those who believed they were on the cusp of a new form of interactive literature and those who saw their products as “just games.” He, no tortured-artist type by temperament or circumstance, saw them pretty definitively as the latter — the more game-like the better, in fact. Hollywood was an old-school guy who still held Zork up as a sort of gold standard. He was a member of the small minority of even old-school players who love mazes; he loved nothing more than to hunker down with a blank piece of graph paper and a full inventory to drop’em and map’em.
Of course, one would have to be a deeply incurious person to test interactive fiction as a full-time job for literally years without developing some interest in what went into making it. One year Infocom hired a high-school boy named Tom Bok to help with testing over the summer. He got hold of the ZIL source code to the original Zork and started playing around with it, first just by substituting text of his own but later by experimenting with the actual instructions. Both Hollywood and his old buddy Jeff O’Neill got interested in his explorations, and the trio made a spoof they called Zok — a portmanteau of Zork and Bok — that was widely played by others in the office.
Still, while those experiments led O’Neill in fairly short order to pitch and get accepted his idea for Ballyhoo, Hollywood’s own route to Imphood would be more circuitous. When Activision bought Infocom in mid-1986, one of Jim Levy’s first requests was that they start making more games — many more in fact, to the tune of twice as many releases per year as had been their wont. To meet that demand, they would need more Imps, and hard experience had taught them that hiring people off the street and expecting them to learn this absolutely unique art form didn’t usually work, even if they had the money in the budget for it (which they really didn’t). But right there was Hollywood, who’d been testing games for three years now and thus knew the form about as intimately as anyone who hadn’t actually written a game before could. And this was Hollywood, whom everyone liked and appreciated. Wouldn’t it be nice for him to see his name on a box? Hadn’t he earned that through his years of many and varied services? If the door wasn’t quite held wide for him, it was certainly somewhat ajar. All he really had to do was saunter through with a half-decent idea.
In a telling foreshadowing of how his game would end up being developed, even the initial idea wasn’t his. It was Liz Cyr-Jones, another tester who would be promoted to Hollywood’s old role of Lead Playtester upon his departure (how’s that for motivation?), who proposed making his game an extended homage to his long-standing nickname, so ingrained by now that The New Zork Times had taken to writing his name as “Dave” Hollywood Anderson. Hollywood Hijinx would be a scavenger hunt taking place on the mansion of your recently deceased Uncle Buddy and Aunt Hildegarde Burbank, B-movie moguls par excellence. According to the terms of their will, you need to find ten mementos from their movies in the course of a single night to inherit their fortune. It seemed a fun premise to Hollywood, perfectly suited to his own gaming predilections and experience — or, rather, his lack thereof. It was essentially a Zork set in the present day, the focus firmly on the puzzles that were to him the most interesting part of interactive fiction. The deserted, static grounds of the mansion would make the programming easier, while the played-for-laughs B-movie premise would let him liven them up with a bit of humor and atmosphere while being surreal enough that he didn’t need to worry too much about realism or plot or any of the rest of the stuff that Infocom’s preferred characterization of their games as “interactive fiction” normally implied. He pitched Jones’s idea, and, sure enough, it was accepted. Just like that, he was an Imp.
While it would bear Hollywood Anderson’s name on its cover and it would certainly be him who had final say on the project, Hollywood Hijinx is one of the two Infocom games since the days of the original Zork that is best described as a true group effort. (The other would be their very next game, subject of my next article. Its development would take that path, however, for very different reasons.) Just about everyone in the testing department pitched in with ideas for puzzles and gags, treating it as a welcome chance to make a game of their own for a change instead of only breaking the games of others. But Hollywood’s collaborators also extended far beyond the testing people. The only really big fan of B-movies at Infocom — Hollywood himself barely even knew who Roger Corman was — was, perhaps surprisingly, “Professor” Brian Moriarty, on the surface at least the most serious and “literary” of all the Imps. He pitched in with lots of ideas to lend humor and texture to the game, and took the time to write some of Tinsel World, the dishy showbiz magazine that became the centerpiece of the feelies. Infocom’s packaging people reveled in their freedom from overly stringent Imp guidance to come up with much of the rest from their own whole cloth. Hollywood did most of the programming himself, but admits to spending a lot of time “running around the office groveling” to Steve Meretzky or Dave Lebling to help him when it got beyond “the basics” of ZIL. None of this should be taken as a dismissal of Hollywood’s ability, and certainly not as an accusation of dishonesty. A social animal if ever there was one, this was just his natural way of working. And, good guy that he was, everyone was more than happy to help.
I wish I could tell you that the game that resulted from all of this is one of the Infocom greats, a tribute to Hollywood’s infinite good will and subtle leadership. Sadly, however, I can’t. There are worse games in the catalog than Hollywood Hijinx, but I’m not sure there are any that feel quite so inessential as this one. Indeed, it has to be the single least innovative Infocom game ever. Its most immediately striking feature, not least because you encounter it almost immediately, is the mansion’s defiantly old-school hedge maze, the single largest, gnarliest example of its type ever to appear in an Infocom game. (I did mention that Hollywood loved mazes, didn’t I?) Thankfully you can, after solving a number of other puzzles, put together an in-game map of the thing that will see you through in lieu of solving it yourself; one suspects that this must have been added by Hollywood under duress after hearing from outraged testers. Problem is, it’s all too easy to not realize that’s possible when you first encounter the maze, especially because the map is hidden behind some fairly tricky puzzles that you may not believe are solvable without discovering what’s in the maze’s center first. Remember this, would-be players, and don’t spend several hours mapping the thing — unless, like Hollywood, you enjoy that sort of thing — as I did when I first played!
Of course, innovation isn’t everything, and there’s certainly always room for a well-done Zork-like puzzlefest. Unfortunately, though, Hollywood Hijinx doesn’t quite hold up even on those terms. Most of the puzzles are fine, some (like one involving a certain delightful Godzilla-themed interactive diorama) more than fine. But there’s also one that’s notably terrible, arguably the worst single puzzle to appear in an Infocom game since the infamous baseball maze and bank in Zork II. Because I seem to have developed a regular sideline (or form of personal therapy) in complaining about puzzles, I’m going to describe (and spoil) it in the next paragraph. Sensitive readers may want to skip what follows.
So, you discover a water-filled channel through which you can swim to resurface in a cave complex. Being a cave, however, it has no light. You have a flashlight and also some matches that are theoretically capable of providing some, but the flashlight isn’t waterproof. The obvious thing would be to find a Ziploc bag or other waterproof container to put a light source into, but the mansion’s larder, alas, isn’t well-stocked with such practical necessities. The solution that you eventually discover — or, more likely, look up in the hint book or walkthrough — requires you to coat a match with wax from a burning candle, then scrape it off when you surface on the other end of the pool. That’s an iffy enough proposition in itself, but the game’s text for some reason decides to make it even harder to believe — and to solve. When you “put wax on match,” the response is that “the match head [emphasis mine] is now covered with a thin coating of candle wax.” We have here another of that thriving subspecies of text-adventure puzzles that just don’t make any practical sense whatsoever given the consensus version of reality we presumably share with the games we play. Even if the wax has miraculously kept the match head dry, and even if it’s possible to scrape off all of the glop and still have a strikeable head, all of the rest of the match — you know, the part that actually burns — is still all wet. That it couldn’t possibly burn seems so obvious that I spent a long time banging my head against other walls, sure this particular action couldn’t have anything to do with this particular puzzle. I even took the game’s choice of describing the wax as coating only the head as a deliberate kindness meant to steer me away from seeing it as a solution to the problem of a comprehensively wet match. Little did I know…
The writing in Hollywood Hijinx is mostly fine, enlivening its puzzles with fun props and memories hearkening back to the Burbanks’ glory days. As with so much in this game, it’s hard to say how many of the atmospheric touches were devised by Hollywood himself and how many were passed along to him by others, but then it’s not ultimately all that important anyway. For a guy who was more interested in puzzles than text, Hollywood, to his credit, managed to oversee an enjoyable reading as well as playing experience. The only really jarring moment comes when you screen a copy of Uncle Buddy’s lost film A Corpse Line, when the tone suddenly shifts from gentle satire to full-on zombie horror. I’m still not entirely sure if the disturbing scene you witness and the death you suffer immediately afterward are meant to be parodic and just come off wrong or if they really are meant to be horrific. Either way, they stand out from the rest of the game like, well, a dancing corpse in a top hat.
Much more problematic for anyone trying to solve Hollywood Hijinx are just a few places where the scene that Hollywood is evidently seeing in his mind’s eye isn’t quite captured in its entirety in the text, making, whether intentionally or unintentionally, some things harder than they would otherwise be. (The inside of the fireplace is the most notable offender; know that the “loose mortar” that the game so casually describes apparently isn’t so much loose as irregular, providing lots of convenient… well, I’m sure you can figure the rest out for yourself. The other possibility is that you’re an acrobat who’s capable of sticking one toe into a hole at waist height, stepping up, and balancing there on the face of an otherwise smooth — and loosely mortared to boot — wall.)
The little glitches that dog Hollywood Hijinx may have something to do with the unique collaborative process that was its making. If most of the testers are pitching in with ideas and puzzles, the obvious danger becomes that they get too close to the design, unable to see it anymore as an objective outsider would. In short, if the testers are writing the game, who’s testing it? (There may be an aphorism in there somewhere…) Yet it’s also true that this would hardly be the last time that cracks in Infocom’s usual smooth veneer of polish would be noticeable in their last great surge of text-only games of which Hollywood Hijinx is the first. I’ll take up the question of precisely why that should be at greater length in another article, but will just note for now that Infocom was suddenly being asked to become prolific on a scale which they had never approached before in their history. Between January 1987, the date of Hollywood Hijinx‘s release, and January 1988, when they would release their last all-text adventure game, no fewer than nine titles would pour out of their offices, a rate of production nearly twice that of any other twelve-month period in their history. The number of personnel involved in making the games, meanwhile, did not increase. In fact, just the opposite: Infocom hired their last employee in 1985. As people left in the months and years that followed, they were never replaced. Even when Hollywood stepped up to become an Imp the testing vacancy he left behind remained unfilled in perpetuity, leaving the company with one less conscientious tester to cover a flood of new games that threatened to drown the whole department. Looked at in this light, the biggest surprise is that Infocom’s games of 1987 didn’t suffer still more, that Infocom managed in spite of it all to turn out some final gems worthy of standing alongside anything from their less harried earlier years.
After Hollywood Hijinx hit the street and promptly became Infocom’s lowest seller to date, their first to fail to break even 20,000 copies, Hollywood Anderson evinced no particular burning desire to make another game. He rather parlayed his knowledge of Aldus PageMaker into his third and final role at Infocom. As their desktop-publishing expert, he helped to put together the newsletters that were still sent out every quarter to the remaining Infocom faithful. (Indeed, the newsletters seemed to grow in size and ambition almost in direct opposition to the dwindling sales of the actual games.) It was a perfect role for him. Even as the realities of life inside CambridgePark Drive grew ever more stressful, he continued to put a good face on it for the outside world, filling the newsletters with stories of the latest antics and coming up with delightfully goofy promotional ideas that could be used to drum up a little enthusiasm for very little of the money that Infocom increasingly didn’t have. The “take a picture of yourself holding an Infocom game on the Great Wall of China” contest, for example, became a particular favorite of fans and employees alike. Still, he remained as always most valuable not for what it said in his job description but for what he brought to daily life at the office. His peers during this last couple of years had more need than ever for his affable charm and unflappable sense of fun.
I’ve seen a few “where are they now?” pieces done on one-hit wonders of the music industry in which the subjects have noted how frustrating it can be to be perpetually framed with that negative label. After all, just getting one song played on the radio and bought in mass quantities by a fickle public — heck, just getting signed and getting a record out at all — is more than the vast majority of working musicians will ever achieve. Similarly, while his game is far from the best of the pack, Hollywood Dave Anderson is one of the vanishingly small number of people on the planet who can hold up an Infocom box with his name on the cover. That’s an achievement in itself. If the skids that got him there were just slightly greased in contrast to his peers, you’ll never meet a single one of them with a resentful word to say about it. Hollywood, because of who he was and what he brought to their lives every day, deserved his little twirl in the limelight. As long as the Infocom catalog is remembered, there will be his game — his name — nestled in there among the others, a reminder of a great chum and a place that was for six or so great years a great place to be young and creative and happy. There are certainly worse legacies to have.
(As usual with my Infocom articles, much of this one is drawn from the full Get Lamp interview archives which Jason Scott so kindly shared with me. Thanks again, Jason! Other sources include Infocom’s New Zork Times and Status Line newsletters of Spring 1984, Summer 1984, Summer 1985, Winter 1986, Fall 1986, Winter 1987, Summer 1987, Fall 1987, Winter 1987, Spring 1988, and Summer 1988, and Down From the Top of Its Game, an academic paper on the company’s history.
Hollywood Hijinx and most of the other Infocom games are available for purchase as part of an iOS app.)
August 21, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Curious: where is Anderson now? Did he land somewhere else in the software industry?
August 21, 2015 at 2:23 pm
Not sure actually. I know he worked with Marc Blank in Oregon for a while immediately after Infocom was dissolved, but I don’t know his history after that. He was never really a computer guy — he insists that he never even *really* learned ZIL — so it wouldn’t surprise me if he wound up in some other industry entirely. I’m sure Jason Scott probably knows (take that as a hint, Jason, if you’re reading).
August 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm
At the time that I interviewed Dave, he was living in Massachusetts. Your article mentions it lately, but he mentioned about he and some buddies went to a wedding in Massachusetts, went back to California, packed up, and moved out east. It was truly that impulsive. He also mentioned going out of his way to find an appropriate loud shirt from his closet to make sure that he was interviewed properly.
I have the impression that he is still living in Massachusetts. He certainly has a family and happiness. Like the others, he has no particular love of the management and focuses on the camaraderie more than anything else.
August 22, 2015 at 6:52 am
Thanks as always, Jason!
August 21, 2015 at 3:39 pm
As someone who still plays Zork I several times a year, I thoroughly enjoyed this game for its old-school-wander-around-alone-&-solve-puzzles feel, though I found the B-movie stuff mildly annoying at best, & didn’t solve the maze in the archaic manner. It wasn’t till reading this post that I even considered there might’ve been a problem with the rest of the match being wet.
August 21, 2015 at 6:03 pm
Oh my. This so much reminds me of my days at DIFFstudios. A rocky ride that ended in bad blood and disappointment, yet we stayed a team to the end — and after. Our boss from those days never ceases to be amazed that we’re not only still friends, but willing to work for him again whenever the opportunity arises. And it’s all because, for better or worse, for a few wonderful years we were the best of the best, the most innovative web agency in Bucharest, doing things others didn’t dream of.
Was that because of the team spirit, or the other way around? Let’s just call it a virtuous cycle. Either way, the human factor matters more than everything else combined, and people are neither interchangeable nor able to achieve much on their own, no matter how skilled they may be.
August 21, 2015 at 6:09 pm
August 22, 2015 at 6:27 am
August 21, 2015 at 6:22 pm
I played this one sometime in the late ’90s, I believe, and the Godzilla and gap-in-the-stairs puzzles are the only parts of it I remember, which supports your reading: nothing very memorable here. Maybe B-movie fans got more out of it.
Hollywood Hijnix is one of the two Infocom games since the days of the original Zork that is best described as a true group effort. The other would be their very next game, subject of my next article. Its development would take that path, however, for very different reasons.
Sounds like Bureaucracy. Looking forward to that one, though any Imps following along may be wincing in anticipation..
August 22, 2015 at 6:40 am
Warning, some spoilers:
The elevator puzzle is also really good. The moment that you realize that this little closet is actually an *elevator* is the best “a-ha!” moment in the game in my opinion.
At the same time, though, it’s odd that The Lurking Horror also had puzzles revolving around an elevator six months later, to the extent that they might even share much of the same code. I wonder if Dave Lebling was behind both…
August 21, 2015 at 8:49 pm
This is one I really didn’t get when I poked at it on the Lost Treasures CD that I got in the mid-90s; I was about 16 at the time. That might be a bit odd considering I was already a big MST3K fan, but there it is. I guess something about the setup left me cold. I enjoy it more now, though it still isn’t particularly interesting.
Beachwear. (Unless you mean he was wearing plastic plates and cutlery?)
I think this is written with lowercase p, pH.
one wonders how evolution ever spared this bunch
It isn’t so much evolution as human keepers, though, innit? Like anything else domestic. (And FWIW when we used to keep fish when I was a kid, we never had much trouble keeping them alive. We even used to buy feeder goldfish because they were so cheap, which I think are the type usually used as prizes in carnival games and that everyone thinks of as fragile and likely to die within days, and just let them grow up in our 40-gallon tank.)
it would certainly be him who had final say on the project, Hollywood Hijnix is one of
Misspelled “Hijinx” there.
Having a problem with your keyboard’s I key, eh? (someone else pointed out a missing “i” in Hildegarde earlier on, I think.)
requires you to coat a match with wax from a burning candle, then scrape it off when you surface on the other end of the pool. That’s an iffy enough proposition in itself, but the game’s text for some reason decides to make it even harder to believe — and to solve. When you “put wax on match,” the response is that “the match head [emphasis mine] is now covered with a thin coating of candle wax.”… Even if the wax has miraculously kept the match head dry, and even if it’s possible to scrape off all of the glop and still have a strikeable head, all of the rest of the match — you know, the part that actually burns — is still all wet.
Coating a match head with wax is a standard method of waterproofing them, which I learned in Camp Fire and probably any Boy or Girl Scout did as well (though of course not everyone would have had that experience). You do not scrape the wax off when you intend to use it; you simply strike the match straight through the wax. If you coated the whole match and not just the head you would have molten wax on your fingers as it burned (ouch). The way it is in the game is how I would expect it to work. Although I suppose it’s true that in the real-life application it is not meant to protect them against total immersion in water, just against them getting damp from rain or similar in your backpack or whatever, so maybe there is that, though honestly that possibility (that in this case the match shaft would be too wet to burn even if the head lit) did not occur to me, because the whole wax-on-the-head thing seems normal to me to begin with.
August 22, 2015 at 6:51 am
Obviously Hildegarde’s “i” wanted its share of the spotlight and wandered over to join Tinsel World. But thanks!
The match puzzle just became a lot more interesting, based on your comment and those of one or two others. It seems this may actually resemble the Zork II baseball puzzle more than I knew, depending on a certain bit of cultural or practical knowledge that I lacked. I was never a Scout, and I think I’ve been camping maybe twice in my entire life. Obviously I’ve just discovered yet one more reason, alongside still not being able to throw a ball worth a damn and others, why I should have spent more time outside and less in front of my computer as a kid.
Anyway, the fact that many of you *didn’t* have any problems with it makes me wonder if I should propose a new addition to the Player’s Bill of Rights: “18. Not to need to have been a Scout.” Hey, it’s really no more weirdly specific than “Not to need to be an American.” This puzzle seemed absolutely absurd to me, so it’s surprising to say the least to learn that it does have a firm basis in reality, even as I continue to maintain that that match couldn’t possibly really burn.
March 29, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Actually, waterproof matches are fairly common for camping/backpacking people. I remember having them when I was a kid in about ’75 and my family went canoeing for two weeks. They had some sort of green coating on the head and the stick was unprotected.
March 19, 2017 at 12:54 am
I must concur with Lisa. As a Boy Scout, covering matches heads with wax was a typical preparation we did before camping. Even if you were not a Boy Scout, I would have expected you to at least acknowledge the physical possibility due to wax being a common waterproofing material in many products (consider cardboard containers for liquids, for example). Stating that it is “impossible” is rather bold and says more about you than the game’s expectations.
I must also say that I don’t find anything wrong with culturally-specific puzzles. It may not serve a more global audience, but the United States is rather large and includes an expansive market.
Besides, do we really want every puzzle in every game to be either some brainy, purely logical mathematical enigma, or one aiming at the lowest common denominator of generic and cultural knowledge?
August 21, 2015 at 10:11 pm
For some reason my all time favourite, savouring this for the weekend ;)
August 21, 2015 at 10:23 pm
I might remember Hollywood Hijinx a bit more fondly than some of the people here. The Lost Treasures of Infocom II didn’t have a hint book as the first volume did (as much as trying to look up “just one hint” from that thoroughly unprotected mass of text always seemed to spoil me as to everything else in the game, such that after a while I just shrugged and accepted that), and I only really played about half of the games in it. While I didn’t solve Hollywood Hijinx on my own, I was still left feeling I’d almost done that (merely amused when I sorted out the key to the hedge maze after mapping it all out on squared paper before even getting in the mansion, and sorting out the waterproof match problem too), and that seems to have counted for something… although when I first got online a few years later and looked up hints to finish A Mind Forever Voyaging and Trinity at last, some unexplained reason kept me from doing the same thing with that game.
However, when I was looking up those hints I was also looking at the games of the First Interactive Fiction Competition. “Mystery Science Theater 3000: Detective,” and some explanations of the original show in the game and a SPAG review, got me thinking it sounded kind of fun, and a few years later I got around to watching all of the show…
August 22, 2015 at 8:55 pm
Great post Jimmy! Loved the backstory on Hollywood Dave. Even if the later Infocom stories were a bit rushed, in some ways they were more accessible or at least that’s how they felt to me. And they also went beyond the original fantasy genre. As others mentioned, while the matchstick puzzle is not obvious this was a pretty standard technique I learned as a Boy Scout in Canada. I may test it out but I’m pretty sure the wooden stick dries out very fast and will burn even if damp.
BTW I think it would be great if you collected some of these Infocom stories (and maybe later Inform classics)and turned it into a book for would-be IF authors as a guide to creating great IF works. The IF Theory book has a few decent essays but no one has written a great book that teaches story crafting in IF with real examples…
August 23, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Excellent article as usual. Shades of Douglas Adams’ writing style with the fish pond incident.
“he wore to work every day he could get away with it to divine that” – cross out “he could get away with it”?
“seem to be have” – cross out “be”
August 24, 2015 at 6:38 am
I’ll take the second suggestion, the first is as intended. ;) And thanks!
August 23, 2015 at 10:28 pm
I enjoy all the posts all the time, but the Infocom posts more than most. Ended up buying ‘Get Lamp’, finally, based solely on how often it shows up as a source here. Can I hope there’s some exploration of “Plundered Hearts” coming up? I’d love to see if my fond memories hold up to the light of day.
August 24, 2015 at 6:39 am
Oh, yeah, definitely. I *love* Plundered Hearts.
August 25, 2015 at 7:14 pm
I am really fond of Hollywood Hijinx. I must have been around 15 when I got it into my hands, and it was everything I enjoyed (and enjoy) most about text adventures: a limited rathern than sprawling map with lot’s and lot’s of puzzles. And puzzles that were, by and large, quite managable. The bit about only part of the match being coated never confused me, but that may have been one of the few cases in which not having English as mother language worked in my favor when playing text adventures.
For some of the puzzles I still remember today the thrill when I finally managed to solve them: the above-mentioned elevator (both discovering it and figuring out how to operate it while not being inside) is one of these puzzles.
I also hugly enjoyed the writing: at that time I was an avid reader of everything Douglas Adams, and here finally was a game with a similar tone that was not beyond me (as HGTTG and Leather Godesses had been). Some of the jokes, which may feel forced to an adult (e.g., the “Maltese Finch”) are of course just the thing for a 15-year-old … feeling proud that he actually gets them.
So maybe I got to play Hollywood Hijinx just at the right point of time. Be that as it may: “Dave” Hollywood Anderson’s only Infocom game is one of the Infocom games I cherish most.
August 26, 2015 at 5:37 am
Thanks for this! Our appreciation of a game is always *so* dependent on circumstance and context…
September 8, 2015 at 8:22 am
In the off chance you missed this during your research:
September 9, 2015 at 6:06 pm
No, I hadn’t seen that one before. Those pictures are… interesting. Thanks!
February 5, 2016 at 8:57 pm
Although you make good points regarding the game being non-innovative and non-memorable and not having anything enw or even risky in terms of design… it’s still a game that generates fond memories and a pleasant gaming experience. Because what it does, it does so well – you can’t ever underestimate that. :) Yes, it is merely a treasure hunt, traditional as all get-out (I wrote a review of it once in which I called it “Zork Lite” – referring to the lighter atmosphere as well as the easier puzzles), but it’s a good, enjoyable traditional non-innovative treasure hunt. There’s a lot to be said for pedestrian-yet-lovable/functional!
February 22, 2017 at 3:19 pm
I just finished it for the first time and I have to say I really enjoyed it! Between a game with lots of story and non-challenging puzzles vs. no story with challenging puzzles, I still prefer the latter. Both together is obviously ideal, but very few examples exist, I guess. Anyway, about the match, it was the last thing I solved. By the time I had 9 treasures the only noticeable items I hadn’t used yet were the statues and the green match, so it was a quick “a-ha!” after that. Thanks for the article!
June 4, 2017 at 7:39 am
After reading through the comments, I’m a bit surprised you didn’t soften your wording a bit about the match head, considering how many people let you know it indeed works as depicted. You can even Google “waterproofing matches” if you need more confirmation about the method.
There’s a little science denier in all of us, I guess! ;)
July 11, 2020 at 4:57 am
I just finished this game myself and I found it to be in the top half of Infocom games overall. Not earth-shattering, but really a nice surprise after Moonmist.
I did map the full maze and it makes it fairly easy (if time-consuming) to do so since it is a straight grid and it tells you how many feet you walk in each step. A bit of graph paper and it’s a cinch… followed by disappointment as there is no clear center. You DO have to solve the other puzzle, less to know the layout of the maze and more to just locate the “X”. (And I wonder if the X can move between games? I should check the source. It seems like it could since there are a half-dozen dead ends that could have worked.)
The match puzzle is god-awful. I really did not get it at all and needed a hint.
December 19, 2022 at 4:24 pm
par deluxe -> par excellence
turn out a some -> turn out some
December 22, 2022 at 1:32 pm
January 12, 2023 at 6:23 pm
I have just finished the game for the first time and I have to say I had a blast. Maze was just wonderful to map on my own and I even found the treasure in it BEFORE I managed to get inside the house. I am not an American or even native English speaker but even I could figure out the match puzzle. It was one of those wonderful a-ha! moments while I was having a break from the game. Ditto elevator puzzle or finding the combination to the safe in Bomb Shelter (that one was just pure gold).
Actually I solved the game without any hints which is a rare event for me and for this reason I find Hollywood Hijinx rather dear to my heart. This is certainly one of Infocom’s better games.