An embarrassment of riches?
David Baggett
Magnus Olsson <m...@marvin.df.lth.se> wrote:
>As an author, however, I'm a bit concerned. Is it worth the effort (if
>ever it was) to write a piece of IF when it is almost guaranteed to
>drown in the flood of new releases?
This is why sensible criticism is so important. Then your concern as an IF
author will mainly be of running afoul of boneheaded critics. :)
In all seriousnes: we need more mini-reviews posted here that:
- Describe the game broadly (treasure hunt, historical, SF, "literary").
- Discuss the overall quality and difficulty level.
- Estimate the importance of the game to the genre.
If every game had a half dozen capsule reviews posted here that touched on
these three points, readers could prioritize the games according to their
own preferences.
Given how long it takes to *play* one of these things, I'm amazed at how
little time people spend critiquing them. Perhaps it's an old habit of
avoiding direct criticism for fear of scaring authors away?
>Will anybody even have the time to notice my game when they're so busy
>playing all the hugely complex new ones?
If someone writes a review that says "this is the most important IF game of
the millenium --- there is no greater achivement possible from any living
IF author" (as Adam has done for Jigsaw), then you can be sure that people
will take a look at your work.
If you write something that few people take an immediate interest in, you
may lose out against other "catchier" works. But it's not like your'game
gets deleted six months after it's released. If your work is good, people
will discover it --- some time. Now that our data is so widely archived
(and amassed as well at one site, ftp.gmd.de) I doubt any more IF works
will be lost.
>Of course, in absolute terms the flow of new IF is still just a
>trickle. But considering that the potential audience is so small,
There's also the fact that everyone wants to try his hand at writing IF.
That's good, but in the rest of the world's media there are barriers to
entry that weed out everything that fails to meet some minimum standard.
There is no such thing for IF, because there are no IF publishers, and no
one is making money. (This same phenomenon explains why Usenet is, on the
whole, so awful.)
>Today, would even "Curses" make an impact?
Of course.
>I gave up on "Christminster" when I realized just how hard it was; I don't
>even *dream* of starting on "Jigsaw" or "The Legend Lives"... :-(
This is another reason I disagree with the standard adventure game formula
that still dictates most of what IF authors are doing. Curses and Jigsaw
are both fantastically difficult games for any but veteran IF fans. I
don't personally like games that take me a month to solve. I want to be
able to commit as much time to a first reading of an IF work as I do to a
long novel. Then, if there is merit to the work, I'd rather spend the
extra month analyzing and rereading.
That's why I put the hint system in Legend. You can finish that game in a
day if you use all the hints. But the irony is that because it's easy
(with hints), few people post about it, so few people hear about it, so few
people play it, so the standard brain-teaser formula appears to have all
the popular support. (Or maybe the standard brain-teaser formula still
*does* have all the popular support...)
For my part: I've been too busy this last year to really explore the
no-puzzle direction I've been eager to take since 1992. But eventually! I
still believe that puzzles weaken IF and limit it to a very narrow
audience. Books can appeal to many different kinds of people. IF games
now seem limited to a fringe group of Games magazine readers and computer
hardware reactionaries.
>So, is there any point in writing anymore, or is the market saturated?
You've said too much. You should have asked "Is there any point in
writing?"
Dave Baggett
__
d...@ai.mit.edu
"Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
--- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)
Gerry Kevin Wilson
Well, since I haven't posted any non-SPAG and non-Contest related in a
long while, I'll write a response to this. Basically, Magnus was worried
that his work would get lost in the flood of I-F lately released.
Well, one way around this is making people aware of your game. Offhand,
I'd say I'm the reigning champion here. Of course, I've had about 3
years of my .sig advertising Avalon, and I've acquired my own millenarian
order, but hey, advertising is advertising. Even when it's bad
advertising, you still attract those people perverse enough to want to
see what the fuss is about. If I had it to do over, I'd just do a quiet
sig advert like Bonni does.
Betatesters are the first people to look at your game. Try to get
permission to quote them when you announce your game. Having Michael
Kinyon's seal of approval can go a long way. :)
Need I say it? Advertise in SPAG. It's free, guys.
Announce the game on the major online services. AOL and Compuserve at
the least.
The reaction you get is often based on the effort you expend to get
people to play your game, and the effort you expend to get people's
reactions to the game. I understand that authors giving away their games
don't want to expend any more effort, but the gratitude of your players
will only carry you so far. Just as a writer in the novel field, you
must sell yourself and your work. [Hmm, maybe I've been reading too much
Machiavelli....]
But seriously, if you want people's opinions, you have to have for them.
I don't mean a note in your game, I mean answering hint questions about
your game and slipping in a 'By the way, would you mind giving me your
reaction to the game?' It's not rude, it's essential. Remember the
reaction of 99% of all people to a daylight theft of a car. "Enh,
someone else will report the guy."
You think people are going to get more involved over a game? Doubt it.
Remember, you are the only person in the world (and your co-authors, of
course) to whom your game is anything more than a pleasant diversion.
Others may enjoy it, but most are unable to appreciate the amount of work
you have put into it. You are probably the only person who will ever see
every bit of text in your game (unless you release the source code.)
Writing is work, yes. But I would say that it's more fulfilling than
almost anything else you can do. I've been writing a game for three
years. You think I'd do that if I didn't like to write? Hell no.
Writing is also a singularly thankless hobby. You have to be a pushy
s.o.b. You push to get people to buy/register/download your game. You
push for them to play it. You push for them to give you their opinions
of it.
I'm willing to help other authors out. I've got SPAG all set up. I used
it to get some short games written (last year's contest would not have
pulled in as much reaction without the calls for reviews, I'm sure.) The
magazine space is still there for reviewers. And just to start:
I want reviews for SPAG 9.
I need reviews on the Windhall Chronicles.
I need some on SpiritWrak.
I need some on Shelby's Light/Addendum.
I would also like some of the newly ported games reviewed, like
Frustration, etc.
Oh, and will someone review Golden Wombat of Destiny, while we're at it?
There. That will likely pull in a few reviews. The games I don't get
reviewed, I'll pick out some of my more prolific review writers and try
to talk them into reviewing.
You just gotta be bossy, is all.
--
<~V~E~SOF~~~~~~~~~~~AVALON~~~~~~~~DUE~DURING~THE~20TH~CENTURY~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~>
< RTI T Into the afterlife, with dogtag and helmet. Frank | ~~\ >
< G O WAR E Leandro is lost in a world of magic, love, and adventure.| /~\ | >
<_______________________...@uclink.berkeley.edu__|_\__/__>
mathew
> I'm also in a bit of despair that, considering the time it takes for
> me to solve even the simplest games, I'll probably never, get the time
> to play them all.
Why is this a problem? I don't have time to read all the books that are
published, or watch all the movies that are made.
A lot of IF just doesn't appeal to me. Take the Unnkulia series, for
example; very highly spoken of, but the entire style just turned me right
off from the start. I played "Christminster" for a while, but didn't get
on with it. "Curses" seems more my style, though I've not done much more
than wander around in it so far.
I'm currently working through TLTOI and TLTOI II. Some of the games I
love; others I hate. Much to my surprise, I loved "Plundered Hearts", but
found "Starcross" irritating. I enjoyed "Wishbringer", but couldn't get
into "Moonmist" at all.
The point is that if there's an embarrassment of riches, it means I can
skip through the games I don't like so much, or even ignore them entirely,
and concentrate on the ones I really enjoy. I'd rather have fifty games
appear per year, and play and really enjoy only five of them, than have
five games appear per year and play them all but only really get
enthusiastic about one...
> A long game like "Jigsaw" will probably take me
> months to get through, and even though "Jigsaw" remains the longest
> piece of IF ever written, I'm not sure it will for very long.
I dunno. My favourite piece of IF to date is "A Mind Forever Voyaging".
Infocom's largest, but I finished it in a couple of days. Size doesn't
necessarily entail long playing times. A lot depends on the complexity of
the puzzles, and whether your mind works the same way as the author's...
mathew
--
http://freethought.tamu.edu/~meta/
I global kill '!!', '$$', '??', '**', '>>', 'please read', 'FREE', all-caps subject lines, and postings with 'From' lines which don't contain Internet addresses.
Andrew C. Plotkin
> As a player of IF, I should be overjoyed, and of course I am, though
> I'm also in a bit of despair that, considering the time it takes for
> me to solve even the simplest games, I'll probably never, get the time
> months to get through, and even though "Jigsaw" remains the longest
> piece of IF ever written, I'm not sure it will for very long.
> "John's Fire Witch" and "Lethe Flow Phoenix", but tastes differ).
As a player, I can still play them (or get tired and drop them) faster
than they're coming out.
> As an author, however, I'm a bit concerned. Is it worth the effort (if
> ever it was) to write a piece of IF when it is almost guaranteed to
> drown in the flood of new releases? Will anybody even have the time
> to notice my game when they're so busy playing all the hugely complex
> new ones?
Flood? Flood? _Spiritwrak_ came out this week; _Hero_ (a short game)
came out last week; what was the one before that? _Path to Fortune_
was two or three months ago.
The four by Jim MacBrayne are kind of anomalous data point, since
they're ports of older games, and therefore the author could build and
upload them relatively quickly.
> Today, would even "Curses" make an impact?
The other way to interpret things is that now we have enough games
that not every one is a celebrity. Jigsaw and Curses made an impact, I
submit, because they are well-written. I spent a lot of time on them.
I didn't spent much time on the four Jim MacBrayne games, because
frankly I didn't like either the writing or the game design. Hero
really caught my attention, and Spiritwrak seems to have as well
(mostly because the author has done such a good job of pastiche. Not
everyone seems to agree, but that's a separate debate.)
I can now make critical judgements which are less shallow than "This
is the best game I've played this year, because it's the only one." I
*choose* not to play every game. This means that I enjoy the games I
play more. This is good. Get it?
> The question is: with all the recent releases, and the huge size and
> complexity of many of these games, do people still have the time and
> energy to play all new IF? Do people even have the energy to *notice*
> all the new games?
I decided to accept a limited audience back when I started working on
text games. So now maybe it's even more limited, to the text-game
players who have a lot of spare time or are quick solvers. Not a big
deal, to me.
> Will my current projects just result in bored yawns and embarrassed
> "That'll have to wait until I get some more time - maybe after I'm
> retired or so"? Or, even worse, will it just drown among the other
> new releases so people won't even bother trying it?
Every field of art has this trouble. Authors compete for audience's
attention. The pack is now big enough that the losers are way back.
It's no surprise.
You and me have a leg up, anyway, from having won last year's
competition. People will give us a shot. I intend to take advantage of
this.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
ErsatzPogo
>published, or watch all the movies that are made.
>
>A lot of IF just doesn't appeal to me. Take the Unnkulia series, for
>example; very highly spoken of, but the entire style just turned me right
>off from the start. I played "Christminster" for a while, but didn't get
>on with it. "Curses" seems more my style, though I've not done much more
>than wander around in it so far.
This is why I'm most excited about all the new games being written -- with
any luck, we're going to see a much broader diversity in the types of
games that are released. With any luck, that will even attract new players
who either a) aren't particularly interested in the "classic"
SF/dungeon-type plots, or b) get interested in what this whole new flurry
of games is all about. (Did Lebling et al. worry that they would be
flooding the market when they started Infocom, or did they figure that
they'd be creating a groundswell that would build on itself?)
Obviously, this depends on other factors as well -- all the things we
talked about in the "bringing more people to I-F" thread -- but more and
different games can only be A Good Thing.
As for the perspective of the I-F author -- Magnus, I hope you'd look at
it as I do: At least this way, I know people are playing my game because
they like it, and not because they have no other options. I'd much rather
have five die-hard fans than 50 lukewarm ones, anyway.
Neil
Sarinee Achavanuntakul
new, complex games, there remains a FEW good ones. One thing about IF (at
least to me) is that, contrary to graphics-intensive games, It DOESN'T
take long at all before I realize I don't like the game and decide to
stop playing it. Usually the initial 10-15 minute session is enough for
me to tell.
Magnus seems to be implying that all (or most) of the recent
games are very good, and that most are huge so he doesn't have time to
finish them. That's a matter of personal taste, I guess. But still there
is a small number of games that are WORTH finishing, and the majority
that aren't.
So, the bottom line is: I do have time to download new games from
ftp.gmd.de, and at least start playing on all of them. But I feel
captivated enough to finish only maybe 20 percent of what I play. Size of
the game usually is not a factor for me, as I've finished both A Change
in the Weather and Jigsaw.
As someone else said, sheer size of the game also isn't perfectly
correlated with playing time. I know Jigsaw is bigger than Curses, but it
took me an eternity longer to solve the latter.
-Sarinee
Matthew Amster-Burton
Substance!
ersat...@aol.com (ErsatzPogo) wrote:
>This is why I'm most excited about all the new games being written -- with
>any luck, we're going to see a much broader diversity in the types of
>games that are released. With any luck, that will even attract new players
>who either a) aren't particularly interested in the "classic"
>SF/dungeon-type plots, or b) get interested in what this whole new flurry
>of games is all about.
I agree. My game--in stasis at the moment due to laziness and a
typing injury--has no magic or SF and is political. Not something
I've seen before. Maybe people will play it because they're
interested in a game like that.
Of course, I need to decide whether to try to turn this game into a
contest entry or shelve it and write a new contest entry (yes, I'm
dawdling). We'll see.
>Obviously, this depends on other factors as well -- all the things we
>talked about in the "bringing more people to I-F" thread -- but more and
>different games can only be A Good Thing.
When there's only a trickle of games, one has to identify simply as
"an IF fan." With more authors putting out games more frequently, we
can get a better sense of each author's particular style, just as we
do for authors of books. For example, I prefer Jonathan Kozol to John
Grisham, but there's no parallel to this in the IF milieu. Yet. I
hope we'll be around long enough that comments such as "the writing
style has a touch of Andrew Plotkin" begin to appear in reviews.
Of course, I'm as lazy as the next person about actually writing
reviews. Kevin, when's the deadline for the next SPAG?
Matthew
C.A. McCarthy
>In article <4i8nn0$l...@news.lth.se>,
>Magnus Olsson <m...@marvin.df.lth.se> wrote:
>>As an author, however, I'm a bit concerned. Is it worth the effort (if
>>ever it was) to write a piece of IF when it is almost guaranteed to
>>drown in the flood of new releases?
I can relate to Magnus' concern here. Where are the postings for
Shelby (but more of that later)? The last year has been rather
prolific for new IF releases so many will invariably fall by the
wayside. But, as is stated somewhere else in this thread, quantity
does not equate with quality (particularly in the IF world), and if a
game is good it will most certainly be picked up and played at some
point and garner more attention.
>In all seriousnes: we need more mini-reviews posted here that:
> - Describe the game broadly (treasure hunt, historical, SF, "literary").
> - Discuss the overall quality and difficulty level.
> - Estimate the importance of the game to the genre.
>If every game had a half dozen capsule reviews posted here that touched on
>these three points, readers could prioritize the games according to their
>own preferences.
A good idea.
>>Will anybody even have the time to notice my game when they're so busy
>>playing all the hugely complex new ones?
Initially, probably not, but as I said, if it's any damn good they'll
pick up on it at some point. The market isn't THAT saturated and
there's almost certain to be a lull in new games being produced.
>If you write something that few people take an immediate interest in, you
>may lose out against other "catchier" works. But it's not like your'game
>gets deleted six months after it's released. If your work is good, people
>will discover it --- some time. Now that our data is so widely archived
>(and amassed as well at one site, ftp.gmd.de) I doubt any more IF works
>will be lost.
Ah, there it is, in this very article :-) I agree wholeheartedly with
Dave here, and god bless Volker Blasius and his archive. We owe him a
huge debt.
>There's also the fact that everyone wants to try his hand at writing IF.
>That's good, but in the rest of the world's media there are barriers to
>entry that weed out everything that fails to meet some minimum standard.
>There is no such thing for IF, because there are no IF publishers, and no
>one is making money. (This same phenomenon explains why Usenet is, on the
>whole, so awful.)
Well, Shelby's been a nice little earner for me, amazingly enough.
It's gratifying to know that people are enjoying it, and even better
that they're registering it...but I digress...
The fact that everyone thinks they can write IF is probably partly
responsible for the latest slew of games, but most of these games fail
miserably to meet any kind of minimum standard that the genre should
have. This has always been true in any gaming genre, but has been
particularly evident in IF (due to its basis in plain text, no doubt.
A very unforgiving medium). Still, good games will prevail in the
end.
>>I gave up on "Christminster" when I realized just how hard it was; I don't
>>even *dream* of starting on "Jigsaw" or "The Legend Lives"... :-(
>This is another reason I disagree with the standard adventure game formula
>that still dictates most of what IF authors are doing. Curses and Jigsaw
>are both fantastically difficult games for any but veteran IF fans. I
>don't personally like games that take me a month to solve. I want to be
>able to commit as much time to a first reading of an IF work as I do to a
>long novel. Then, if there is merit to the work, I'd rather spend the
>extra month analyzing and rereading.
>That's why I put the hint system in Legend. You can finish that game in a
>day if you use all the hints. But the irony is that because it's easy
>(with hints), few people post about it, so few people hear about it, so few
>people play it, so the standard brain-teaser formula appears to have all
>the popular support. (Or maybe the standard brain-teaser formula still
>*does* have all the popular support...)
>For my part: I've been too busy this last year to really explore the
>no-puzzle direction I've been eager to take since 1992. But eventually! I
>still believe that puzzles weaken IF and limit it to a very narrow
>audience. Books can appeal to many different kinds of people. IF games
>now seem limited to a fringe group of Games magazine readers and computer
>hardware reactionaries.
I agree. There is far too much emphasis put on puzzle solving in IF.
The puzzles in Shelby were all relatively easy to solve and were there
out of obligation to "the IF standard", but the game is intensely plot
driven (and as a result you don't see many "help me" posts on usenet).
All I wanted to do was tell a story. The puzzles just get in the way.
I too would like to see a move away from the brain-teaser type games.
>>So, is there any point in writing anymore, or is the market saturated?
Absolutely godammit...now get back and write one.
Here's me bus! Cheers.
Colm
"Elvis people are nicer people than the people who laugh at Elvis People."
David Thomas - "Media Priests Of The Big Lie"
Andrew C. Plotkin
> The reaction you get is often based on the effort you expend to get
> people to play your game, and the effort you expend to get people's
> reactions to the game. I understand that authors giving away their games
> don't want to expend any more effort, but the gratitude of your players
> will only carry you so far. Just as a writer in the novel field, you
> must sell yourself and your work. [Hmm, maybe I've been reading too much
> Machiavelli....]
I was surprised by how different Whizzard's post to this thread was from
mine. Then I realized, oh yeah, I am untypical in that A) I never pay
attention to advertisements, and B) I never read back-cover blurbs.
Please normalize for that when reading my opinions.
(I do read reviews, though. (As long as they have relevant spoiler
warnings.) I agree that rec.games.int-fiction would be greatly spruced
up if people got into the habit of posting capsule reviews, or
comments, or anything but hint requests. Now I just have to find the
time myself...)
(Sorry, off to write one more room description before I go to bed. :-)
Uncle Bob
: the millenium --- there is no greater achivement possible from any living
: IF author" (as Adam has done for Jigsaw), then you can be sure that people
: will take a look at your work.
And, if someone writes, "This is the worst game ever written"--- people
will take a look at it too! I am guessing that most IF fans download
every new work as soon as they know about it, and will explore
it--- eventually.
: This is another reason I disagree with the standard adventure game formula
: that still dictates most of what IF authors are doing. Curses and Jigsaw
: are both fantastically difficult games for any but veteran IF fans. I
Does this tend to put off possible "recruits" to IF games? I think it
might, at least to some degree.
: For my part: I've been too busy this last year to really explore the
: no-puzzle direction I've been eager to take since 1992. But eventually! I
I continue to attempt to write IF (although with precious little time and
projects never seeming to near completion) because I want to use that
medium as a means of self-expression. Do I care if the end product is
played? Yes, of course I do; but on the other hand I am not anxious to
see the work devoured by someone whose goal is to see how fast the
puzzles can be solved.
And in this I agree with Dave Baggett's comment above about no-puzzle
IF. It has never been the mold; even works with rich storylines and
messages have been puzzle based (hint systems notwithstanding).
But whether or not there is more out there than can be played, and
whether or not my works (may they be completed some day) get
"submerged"--- I'll still write IF, simply because I want to.
Bob Newell
Gerry Kevin Wilson
The deadline for SPAG 9 is the end of April. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Definitely the end of April.
--
<~~~VERTIGO~~~~~~~~~~~~THE~BRASS~LANTERN~~~~~~ISSUE~1~INCL~W/AVALON~~|~~~~~~~>
< In the irreverent tradition of _The New Zork Times_ comes The | ~~\ >
< Brass Lantern, an informative newsletter from Vertigo Software. | /~\ | >
<___SOFTWARE____________...@uclink.berkeley.edu__|_\__/__>
Adam J. Thornton
>If someone writes a review that says "this is the most important IF game of
>the millenium --- there is no greater achivement possible from any living
>IF author" (as Adam has done for Jigsaw), then you can be sure that people
>will take a look at your work.
Er, I don't think I quite said _that_. I said it was the best IF I'd ever
played with the possible exception of _Trinity_. I can't see how anyone,
even Graham, is going to top it, but that doesn't mean I reject the
possibility.
I do find it interesting that the two games I love best in all the world
are universe-hopping games that are, fundamentally, about war and the
twentieth century.
There's another game coming out soon (er, maybe) that you can tell just
from the ads fits _that_ description.
Somewhere in the murky depths of my brain, an idea of the game _I_ want to
write is beginning to take shape. Don't look for it this year. Don't look
for it _next_ year. In fact, I'll bet that I never do write it. But I
kind of know what it would look like. It's also about war and the
twentieth century, and, well, those of you know know me know that I'm a
historian of technology who does mainly history of computing, and the game
is--or rather, will be, and that's "will" in the sense of "future less
vivid"-- also about the second derivative of technology with respect to
time.
Let's face it: the last fifty years have been, historically, a collective
attempt to cope with the psychoses induced by the Holocaust and the Bomb.
In the last quarter century, the Americans among us have had to deal with,
as the Firesign Theatre put it, "the specter of Vietnam, still stalking the
land like a wounded beast." And when you toss "technology"--a word so
broad as to be fundamentally meaningless, but nevertheless I hope you
understand what I mean--into this dance, you get a positive feedback loop
with way too much gain. Impressionistically speaking, you get a lurching,
wheezing, uncontrollably accelerating polka, played by shivering zombies on
Ritalin and line current in the rattling boxcar--racing towards parts
unknown behind a streamlined art-deco steam locomotive whose engineer we
never see--that hosts the Sock Hop of the Damned, faster and faster until
the sides of the accordion blow out in white light and gamma rays.
That's what the game would be about, were I to write it. Not the Sock Hop
of the Damned, exactly. Unfortunately, while I'd be trying to write the
_Gravity's Rainbow_ of the nineties (and no, I haven't gotten to _Infinite
Jest_ yet), I have a premonition that it will come out more like _Space
Aliens Laughed at my Incomprehensibly Postmodern Cardigan_.
I have impressions, I have scenes, I have objects. I don't yet have
characters, a plot, or puzzles. I don't know whether it needs puzzles (I
think Dave is on to something there). However, at the moment, it's not
unlike The Land in _Jigsaw_: evocative, impressionistic, and mostly inchoate.
My problem, of course, is that Sean Molley never finished either "Challenge
of the Czar" or the Molley Brain Interface before he vanished mysteriously
in a cloud of black greasy smoke. And having finally plotted the game, I'm
sure that the MBI problem would hit me--I'd have done the interesting part,
and the actual coding would get tedious.
This non-game does, however, have a title, which I think I'll share,
because I'm pretty proud of it and its resonances. If I were ever to write
the game, this is the only title it could have. It bounces off several
great works--both IF and traditional fiction--on those themes: "Toll."
But I didn't come here to write a manifesto. I just came here to say
"Yeah, I liked _Jigsaw_, but I don't deny the possibility that someone will
come along and give us something better someday."
Adam
--
ad...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Viva HEGGA! | Save the choad! | 64,928 | Fnord
"Double integral is also the shape of lovers curled asleep":Pynchon | Linux
Thanks for letting me rearrange the chemicals in your head. | Team OS/2
You can have my PGP passphrase when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.
Matthew Amster-Burton
> On Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:01:52 GMT, mam...@u.washington.edu (Matthew
> Amster-Burton) wrote:
>
> > ... My game--in stasis at the moment due to laziness and a
> >typing injury-- ...
>
> A *typing* injury?
:). Okay, stupid terminology. But typing injuries really aren't funny.
It's also called Repetitive Strain Injury, and means that I can't type
for long without having tremendous pain in my fingers and forearms. A
sad state of affairs for a computer geek. I'm getting some therapy soon,
don't worry.
Did anyone ever see the episode of Evening Shade where everyone found
out that Burt Reynolds had a sex injury? That was pretty funny.
Matthew
Gareth Rees
> Given how long it takes to *play* one of these things, I'm amazed at
> how little time people spend critiquing them.
I'd like to write more criticism, but for me the barrier is the number
of games I complete. I'm not a particularly highly-skilled player of
text adventures, and I much prefer to solve a game on my own rather than
use hints, walkthroughs or r.g.i-f. I also consider it unfair to
criticise a game unless I've finished it (for example, I have some ideas
about what I might say about "Legend", should I ever finish it, but it
would be embarrassing to write something which turned out to be false
because of something that happened at the very end). Perhaps I should
just swallow my pride and start reading the hints?
> Perhaps it's an old habit of avoiding direct criticism for fear of
> scaring authors away?
I sincerely hope that no-one would be put off writing because of
anything I say. I make an effort to be critical because I know that as
a writer I need tough criticism. Lots of people have said good things
about "Christminster", which is very flattering, but it would be much
more useful to me if someone who doesn't like it would try to explain
why they don't like it. I want my next game to be better than
"Christminster", and of course I have my own ideas about which direction
to move in, but it would be nice to read other peoples' opinions.
I know that Magnus Olsson was upset and discouraged by some comments I
posted about "Uncle Zebulon's Will". But I did enjoy UZW despite my
published reservations, and I would certainly go out of my way to play
any new game he were to write. I would be quite upset if I thought I
had contributed to scaring someone away from writing.
> "Curses" and "Jigsaw" are both fantastically difficult games for any
> but veteran IF fans.
But they are much easier than Infocom games like "Zork III" and
"Spellbreaker".
--
Gareth Rees
David Baggett
Adam J. Thornton <ad...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Er, I don't think I quite said _that_. I said it was the best IF I'd ever
>played with the possible exception of _Trinity_. I can't see how anyone,
>even Graham, is going to top it, but that doesn't mean I reject the
>possibility.
Oh, I was just needling you for being hyperbolic --- it's silly to think
that one of the first few IF games ever written is the pinnacle of the
genre!
Bernd Schmidt
>For my part: I've been too busy this last year to really explore the
>no-puzzle direction I've been eager to take since 1992. But eventually! I
>still believe that puzzles weaken IF and limit it to a very narrow
>audience. Books can appeal to many different kinds of people. IF games
>now seem limited to a fringe group of Games magazine readers and computer
>hardware reactionaries.
So what? IF games are not books. I enjoy playing IF games, and that involves
solving puzzles. If I don't want to solve puzzles, I read a book.
No-puzzle IF sounds to me a bit like all the graphical "adventure games" that
you can buy (like Kings Quest MCMXXI etc.) which are essentially self-playing
and are just showing off animations and graphics. There are some alibi puzzles
in some of these games that involve clicking on the right pixel... Bah.
Why is it bad if IF games are limited to a certain audience, if the audience
enjoys them?
As for the "mini-reviews" that were suggested in this thread, I'd like to
recommend "Path to Fortune", "Christminster" and "Lethe Flow Phoenix" to anyone
who likes good games. "Lethe" is fairly easy, and I finished it in less than a
day, but it sure is worth checking out. Strangely enough, while I loved
"Curses", "Jigsaw" left little impression on me (I only played through the
first three or four parts). Maybe I'll pick it up later.
Bernd Schmidt
cr...@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
David Baggett
Bernd Schmidt <cr...@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>No-puzzle IF sounds to me a bit like all the graphical "adventure games" that
>you can buy (like Kings Quest MCMXXI etc.) which are essentially self-playing
>and are just showing off animations and graphics.
That is certainly one direction no-puzzle IF could take, and not IMHO a
very good one. But there's no reason to think that to have engaging
interactivity you need puzzles per se.
>There are some alibi puzzles in some of these games that involve clicking
>on the right pixel... Bah.
And I've criticized the most popular and worst offenders (Myst, King's
Quest *) more than once here.
>Why is it bad if IF games are limited to a certain audience, if the audience
>enjoys them?
You could say the same thing of serialist music. Yes, there is an audience
for it, but it's fringe. If you're a serialist composer, you have to ask
yourself why your work is only able to communicate to a tiny minority, and
whether you could perhaps get your message across in a way that makes it
more approachable.
I'm not a composer, so I don't know, but perhaps serialists feel that some
aspect of 12-tone music is key to their artistic ideals. But I do know IF
pretty well, and I don't personally feel that the puzzles are what make
really good IF good. What makes really good IF good (in my opinion) is
similar to what makes really good static fiction good: plot, characters,
setting, theme.
If anything, the puzzle part constantly reminds the reader that the work
is, first and foremost, a game. To me, this mainly limits suspension of
disbelief.
Note that I'm not saying that we should *take away* your puzzles games.
I'm just saying that puzzle games shouldn't be the *only* kind of
text-based IF we consider writing (and playing), and that I see greater
potential for thematic development in works that aren't obliged to be games
as well.
John Baker
writes:
>hints), I think we need to re-examine what's really making these works
>enjoyable. If the primary source of enjoyment is the
keep-you-up-at-night
>challenge of the puzzles, then in my opinion there's little potential
for
>the genre to grow as an art form.
Of course, as always, there is both the black and white as well as the
shades of grey (a pun!) to where people get their enjoyment from the
games. I enjoy the games for different reasons than others do. I
wouldn't want to see the genre shift to all 'Legend' type games any
more than I would want to see it shift to all games similar to my own.
I think that there is definitely room for the genre to grow as an art
form and people who are are eagerly awaiting more works that expand
those horizons, and also that there will be a large group who just like
to play Zorky/Scott Adamsy type games.
--
John Baker
"What the hell does that mean? Huh? 'China is here.'?
I don't even know what the hell that means!"
- Jack Burton
Andrew C. Plotkin
> In <4iihg5$a...@life.ai.mit.edu> d...@lf.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett)
> writes:
> >hints), I think we need to re-examine what's really making these works
> >enjoyable. If the primary source of enjoyment is the
> keep-you-up-at-night
> >challenge of the puzzles, then in my opinion there's little potential
> for
> >the genre to grow as an art form.
>
> Of course, as always, there is both the black and white as well as the
> shades of grey (a pun!) to where people get their enjoyment from the
> games. I enjoy the games for different reasons than others do. I
> wouldn't want to see the genre shift to all 'Legend' type games any
> more than I would want to see it shift to all games similar to my own.
IF without puzzles that draw you in is like science fiction without
whizzy spaceships and aliens. You can do it -- you can do it *well* --
but you're leaving out one of the things I love. I liked Gadget, for
example, but it didn't absorb me the way Myst did. (Both of these are
non-text games, but that's a detail.)
IF without plot and theme -- IF without the "art" -- is like science
fiction without plot and theme. Exactly the same thing holds true.
End analogy.
Footnote: puzzles that draw you in are not the same thing as difficult
puzzles. See my comments on Spiritwrak, which I'm about to post.
Xiphias Gladius
> On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, bonni mierzejewska wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:01:52 GMT, mam...@u.washington.edu (Matthew
>> Amster-Burton) wrote:
>>
>> > ... My game--in stasis at the moment due to laziness and a
>> >typing injury-- ...
>>
>> A *typing* injury?
> :). Okay, stupid terminology. But typing injuries really aren't
> funny. It's also called Repetitive Strain Injury, and means that I
> can't type for long without having tremendous pain in my fingers and
> forearms. A sad state of affairs for a computer geek. I'm getting
> some therapy soon, don't worry.
And for authors in general, and for if-authors, being both computer
geeks and authors. . .
They're really nasty, and a plurality of my friends has them. I've a
couple friends who had to leave school to recuperate -- they couldn't
take notes or type papers. I've got friends who lost jobs -- and OSHA
doesn't fully recognize RSI yet, so it can be hard to get workman's
comp.
I suspect that RSI and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome will be the *most*
common industrial injury in the US in the next few decades -- and,
hopefully, after that, we'll have ergonomic keyboards, better
voice-recognition, and what-have-you.
Until then, we'll make do. I've found that I've had some success
avoiding injury by going to the gym and doing wrist, arm, and back
exercises, which allows me to keep a reasonable posture while typing.
- Ian
Richard Barnett
Well, you are wondering if people will notice your game . . . I, for
one, will. I check out ftp.gmd.de every couple of weeks for new
releases.
I don't finish all the games I play, but, well, I just enjoy starting
them.
Heck -- I'm about twelve turns into every game by that guy who wrote
"Frustration." I'm stuck in *all* of them, so, I go to another game.
Maybe after a couple weeks of having my subconcious mull over it, I'll
get through some of it.
Yes, release your game. I'll see it, at least. And I'll enjoy it.
i agree.
i've downloaded almost every inform and tads game from gmd, and i'm stuck in
all but the ones i've finished (which can be counted on the fingers of one
hand, i think)
but i enjoy playing them; i switch between them when i get stuck; sometimes i
ask for hints, or use the solutions on ftp, or (usually with the larger &
more complex games, paradoxically) refuse to do this and just persevere.
i'll be buying a machine to play them on at home soon (which will help, of
course), and i'll buy the ltoi sets & get stuck on those too.
further, inform/tads games act as a spur for me to get on with writing my own
game (this year's competition, if i'm lucky), and give me targets (games to
beat & games to aim for).
-- richard
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
richard barnett ric...@wg.icl.co.uk
_______________________________________________________________________________
David Baggett
Gareth Rees <gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'd like to write more criticism, but for me the barrier is the number
>of games I complete. I'm not a particularly highly-skilled player of
>text adventures...
Just a little pat on the back: I'm always eager to read one of your
reviews. In my opinion, your criticism has been excellent --- exactly the
sort of thing that we need.
I've noticed that almost *everyone* says that they're not very good at
these games, and that they can't get through many. And this is from a
self-selected group of text adventure fans.
>Perhaps I should just swallow my pride and start reading the hints?
Honestly, I never intended _Legend_ to be played *without* hints. You're
supposed to use them. It shouldn't regarded as cheating. And if people
feel let down by finishing the game so quickly (because they've used the
hints), I think we need to re-examine what's really making these works
enjoyable. If the primary source of enjoyment is the keep-you-up-at-night
challenge of the puzzles, then in my opinion there's little potential for
the genre to grow as an art form. (Crossword puzzles have the same
problem, don't they?)
>> "Curses" and "Jigsaw" are both fantastically difficult games for any
>> but veteran IF fans.
>
>But they are much easier than Infocom games like "Zork III" and
>"Spellbreaker".
That's why I used them as examples. They're certainly not the hardest IF
games around, yet I suspect they're still way too hard for the average avid
reader to get into. I certainly know plenty of very intelligent avid
readers who are instantly put off by the very idea that they're required to
solve puzzles, manage inventory, etc.
Christopher E. Forman
back from spring break -- and no, I did not go to Fort Naughtytail! B-)
Magnus Olsson (m...@marvin.df.lth.se) wrote:
: I'm actually getting worried that there is too much IF being released
: right now.
Nonsense, the world can never have too much I-F. It's those graphic-stuffed,
clunky-even-on-a-Pentium interactive adventure-esque movies-on-CDROM that
have become far too numerous. But don't worry, nature balances this out.
As the CD adventures become far too numerous, the food available for them is
less and less, and many die off, returning the population to normal.
Damn, I should know better than to watch those nature documentaries on the
Discovery Channel.
I guess what I should stop wasting bandwidth and say is the simple "too
much" concept of today's entertainment marketplace. There are far, far
too many movies, TV shows, books, albums, mass-market computer games, and
yes, even I-F for someone to have the time to enjoy every single one of
them. So what happens? The buyer is forced to pick and choose from what's
available. And most entertainment media have several sources of information
to help people decide what they'd enjoy.
This is where zines such as SPAG and XYZZYnews, web sites such as Baf's
Guide, and the (hopefully) increasing new trend of posting reviews to the
r.*.i-f groups come in. (And I'm really hoping to see more of this last
one. Even short reviews will get discussions going.) Any type of review,
if done right, can let the player know if the game in question is something
s/he would enjoy.
So I guess what I'm saying is, unless you're a rich millionaire and can
afford to sit around all day playing I-F, you're never going to have the
time to solve everything that comes out. Download a few, play a few moves,
and see if it's something you're likely to enjoy. If not, look elsewhere.
But even a clutter of the I-F market would be a good thing. Not having
time to play all the new releases is far preferable to sitting around
complaining about all the great games that will never be released now that
Infocom's gone (which is where we were a few years back).
--
C.E. Forman cef...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Read the I-F e-zine XYZZYnews, at ftp.gmd.de:/if-archive/magazines/xyzzynews,
or on the Web at http://www.interport.net/~eileen/design/xyzzynews.html
Jim MacBrayne
>That is definitely a matter of opinion. I solved "Spellbreaker" in one
>marathon session at a computer software store where I knew the manager
>(but yes, I had bought the game), whereas "Curses", despite many hours
>of play, stil just confoozles me.
You obviously weren't as stupid as I was! It was only after completing
Spellbreaker that someone pointed out to me you could write on the
cubes with the burin.
I'd managed to finish the blasted thing by never having two white
cubes in the same place at the same time, and identifying each one by
always keeping track of where I'd put it down. Needless to say, it
made the game a bit more difficult!
Still, Spellbreaker and Trinity were my all-time favourites.
Jim MacBrayne
----------------------
Jim MacBrayne
jm...@medusa.u-net.com
CIS 100411,461
----------------------
Jacob Solomon Weinstei
>I'd be interested in hearing a little more about your vision of
>puzzle-less yet engagingly interactive IF, since I have some
>difficulty imnagining such works. That may of course be because I'm so
>conditioned to traditional, puzzle based IF, but I think not. In fact,
>I tend to agree with Jacob Weinstein when he writes that puzzles are
>essential (see his "critical essay" on Christminster, posted here
>recently).
I'm glad you agree with me. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree
with you. That'll teach you not to say anything nice about me!
I did say that puzzles are one of the most effecitve (and one of the only
really effective) ways of providing characterization in IF. But that's
not the same thing as saying they're necessary. Just because there aren't
many other effective ways doesn't mean that an IF author couldn't come up
with a brilliant new way--or that he couldn't use the other means we
already have in a brilliantly effective manner.
As an example, consider The One That Got Away, which featured terrific
characterization that really didn't have much to do with puzzles.
Even so, I'm skeptical that a really great, full-length work could be
truly puzzless in all senses of the word. But I'm open to broader
definitions of puzzles than we usually use. The reason is that, in pretty
much all the fiction I like, there's some sort of obstacle that must be
overcome, or goal to be reached. By overcoming the obstacles, or reaching
the goals--or trying to do so and failing--the novel's characters, in a
sense, solve puzzles.
In other words, getting the cattle across the country in _Lonesome Dove_,
or committing a murder and getting away with it in _Crime and
Punishment_, all involve solving a series of puzzles of various sorts.
(And,as I said, in fiction, some puzzles can't be solved.) But those
puzzles are of an entirely different sort than those of the IF we've seen
so far; they involve internal struggles between hope and fear, greed and
generousity, love and hate. Perhaps it's these sorts of puzzles that Dave
Baggett would be willing to include in his "puzzless" IF.
To turn this from the theoretical to the more specific: I'm arguing that
one can do away with traditional IF puzzles and still provide a challenge
to the reader/player. Imagine you're playing Lonesome Dove, the
interactive version. You couldn't simply start off in Lonesome Dove,
Texas, and type:
>drive cattle to montana
Congratulations! You've driven the cattle across country. The end.
Instead, you'd have to interact with the men on the drive, and help them
master their fears and fight the elements. These would be puzzles--but
not traditional IF puzzles.
-Jacob Weinstein
Magnus Olsson
>In article <4ijdam$6...@news.rwth-aachen.de>,
>Bernd Schmidt <cr...@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
>>No-puzzle IF sounds to me a bit like all the graphical "adventure games" that
>>you can buy (like Kings Quest MCMXXI etc.) which are essentially self-playing
>>and are just showing off animations and graphics.
>
>That is certainly one direction no-puzzle IF could take, and not IMHO a
>very good one. But there's no reason to think that to have engaging
>interactivity you need puzzles per se.
I'd be interested in hearing a little more about your vision of
puzzle-less yet engagingly interactive IF, since I have some
difficulty imnagining such works. That may of course be because I'm so
conditioned to traditional, puzzle based IF, but I think not. In fact,
I tend to agree with Jacob Weinstein when he writes that puzzles are
essential (see his "critical essay" on Christminster, posted here
recently).
My current view of things is that plot comes first, puzzles second;
puzzles should be used as plot devices, and the plot should never
become an excuse for introducing a puzzle. Puzzles should never become
so difficult that they destroy the narrative - if a puzzle causes the
player to run around in virtual circles, trying all possible actions
over and over again, then the author has failed to maintain suspension
of disbelief.
Of course, this vaires with the genre. In a puzzle game like "Magic
Toyshop", the plot is indeed just an excuse for the puzzles, and nobody
expects anything else.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Bernd Schmidt
>>No-puzzle IF sounds to me a bit like all the graphical "adventure games" that
>>you can buy (like Kings Quest MCMXXI etc.) which are essentially self-playing
>>and are just showing off animations and graphics.
>That is certainly one direction no-puzzle IF could take, and not IMHO a
>very good one. But there's no reason to think that to have engaging
>interactivity you need puzzles per se.
But I don't see in what other way you want to achieve interactivity.
>I'm not a composer, so I don't know, but perhaps serialists feel that some
>aspect of 12-tone music is key to their artistic ideals. But I do know IF
>pretty well, and I don't personally feel that the puzzles are what make
>really good IF good. What makes really good IF good (in my opinion) is
>similar to what makes really good static fiction good: plot, characters,
>setting, theme.
I certainly don't object to IF games with a good plot, on the contrary. And I
can enjoy games that have few puzzles, but other qualities (like AMFV, or "The
One that Got Away"). But _no_ puzzles? How would such a game differ from a
book, if you can just walk through it from the beginning to the end? Some small
obstacles are a good way to keep the player/reader from getting bored, and to
make him explore the possibilites of a game.
To keep the player interested, you'd have to provide a much greater
interactivity and more possibilities for the player to change the path of the
story. Smarter NPCs would also help. I don't think all of this is feasible.
I'd like to see such a program, though.
Bernd Schmidt
cr...@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
David Baggett
Bernd Schmidt <cr...@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>That is certainly one direction no-puzzle IF could take, and not IMHO a
>>very good one. But there's no reason to think that to have engaging
>>interactivity you need puzzles per se.
>
>But I don't see in what other way you want to achieve interactivity.
Why not? You interact with things in real life and aren't constantly
solving puzzles!
>But _no_ puzzles? How would such a game differ from a book, if you can just
>walk through it from the beginning to the end?
Even if all you do is walk through from beginning to end (which is only one
possible result of the premise that there are no puzzles), the experience
is still not the same as reading a book. In a book, you're told that the
main character is doing this or that, and you're given certain details the
author has selected for you. In an interactive work --- even a vacuuous
one with no puzzles and no other motivation at all --- you get to select
which parts of the story you'd like to focus on. (You might decide to look
behind the newspaper vending machine on the street corner, or you might
not.) So-called hyperfiction is certainly different from static fiction.
Whether or not it succeeds is another discussion; in any case, I'm not
advocating a hyperfiction approach, because I don't think it has *enough*
interactivity.
You seem to be getting at the idea that pointless IF won't be very
interesting, and that I certainly agree with. But you're assuming that not
having puzzles implies pointlessness. I think that would be awfully hard
to demonstrate.
If I sound vague here, it's because I'd rather write something like what
I'm trying to describe than try to describe something I hope to eventually
write.
Matthew Amster-Burton
> You obviously weren't as stupid as I was! It was only after completing
> Spellbreaker that someone pointed out to me you could write on the
> cubes with the burin.
Whoa, I thought I was the only person this dumb! And yet I solved it.
One of my finest hours at the keyboard.
Funny and totally unrelated thing: Lately I've been occasionally posting
using Pine, and when you post to a newsgroup, it says, "Your message will
be seen by thousands of people--really post?" Well, I guess it is a
program for newbies....
Matthew
Trevor Barrie
>> "Curses" and "Jigsaw" are both fantastically difficult games for any
>> but veteran IF fans.
>But they are much easier than Infocom games like "Zork III" and
>"Spellbreaker".
They are? I found Curses even harder than Zork I; it was certainly
harder than Zork III, the easiest of the trilogy.
Laurel Halbany
>I know that Magnus Olsson was upset and discouraged by some comments I
>posted about "Uncle Zebulon's Will". But I did enjoy UZW despite my
>published reservations, and I would certainly go out of my way to play
>any new game he were to write. I would be quite upset if I thought I
>had contributed to scaring someone away from writing.
But let's be fair: we can't worry so much about each others' feelings
that we avoid genuine, meant-to-be-constructive criticism.
Laurel Halbany
>I've noticed that almost *everyone* says that they're not very good at
>these games, and that they can't get through many. And this is from a
>self-selected group of text adventure fans.
Puzzles are meant to be difficult in most cases (would we really be
thrilled if we waltzed through all of them easily?), but part of the
difficulty is approaching the problem from an angle which the game's
author also saw. e.g., I wanted to try something in Jigsaw with the
grenade and the pterodactyl along the lines of Sinbad's trick of
getting into the Roq's nest, but it's not fair of me to expect that
Graham would have foreseen *every* weird player trick. :*
Magnus Olsson
Jacob Solomon Weinstei <jwei...@alcor.usc.edu> wrote:
>m...@marvin.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>
>>I'd be interested in hearing a little more about your vision of
>>puzzle-less yet engagingly interactive IF, since I have some
>>difficulty imnagining such works. That may of course be because I'm so
>>conditioned to traditional, puzzle based IF, but I think not. In fact,
>>I tend to agree with Jacob Weinstein when he writes that puzzles are
>>essential (see his "critical essay" on Christminster, posted here
>>recently).
>
>with you. That'll teach you not to say anything nice about me!
I promise never to write anything nice about you again :-).
To be serious, I'm sorry for misrepresenting your views. However, I
think we agree after all. I think that the crucial point is how one
defines a puzzle.
>I did say that puzzles are one of the most effecitve (and one of the only
>really effective) ways of providing characterization in IF. But that's
>not the same thing as saying they're necessary. Just because there aren't
>many other effective ways doesn't mean that an IF author couldn't come up
>with a brilliant new way--or that he couldn't use the other means we
>already have in a brilliantly effective manner.
>
>As an example, consider The One That Got Away, which featured terrific
>characterization that really didn't have much to do with puzzles.
"The One That Got Away" is rather special in that it's so short. It's
very interactive indeed - you can try doing basically anything, and
you usually get an appropriate and interesting response. The puzzle
aspect of the game is much toned down - there *is* a couple of
puzzles, but they are simple and the enjoyment of the game comes not
from solving them but from all the interaction, especially that with
old Bob. You can basically just walk around and try everything. Actually,
that's perhaps the best way of enjoying "TOTGA".
I have the feeling, however, that this is possible only because the game
is so small.
>Even so, I'm skeptical that a really great, full-length work could be
>truly puzzless in all senses of the word. But I'm open to broader
>definitions of puzzles than we usually use. The reason is that, in pretty
>much all the fiction I like, there's some sort of obstacle that must be
>overcome, or goal to be reached. By overcoming the obstacles, or reaching
>the goals--or trying to do so and failing--the novel's characters, in a
>sense, solve puzzles.
Actually, that's pretty much my view of the matter, so, as I wrote above,
it seems we do agree after all.
Perhaps it's all a matter of words, and what David Bagget means when
he's speaking of "puzzle-less IF" is something with "puzzles" in this
broader sense.
However, if David or anybody else has a vision of truly puzzle-less
IF, that's still interactive, and still fiction, I'd be very
interested in sharing that vision. I don't think the "simulationist
school" of IF counts here - of course, if you create a good simulation
of real life you'll have plenty of interactivity, but I think you'd
still have to have some form of obstacles to overcome - "puzzles" in
the wider sense - in order to make it interesting as IF.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Adam J. Thornton
>>drive cattle to montana
>Congratulations! You've driven the cattle across country. The end.
I *do* like this idea:
Catcher In The Rye, an Interactive Adventure by J.D. Salinger
Your Room at School...
>go nuts
You have ended up institutionalized! The end.
The Sun Also Rises, an Interactive Diversion by Ernest Hemingway
Paris
>drink everything
"Yes, wouldn't it be pretty?" The end.
Naked Lunch, an Interactive Hallucination by Wm. S. Burroughs
Interzone
>shoot up
I only understood you as far as wanting to shoot.
>shoot heroin
Dr. Benway, a Mugwump, and six giant centipedes take you to Mexico and
violently sodomize you. The end.
Huckleberry Finn
Mississippi
>escape with Jim
You have gotten Jim to freedom! Congratulations! The end.
>Instead, you'd have to interact with the men on the drive, and help them
>master their fears and fight the elements. These would be puzzles--but
>not traditional IF puzzles.
Yeah, but for a '90's version of the classics, I think the original idea
works. Just like pureeing the Cliff's Notes and then mainlining them.
Jacob Solomon Weinstei
>I *do* like this idea:
>Catcher In The Rye, an Interactive Adventure by J.D. Salinger
>Your Room at School...
>>go nuts
>You have ended up institutionalized! The end.
(Various other clever examples deleted)
Actually, many moons ago, the New Zork Times had a contest where you had
to identify famous works by the transcripts of an imaginary game that
might be based on them. One based on _The Producers_, for example,
included something like this:
You're in the theater lobby. You see the critic for the New York Times here.
>give bill to critic
You give him a ten dollar bill. He looks disgusted at your attempt to
bribe him, and throws the money on the ground.
**Your score has just increased.**
And, of course, there's my very own text-adventure version of Waiting for
Godot, which is in the TADS directory at ftp.gmd.de as modern.gam..
-Jacob Weinstein
Xiphias Gladius
> Funny and totally unrelated thing: Lately I've been occasionally
> posting using Pine, and when you post to a newsgroup, it says, "Your
> message will be seen by thousands of people--really post?" Well, I
> guess it is a program for newbies....
Anyone remember rn?
"You are posting this to thousands of machines across the world,
costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Do you really
want to be doing this? (n/y) n"
I think that the 'net would be a calmer place with the rn warning. . .
**** INCLUDE A SONG WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE (i've never written
anything this good, unfortunately. . . I wish I had. . .)***
From: spa...@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Rex Dart... Spatula Spy)
Newsgroups: alt.music.filk
Subject: Re: A song I wrote
"The Flamer"
To the tune of "The Boxer" by P. Simon and A. Garfunkel
I am just a lurker tho my story's seldom told,
I have squandered my commitments for a terminal and access, such are Usenetters
All flames and jest,
Still a man reads what he wants to read and killfiles the rest.
When I started reading newsgroups I was no more than a boy
In the company of newbies, in the quiet of the on-line helpfiles, running
scared
Confused as hell,
Seeking out the stupid keystrokes all you gurus knew so well,
Looking for alt.tv.saved-by-the-bell.
CHORUS:
Li li li (FLAME!)
Li li li li li li li,
Li li li (FLAME!)
Li li li li li li li li li li li.
(repetive lil' sucker ain't it?!)
Asking frequently-asked questions, I come looking for a file
But I get no answers,
Just a come-on from the gang on alt.hi.are.you.cute
I do declare
There were times when I was so bored I read the posts up there
(instrumental)
(chorus)
Now I'm sending this across the world, and costing the net hundreds
(if not thousands)
Of dollars, do I really want to be doing this?
Doing this....
What the hell.
In the carrel types a flamer and an idiot by his trade,
And he carries the reminders of every piece of hate e-mail that he got
Till he cries out, in his anger and his shame,
"I am leaving, you all suck, " but we flame him just the same
(chorus)
(chorus)
(repeat chorus until you feel the song should be over.)
(repeat it again just to make sure.)
--
_____ spa...@titan.ucs.umass.edu
|\ /| "And I am the Iconoclast, an offbeat eccentric who marches to the tune
| O | of a different drummer... or you can call me 'Noodle Noggin'."
|/ \| - Brain, 'Animaniacs'
Sean O'Leary and/or Dawn-Marie Fletcher
> My current view of things is that plot comes first, puzzles second;
> puzzles should be used as plot devices, and the plot should never
> become an excuse for introducing a puzzle.
One of the things I learned from a screenwriting book is that structure is
character. For instance, pick a movie or a book. Most fiction shows the
character by how she is revealed by her actions. How a character copes
with the plot elements results in the definition of the character.
For instance, detective stories place the hero in a variety of situations
where he has to solve a crime. The techniques the Sam Spade uses are
different than Archie Goodwin, or Hercule Poirot.
The neat thing would be a game that allows for different techniques. Your
character concept doesn't use guns, ok, the story is different that one
where the main character has a license to kill.
Christminster suceeded in developing the character of Christobel, mainly
through the use of puzzles. How she discovered things gave you insight to
her character. Structure defines character.
As games become more complicated, the 'puzzles' will have more solutions,
and things like structure and character will become more important that
"put paper under door, put knife in keyhole, get paper, get key" puzzles.
For instance, there's a guard standing at the door to Mr. Big's house. You
have decided you must get inside. A game that allows for different tactics
will be more interesting and more playable. For example, you could...
KISS GUARD
You walk up to the guard and plant one on him. He gulps and say's "Hey,
that's some kisser you got there, how about going into the alley with me
for another?" He hops off the stoop and makes way for a nearby alley.
or
ATTACK GUARD WITH ICEPICK
You saunter up to the guard with the icepick hidden in the newspaper. As
you pass, you smile and nod. While he doffs his cap, you thrust up and in,
impaling the icepick deep in his left eye. He crumples noiselessly.
Obviously, two entirely different characters (or it could be Sharon
Stone). The game would further adapt so that if you were a violent type,
you would be placed in violent situations. Similarly, if you demonstrated
earlier in the game that you were a milktoast, you wouldn't be able to
resort to acts of violence.
It's kinda like the bathroom in Leather Goddesses of Phobos. You decided
what sex you were by which bathroom you went into first. As games become
more advanced, there will be more opportunities to affect the game by your
actions rather than affecting the game by solving puzzles.
Yikes, I rambled. But hopefully not off topic.
Sean O out.
David Gilbert
: Actually, many moons ago, the New Zork Times had a contest where you had
: to identify famous works by the transcripts of an imaginary game that
: might be based on them. One based on _The Producers_, for example,
: included something like this:
: You're in the theater lobby. You see the critic for the New York Times here.
: >give bill to critic
: You give him a ten dollar bill. He looks disgusted at your attempt to
: bribe him, and throws the money on the ground.
: **Your score has just increased.**
I never saw those! Is it possible to make transcripts of these and post them?
I would love to see these.
: And, of course, there's my very own text-adventure version of Waiting for
: Godot, which is in the TADS directory at ftp.gmd.de as modern.gam..
Saw it. Downloaded it. Played it forever trying to win until you told me that
you couldn't. :P
Only from the warped mind of,
David L. Gilbert
Andrew C. Plotkin
> > You obviously weren't as stupid as I was! It was only after completing
> > Spellbreaker that someone pointed out to me you could write on the
> > cubes with the burin.
>
> through the gold box until I knew I had the right one in my hands.
> Amazing how some of the really difficult puzzles in games can come to you
> right away, and the most elementary crap escapes you.
This actually brings up an interesting point: if some puzzle (or
realization, or whatever) isn't truly necessary to finish a game, some
players will never get it. No matter how annoying the game is without
it.
If a particular scene is spposed to be important to the overall
effect, you'd better make sure there's no way around it.
Christopher E. Forman
: My current view of things is that plot comes first, puzzles second;
: puzzles should be used as plot devices, and the plot should never
: so difficult that they destroy the narrative - if a puzzle causes the
: player to run around in virtual circles, trying all possible actions
: over and over again, then the author has failed to maintain suspension
: of disbelief.
Well, there's always the extreme example of puzzle-less I-F, namely, Matt
Barringer's "Detective." Then again, it doesn't really have a plot either.
John Baker
Gladius) writes:
>Anyone remember rn?
>
>"You are posting this to thousands of machines across the world,
>costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Do you really
>want to be doing this? (n/y) n"
>
>I think that the 'net would be a calmer place with the rn warning. . .
Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
anyone know what that means?
Christopher E. Forman
: Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
: ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
: "interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
Could you describe it in a little more detail? I'm interested.
: Perhaps the term "Interactive Novel" would more aptly describe
: what you're talking about? Calling it a "game" without puzzles sort of
: defeat the purpose.
What I'm interested in is the method used by the program to maintain the
game's challenge and long-term playability. With puzzles and objects to
manipulate, this isn't a big deal. But if the game has no puzzles, how does
an author keep the player from finishing it in a single session? Even the
simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot could be seen
as a puzzle of sorts.
George Caswell
> Magnus Olsson (m...@marvin.df.lth.se) wrote:
>
> Well, there's always the extreme example of puzzle-less I-F, namely, Matt
> Barringer's "Detective." Then again, it doesn't really have a plot either.
>
Oh yeah? There was that guy who died... that guy who was mayor, I
think... you were on a quest to provide him some dignity-- since no one
could tell who he was, it was decided the only way to provide this poor
lost soul with the peace and humanity he so richly deserved in his
(poorly-implemented) afterlife was to define him through the
circumstances of his death... (Of course, the circumstances of his death
could have been as simple as taking a wrong turn going to McDonald's..
but...) In the process, the player experiences a great deal of personal
growth, sees strange sights and events, gets to passively interact with
the Audio-Animatronics which populate the city. He experiences spatial
paradoxes, optical illusions, danger, intrigue... he feels the spirit of
rebellion against society of the man in the cell, he feels the
helplessness of the city which is without its nameless leader, he feels
the intense boredom of the guy who gives him a cheeseburger, he feels the
bizarre and arbitrary madness of the madman west of north of the video
store... he feels the need to ask people, arbitrarily, about the
murder... (remember the video store clerk?) And finally, the personal
growth and experience so draws in the player that he can determine where
the murderer is...
(Yes, I'm talking about the same DETECTIVE... I'm just going on a
sarcastic rant... <g>)
....T...I...M...B...U...K...T...U... ____________________________________
.________________ _/>_ _______......[George Caswell, CS '99. 4 more info ]
<___ ___________// __/<___ /......[http://the-eye.res.wpi.edu/~timbuktu]
...//.<>._____..<_ >./ ____/.......[Member LnL+SOMA, sometimes artist, ]
..//./>./ /.__/ /./ <___________.[writer,builder.sysadmin of the-eye ]
.//.</.</</</.<_ _/.<_____________/.[____________________________________]
</.............</...................
TEAddition
> Spellbreaker that someone pointed out to me you could write on the
> cubes with the burin.
I'm glad someone else fell to that little trap. I just juggled cubes
through the gold box until I knew I had the right one in my hands.
Amazing how some of the really difficult puzzles in games can come to you
right away, and the most elementary crap escapes you.
Oh, in regards to the thread, keep in mind that ordinary fiction is
usually filled with puzzles, it's just that we're reduced to the point of
watching the characters solve them all. Interactive fiction without
puzzles may have an artistic attraction, but there is no action without
conflict, conflict is essentially problem-solving. Anything else would be
-- well, interactive poetry, I suppose.
-TEA-
Sarinee Achavanuntakul
: Even if all you do is walk through from beginning to end (which is only one
: possible result of the premise that there are no puzzles), the experience
: is still not the same as reading a book. In a book, you're told that the
: main character is doing this or that, and you're given certain details the
: author has selected for you. In an interactive work --- even a vacuuous
: one with no puzzles and no other motivation at all --- you get to select
: which parts of the story you'd like to focus on. (You might decide to look
: behind the newspaper vending machine on the street corner, or you might
Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
"interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
Perhaps the term "Interactive Novel" would more aptly describe
what you're talking about? Calling it a "game" without puzzles sort of
defeat the purpose.
-Sarinee
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <4invls$e...@alcor.usc.edu>,
>Jacob Solomon Weinstei <jwei...@alcor.usc.edu> wrote:
>[Book Classics magically made IF]
>>>drive cattle to montana
>>Congratulations! You've driven the cattle across country. The end.
>I *do* like this idea:
>Catcher In The Rye, an Interactive Adventure by J.D. Salinger
>Your Room at School...
>>go nuts
>You have ended up institutionalized! The end.
Hmm . . .
The Grapes of Wrath, an Interactive Tale by Steinbeck
The Great Plains
You see a lot of dust here.
Obvious exits are
California
>go California
California
It's not really great here. You are getting hungry
>starve
You starve. The end.
- Ian
Jacob Solomon Weinstei
>Jacob Solomon Weinstei (jwei...@mekab.usc.edu) wrote:
>: Actually, many moons ago, the New Zork Times had a contest where you had
>: to identify famous works by the transcripts of an imaginary game that
>: might be based on them. One based on _The Producers_, for example,
>: included something like this:
> I never saw those! Is it possible to make transcripts of these and post them?
>I would love to see these.
Alas, I have no idea what happened to my once-might collection of the New
Zork Times... If it's going to be posted, it'll have to be by somebody else.
-Jacob
John Baker
Granade) writes:
>In article <4iqalv$8...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
bak...@ix.netcom.com(John
>> Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
>> anyone know what that means?
>won't reduce your post to illegibility.
Er, I was making a joke. :)
OB Interactive-Fiction: I've decided that if I don't set a deadline
for FireWitch II, I'll never finish it. Now, I know none of us take
relase dates very seriously, but I'm gonna hold myself to it. I swear.
1/31/97. Notice I've given myself plenty of time.
Stephen Granade
> Gladius) writes:
> Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
> anyone know what that means?
It means, remove everything you possibly can from the quotation which
won't reduce your post to illegibility.
As Strunk & White say, simplify.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | "You fools! Money doesn't put fish
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | on the table! FISH puts fish on
Duke University, Physics Dept | the table!"
| -- Mr. Smartypants, from The Tick
Andrew C. Plotkin
> Sarinee Achavanuntakul (sach...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
> : Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
> : ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
> : "interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
>
Yeah, I had that for the Apple... it was, hmm, a walk through a
database is the best way to describe it. The idea is that you are a
starship pilot, and you come out of cold sleep in orbit around Earth
(instead of where you were headed), and Earth is empty. No people. So
you land and find a working computer terminal. The only active program
is an entertainment AI, a storyteller named Homer. He starts giving
you access to various databases -- genealogical, technological,
educational records, historical and news, all sorts of stuff. You read
a few of those, and then Homer synthesizes the scraps into a new
segment of the story (actually two stories, one early in the life of
the main character, and one about the Big Disappearance.) Then more
scraps appear in the databases.
It was a nifty concept. Unfortunately, it was pretty bad SF.
The whole thing was later published as a book -- just a straight text
dump of what you'd read going through the game. _Portal_, by Rob
Swigart. It works nearly as well in that form as it did on computer.
Which may indicate a failing of the concept. Dunno.
> : Perhaps the term "Interactive Novel" would more aptly describe
> : what you're talking about? Calling it a "game" without puzzles sort of
> : defeat the purpose.
>
> What I'm interested in is the method used by the program to maintain the
> game's challenge and long-term playability. With puzzles and objects to
> manipulate, this isn't a big deal. But if the game has no puzzles, how does
> an author keep the player from finishing it in a single session?
Most modern graphic adventures do this simply by having slow
interfaces! I was surprised when I realized this, but it's true. The
pacing is provded by having video or audio scenes, which you can't go
through faster than real-time, and then by having lots of things to do
that take a few minutes of clicking and jumping around.
I contend that one of the biggest, secret advantages of text IF is
that you can't do that. People can skim text if they're bored; they
can enter commands very quickly if they know the scene. The *only*
tool to provide pacing is making the player think. The
counterpart-benefit is that the player is never bored; he always
spends the majority of his time reading new material or thinking about
it. Unless he's stuck so badly that he gives up -- in which case the
game has failed for him.
> Even the
> simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot could be seen
> as a puzzle of sorts.
When done right, it's by far the best kind of puzzle. (ie, when the
player *does* have to figure it out, instead of stumbling into it or
realizing it immediately.)
David Baggett
Sarinee Achavanuntakul <sach...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
>ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
>"interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
I've never played Portal. Is there a version of PC's?
>Perhaps the term "Interactive Novel" would more aptly describe what you're
>talking about? Calling it a "game" without puzzles sort of defeat the
>purpose.
That's one reason I often use the word "work" instead of "game" when
talking about these things.
Joe Mason
BS>So what? IF games are not books. I enjoy playing IF games, and that
BS>involves solving puzzles. If I don't want to solve puzzles, I read a book.
BS>No-puzzle IF sounds to me a bit like all the graphical "adventure games"
BS>that you can buy (like Kings Quest MCMXXI etc.) which are essentially
But books aren't *interactive*. As somebody mentioned before - you could
write an Inform or TADS program that just printed text to the screen, and then
you'd have a "book". But if you let the user make choices, and develop the
plot on his own, you've got IF - which doesn't neccessarily need puzzles, as
long as it communicates the atmosphere well with prose that holds your
interest, intriguing characters to interact with (the weak point right now),
etc. Among other advantages is the way to see what would happen if the main
character had *not* made the crucial decision (I know I've always wondered
what would have happened in Star Wars if Luke had killed Vader). Another good
one that somebody pointed out a while ago is the way you can communicate
emotion to the player, because its *him* (or her) who's actually doing things.
The parrot in Christminster is the perfect example - the first time I met Ed,
I went back and replayed the opening to see if there was any way I could do it
without releasing the parrot.
To everybody who scoffs: watch for my entry in the 1996 IF competition.
Hopefully, it will make you think - more then a similar, non-interactive story
would. I don't want to sound like I'm tooting my own horn (I am, but I don't
want to *sound* like it), but I feel confident that "In the End" will show
that non-puzzle oriented IF will work - and while it's doing it, it will evoke
your emotions, engage your mind, and, hopefully, disturb you just a bit...
This is not a game!
Which brings up another point I've been meaning to ask about - what should I
call it? It's not a game, its certainly not *fun* any more then, say,
Schindler's List was entertainment, but I can't call it a "story". Well, I
guess I could, but it doesn't seem to fit. And do you "play" it? Not
really... but you certainly don't "read" it. Any suggestions for new
terminology?
Joe
-- Coming soon: "In the End", a work of Interactive Fiction --
-- More about the 1996 IF Contest at rec.arts.int-fiction --
---
þ CMPQwk #1.42þ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Tim Hollebeek
: In <4ipi8c$s...@new-news.cc.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias
: Gladius) writes:
: >Anyone remember rn?
: >
: >"You are posting this to thousands of machines across the world,
: >costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Do you really
: >want to be doing this? (n/y) n"
: >
: >I think that the 'net would be a calmer place with the rn warning. . .
: Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
: anyone know what that means?
It means you should change your quoting character on your newsreader
to something like ':', since postnews is so stupid it only looks for
'>' :-) Of course, you could simply post more of your own info, or
cut down on the amount you quoted, but that's too easy ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Xiphias Gladius
>On 21 Mar 1996, Christopher E. Forman wrote:
>> Magnus Olsson (m...@marvin.df.lth.se) wrote:
>>
>> Well, there's always the extreme example of puzzle-less I-F, namely, Matt
>> Barringer's "Detective." Then again, it doesn't really have a plot either.
>>
> Oh yeah?
[ Explanation of the deep interpersonal growth engendered by the game
snipped. ]
It also has puzzles in a more traditional sense. The one that springs
to mind is "How can someone be shot with a knife?"
It's almost a Zen koan, thus furthering the player's spiritual
development.
(Just as an aside, we all only know this game through "MST3K", right?)
- Ian
David Baggett
>...perhaps it's these sorts of puzzles that Dave Baggett would be willing
>to include in his "puzzless" IF.
I certainly didn't mean to equate "puzzle" with "conflict". Imagine an IF
work where you find yourself homeless on the streets of Detroit. You can
wander around, talk to people, find things out about your local community,
etc. What's the point? Well, the author would presumably build in
particular plots that you can pick up. Perhaps one leads to your ending up
a tragic hero. I'm not talking about computer-generated plots or plot
assembly here, either. I'm talking about multiple plots that the reader
can follow seamlessly simply by doing what he'd do if he were really put in
this situation (modulo the strict limitations of the interface).
Maybe one riddle the reader would like to solve is how he came to be in
such a sorry state. Or instead, he might try to find a way out of it.
Could you call such things puzzles? I suppose. But these are different
enough tasks from "give treasure to troll" that I think it's misleading to
call them puzzles. In any case, whatever you choose to call them, I'd like
less of the "give X to Y" variety and more of this new kind.
You'd need to solve many difficult problems to make this kind of IF work.
But I don't think it's impossible. You wouldn't want to start out trying
to write a Legend-sized work in this format, however.
>Instead, you'd have to interact with the men on the drive, and help them
>master their fears and fight the elements. These would be puzzles--but
>not traditional IF puzzles.
This is much closer to what I'm talking about.
David Baggett
Christopher E. Forman <cef...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>But if the game has no puzzles, how does an author keep the player from
>finishing it in a single session?
You can read a whole book or listen to an entire piece of music in one
sitting. Why do you want to specifically avoid this in IF?
>Even the simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot
>could be seen as a puzzle of sorts.
Ideally, the reader shouldn't really be conscious that he needs to do
something in particular to advance the plot. Again, this has got to
adversely affect suspension of disbelief.
Magnus Olsson
>Which brings up another point I've been meaning to ask about - what should I
>call it? It's not a game, its certainly not *fun* any more then, say,
>Schindler's List was entertainment, but I can't call it a "story". Well, I
>guess I could, but it doesn't seem to fit. And do you "play" it? Not
>really... but you certainly don't "read" it. Any suggestions for new
>terminology?
Interesting question.
I agree that the term "text adventure game" has the wrong
connotations, at least to many people.
It gives the impression of a non-serious work ("How can I take
something labeled as a game seriously?"). I think Whizzard's
experience with the Vietnam veterans is telling - if I remember
correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong, Whizzard), he was
threatened with physical violence when he told people on a veteran's
mailing list that he was doing research for Avalon. My personal theory
is that it was the word "game" that triggered that reaction.
Also, for amny people, "text adventure game" carries associations to
the early, Scott Adams-type games, where puzzles were everything, the
writing nearly non-existant, and the limited parser turned playing
into a find-the-verb nightmare. (OK, perhaps I'm being unfair to Scott
Adams; I'm really talking about the games of the period, not his
specific games).
Finally, many people seem to think that not only can a game not be serious,
but it can't be taken seriously. I remember the debate about the
possible immorality of actions taken by the player in some games
(such as killing the thief in Zork). Some people reacted quite
vehemently, calling me all sorts of things for wanting to apply morals
to a *game*. Someone even went so far as to say that the characters in
a game were only concretizations of the puzzles and no more real characters
than chessmen, so it was very silly indeed to try to apply moral standards
to their actions. Of course, the people who cried when Floyd died will
probably not agree... :-)
So, the term "text adventure game" is unsuitable. What about
"Interactive Fiction?"
Well, it does capture the aspects of seriousness and depth. However, I
think it's too broad. Graphical games like "Phantasmagoria",
tree-structured hyperfiction and "choose your own path" game books are
all interactive and they're all fiction.
Also, there's no good counterpart to the word "game" that's derived
from "itneractive fiction". "Piece of interactive fiction" is so
cumbersome, and "interactive novel" is already taken (by Scott Adams).
I'm currently working on a peice of IF in a cyberpunk setting, which I
feel is
too serious to be called a game. I'm actually calling it an
"Interactive story", and where I normally would use the word "game" in
the docs and help texts, I use the word "story" instead. The implied
metaphor is that you're not interacting with a game, but with a story
or a story "book". I think this works quite well.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Matteo Vaccari
: Oh, in regards to the thread, keep in mind that ordinary fiction is
: usually filled with puzzles, it's just that we're reduced to the point of
: watching the characters solve them all. Interactive fiction without
: puzzles may have an artistic attraction, but there is no action without
: conflict, conflict is essentially problem-solving. Anything else would be
: -- well, interactive poetry, I suppose.
: -TEA-
But why must all "problems" be in the form of "puzzles"? In ordinary
fiction you wouldn't see the main character spend 40 pages or so in
trying to get a medicine bottle opened, just to make an example.
Examples of problems more likely to be encountered are: should I
*choose* to aid this faction or the other one? Should I charge into
the room in order to exploit surprise, or should check carefully for
traps? Should I invest in a sword or in a shield? Should I trust
this man, or not?
But how to implement these things in IF? The easiest way is to have
one choice be the "good" one, the one that makes the plot progress.
The other choice is "bad" and leads to a dead-end, or to the doom of
the main character. Choose-your-own-adventure books work this way.
It's boring. It's not a real challenge for the _player_, because if
you happen to make the wrong choice, you just go back to your previous
save and try the other one.
Note that the same choice work well for other kinds of games:
board games, role-playing games, rogue-like games and such. Just
because you can't go back to your previous save, every choice you make
is precious and interesting.
So, my feeling is that the ability to save somehow spoils the gaming
interest of IF. Saving in order to have your real life progress is
fine; chess-playing programs allow you to do that. But saving in
order to "try all the possibilities" is bad.
A better way to implement "interesting" choices like the ones I was
talking about, is to have the game progress all the same, with the
player's choices significantly affecting the plot. But this is a lot
of work to implement... one could aim for a compromise. For
instance, multiple-solution puzzles are a compromise.
Puzzles are a successful way to have the player immerse in the game
and feel the game situation "opposing" to him, because multiple saves
are not enough to solve a puzzle. Can't we invent another way to
create conflict in IF? Here are a couple of ideas (which are better
explained in a paper by Greg Kostijan (sp?) I found in his home page).
A game should offer choices, and the choices should be significant in
game terms. A game should immerse you in a process; for instance, I
play Star Fleet Battles because I want to feel what's like to be in
charge of a spaceship (or the closest approximation I can get without
leaving my room). I play Elric! because I want to feel what it feels
like to live in a world of magic. In the same way, I read novels
because I want to feel what's like to be immersed in an emotional
situation possibly much different from the ones I live in. Or because
I want to see the characters doing things and reacting to the
consequences.
So, the way I see it, an IF game should also be a toy, in the sense
that SimCity is a toy. You should be able to "use" it to do different
choices and see the consequences; and the consequences should be more
interesting to see than simple sudden death.
Just a few random thoughts from
Matteo, the theoretician
(whose last piece of IF was written 10 years ago. Sigh.)
Magnus Olsson
John Baker <bak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>OB Interactive-Fiction: I've decided that if I don't set a deadline
>for FireWitch II, I'll never finish it. Now, I know none of us take
>relase dates very seriously, but I'm gonna hold myself to it. I swear.
> 1/31/97. Notice I've given myself plenty of time.
Hmm... "Fire Witch II", is that an updated version of "John's Fire
Witch", or is it a sequel? In the second case, I'm looking forward to
it very much indeed!
To return to the "embarrassment of riches" theme, I wondered a little
whether the enormous interest in "John's Fire Witch" was because it was
such a good game or because it was the first new release in several
months, so I played it again a few days ago. There was nothing wrong
with my memory: it really is an excellent game, and its success was
very well deserved.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Andrew C. Plotkin
> In article <4iskkn$s...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
> Christopher E. Forman <cef...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> >But if the game has no puzzles, how does an author keep the player from
> >finishing it in a single session?
>
> You can read a whole book or listen to an entire piece of music in one
> sitting. Why do you want to specifically avoid this in IF?
"One session" is unclear, since a short game may only take one session
at the pace I prefer. I'll say "quickly", instead, and you can badger
me as to what I mean later.
If I go through an IF work quickly, then, my response will be "Man, I
just didn't get into that story the way I did into Jigsaw." That's why
I want to avoid it. Because I come out of it disappointed. (Basic
reason for avoiding anything in any creative endeavor.)
> >Even the simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot
> >could be seen as a puzzle of sorts.
>
> Ideally, the reader shouldn't really be conscious that he needs to do
> something in particular to advance the plot. Again, this has got to
> adversely affect suspension of disbelief.
Not fer me! Isn't this the same sensation that puzzle-based static
fiction uses? (Anything where the characters are looking for the
solution to a problem -- most fiction, really. Well, at least most SF
and fantasy, which is what my genre-ridden soul tends to.) You, the
audience, gets caught up in their desire to Do Something Which
Advances The Plot (or, equivalently, prevents the plot from collapsing
and killing them all.) Not by those words, of course.
When you're watching a movie, in one of those situations, there can be
three outcomes. You can fail to see the solution until the characters
perform it; this is fun, because you get surprised, but you're not
perfectly empathizing with them, because they figured it out first.
You can see the solution well in advance -- this is bad, because you
spend the intervening time being contemptuous of the characters and
then you're not excited by the solution. Or, you can figure it out
*with* them, thus sharing the moment of revelation. It seems to me
that this third possibility is what problem fiction strives for.
(I guess I should add a fourth outcome: you fail to see any solution,
and then the characters come up with one, and you say "That's unfair!
There weren't enough clues for me to figure that out!" This, I think
we all agree, is something to avoid both in static fiction and IF.)
The virtue of IF is: (Am I contradicting some previous post in which I
defined the virtue of IF? Too bad. :-) It's got many virtues, and I'm
only talking about the ones I like. Don't take this as the only way to
write IF.) Anyway, the virtue of IF is that you can shoot for that
third outcome. If the player doesn't "get it", the game will sit
around and wait for him. Whether it takes a week or he "gets it" right
away, he'll always be perfectly in sync with the emotions of the main
character. Yes?
This implies two failure modes: the player can go through everything
so fast that the resultant pacing is fast and superficial. Or, the
player can get stuck, and never get to the end at all. To manage these
failure modes, the author tries to make the puzzles "hard but fair" --
whatever that means for the particular audience he's considering.
In early games, the puzzles were all to do with chunks of scenery or
machines. This is workable; plenty of Star Trek episodes are that kind
of problem fiction. What *I'm* trying to do is explore the domain of
problem IF in which the puzzles are based on character and motivation.
"Weather" was an experiment in that direction. The thing I'm working
on now is another, although it's a lot farther afield and I'm very
curious as to whether it works at all. (It's not done yet. Don't hold
your breath.)
Julian Arnold
<mailto:bak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
> anyone know what that means?
My mailer does this sort of thing (optionally though). It gives a warning if
more than 70% of your message is made up of someone else's quoted message. A
good idea.
Jools
Christopher E. Forman
: >But if the game has no puzzles, how does an author keep the player from
: >finishing it in a single session?
:
: You can read a whole book or listen to an entire piece of music in one
: sitting. Why do you want to specifically avoid this in IF?
I guess because, to me anyway, it compares unfavorably with the classics.
A person has always been able to read a book or listen to music in a single
session, but I've always seen I-F as long-term entertainment, requiring any
number of sessions to finish. Zork, for instance, kept me occupied for
months. If I were able to play through a game the size of Zork in two hours,
it'd leave a rather unfavorable impression. Even if the writing is brilliant,
it's nothing I couldn't get straight from a book. I-F has to be something
more.
: >Even the simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot
: >could be seen as a puzzle of sorts.
:
: Ideally, the reader shouldn't really be conscious that he needs to do
: something in particular to advance the plot. Again, this has got to
: adversely affect suspension of disbelief.
Yes, ideally, as you say. But when the player IS the central character, it'd
almost have to be on his/her mind. I-F in general forces players to think,
"Now, what should I do next?" because the player is the most important part
of the story. Players develop that sort of center-of-the-game-universe ego,
and don't appreciate having it taken away.
I have nothing against puzzle-less I-F myself, in theory (though there's
really no way to compare it to I-F with puzzles, as I haven't seen any quality
examples).
TEAddition
years. All I can really say is that I don't think we will ever see the
ideallized Interactive Fiction which Dave Bagget and others are dreaming
about. I would love to see it, but since we've spent three years talking
about it without any progress, I'm filing it away with discussions on the
existence of God and extraterrestrial life.
When I see it, I'll judge.
-TEA-
Matthew Daly
>Sarinee Achavanuntakul (sach...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
>: ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
>: "interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
>
PMFJI...,
I ran across Portal in 1987 or so. It came on three disks for the PC,
and couldn't be copied to the hard drive. :-(
The plot was that you are some sort of archaeologist from the future who
is studying why the human population disappeared from Earth in the 1990's
sometime. You finally run across the most significant evidence to date:
an intelligent on-line encyclopedia from the era. The only problem is
that the encyclopedia (named Plato or somehting like that) didn't have
an index, and only slowly built up hyperlinks from pages that you could
see to new pages. Eventually, you get enough information to know what
happened to the people. (At least, I think so. I never finished the
game, to be honest.)
It was science fiction more than IF, IMHO, and the interactivity is
related more (I think) to the order in which you received data than the
final outcome. But I think that there was enough data that you could
be led to different conclusions about what happened from primarily reading
the scientific articles instead of the humanistic ones.
>What I'm interested in is the method used by the program to maintain the
>game's challenge and long-term playability. With puzzles and objects to
>manipulate, this isn't a big deal. But if the game has no puzzles, how does
>an author keep the player from finishing it in a single session? Even the
>simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot could be seen
>as a puzzle of sorts.
The long-term playtime was insured by having the data print out like it
was coming from a 50 baud modem. :-) Also, there were thousands of entries
to go through.
It's true that choosing which hyperlink to follow involves a choice, but
"puzzle" is a difficult word to apply, since there isn't an inherently
"right" choice to make.
-Matthew
David Baggett
>: >But if the game has no puzzles, how does an author keep the player from
>: >finishing it in a single session?
>: You can read a whole book or listen to an entire piece of music in one
>: sitting. Why do you want to specifically avoid this in IF?
>
>I guess because, to me anyway, it compares unfavorably with the classics.
No fair! First you cripple the genre by saying it must have puzzles, then
you criticize it for not comparing favorably with the classics, which
aren't constrained this way. (OK, I'm being hyperbolic. But you get the
point.)
Ever since I started working on Legend back in 1992, I've felt that text
adventures and sonnets have a lot in common. They're both constrained by
tradition to point of near impossiblity. Most sonnets absolutely stink
compared to equivalently strong works in freer forms. Why? Because
writing a sonnet *at all* is almost impossible. Writing a good one that
actually communicates something meaningful? I found it utterly impossible.
I'm concerned that text adventures are perilously close to this as well.
Remove all these constraints (must provide adequate brain-teaser
properties, must be "full-length", must "quote the text adventure classics"
as AJT wants, etc.), and maybe we'll be able to do something really
powerful. (Not that all text adventures are hopelessly weak. But no IF
compares to, say, _Richard III_ or _Of Mice and Men_ IMHO, because there's
always a puzzle-induced undertone of silliness. "Wow, what a moving
passage that was --- it really makes one ponder the human condition. Now
where was that +3 Rod of Troll Confusion?" I tried to use this silliness
to create an absurdist feel in _Legend_, but failed.)
>Even if the writing is brilliant, it's nothing I couldn't get straight from
>a book. I-F has to be something more.
At this point, if forced to make a choice, I'd throw out *all of
interactive fiction* rather than a single top-notch work of static fiction.
I enjoyed _Of Mice and Men_ more than all of IF combined. I could say the
same of a number of other great works of fiction. So I don't find your
last sentence very compelling --- IF *isn't* anything more yet; it's
significantly *less*. I don't mean to say that the genre is worthless; on
the contrary, I am one of its unwavering advocates. But I think it's
largely its potential that makes it worth consideration, not the existing
works (my own certainly included).
I think the jury is still out on IF in the 21st century. In the absence of
solutions to AI-complete problems, can the genre do better than the poor
sonnet? Or is it just too constrained and narrow to become a significant,
lasting art form? This is the context within which I'm looking tat the
"puzzle-less" question.
>Yes, ideally, as you say. But when the player IS the central character,
>it'd almost have to be on his/her mind. I-F in general forces players to
>think, "Now, what should I do next?" because the player is the most
>important part of the story.
Of course. But that's not the same as the player thinking, "OK, now
where's a cool plot the author has planted here for me to pick up?" It may
sound like semantics, but to my mind it really makes all the difference.
George Caswell
> George Caswell <timb...@the-eye.res.wpi.edu> writes:
>
> >On 21 Mar 1996, Christopher E. Forman wrote:
>
> It also has puzzles in a more traditional sense. The one that springs
> to mind is "How can someone be shot with a knife?"
>
> It's almost a Zen koan, thus furthering the player's spiritual
> development.
>
Yes! Brilliant! Matt Barringer is a GENIUS!! He has challenged the
mighty forces of reality, in a way unmatched since Arthur Dent posessed
Tea -and- No Tea!
> (Just as an aside, we all only know this game through "MST3K", right?)
>
Well, -I- do... I try to avoid DOS, so as far as I know there's no
practical way to play AGT games... Fortunately, they're so completely
simplistic that they take about 5 minutes to port to Inform.. at least,
after you've given the parser a lobotomy.. <g>
Xiphias Gladius
Okay, I've started playing "Lost New York," the new game by Neil
daMuse, and I think it should be mentioned in this thread -- not
because it *is* puzzle-less, but because it *could have been*, and
might have been improved if it was.
Let me start out by saying that I *just* started it, so these comments
are only about the beginning scene, and may not hold for the whole
game.
In "Lost New York," you play a tourist who has gotten stranded on
Liberty Island, and has to get off the island to meet people for
dinner. I have an odd feeling that this may involve time travel and
historical research . . .
Anyway, though, I have so far ran into one puzzle -- getting past a
park ranger to get into some sort of door, and I've not yet solved
it. (Well, there were some other, minor puzzles as well -- I've
gotten 2 points, so I must have solved a puzzle already . . .)
But, to me, in this context, the puzzles aren't really engaging. I'm
attempting to solve the puzzles to get on with the game and find out
what's happening.
So far, the most impressive moment has been talking to an old man who
was discussing what New York *used* to be. The next most impressive
was watching a touch-screen presentation on the history of the city.
I'm trying to get on with the game to get to more moments like that.
The appeal of the game is the characterization, and the atmosphere.
The puzzles seem rather well integrated with the game, and I don't
mind them, but I really don't think the game would lose anything if
they were removed entirely.
I wonder -- if "puzzle-less IF" was a recognized and respected genre,
would "Lost New York" have been written as such? Mr daMuse, if you're
reading this, do you have any opinions about whether your game
requires the puzzles or could stand without them?
(True, you'd probably not get anyone registering the game to get the
hint system, though . . . :)
Or another example . . . one of my favorite IF-contest entries is
"MST3K", which has *no* puzzles to speak of. The appeal of that was
that, well, it was bust-a-gut funny.
- Ian
Xiphias Gladius
> So, the term "text adventure game" is unsuitable. What about
> "Interactive Fiction?"
> Well, it does capture the aspects of seriousness and depth. However,
> I think it's too broad. Graphical games like "Phantasmagoria",
> tree-structured hyperfiction and "choose your own path" game books
> are all interactive and they're all fiction.
It's also used by some role-playing gamers.
I'd be willing to use "interactive fiction" as an umbrella term
covering "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure", "Myst", "Zork", role-playing
games, LARPS, plot-driven video games, traditional graphical adventure
games ("Day of the Tentacle", "Gabriel Knight"),
"Host-Your-Own-Murders" and so forth.
It would be real convenient for me -- I could just say, "I like
interactive fiction," since I do enjoy all of the above.
So, for something like what we're discussing here, perhaps a
"computer-based interactive text story?"
Yeah, it's long, but it seems to cover all the bases -- it's
"computer-based", rather than "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure", it's
interactive, in that you have some sort of control, it's text, unlike
"Myst," "Gabriel Knight", or "Phantasmagoria", and it's a story, in
that it's not "puzzle-driven".
Okay, "puzzle-driven" is still an undefined term, in that we haven't
yet defined "puzzle". . .
- Ian
Gerry Kevin Wilson
Magnus Olsson <m...@marvin.df.lth.se> wrote:
>
>It gives the impression of a non-serious work ("How can I take
>something labeled as a game seriously?"). I think Whizzard's
>experience with the Vietnam veterans is telling - if I remember
>correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong, Whizzard), he was
>threatened with physical violence when he told people on a veteran's
>mailing list that he was doing research for Avalon. My personal theory
>is that it was the word "game" that triggered that reaction.
Actually, one vet stated that he would shoot me in the back if he ever
saw me. Fun week, that was.
But back to the topic, I feel that maybe, if we aren't happy with
interactive fiction, we could go with something like 'adaptive
literature' which implies both textual content and relays the fact that
it adapts to the user's actions. I still like good old I-F though.
After all, Infocom coined the term. :)
--
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~>
< Join in the 1996 Interactive Fiction Competition. | ~~\ >
< The Deadline is September 30, 1996. Enter, judge, betatest or ?? | /~\ | >
<_______________________...@uclink.berkeley.edu_|_\__/__>
Paul Trauth
: The neat thing would be a game that allows for different techniques. Your
: character concept doesn't use guns, ok, the story is different that one
: where the main character has a license to kill.
:
: [...]
:
: As games become more complicated, the 'puzzles' will have more solutions,
: and things like structure and character will become more important that
: "put paper under door, put knife in keyhole, get paper, get key" puzzles.
:
: [... several paragraphs of example deleted ...]
:
: Obviously, two entirely different characters (or it could be Sharon
: Stone). The game would further adapt so that if you were a violent type,
: you would be placed in violent situations. Similarly, if you demonstrated
: earlier in the game that you were a milktoast, you wouldn't be able to
: resort to acts of violence.
Actually, this is surprisingly close in spirit to the ideas i've been tossing
around for a possible '96 Competition entry. I don't want to ramble too much
about it, not wanting to give the game away in case i do actually write the
thing, but the essential idea i'm working with is that the game works itself
around the player's actions, reinforcing this by dropping in the occasional
flash of repressed memories of the hero's which are called up by his actions.
There will be few puzzles, and the player won't even encounter all of them on
any one playing because of the tree structure i'm toying with, but all routes
lead to the same endgame - but, the state of the game, and the player's attitude
towards the things he's encountered, will have manipulated each other in a
little (brief) feedback loop. There will be a multiplicity of endings, all
supposedly successful (all points and a "You have won" message), but some may be
arguably more "winning" than others...
Rrgh. I need to get off my butt and do some serious brainstorming to work out
the main endings and work out the eight or so puzzles between the beginning and
the end.
Oh yeah, the endgame is also entirely concerned with character interaction,
rather than solving a puzzle. I swear, I was roughing out these ideas *before*
these threads started... Honest...
--
"But I don't want no tea. It gives me a headache." - Pete Puma
paul trauth: cartoonist, animator, programmer, raccoon. rac...@gs.net
Papercup Mixmaster
>In article <4irvuk$d...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>,
>>Dave, your post reminded me of a game I once played a long time
>>ago, called "Portal" (for the Commodore 64). It's a very interesting
>>"interactive novel" with NO puzzles at all.
There was a PC version, yes; I played it on a Tandy in those wonderful
16-color CGA graphics. Unfortunately, it REQUIRED double-density drives
and disk 3 and 4 gave up life not too long ago.
However, I just saw, in the software store, a Commodore emulator with a
bunch of old Activision titles -- including Portal, Master of the Lamp,
Hacker, and a lot of other titles I'm sure we all remember -- for around
$30. Almost picked it up; should have, really, to get a licensed C64
emulator...
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net -- http://w3.one.net/~cinnamon/
<*> kiss me over crabtown, baby brown
ErsatzPogo
>would "Lost New York" have been written as such? Mr daMuse, if you're
>reading this, do you have any opinions about whether your game
>requires the puzzles or could stand without them?
In the case of this early puzzle, you're probably right. (Though I wonder
-- would you have necessarily stuck around to talk to the old man or watch
the display on New York history if you could have just wandered off at
will, without a park ranger to stop you?)
But later on in the game, I think there are places where puzzles (in the
broad sense) are absolutely necessary for the plot to do what I want it
to. I'll be interested to hear what people think once they've gotten that
far.
Neil deMause
P.S. Actually, I really like puzzles -- when done well, they're half the
fun of the game. You can certainly argue that "done well" includes making
puzzles that don't feel like puzzles (maybe more like "choices"), but I
personally prefer works of interactive fiction that make me wrack my brain
occasionally.
JEFFREY MILLER
>
>Sean O'Leary and/or Dawn-Marie Fletcher (sean...@suba.com) wrote:
>: Obviously, two entirely different characters (or it could be Sharon
>: Stone). The game would further adapt so that if you were a violent
>: type, you would be placed in violent situations. Similarly, if you
>: demonstrated earlier in the game that you were a milktoast, you >:
wouldn't be able to resort to acts of violence.
>
>Actually, this is surprisingly close in spirit to the ideas i've been
>tossing around for a possible '96 Competition entry. I don't want to
>ramble too much about it, not wanting to give the game away in case i
>do actually write the thing, but the essential idea i'm working with
>is that the game works itself around the player's actions, reinforcing
>this by dropping in the occasional flash of repressed memories of the
>hero's which are called up by his actions.
>There will be few puzzles, and the player won't even encounter all of
>them on any one playing because of the tree structure i'm toying with,
>but all routes lead to the same endgame - but, the state of the game,
>and the player's attitude towards the things he's encountered, will
>have manipulated each other in a little (brief) feedback loop. There
>will be a multiplicity of endings, all supposedly successful (all
>points and a "You have won" message), but some may be
>arguably more "winning" than others...
>
[snip]
> I swear, I was roughing out these ideas *before* >these threads >
>started... Honest...
That makes two of us. My game, however, will alter the storyline and
the endgames according to the player's actions. I don't want to spoil
too much, in case I actually finish it, but I also plan to use memory,
albeit a bit differently: not as a "cut-scene", but rather an
interactive sequence that will allow the character to determine,
unknowingly I hope, the present and the future. A form of
plot-branching, I suppose.
Here's hoping I finish it.
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
Andrew C. Plotkin
> >I wonder -- if "puzzle-less IF" was a recognized and respected genre,
> >would "Lost New York" have been written as such? Mr daMuse, if you're
> >reading this, do you have any opinions about whether your game
> >requires the puzzles or could stand without them?
>
> In the case of this early puzzle, you're probably right. (Though I wonder
> -- would you have necessarily stuck around to talk to the old man or watch
> the display on New York history if you could have just wandered off at
> will, without a park ranger to stop you?)
I did both of those things before even going upstairs. And, yes, I
liked the effect, and I was wondering if this was going to be the
mythical puzzle-free game.
> But later on in the game, I think there are places where puzzles (in the
> broad sense) are absolutely necessary for the plot to do what I want it
> to. I'll be interested to hear what people think once they've gotten that
> far.
>
> Neil deMause
>
> P.S. Actually, I really like puzzles -- when done well, they're half the
> fun of the game. You can certainly argue that "done well" includes making
> puzzles that don't feel like puzzles (maybe more like "choices"), but I
> personally prefer works of interactive fiction that make me wrack my brain
> occasionally.
The feeling has been growing on me that we've really been arguing the
problem of what to label a "puzzle".
JEFFREY MILLER
***Warning***
***Warning***
***Possible spoilers for Christminster -- proceed at your own risk***
***You've been warned :-) ***
In <4iuph2$j...@new-news.cc.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias
Gladius) writes:
>
>Hmm . . .
>
>Okay, I've started playing "Lost New York," the new game by Neil
>daMuse, and I think it should be mentioned in this thread -- not
>because it *is* puzzle-less, but because it *could have been*, and
>might have been improved if it was.
>
>Let me start out by saying that I *just* started it, so these comments
>are only about the beginning scene, and may not hold for the whole
>game.
That goes DOUBLE for me. I've only played for a half hour.
Nonetheless, I have an idea what my next $15 expenditure will be!
:-)
[snip}
>Anyway, though, I have so far ran into one puzzle -- getting past a
>park ranger to get into some sort of door, and I've not yet solved
>it. (Well, there were some other, minor puzzles as well -- I've
>gotten 2 points, so I must have solved a puzzle already . . .)
>
>But, to me, in this context, the puzzles aren't really engaging. I'm
>attempting to solve the puzzles to get on with the game and find out
>what's happening.
>
>So far, the most impressive moment has been talking to an old man who
>was discussing what New York *used* to be. The next most impressive
>was watching a touch-screen presentation on the history of the city.
>I'm trying to get on with the game to get to more moments like that.
>
>The appeal of the game is the characterization, and the atmosphere.
>The puzzles seem rather well integrated with the game, and I don't
>mind them, but I really don't think the game would lose anything if
>they were removed entirely.
>
>I wonder -- if "puzzle-less IF" was a recognized and respected genre,
>would "Lost New York" have been written as such? Mr daMuse, if you're
>reading this, do you have any opinions about whether your game
>requires the puzzles or could stand without them?
>
>Or another example . . . one of my favorite IF-contest entries is
>"MST3K", which has *no* puzzles to speak of. The appeal of that was
>that, well, it was bust-a-gut funny.
>
If Lost New York had *no* puzzles at all, how, then, would the game
(apologies to Magnus :-) ) differ significantly from hyperfiction?
While I agree that the old man is the most engaging part of the game up
to this point (again, I've only played for a half hour -- BTW how did
you get those two points?), I don't think that the door puzzle lacks
appeal simply because it is a puzzle. Rather, I think that the problem
lies in the lack of motivation for the character to get behind the
door. Perhaps the author supplies the character with a reason later on
in the story, but, if not, the player's only motivation to open the
door is
1) This is an Adventure Game thus
2) Any door guarded by an NPC is a puzzle to be solved; besides,
3) I want to get on to the good stuff!!!
Such a motivation is not *real*; it detracts from the player's willing
suspension of disbelief because the player's motivation is not shared
by the character. An ordinary tourist who saw a locked door guarded by
a park ranger would not think, "Gotta find a way to get rid of her so I
can ... uh ... see what's behind that door!!" The player, not the
character, cares about opening the door -- the character probably
couldn't care less.
I'm purposefully distinguishing here between the character in the
game and the player who controls her --> the goal of a game author
should be to make the player identify as much as possible with, indeed,
take on the role of the character he is playing; he should share her
frustration, revel in her success, and feel her pain (with apologies to
our president's speechwriters). Christminster is good example of a
game in which this goal is often achieved.
[Possible spoiler alert!!!!]
As another writer has already pointed out (I can't remember his
name and I didn't archive the article -- wish I had), in the secret
room, the interaction with Wilderspin and the necessity of getting his
help to escape not only provides a plausible resolution to a real
conflict, but also deepens the relationship between Christabel and the
professor. Even the puzzles in which Christabel's motivation is,
"What's behind that door?" are still *real* -- perhaps her brother lies
behind it.
To take another example, one of the reasons that Curses! was (and
still is, I haven't solved that thing after 15 months of trying) so
engrossing lies in the element of discovery -- most of the puzzles
reveal some element of the family history and its place in some
ultimate confrontation (or so I suspect -- I haven't gotten there yet).
Compare this to Adventure which, although a classic, quickly lost my
interest because there was little to no story to get me involved.
My point (FINALLY!!, you say), I suppose, is this: puzzles are THE
tool that differentiates interactive fiction from hyperfiction because
the resolution of conflict allows the player to identify with the
character to a degree not possible in hyperfiction. The MST-3000
version of Detective was very entertaining and very funny, but I cannot
say that I identified with the main character in any substatial way.
Puzzles (or should we say "conflicts" or "obstacles"), however, must
not be mere brain teasers -- they must be *real* conflicts in which the
character has a vital interest, and, preferably, their resolution
should deepen the character, enhance relationships with NPCs, propel
the storyline forward, etc.
End of ramble.
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
Christopher E. Forman
: Ever since I started working on Legend back in 1992, I've felt that text
: adventures and sonnets have a lot in common. They're both constrained by
: tradition to point of near impossiblity.
Perhaps I'm being unfair here. I suppose the true reason I feel puzzles
are essential to I-F is the fact that I have yet to SEE any quality I-F
_without_ puzzles. And until I do, it's going to be pretty darn tough to
convince me that it can be done, because I, like everyone else here, was
brought up on the classics -- Adventure, Zork, Enchanter -- that do use
puzzles. Puzzle-less I-F is an entirely new dimension to me, I'll admit
that. Your commentary on the subject has been very well-written, very
intelligent, but until I see an actual working example of non-puzzle based
I-F, I doubt I can change my perceptions of it. (Visual aids, David.
SHOW me the kind of I-F you're talking about.)
David Baggett
>(Visual aids, David. SHOW me the kind of I-F you're talking about.)
As I said earlier in the thread, I'd prefer to do that than to pontificate. :)
Christopher E. Forman
: The MST-3000
: version of Detective was very entertaining and very funny, but I cannot
: say that I identified with the main character in any substatial way.
*Chuckle* Which "main character" do you mean? You, the detective, whose
goal it is to find the murderer of the mayor? Or Mike, Servo, and Crow,
who "follow" you through the game, without interaction, and make fun of
what you see and learn? If you're talking about the detective as the main
character, then your lack of identification with him goes back to the
original "Detective" game, not MST3K1, which, aside from Mike and the bots,
is a direct translation. If you're talking about Mike and the 'bots,
your argument is moot, as they themselves have no purpose or motivation in
the game, aside from providing humorous heckling to keep themselves from
going insane. In fact, I really don't think MST3K1 even pertains to this
thread, because:
1) It has no puzzles.
2) It has no plot.
3) It has no characters (other than the cardboard baddie in the store).
4) It has no conflict for the main character (who, himself, has almost
no personality).
5) It's not so much a game as it is an outlet for me to make fun of
the original "Detective."
JEFFREY MILLER
I agree completely. I only brought it up because the author I was
responding to had used it as an example of puzzle-less interactive
fiction. Its a hysterical satire, but as you said, not really a game.
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
Julian Arnold
>
> Hopefully, it will make you think - more then a similar, non-interactive story
> would. I don't want to sound like I'm tooting my own horn (I am, but I don't
> want to *sound* like it), but I feel confident that "In the End" will show
> that non-puzzle oriented IF will work - and while it's doing it, it will evoke
> your emotions, engage your mind, and, hopefully, disturb you just a bit...
> This is not a game!
>
> Which brings up another point I've been meaning to ask about - what should I
> call it? It's not a game, its certainly not *fun* any more then, say,
> Schindler's List was entertainment, but I can't call it a "story". Well, I
> guess I could, but it doesn't seem to fit. And do you "play" it? Not
> really... but you certainly don't "read" it. Any suggestions for new
Sounds a lot like my game, "The Golem". It won't be a competition game
though, it'll be full-length. But I'll say no more; I always seem to be
saying "I'm working on a game...", but still haven't released one.
I don't really have any answers for your terminology questions. I'm sure if
people release such games though the terminology will appear.
Jools
Xiphias Gladius
> In fact, I really don't think MST3K1 even pertains to this thread,
> because:
> 1) It has no puzzles.
> 2) It has no plot.
> 3) It has no characters (other than the cardboard baddie in the store).
> 4) It has no conflict for the main character (who, himself, has almost
> no personality).
> 5) It's not so much a game as it is an outlet for me to make fun of
> the original "Detective."
Well, as to #1 . . . the thread *is* puzzle-less IF, so the fact that
it has no puzzles should *hardly* disqualify it from consideration
Magnus Olsson
JEFFREY MILLER <jeff...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> If Lost New York had *no* puzzles at all, how, then, would the game
>(apologies to Magnus :-) )
It's OK :-)
>differ significantly from hyperfiction?
That's exactly my concern. Of course, "puzzles" doesn't have to mean
"traditional adventure game puzzles". Perhaps we should be talking
about obstacles to the game's/story's progress, obstacles that the
player/reader must do something active to get around?
>While I agree that the old man is the most engaging part of the game up
>to this point (again, I've only played for a half hour -- BTW how did
>you get those two points?), I don't think that the door puzzle lacks
>appeal simply because it is a puzzle. Rather, I think that the problem
>lies in the lack of motivation for the character to get behind the
>door.
This is a very significant point. And I think it is the major reason
people complain about puzzles in IF detracting from the experience.
Somebody wrote in another post that while it's true that even in
conventional, non-interactive fiction we read about characters solving
problems, we don't have novels that spend 40 pages describing
someone's attempts to open a medicine bottle.
I'm not sure I can agree. There are lots of novels - especially
mysteries, horror and thrillers - where a large portion of the plot
revolves around something that can be described as a puzzle. Perhaps
this detracts from the experience, perhaps it adds to it, but the
point is that there *is* traditional ficition like that.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Joe Mason
T>Oh, in regards to the thread, keep in mind that ordinary fiction is
T>usually filled with puzzles, it's just that we're reduced to the point of
T>watching the characters solve them all. Interactive fiction without
T>puzzles may have an artistic attraction, but there is no action without
T>conflict, conflict is essentially problem-solving. Anything else would be
T>-- well, interactive poetry, I suppose.
Hmm, yeah that's a good point. I think the emphasis is maybe too much on
puzzles, though: most standard fiction doesn't have such tortured and twisted
puzzles! "Interactive poetry": I like that term. I think I'll maybe try to
write some of that... Later. :-)
Joe
-- Coming soon: "In the End", a work of Interactive Fiction --
-- More about the 1996 IF Contest at rec.arts.int-fiction --
---
þ CMPQwk #1.42þ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Bozzie
the museum is *in* the lobby of the statue, but then I havent been to it
in a couple of years). I could see how this game could have become
a puzzle-less game, but it still has some puzzles.
<SPOILERS>
For one thing, theres the puzzle of getting into the storage room, and of
getting the gumball. And getting past the guard. A truely Puzzle-Free
IF game would be more along the line of AMFV. If we ignore the ending,
there really are no puzzles, other then exploring. Of course, one
could consider recording the right things a puzzle, it's just motivation
to get you to explore and try to find the nastier things of the city.
This could well be a good premise for a game. You could walk around,
interact with Things in your enviorment, but have no real goal, except to
enjoy yourself.
Explore. Version 1.0
An Interactive Exploration (duh.)
By Edan Harel
You are standing in a city. To the west is a shop. To the east is a
park. To the north is a subway station. You can cross the street to the
south.
>W
You enter a grocery store. Simon, the grocer, is waiting to assist you.
>Buy Groceries.
You buy some groceries. Simon takes your payment.
>Buy Groceries
Pleased with your enthusiastic amount of purchases, Simon gives you a discount
>E
Street
>E
You are in a park. To the east is a zoo. To the north is a park.
A women is sitting here with a dog on her lap.
>Talk to women
The Women responds, and you briefly discuss politics, the weather, and living
in the world of interactive fiction.
>Pet dog.
The dog barks.
>Ask woman about dog.
"Oh, don't mind bruno."
"Oh dear, I must go. Goodbye"
The Woman departs.
>n
You are in a small playground. There is a swing here and a sandbox.
>Swing.
You sit in the swing, And it breaks. Guess you'll never be in the swing of things.
>S
Park
>E
You are in a zoo. There are some animals here.
>Feed animals groceries.
They eat it. and then go to sleep. They don't open anything, give you
any thing or tell you anything that can help you, but they are greatful.
>Quit
You commit suicide becuase of the lack of puzzles.
You have scored 0 out of 0 points.
A game like this doesn't have to have puzzles. You should just be able
to interact with the game, and have it keep a recollection of what
you did, so that it *does* interact with you. Maybe there should be points
for everything you *can* do that's interesting. (feeding the animals,
etc) In a way, it would be a game filled with the sort of things
you usually find in an invisiclues of what interesting thing can you do.
In a way, The Colonel's Bequest was like this. One you finished the game,
you could redo the game an explore more (find out who has a scent, etc).
There were still *some* puzzles, though.
Xiphias Gladius
>C.A. McCarthy (mlk...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: This type of IF is definitely rearing its head, and I look forward to
>: seeing a lot more of it in the future.
> Agreed, but let's not immediately dismiss a work of I-F as "bad"
> just because it has gratuitous puzzles.
'Course not.
There are lots of us out here who really like puzzles in general, as
well as plot and characterization.
The only question is whether a particular puzzle adds to the plot
("Christminister"), is a fun enough puzzle in itself to "break even"
-- it doesn't add anything to the plot, but it fits into the world,
and you get to play with a puzzle (the windcats in "SpiritWrak"), or
detracts from the plot, because the main character has no *reason* to
solve the puzzle (possibly the park ranger in "Lost New York").
Now, in a game like "Zork", the puzzles *are* the game. Nothin' wrong
with that -- you'll never hear me saying anything bad about Zork --
but, y'know, frankly, I think that a lot of games being written now
are as good or better than most Infocom. . .
Christminister, Jigsaw, Theatre, Lost New York. . . these
are games that stand with the best Infocom. Perhaps they're better
than the early Infocom -- they've got characterization.
SpiritWrak is written on the Infocom/Quendor mold, and is done well --
it's based on puzzles, and the puzzles fit into the Zork universe.
Having gratuitous puzzles in SpiritWrak is fine, and, if I'm
frustrated at being stuck behind a ghost in a basement, it's what I
wanted from the game, so I'm not *annoyed* by it. My goal is to solve
problems, to get points, to win. And I'm having fun with it. The
game does what it does well.
Christminister really made its puzzles fit with the plot, generally --
but I verged on annoyance when I really felt stuck. My motivation
wasn't "win the game" -- it wasn't even "rescue Christabel's
brother". It was "rescue *my* brother".
Lost New York? I'm *annoyed* I can't get a nickel from a sewer
grate. I want to see what happens! My motivation is to explore, to
discover, to *see*. 'Course, if there weren't any puzzles, nobody
would register it, so I can understand it. . .
So, which of those three has "gratuitous" puzzles?
SpiritWrak exists for puzzles -- they're not gratuitious.
Christminister's puzzles advance the plot.
Lot New York has at least *one* gratuitous puzzle, which I feel
detracts from it.
Nonetheless, I agree, we shouldn't *dismiss* it -- it's still a great
game. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better without it.
- Ian
Christopher E. Forman
: This type of IF is definitely rearing its head, and I look forward to
: seeing a lot more of it in the future.
Agreed, but let's not immediately dismiss a work of I-F as "bad" just
because it has gratuitous puzzles.
--
Christopher E. Forman
: >(Visual aids, David. SHOW me the kind of I-F you're talking about.)
:
: As I said earlier in the thread, I'd prefer to do that than to pontificate. :)
Actually, I just remembered a game I played awhile back that was a sort of
puzzle-less I-F. Have you ever heard of "Guardians of Infinity"? I've got
a review of it coming up in SPAG 9 in a month or so, and it's probably as
close to puzzle-less I-F as I can imagine, though you still need to figure
out what to do to advance the plot.
Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing that would be easy to pull of
with TADS or Inform. The interface is too different.
C.A. McCarthy
I believe we are already beginning to see it. "The Legend Lives!"
began pushing the genre in that direction. Many people seemed to
think that it did not work as a game, but that's pretty irrelevant
(though perhaps not to Dave Bagget). As interactive fiction it was
worlds removed from anything that came before.
And now we have Neil deMause's "Lost New York" which is an incredibly
ambitious piece of writing, and one of the most remarkable games I
have ever had the pleasure of playing. Does it work as a game?
Perhaps not, but the attention to detail and the atmosphere are better
than any piece of IF I've seen in recent years. I'm insanely jealous
of deMause :-)
This type of IF is definitely rearing its head, and I look forward to
seeing a lot more of it in the future.
"Elvis people are nicer people than the people who laugh at Elvis People."
David Thomas - "Media Priests Of The Big Lie"
Andrew C. Plotkin
> Lost New York? I'm *annoyed* I can't [spoiler snipped out.]
> I want to see what happens! My motivation is to explore, to
> discover, to *see*. 'Course, if there weren't any puzzles, nobody
> would register it, so I can understand it. . .
>
> So, which of those three has "gratuitous" puzzles?
>
> SpiritWrak exists for puzzles -- they're not gratuitious.
> Christminister's puzzles advance the plot.
>
> detracts from it.
What's "gratuitous"? You say the point of _LNY_ is to explore, but
then the author never claimed it was puzzle-free. (I found the opening
scene with the old man very effective, and it is not a puzzle. But
that's a different claim. The plot runs into puzzles fairly quickly,
and continues at least as puzzle-strewn as the Enchanter trilogy, I'd
estimate.)
There's nothing wrong with saying "I like the story, but the puzzles
get in the way." But I get antsy when I hear "The point of your story
is X, and you wrote it wrong." At least *consider* the possiblity that
the author has done it deliberately. :)
JEFFREY MILLER
Gladius) writes:
>There are lots of us out here who really like puzzles in general, as
>well as plot and characterization.
>
>The only question is whether a particular puzzle adds to the plot
>("Christminister"), is a fun enough puzzle in itself to "break even"
>-- it doesn't add anything to the plot, but it fits into the world,
>and you get to play with a puzzle (the windcats in "SpiritWrak"), or
>detracts from the plot, because the main character has no *reason* to
>solve the puzzle (possibly the park ranger in "Lost New York").
This is a very insightful categorization, I think.
[snip]
>So, which of those three has "gratuitous" puzzles?
>
>SpiritWrak exists for puzzles -- they're not gratuitious.
>Christminister's puzzles advance the plot.
>
>Lot New York has at least *one* gratuitous puzzle, which I feel
>detracts from it.
>
>Nonetheless, I agree, we shouldn't *dismiss* it -- it's still a great
>game. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better without it.
This is an excellent point -- some games do exist for puzzles. It all
depends on the genre in which one is writing. My taste leans toward
plot driven puzzles rather than a collection of puzzles tied together
with a theme, but there certainly is a place for puzzle driven i-f.
Just not on my hard drive. :-)
[just joking, actually. If its witty or especially well written
I'll play it with glee]
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
JEFFREY MILLER
writes:
[snip]
>A truely Puzzle-Free
>IF game would be more along the line of AMFV. If we ignore the
ending,
>there really are no puzzles, other then exploring. Of course, one
>could consider recording the right things a puzzle, it's just
motivation
>to get you to explore and try to find the nastier things of the city.
This might be a good example of the direction in which puzzle-less i-f
could go that hasn't been mentioned before. Nevertheless, there were
"puzzles" or "obstacles / conflicts" -- whatever you wish to call them
-- that had to be overcome. Without these conflicts, like any piece of
fiction, the game looses interest. AMFV gave the player control over
resolving these conflicts, which, as you state, really don't fall in
the category of traditional puzzles.
>This could well be a good premise for a game. You could walk around,
>interact with Things in your environment, but have no real goal,
>except to enjoy yourself.
This, I fear, would be boring. No conflict == not interesting.
>Explore. Version 1.0
>An Interactive Exploration (duh.)
>By Edan Harel
>
[most of an entertaining interactive exploration snipped]
>You are in a zoo. There are some animals here.
>
>>Feed animals groceries.
>
>They eat it. and then go to sleep. They don't open anything, give
you
>any thing or tell you anything that can help you, but they are
greatful.
>
>>Quit
>
>You commit suicide becuase of the lack of puzzles.
>
>You have scored 0 out of 0 points.
Hee hee! I think I might do exactly that without a goal in the game!
>A game like this doesn't have to have puzzles. You should just be able
>to interact with the game, and have it keep a recollection of what
>you did, so that it *does* interact with you. Maybe there should be
>points for everything you *can* do that's interesting.
Yes, but then we'd have a simulation, not fiction.
Jeff Miller
jeff...@ix.netcom.com
ErsatzPogo
>discover, to *see*. 'Course, if there weren't any puzzles, nobody
>would register it, so I can understand it. . .
Let me just make one thing clear up front -- I did *not* put any puzzles
in Lost New York just to get people to register to get the hints. In fact,
I went out of my way to make the game winnable without the hints (I don't
think there's anything in the game that's harder than, say, everything in
Jigsaw, which continues to befuddle me to no end).
Whether the puzzles that are there are good or necessary ones, of course,
is open to debate. But I just wanted to make clear that any needless
puzzles are the result of my questionable game design skills, not mere
money-grubbing.
Neil deMause
ErsatzPogo
IIRC,
>the museum is *in* the lobby of the statue, but then I havent been to it
>in a couple of years).
You caught me! But -- wait a minute -- I think I've got my artistic
license around here somewhere...
Neil
Jason Hebron
>
>I'm not sure I can agree. There are lots of novels - especially
>mysteries, horror and thrillers - where a large portion of the plot
>revolves around something that can be described as a puzzle. Perhaps
>this detracts from the experience, perhaps it adds to it, but the
>point is that there *is* traditional ficition like that.
Case in point - The chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. I
couldn't believe it took three books for the guy to get a clue. And
then another three for another clue. I was practically screaming at
him by the end of the first volume.
But anyway - re:puzzle-less. The defining factor of IF for me is the
resistance of the plot. Protagonists must pit themselves against that
resistance and overcome whatever obstacles are placed against them to
*achieve* an end state.
However, the nature of these obstacles seems tied to the traditional
'puzzle' mentality. Possibly this is because, for a medium that
requires imagination and contemplation, there is a greater
identification with progress via concept association than with action
(heck, that sentence had far too many -tions in it). In other words,
it's more satisfying to outsmart a dragon than to hack away at it with
a sword.
Without that resistance, all you have left is hypertext. While there
is still enjoyment from the quality of the writing (hopefully), the
sense of progressive achievement and participation disappears.
Unless, of course, I'm about to be proved wrong.
tangle
Christopher E. Forman
: Lost New York? I'm *annoyed* I can't get a nickel from a sewer
: grate. I want to see what happens! My motivation is to explore, to
: discover, to *see*. 'Course, if there weren't any puzzles, nobody
: would register it, so I can understand it. . .
This particular comment makes me wonder whether shareware puzzle-less I-F
will ever be feasible. If the player is comfortably nudged into advancing
the plot, and can play through the game in a single sitting, who's going
to pay for it when they don't have to? (Or perhaps authors of puzzle-less
games will have to upload a partial release to GMD, then send the full
version only to registered gamers? Hmmm...)
Jacob Solomon Weinstei
>Hmm, yeah that's a good point. I think the emphasis is maybe too much on
>puzzles, though: most standard fiction doesn't have such tortured and twisted
>puzzles! "Interactive poetry": I like that term. I think I'll maybe try to
>write some of that... Later. :-)
If you like the idea of interactive poetry, just wait until my contest
entry. It contains a segment of exactly that.
You know, I've noticed people working in references to their competition
entries in various postings, and I think it's a Good Thing to do so; when
I read about somebody else's entry, it gets me excited about the contest,
and just a little bit nervous that my entry won't be done in time. This,
in turn, inspires me to go to work on my own entry.
And so, purely to advance the state of the art, I'm starting a thread in
which contest entrants can drop hints about their entries. If you plan on
voting in this contest, I strongly encourage you to killfile this thread,
lest you bias your judgement. It's meant for contest entrants to get each
other excited (and a little bit nervous.)
I'll get the ball rolling. Here's some spoiler spaces for those of you
who don't want to know anything about the games in advance:
My entry is going to be 13 times the size of Toonesia.
It's going to have 13 times the puzzles...
It's going to have 13 times the locations...
It's going to have "13 Ways of Looking at Blackbeard."
-Jacob
Xiphias Gladius
> There's nothing wrong with saying "I like the story, but the puzzles
> get in the way." But I get antsy when I hear "The point of your
> story is X, and you wrote it wrong." At least *consider* the
> possiblity that the author has done it deliberately. :)
*grin*
Point taken, and I apoligize, Mr DeMuse, if you took it that way --
what I meant to say was closer to the first than the second.
- Ian
ErsatzPogo
>what I meant to say was closer to the first than the second.
No harm, no foul.
Neil deMause
Joe Mason
CE>What I'm interested in is the method used by the program to maintain the
CE>game's challenge and long-term playability. With puzzles and objects to
CE>manipulate, this isn't a big deal. But if the game has no puzzles, how
CE>does an author keep the player from finishing it in a single session? Even
CE>the simple need to figure out what to do next to advance the plot could be
CE>seen as a puzzle of sorts.
I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here... Puzzle-less IF could obviously
be solved in a single session, since there are no puzzles to block the way
(unless its so long that the list of commands to finish it would take days to
type out). The author would have to draw the player in by using detailed and,
above all, *interesting* descriptions and interactions. The point would not
be to give the player a challenge to complete, but to give the player
something to think about - hopefully, even after "walking through" the game in
one session, you'd get as much out of it as reading a book, and possible
moreso because of the interactive part.
That said, I think its important not to say, "This is going to be puzzle-less
IF," and stick to it rigidly, or to say "interaction-based IF cannot have
puzzles; puzzle-based IF cannot have plot". I just think that extremely
difficult puzzles can take away from the type of IF we're talking about by
forcing the player to focus on the puzzles, and see the scenery & other
characters in terms of "how can I use this to solve the puzzle" instead of
being there as an end in themselves.
C.A. McCarthy
>the plot, and can play through the game in a single sitting, who's going
>to pay for it when they don't have to?
Well, judging by the registrations for "Shelby's Addendum", I can
safely answer that question.
The answer is women, and thankyou ladies (and gents of course).