Over a year in development! Thousands of words and tons of quotes! (Well, thankfully, only a few quotes.) Original, ground-breaking, common sensical, obvious, humdrum, boring.
You decide.
The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction: Why We Like What We Like (Version 2.20)
This theory, although the basis of the IF Art Show, only mentions it once. Because the focus of this "paper" is computer interactivity, specifically, IF's interactivity.
It is too long, approx. 40 "pages", to publish here, so I have put it on my web page. I certainly don't expect anyone who reads it to agree with all of it, or even with just parts, but I think almost every IF author/player can get SOMETHING out of it. So I now offer it for your perusal.
Reader comments:
"I think it should be required reading for nearly everyone writing IF." Stephen Granade
"A very thoughtful and thought-provoking study." Den of Iniquity (Dennis Smith)
"Congratulations, Doe; this is a fine piece of theory -- even if I don't agree with all of it, it's still thought-provoking and worth discussing/debating/otherwise chewing over." Michael Gentry
"Read Doe's essay and think about it. Agree with her or not, this essay gives us all a common theoretical footing and a vocabulary with which to begin discussion of IF as theory." Adam J. Thornton
If you have any reactions to this theory, please don't email me but post your comments to this same thread in raif (rec.arts.int-fiction) so we can keep any discussion in that newsgroup.
Note: With the newsreader I have I was unable to make this a simultaneous post to both newsgroups, ergo, posting to this thread will only post to rgif. Also theories are more appropriate to raif anyway. Thanks.
I have no trouble with the argument that different people like different things because they process things differently, but I'm not sure where that gets us. I don't think there's any good evidence out there about what category most people fall into, so it doesn't seem like an author can consciously choose to broaden his/her audience. And to the limited extent works of IF fit into this 'category' or that, I'm willing to bet that there have been popular games for every single category.
"Infocom sold well because it covered all the bases": maybe. Or maybe it sold well because it did what it did really well, and people recognized that, whatever their mode of information processing. At any rate, again, I'm not sure what that does for us today. If there's anything that's absolutely 100% crystal clear right now, it's that current authors who model their games on Infocom's aren't any more likely to be popular than those who don't--and to the extent they stay within the bounds of fantasy and science fiction (which, may I remind you, were Infocom's most popular products), I'd venture to say they're _not_ likely to be popular.
I mean, it's odd to hear this coming from you, Doe, because you're behind the IF Art Show, which attempts to drum up IF that's consciously off the beaten track. Now you're slamming "modern IF" for producing experimental IF, games which may not have the broad appeal of Infocom's but are considerably more thoughtful and subversive. Like, why?
My other reaction to this is that the whole "it's all relative" notion can be abused. I'm sorry, but it's simply inaccurate to say that Cask is really just as good as Photopia, it just appeals to a different audience, and I say that as a non-fan of Photopia. You say that Cask didn't go over well because it's all puzzles, but I suggest that it didn't go over well because it was shot through with bugs, the writing was so poor that it wasn't clear what was going on, and the puzzles were wildly illogical. It's true, of course, that games that are pure puzzle-fests aren't as popular now as they once were--but there are *good reasons for that* that have nothing to do with the structure of people's brains. (Unless you're positing that people's brains have changed fundamentally since the '80s, when a certain all-puzzle, no-plot game called Zork I sold a copy or two. If you're saying they have, and that the Internet's responsible, then tell me what the Internet has to do with people wanting more plot in IF.) The good reasons are that modern IF has shown that it's possible to have _both_ a plot and puzzles--in fact, puzzles that are integrated into and serve the purples of the plot. When we get soup cans now, we get impatient--and, to my mind, rightly so.
I find it odd that you consider Infocom's games more like real life than "modern IF." If I had to pick out the game/work that came the closest to approximating real life, I'd probably pick Common Ground, or possibly The Wedding. Photopia wouldn't be too far behind, I guess. Infocom's games would be way, way down on the list, simply because most of them largely disregarded relationships and made plot subordinate to the puzzles, and there's nothing real life about that.
I think you have a useful point about the way different people react to _certain_ games, and Photopia is a case in point because it depends so much on the player's subjective reaction. You're either emotionally affected or you're not, and if you're not, you're not likely to care much for it. But it's the rare game that depends that much on subjectivity, I submit, and it's possible for people to evaluate most IF based on objective categories.
> All I can suggest is you might reread the section on interactive categories / > information processing modes more. I suggested authors, even when > experimenting, could still include all the information processing modes so as > not to alienate parts of their audience. Information processing modes -- the > various ways we can/may find a piece of IF interactive IS the underlying basis > of the IF Art Show -- in an experimential forum. Playing around with > interactivity and seeing what emerges.
Yes, but the art-show pieces I've seen do _not_ include all the information processing modes--that would seem to be beyond the scope of _any_ IF--and in that a requirements for the art show is "no puzzles," the problem-solving mode seems to be excluded by definition. That's good, I think. Puzzleless IF needs more exploration. But I don't understand why you're complaining about IF that narrows its focus.
> And I never said anywhere at anytime that I didn't like "dungeon crawls" or > "puzzle games". Though people like Jon Ingold should be horse whipped -- for > being so nastily clever.
I didn't suggest that you did. In fact, in that you seem to be praising Infocom's games, which are a lot more like dungeon crawls or puzzle games than most of what's produced today, qutie the contrary.
> I like IF *I* can interact with or IF that interacts with *me*, daringly > experiential or more "Infocom-like" or somewhere in-between.
Terrific. Me too.
But I defy you to quantify what characterizes IF that I like, or that most people like. As I said over in the raif thread (when I singled out my favorites), I, and most people, like different things for different reasons; if my mode of information processing is dictating my likes and dislikes, it's hard to see how.
For the record, my short list of IF that I enjoyed would have to include Varicella, Trinity, Spellbreaker, Little Blue Men, Babel, Sunset Over Savannah, Losing Your Grip, Change in the Weather, and Worlds Apart. (Oh, and Spider and Web, and Anchorhead too.) It would not include Photopia or Planetfall.
There's nothing wrong with identifying different ways that readers/players interact with IF; it's a valuable point. But let's not exaggerate the implications for the popularity/enjoyability of any given game.
Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: > If I had to pick out the game/work that came the closest to > approximating real life, I'd probably pick Common Ground, or possibly The > Wedding.
>Subject: Re: [Theory] The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction >From: Second April dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu >Date: 3/15/00 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time >I mean, it's odd to hear this coming from you, Doe, because you're behind >the IF Art Show, which attempts to drum up IF that's consciously off the >beaten track. Now you're slamming "modern IF" for producing experimental >IF, games which may not have the broad appeal of Infocom's but are >considerably more thoughtful and subversive. Like, why?
Hmmm, you got something quite different out of that paper than what I thought I put into it.
All I can suggest is you might reread the section on interactive categories / information processing modes more. I suggested authors, even when experimenting, could still include all the information processing modes so as not to alienate parts of their audience. Information processing modes -- the various ways we can/may find a piece of IF interactive IS the underlying basis of the IF Art Show -- in an experimential forum. Playing around with interactivity and seeing what emerges.
And I never said anywhere at anytime that I didn't like "dungeon crawls" or "puzzle games". Though people like Jon Ingold should be horse whipped -- for being so nastily clever.
I like IF *I* can interact with or IF that interacts with *me*, daringly experiential or more "Infocom-like" or somewhere in-between.
>Subject: Re: [Theory] The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction >From: Second April dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu >Date: 3/15/00 5:12 PM Pacific Standard Time >Yes, but the art-show pieces I've seen do _not_ include all the >information processing modes--that would seem to be beyond the scope of >_any_ IF--and in that a requirements for the art show is "no puzzles," the >problem-solving mode seems to be excluded by definition. That's good, I >think. Puzzleless IF needs more exploration. But I don't understand why >you're complaining about IF that narrows its focus.
I don't believe I did object.
>> I like IF *I* can interact with or IF that interacts with *me*, daringly >> experiential or more "Infocom-like" or somewhere in-between.
>Terrific. Me too.
I believe THAT was the thrust of my paper. And trying to explain why *you* may like one thing and *I* may like another and Joe on the corner may like something else. However, no one in the world has to agree with my perception / explanation of WHY we like what we like.
I used the Infocom standard to coorelate with information processing modes, because that is what practically all of us are somewhat familiar with.
But I can conceive of a day when someone does interactivity differently. Or some form of interactivity we are already familiar with, quite differently.
For Example, For A Change.
BTW - The IF Art Show no longer bans puzzles. I had a reason for originally doing that, but once it was established the ban could be removed. The main reason I had for doing it was trying to describe interactivity in relations to things OTHER THAN puzzles -- but the language wasn't there and I had a hard time getting the concept across, so for the beginning I banned puzzles. However, I think this paper gets across the idea that interactivity does not correlate to JUST puzzles, fairly well.
Won't elucidate on my theory anymore because it took me two and a half months to write it and I don't see the point in resaying what I already said. And I can't say it any clearer than I already did.
But like, interactivity, like IF, like reading, like painting, like all art -- you partly get what you see. So whatever you want to see in my paper is up to you.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, David Glasser wrote: > Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > If I had to pick out the game/work that came the closest to > > approximating real life, I'd probably pick Common Ground, or possibly The > > Wedding.
> The Wedding?
> *boggle*
> I so don't want to meet your family.
Ha ha.
It involved people who actually interact with each other, and the relationships were related to the plot. Yes, the plot was over-the-top, but less so than in most IF (there's no IF I can think of that has an actual mundane storyline).
Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
Duncan Stevens wrote: > Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable > characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve > the supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture.
Bloodline!
(I can hear you rolling your eyes, but hey, 's true)
In article <38D09552.4...@adamcadre.ac>, Adam Cadre <re...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>Duncan Stevens wrote: >> Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable >> characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve >> the supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture.
Common Ground I mentioned in the first place, along with The Wedding and Photopia. But I-0 qualifies too--and, hmmm, She's Got a Thing is another.
I guess what I'm driving at with this is that "simulationist" IF (a) should involve characters who respond in believable ways to the PC, and events that are generally credible without major suspensions of disbelief. That I'd call "realistic." Very few of Infocom's efforts even tried in this regard--the mysteries were the main exception.
Okay--I'll be away for the next week and a half, so if I don't respond, that's why.
Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable >characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the >supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the >Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
A Moment of Hope. I-0. Photopia. The Space Under the Window. Aisle. She's Got a Thing For a Spring. I need to study, so I'll stop there.
> Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable > characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the > supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the > Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
: Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable : characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the : supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the : Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
Witness. They may be detective-novel stereotypes, but I do believe they fit the criteria.
> Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable > characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the > supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the > Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
Warning: ahead is probably the single most offensive thing I've ever posted to r?if. If you knew me from my alt.tasteless days, this won't shock, but for the rest of you who want to keep your image of me all pristine and virginal, stop reading now.
I mean it.
You asked for it.
Last chance.
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.1000316001021.20515A-100...@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable >characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the >supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the >Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
Blow Job Drifter.
Well, I *wanted* to believe.
Sorry, I came all over^W^Wover all Stiffy Makane there for a moment.
That still didn't come out right, did it?
Perhaps I'd better stop before I do something worse.
Adam -- a...@princeton.edu "My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
> Name another work of IF that involves multiple even mildly believable > characters in an even mildly realistic setting that doesn't involve the > supernatural or woolly scientific conjecture. Fear, maybe. Muse. On the > Farm. I think you'll find the list is very, very short.
Deadline. Suspect. Witness. Ballyhoo. Hollywood Hijinx. Infidel. Shogun. Corruption. SpySnatcher.
And that's only the commercial text adventure games I can think of now. If you look at free and/or graphical IF, you'll find a lot more.
-- +-----------------+---------------+------------------------------+ | Gunther Schmidl | ICQ: 22447430 | IF: http://gschmidl.cjb.net/ | |-----------------+----------+----+------------------------------| | gschmidl (at) gmx (dot) at | please remove the "xxx." to reply | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------+
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.1000316055951.1779A-100...@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: [..]
>I guess what I'm driving at with this is that "simulationist" IF (a) >should involve characters who respond in believable ways to the PC, and >events that are generally credible without major suspensions of disbelief. >That I'd call "realistic." Very few of Infocom's efforts even tried in >this regard--the mysteries were the main exception.
Hmm. I've got a different definition for these terms, I guess. For me, Photopia is realistic but not simulationist -- it involves events and people that could actually occur, but doesn't concern itself at all with the details of the place. On the other hand, I tried to make Bad Machine simulationist but I wouldn't consider it realistic.
-- Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans "He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
Marnie Parker <doeade...@aol.com> wrote: >>Subject: Re: [Theory] The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction >>From: Second April dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu >>Yes, but the art-show pieces I've seen do _not_ include all the >>information processing modes--that would seem to be beyond the scope of >>_any_ IF--and in that a requirements for the art show is "no puzzles," the >>problem-solving mode seems to be excluded by definition. That's good, I >>think. Puzzleless IF needs more exploration. But I don't understand why >>you're complaining about IF that narrows its focus.
> I don't believe I did object.
I also felt you were objecting. You referred to Infocom as "a standard that appealed to a broad audience", and to any deviation from that standard as throwing out elements, and senses, and (consequently) part of the audience.
You did not object in the sense of saying authors *should not* take that track. But your thesis is clearly that it produces works which are less good, in some objective, overall sense. I disagree with this:
First, you're implicitly assuming that any change from Infocom's mode consists of throwing something away *without* gaining anything in return. I can't buy that. A large map has kinesthetic feedback as you explore it, but being trapped in a single room is claustrophobic -- which is also a kinesthetic sensation. Ask/answer/tell is one way to simulate a conversation, but we pretty universally agree that it's a very limited simulation. (The alternatives are also limited, but in *different* ways. Surely it makes sense that having menus with explicit dialogue will be more comfortable for a different sort of player?) And having a generic adventurer is certainly not the same as appealing to a generic player.
Second, I'm not sure Infocom ever *did* appeal to a broad audience. Computer users in 1985 were a heck of a different group than computer users today. It was a *tiny* group, and self-selected technophiles. Geeks. :-) Sweeping the "Top 10 Games" lists among those people (which Infocom did, regularly, in the early 80's) was a different task than it would be today. And the composition of R*IF is different again.
I posted a few weeks ago that one big difference between 1996 IF and 2000 IF is that we are no longer defined by Infocom (and the other Eighties game companies). We've gone beyond reacting to that single set of games, from a small handful of authors.
Certainly there are people who (on average!) like Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn / Meretzky more than Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. But I get awfully nervous when you suggest that they were right and we are wrong, in any sense larger than one player's opinion. And I felt you *were* straining hard to make that suggestion -- the arguments didn't hold together.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
: Certainly there are people who (on average!) like Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn : / Meretzky more than Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. But I get awfully : nervous when you suggest that they were right and we are wrong, in any : sense larger than one player's opinion. And I felt you *were* straining : hard to make that suggestion -- the arguments didn't hold together.
Actually, most of the in-depth conversations on the subject seem to take the stance that "Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. are right and Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn / Meretzky were wrong" variety, so how nervous can this one possibly make you?
Jason Compton <jcomp...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote: > Andrew Plotkin <erkyr...@eblong.com> wrote:
> : Certainly there are people who (on average!) like Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn > : / Meretzky more than Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. But I get awfully > : nervous when you suggest that they were right and we are wrong, in any > : sense larger than one player's opinion. And I felt you *were* straining > : hard to make that suggestion -- the arguments didn't hold together.
> Actually, most of the in-depth conversations on the subject seem to take > the stance that "Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. are right and Lebling / > Blanc / Berlyn / Meretzky were wrong" variety, so how nervous can this one > possibly make you?
I was speaking to Doe's paper.
No single sparrow falls, &c.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
>Subject: Re: [Theory] The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction >From: Andrew Plotkin erkyr...@eblong.com >Date: 3/16/00 9:35 PM Pacific Standard Time >Certainly there are people who (on average!) like Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn >/ Meretzky more than Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. But I get awfully >nervous when you suggest that they were right and we are wrong, in any >sense larger than one player's opinion. And I felt you *were* straining >hard to make that suggestion -- the arguments didn't hold together.
No where did I suggest anyone was wrong.
So this perception is probably due to my poor writing and I will see what I can do to correct it with an updated version.
My emphasis was on how we all process information differently. And why games now may receive a higher degree of polarization than they did before -- based on information processing -- as it becomes more fragmentary or narrowed to specific audiences.
What an artist chooses to do is up to the artist, there is simply no right or wrong about it.
Naturally people have "added things" as well, and maybe my paper didn't emphasize that.
But when I analyzed games I was doing it only within the parameters of my theory. Where the audience seemed to polarize along the lines of information processing.
I made NO attempt to discuss content, prose, etc. in any detail or much at all. 1.) That would have involved spoilers. 2.) I am not a reviewer and do not feel competent to comment on prose or content. 3.) My focus was on the polarizing, nothing else. So that section focused only on that. I could have written the paper without mentioning ANY games, but I felt that would have made it TOO theortical, too airy fairy, "out there". It needed examples about polarization.
So obviously I need to add some lines here and there to my paper to clarify.
I think differing ways of processing information, is a FACT, however. And I wrote my paper because I have felt that interactivity and information processing have been overlooked when it comes to IF. That by focusing on authors, stories, and content we do not stop to examine the medium.
The paper was NOT a comment about author quality in any way -- it was about interactivity. Period.
After all, I mentioned where each game placed in the yearly comp, which is an implied comment about a consensus of what people consider about the quality of each game. That I felt, covered that.
>Subject: Re: [Theory] The Meta-Puzzle of Interactive Fiction >From: Andrew Plotkin erkyr...@eblong.com >Date: 3/16/00 9:35 PM Pacific Standard Time >Certainly there are people who (on average!) like Lebling / Blanc / Berlyn >/ Meretzky more than Cadre / Plotkin / Finley / etc. But I get awfully >nervous when you suggest that they were right and we are wrong, in any >sense larger than one player's opinion. And I felt you *were* straining >hard to make that suggestion -- the arguments didn't hold together.
Frankly, your and Duncan's reactions have totally befuddled me.
This paper is about information processing and interactivity as they relate to IF.
Nothing else. I tried to be as "factual" and impartial in my "reporting" about what I see happening with INTERACTIVITY as I could be.
I think if you see it as a commendation of Modern IF, you either didn't didn't get my point about interactivity/information processing and/or you didn't agree with it. Because I feel you are ascribing an "agenda" to me that I simply did not have.
You might note quite a few others did not read it as commendation.
But I have noted the confusion and was going to make some changes anyway, so I have added a paragraph above the game analyzation section that should take care of most of your objections.
> I also felt you were objecting. You referred to Infocom as "a standard > that appealed to a broad audience", and to any deviation from that > standard as throwing out elements, and senses, and (consequently) part of > the audience.
> You did not object in the sense of saying authors *should not* take that > track. But your thesis is clearly that it produces works which are less > good, in some objective, overall sense. I disagree with this:
Having just read Doe's paper, I think you've misread it. As I understood it, the thesis was that the Infocom games all conformed to a standard of interactivity, that the modern games depart from that standard in various ways, and that therefore the modern games have different "ideal players" -- different both from the Infocom games and from each other. Moreover, the closer any actual player is to the game's ideal player, the more inclined that player will be to rate it highly.
I'm inclined to view it, not as a way of judging IF works, but as a way of sorting them into meaningful "genres". That is, the way in which a player is expected to interact with a game is the most important aspect of the game. To choose from recent examples, it's more meaningful to say that _Photopia_ is literary, _Worlds Apart_ is driven by conversations, and _Mulldoon Legacy_ is a giant puzzle-box, than to say that _Photopia_ is realistic, _Worlds Apart_ is SF, and _Mulldoon Legacy_ is fantasy.
-- Michael Brazier But what are all these vanities to me Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds? X^2 + 7X + 53 = 11/3 -- Lewis Carroll
YesuSlave wrote: > If someone wants to be able to look up a game based on its litterary > style, they should be able to. If someone wants to look up a > game based on its genera, they should be able to do that too.
Okay, I misunderstood. To me it looked like you were arguing that a game should be literary, driven by conversations, a giant puzzle-box, realistic, SF, and fantasy, all at once. And that game sounds to me like it *would* be the burrito ice cream or pork soda or what have you.
