What is [your definition of] "Interactive Fiction"?
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Willis
Mar 29, 2011, 1:04:20 AM3/29/11
to Seattle IF
The IF Wiki defines Interactive Fiction this way:
"Interactive fiction, often abbreviated IF, describes software
simulating environments in which players use text commands to control
characters and influence the environment. Works in this form can be
understood as literary narratives and as video games.[1] In common
usage, the term refers to text adventures, a type of adventure game
where the entire interface is 'text-only'.[2] It can also be used to
distinguish the more modern style of such works, focusing on narrative
and not necessarily falling into the adventure game genre at all, from
the more traditional focus on puzzles. More expansive definitions of
interactive fiction may refer to all adventure games, including wholly
graphical adventures such as Myst."
Though that definition leaves the door wide open, forget it for now.
I imagine that defining IF has been done before...many times. So why
do it again?
I'd like to take an approach that will help us not only arrive at a
definition that has special meaning to the Seattle IF group, but one
that will help us, in the process, develop a valuable tool for the
group's use.
Who knows what we'll come up with...
Here are the four simple guidelines for the approach:
1) Start Fresh: Do not limit your responses to prior definitions
you've read or heard (unless you really want to).
2) Brainstorm First: Don't censor your responses or other's at this
time (that'll come later).
3) Capabilities: Think in terms of discrete capabilities that are
necessary in order to author or play IF. So, there are two major
categories of capabilities: Authoring, Playing. Every response ought
to specify one of these two. Try to avoid stating qualities of IF
(like, "IF must be fictional"): starting each item in your list with
something like "...the ability to..." might help you avoid this.
3) Seek a Minimum First: Constrain your responses to capabilities
that are absolutely required, in your opinion, in order to either
author or play IF. Ask yourself these questions, "If I wasn't able to
do this as an IF author could I produce IF?"; and, "If a player wasn't
able to do this, would I call it, 'IF'?"
4) Be General...or Specific: Start as specific or general as you
like. We can organize our capabilities (hierarchically or otherwise)
as we brainstorm.
As an example, here are a few capabilities that I think start to
define IF minimally:
Authoring (or, if you prefer, Production):
The ability to author text that describes what a player senses.
The ability to describe "rules" that govern how things in an IF
interact with other things.
Playing:
A player must be able to read authored text that describes what she/he
senses.
A player must be able to communicate desired interactions with the
things she/he senses.
Don't feel like you have to come up with the entire set of minimum
capabilities. Even if you only have one or two right now you can
always add more as the discussion progresses.
-Matt
"Interactive fiction, often abbreviated IF, describes software
simulating environments in which players use text commands to control
characters and influence the environment. Works in this form can be
understood as literary narratives and as video games.[1] In common
usage, the term refers to text adventures, a type of adventure game
where the entire interface is 'text-only'.[2] It can also be used to
distinguish the more modern style of such works, focusing on narrative
and not necessarily falling into the adventure game genre at all, from
the more traditional focus on puzzles. More expansive definitions of
interactive fiction may refer to all adventure games, including wholly
graphical adventures such as Myst."
Though that definition leaves the door wide open, forget it for now.
I imagine that defining IF has been done before...many times. So why
do it again?
I'd like to take an approach that will help us not only arrive at a
definition that has special meaning to the Seattle IF group, but one
that will help us, in the process, develop a valuable tool for the
group's use.
Who knows what we'll come up with...
Here are the four simple guidelines for the approach:
1) Start Fresh: Do not limit your responses to prior definitions
you've read or heard (unless you really want to).
2) Brainstorm First: Don't censor your responses or other's at this
time (that'll come later).
3) Capabilities: Think in terms of discrete capabilities that are
necessary in order to author or play IF. So, there are two major
categories of capabilities: Authoring, Playing. Every response ought
to specify one of these two. Try to avoid stating qualities of IF
(like, "IF must be fictional"): starting each item in your list with
something like "...the ability to..." might help you avoid this.
3) Seek a Minimum First: Constrain your responses to capabilities
that are absolutely required, in your opinion, in order to either
author or play IF. Ask yourself these questions, "If I wasn't able to
do this as an IF author could I produce IF?"; and, "If a player wasn't
able to do this, would I call it, 'IF'?"
4) Be General...or Specific: Start as specific or general as you
like. We can organize our capabilities (hierarchically or otherwise)
as we brainstorm.
As an example, here are a few capabilities that I think start to
define IF minimally:
Authoring (or, if you prefer, Production):
The ability to author text that describes what a player senses.
The ability to describe "rules" that govern how things in an IF
interact with other things.
Playing:
A player must be able to read authored text that describes what she/he
senses.
A player must be able to communicate desired interactions with the
things she/he senses.
Don't feel like you have to come up with the entire set of minimum
capabilities. Even if you only have one or two right now you can
always add more as the discussion progresses.
-Matt
Ben Cressey
Mar 29, 2011, 1:10:49 PM3/29/11
to seatt...@googlegroups.com, Matt Willis
Playing:
A player must be able to read authored text that describes what she/he
senses.
A player must be able to communicate desired interactions with the
things she/he senses.
To qualify as IF, I would say that interaction has to be primarily or exclusively in the form of prose contribution.
I think that gets at why "choose your own adventure" style games don't quite capture the feel of IF: you are picking options from a menu or turning to certain pages, and relying on the game to summarize your intent rather than expressing it in your own words.
The benefit of text input / text output is that there is no mechanical distinction between the author's presentation and the player's response. That lends the games a more collaborative feel. Given the current state of the parser and the problem of content generation, this is more illusion than reality, but it's an important illusion and something is lost in the move to a more abstract interface.
Matt Willis
Mar 30, 2011, 12:16:57 AM3/30/11
to Seattle IF
I like that thinking, Ben. For the sake of building our taxonomy, if
I were to paraphrase what you said as capabilities would something
like this work for you:
Playing:
The ability to create the feeling of collaboration between player and
author.
->The ability to respond to an author's prose presentation (and
express player intent) via prose.
Once you give me the go ahead, I'll add these to the taxonomy.
-Matt
I were to paraphrase what you said as capabilities would something
like this work for you:
Playing:
The ability to create the feeling of collaboration between player and
author.
->The ability to respond to an author's prose presentation (and
express player intent) via prose.
Once you give me the go ahead, I'll add these to the taxonomy.
-Matt
Ben Cressey
Mar 31, 2011, 4:19:44 PM3/31/11
to seatt...@googlegroups.com, Matt Willis
That looks great. I like the way it subordinates the prose contribution element to the (more important) goal of establishing a collaborative feel.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Seattle IF" group.
To post to this group, send email to seatt...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to seattle-if+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/seattle-if?hl=en.
Matt Willis
Apr 1, 2011, 1:00:05 AM4/1/11
to Seattle IF
Excellent. I'll add 'em to the list. :-)
What are other's thoughts on the topic? Do you have other additions
to help get us going on the taxonomy? Ron, what do you think?
Here's what we have so far:
Authoring (or, if you prefer, Production):
The ability to author text that describes what a player senses.
The ability to describe "rules" that govern how things in an IF
interact with other things.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/seattle-if?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are other's thoughts on the topic? Do you have other additions
to help get us going on the taxonomy? Ron, what do you think?
Here's what we have so far:
Authoring (or, if you prefer, Production):
The ability to author text that describes what a player senses.
The ability to describe "rules" that govern how things in an IF
interact with other things.
Playing:
A player must be able to read authored text that describes what she/
he
senses.
A player must be able to communicate desired interactions with the
things she/he senses.
A player must be able to read authored text that describes what she/
he
senses.
A player must be able to communicate desired interactions with the
things she/he senses.
The ability to create the feeling of collaboration between player and
author.
->The ability to respond to an author's prose presentation (and
express player intent) via prose.
author.
->The ability to respond to an author's prose presentation (and
express player intent) via prose.
>
> - Show quoted text -
George Oliver
Apr 1, 2011, 2:27:30 AM4/1/11
to seatt...@googlegroups.com
On 3/31/2011 10:00 PM, Matt Willis wrote:
> Excellent. I'll add 'em to the list. :-)
>
> What are other's thoughts on the topic? Do you have other additions
> to help get us going on the taxonomy?
> Excellent. I'll add 'em to the list. :-)
>
> What are other's thoughts on the topic? Do you have other additions
> to help get us going on the taxonomy?
I've been thinking about this for the last few days. I'm not sure, but
'rules' of interaction and players communicating interaction with things
sensed seems to be another way of saying that IF requires a world model
of some kind (probably not to be confused with a model or simulation of
our physical world). Maybe world model then is not the right term, but I
don't have a better one either.
Ron Newcomb
Apr 3, 2011, 8:34:48 PM4/3/11
to Seattle IF
I'm late to the party, but,
This post at blog Renga in Blue you may find of interest, Matt.
http://bluerenga.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/categories-of-interactive-fiction-redux/
There's a pic early in the post; click it for full size.
Re: those two rules in your first post, something needs to be said for
fictive content, to differentiate between IF and chatbots.
This post at blog Renga in Blue you may find of interest, Matt.
http://bluerenga.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/categories-of-interactive-fiction-redux/
There's a pic early in the post; click it for full size.
Re: those two rules in your first post, something needs to be said for
fictive content, to differentiate between IF and chatbots.
Matt Willis
Apr 3, 2011, 11:45:34 PM4/3/11
to Seattle IF
I hadn't thought about it quite that way, George. That's an
interesting perspective. It got me to thinking about the "world
model" concept and how it might be applied to the IF genre:
Like you, when I think of the term, "model", I usually think of games
(and I use that word respectfully when referring to IF) that are less
like stories and are more on the video game end of the spectrum.
However, the concept does seem to apply to IF in it's most general
definition.
That's why I like hierarchies for these kinds of taxonomies. If we
were to add the following 'parent' capabilities under the Authoring
category:
The ability to model a world
And if we then added a sub-capability like this:
-> The ability to model a story setting
...would that get the "model" concept moving in more of the right
direction (i.e. more towards the narrative end of the spectrum)
Really good input, btw. You've exposed a spectrum that may be key to
deriving a minimal set of IF capabilities. :-)
-Matt
interesting perspective. It got me to thinking about the "world
model" concept and how it might be applied to the IF genre:
Like you, when I think of the term, "model", I usually think of games
(and I use that word respectfully when referring to IF) that are less
like stories and are more on the video game end of the spectrum.
However, the concept does seem to apply to IF in it's most general
definition.
That's why I like hierarchies for these kinds of taxonomies. If we
were to add the following 'parent' capabilities under the Authoring
category:
The ability to model a world
And if we then added a sub-capability like this:
-> The ability to model a story setting
...would that get the "model" concept moving in more of the right
direction (i.e. more towards the narrative end of the spectrum)
Really good input, btw. You've exposed a spectrum that may be key to
deriving a minimal set of IF capabilities. :-)
-Matt
Matt Willis
Apr 4, 2011, 12:09:47 AM4/4/11
to Seattle IF
Nice. I should've checked out your link before I responded to
George's post... :-)
Seeing "World Model" and "No World Model" as denoting opposite ends of
a spectrum makes me question my own interpretation of the word,
"Model", as well as the concepts of interactive fiction that I've had
floating around in my head.
In a way I think anything that we create (especially on a computer) is
a model. It's an abstraction or simplification of reality or of a
world that we imagine could be real. Without getting too
philosophical, the difference between a modelled thing and a real
thing is the level of detail. If I can interact with a modelled thing
which has a ton of detail, I may not be able to tell that it's just a
model. I guess what I'm trying to not-so-eloquently suggest is that I
can't think of types of IF that don't have a model. This is probably
due to my limited experience with modern IF.
Can you help me out with some examples on the "No World Model" end of
the spectrum? I think that'll help understand how "model" is being
used in the context of that diagram.
W/r/t "fictive content": how about if I add this capability (with no
attempt to rationalize it with any overlaps with the other
capabilities):
The ability to develop fictional content independent of player input
Is this the right context for "fictive content" as it is juxtaposed
with chatbot content, or am missing your point?
-Matt
> This post at blog Renga in Blue you may find of interest, Matt.http://bluerenga.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/categories-of-interactive-f...
George's post... :-)
Seeing "World Model" and "No World Model" as denoting opposite ends of
a spectrum makes me question my own interpretation of the word,
"Model", as well as the concepts of interactive fiction that I've had
floating around in my head.
In a way I think anything that we create (especially on a computer) is
a model. It's an abstraction or simplification of reality or of a
world that we imagine could be real. Without getting too
philosophical, the difference between a modelled thing and a real
thing is the level of detail. If I can interact with a modelled thing
which has a ton of detail, I may not be able to tell that it's just a
model. I guess what I'm trying to not-so-eloquently suggest is that I
can't think of types of IF that don't have a model. This is probably
due to my limited experience with modern IF.
Can you help me out with some examples on the "No World Model" end of
the spectrum? I think that'll help understand how "model" is being
used in the context of that diagram.
W/r/t "fictive content": how about if I add this capability (with no
attempt to rationalize it with any overlaps with the other
capabilities):
The ability to develop fictional content independent of player input
Is this the right context for "fictive content" as it is juxtaposed
with chatbot content, or am missing your point?
-Matt
> This post at blog Renga in Blue you may find of interest, Matt.http://bluerenga.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/categories-of-interactive-f...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages