Mindsets and Literature
J. D. Berry
of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience also differ?
IF mindset: solve the issues at hand. (A game mentality)
If I'm a player, I'm likely to be the protagonist of the work. Achieving
this character's goals and/or making the story progress are my top
priorities. I'll be wrapped in the immediacy of the situation, just as the
PC would. I, the player, may catch on to the story's overall theme
while playing, but only when I've finished the game might I ponder its
minor themes and metaphors.
(Adam's "9:05" played on this attitude to great effect, I thought, but
it's not what I'm getting at here. That was a well-written piece, but I
don't think the focus was literature. (There's a "man's inhumanity to
man" thing going on, I guess. ;) ))
SF mindset: connect with the work itself. (An experience mentality)
If I'm a reader, I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not the protagonist
(although I may identify with him.) The story progresses as long as
I keep reading. I therefore can spend my mental energies thinking
about the nature of what has been presented and what its elements
may represent. I'm likely to speculate on what will happen next, soon
and much later. Also, I can get lost (in a good way) in the stream of
consciousness, not worrying about a timer that will cause the story
to end abruptly if I don't find the platinum key.
I'm certainly not suggesting players always miss the big picture or
never catch themes and metaphors while they're playing (just
because I personally am guilty of this!). Likewise, readers can and
do feel the pressure of a protagonist's situation.
But does the burden of the protagonist's responsibilities affect the
experience of the work-as-literature?
If so, does this explain why a work of IF often gains on replay? The
next time through (if there aren't vastly different paths), it's
experienced on a static level (because progressing now becomes
almost as simple as just reading).
And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be advised
to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because the
narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be by a
static reader.
Notes:
Of course, I'm referring to story and theme-oriented works of IF here.
"Ad Verbum", we still love you.
Apologies if this has already been covered (I Googled, but not
exhaustively) or if I've stepped on the toes of an upcoming IF
Theory article.
Mike Roberts
> If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from
> that of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience
> also differ?
Is the IF mindset the same as raif's entrenched mentality?
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Kevin Forchione
news:7Z2T9.30$8J5...@news.oracle.com...
> "J. D. Berry" <jdberryE...@cox.net> wrote:
> > If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from
> > that of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience
> > also differ?
>
> Is the IF mindset the same as raif's entrenched mentality?
I suspect that this is indeed the case. One can perhaps equate the two
through the transformational geometry of the GPL.
--Kevin
Cedric Knight
> If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from that
> of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience also
differ?
>
> IF mindset: solve the issues at hand. (A game mentality)
> If I'm a player, I'm likely to be the protagonist of the work.
Achieving
> this character's goals and/or making the story progress are my top
> priorities. I'll be wrapped in the immediacy of the situation, just as
the
> PC would. I, the player, may catch on to the story's overall theme
> while playing, but only when I've finished the game might I ponder its
> minor themes and metaphors.
...
> does the burden of the protagonist's responsibilities affect the
> experience of the work-as-literature?
This seems to be the case *for some people*, but, personally, it doesn't
affect the experience for me that way.
The puzzles may distract very slightly from the theme, but they can be
analogous to a storyteller stopping and saying 'So, what do you think
Alice does next, children?' to make sure the kids are paying attention
to the story and motivation.
OTOH, players may take long breaks during difficult puzzles and so
things which are thematically juxtaposed in the author's mind can be far
apart in the player's. Also, a player who found the puzzles frustrating
may at the end of a piece possibly think 'Was that all it was about?
Why did I bother?'
For example, in an rgif thread <aoim8a$q76$1...@news1.ucsd.edu> in Oct,
"Jeff J" <jef...@hotmail.com> explained one reason he didn't enjoy
'Photopia':
> Put off by many of the devices as well... I just hunkered down into a
> search for the end game. I guess it's obvious that anyone that's in
> that frame of mind will miss any good that he can take away from the
> piece. If you start skimming the text the same way you randomly click
> on GUI's for hotspots, there's no way the mood of writing can
> penetrate your psyche.
[
JDB:
> If so, does this explain why a work of IF often gains on replay? The
> next time through (if there aren't vastly different paths), it's
> experienced on a static level (because progressing now becomes
> almost as simple as just reading).
Don't think so. Non-interactive fiction is also often read &
experienced differently the second time through (there may be analogies
to puzzles in reading NIF). It's possible to see a film twice, the
first time critically, aware you are watching a fiction, the second
receptively and immersed in the story.
]
> And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be advised
> to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
> direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because the
> narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be by a
> static reader.
IMHO yes. The narrative *should* be absorbed provided it is not so
disorienting that the player comes to believe it's just a string of
assorted set pieces. However, the other elements of the player's
interaction (default responses, PC's and narrator's voice and style,
means of exploration, puzzles, NPCs, background) are just as important
in forming an impression of what a work of IF is all about. If, say, a
particular puzzle does not fit with an overall literary intention, it
may be best to take it out, as otherwise it will dilute the subject of
the story.
My 2p's worth.
CK
Andrew Plotkin
> And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be advised
> to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
> direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because the
> narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be by a
> static reader.
Mmm. My experience is that I *do* absorb IF narrative the same way I
do static prose. I don't have much trouble "multitasking" -- keeping
track of both the immersive experience and the narrative byplay
(assuming there is any).
It doesn't seem that different from reading a book, and paying
attention to both the portrayed fictional events and the writing.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Gadget
<jdberryE...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>But does the burden of the protagonist's responsibilities affect the
>experience of the work-as-literature?
>
First: I'm always a bit cautious when an author says he is going to
write literature, be it static or IF. I don't believe an author can
make that assessment. The best an author can do is write something
that is true... something that evokes an emotional response in the
reader in an honest and pure way.
Whether something is literature or not is a judgement to be made by
the reader. There isn't a committee that sits around saying: "this is
literature and this isn't". Oh sure, there are people who think they
are the judges of what is and isn't literature but in the end it is a
deeply personal verdict, to be made by the individual reader.
>
>If so, does this explain why a work of IF often gains on replay? The
>
>next time through (if there aren't vastly different paths), it's
>
>experienced on a static level (because progressing now becomes
>
>almost as simple as just reading).
That is precisely why I don't replay IF. Stories I can read dozens of
times, since it sweeps me away without asking me to make an effort. If
I replay IF I am very aware that I have to jump through the same hoops
to read the same bits of story. I consider this boring. YMMV.
>And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be advised
>to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
>direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because the
>narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be by a
>static reader.
>
I think you mistake 'theme' for 'composition'. A theme isn' t just bit
of info which are given at set times. Theme can be something like
'finding freedom' or 'love' or 'money is the root of all evil'. This
can be derived from the things the PC experiences, the way rooms are
described and how NPCs act. The order of the events is not a necessity
to get a theme across.
-------------
It's a bird...
It's a plane...
No, it's... Gadget?
-------------------
To send mail remove SPAMBLOCK from adress.
Kathleen
Appologies if there are now two)
From: "J. D. Berry" jdberryE...@cox.net
>If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from
>that of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience
>also differ?
Yes. It has to differ, much as watching a baseball game isn't the same
experience as playing the game itself.
>IF mindset: solve the issues at hand. (A game mentality)
>
>If I'm a player, I'm likely to be the protagonist of the work.
>Achieving this character's goals and/or making the story progress
>are my top priorities. I'll be wrapped in the immediacy of the
>situation, just as the PC would. I, the player, may catch on to
>the story's overall theme while playing, but only when I've finished
>the game might I ponder its minor themes and metaphors.
Unless those themes are necessary for solving bits of the game.
>SF mindset: connect with the work itself. (An experience mentality)
>
>If I'm a reader, I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not the
protagonist
>(although I may identify with him.) The story progresses as long as
>I keep reading. I therefore can spend my mental energies thinking
>about the nature of what has been presented and what its elements
>may represent. I'm likely to speculate on what will happen next, soon
>and much later. Also, I can get lost (in a good way) in the stream of
>consciousness, not worrying about a timer that will cause the story
>to end abruptly if I don't find the platinum key.
Right, and with that lack of control comes a lack of responsibility.
You put yourself in the hands of the author and hope it turns out
alright. While that's also true of IF, in IF more of the burden of the
quality of the experience shifts to the player. Of course, a good book
can have you racing through pages to try to get to the end, ultimately
requiring you to reread the book to figure out what actually happened
once you got there.
>does the burden of the protagonist's responsibilities affect the
>experience of the work-as-literature?
Of the protagonist responsibilties or of the players? Is the
protagonist so rushed the player can't afford to experience the world
(as was complained about of Prized Possession - "4 moves and you die
unless you do something right"),or is the player rushing through the
game and simply not taking the time to look around (as I feel during
many comp games - particularly large comp games.) If it's the former,
then it's bad game design. If it's the later then it's an unfortunate
side effect of the competitions 2 hour limitiation and possibly the
fault, again, of the author for not keeping that in mind. Both cases
would obviously be a "Yes" answer to your question, and negatively so.
However, a clever author could turn that to their advantage, using
that adreneline rush to increase the literary bite of the game (by
keeping the player focused and decreasing the players interest in
fruitless, mimesis killing actions (THROW POTATOES AT CEILING)), while
still allowing them to feel in charge of the play... a best of both
worlds. A Yes, for the positive.
>If so, does this explain why a work of IF often gains on replay? The
>next time through (if there aren't vastly different paths), it's
>experienced on a static level (because progressing now becomes
>almost as simple as just reading).
No, not static - at least not in a good game. The first time through I
try to be mind reader - trying to find the "right" way that will lead
to the end. Interesting side paths bypassed as "too risky" the first
time through can be explored in depth on futher play. In fact, for a
non-puzzle game (as I inveriably end up try EVERYTHING anything before
I find the solution in a puzzle game), I find a second time is often
MORE interactive, as I'm no longer afraid of making a wrong turn and
"ruining" it.
For me, Galatea was much more enjoyable the second time through.
>And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be
advised
>to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
>direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because
>the narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be
>by a static reader.
? You lost me (have pity on a lowly programmer). Isn't everything
that results from a command going to be narrative of some sort?
Kathleen
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Kathleen
> "J. D. Berry" <jdberryE...@cox.net> wrote
>
> > If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from that
> > of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience also
> differ?
> >
> > experience of the work-as-literature?
> The puzzles may distract very slightly from the theme, but they can be
> analogous to a storyteller stopping and saying 'So, what do you think
> Alice does next, children?' to make sure the kids are paying attention
> to the story and motivation.
That's true, so long as the storyteller listens to the children and
varies the story appropriatly. "Alice slays the dragon? Ok, so Alice
walks up the dragon brandishing her firey sword..."
However, in that case, the kids are probably too busy saying "Oooo...
Oooo... pick me! pick me!" to even be following the story.
I think that puzzles and "literary content" probably aren't often
found together in the same work - but I would love to have examples
thrown at me showing me to be wrong.
Kathleen
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
J. D. Berry
news:e6fc9551.03010...@posting.google.com...
> >And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be
> advised
> >to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
> >direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because
> >the narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be
> >by a static reader.
>
> ? You lost me (have pity on a lowly programmer). Isn't everything
> that results from a command going to be narrative of some sort?
Let me use an example.
There's a passage at the very end of Part I of
"Madame Bovary" (now, I'm only use this work as illustration
and not as comparison to works of IF.):
"One day, as she was tidying a drawer in readiness to leave,
she [Emma Bovary], pricked her finger on something. It was
the wire in her wedding-bouquet. The orange-blossom was yellow
with dust, and the silver-fringed satin ribbons were fraying at
the edges. She threw it on the fire. It burst into flame
quicker than dry straw. Then it was like a red bush on the
cinders, being gradually eaten away. She watched it burning. The
little imitation berries crackled, the wires twisted, the braid
melted; and the paper petals withering away, hovering in the
fireplace like black butterflies, finally vanished up in
the chimney."
A "beginning" reader would think, "yeah, OK, interesting description,
what's next?"
The "experienced" reader might speculate, "I wonder if
that was a metaphor for her marriage with Charles."
Had this been IF...
the player might UNDO because she probably needed the bouquet
later to solve a puzzle and has just made the game
UNWINNABLE. ;) She might "LOOK in FIREPLACE."
She might go back in the text looking for first-level
nouns to examine. Because of the responsibility of advancing
the story, she might just think "yeah, OK, interesting
description. Do I have to do anything else to advance the
story?" -- ending up with the same effect as the beginning reader
experienced.
Would Flaubert-as-IF-author needed to have funneled
the above interactively? I know there are people here who
don't like to read more than a few sentences at a time
or who want the fiction broken up into interactive bits.
(And, yes, I'm no Flaubert...)
> x drawer
Sifting through your clothes, you happen upon
your wedding-bouquet.
> get bouquet
Some of the brittle blossoms break as you pick it
up.
etc...
(I think they were using version 3 Inform libraries
back then, so factor that in... ;) )
What I was originally getting at, then, was, would
the beauty of Flaubert's paragraph lose anything
either in beauty or in conveying the metaphor.
I realize people like Andrew would be fine with the
full text as originally written, while simultaneously
being able to act as puzzle-solver and plot-mover.
Just wondered if that's the norm.
Jim
Joey Narcotic
> I think that puzzles and "literary content" probably aren't often
> found together in the same work - but I would love to have examples
> thrown at me showing me to be wrong.
You can get it in non-interactive fiction. Eg, Umberto Eco's fiction
is quite puzzle-based, but I wouldn't hesitate to call it literature.
It might be hard to get what I mean by that without having read Eco;
I'm thinking particularly of _Foucault's Pendulum_ here. This isn't
explaining it well, but there's a strong element of readers needing
to figure it out for themselves, rather than just following what they
are told as is usually the case.
I tend to think of literature as having more to do with beauty of
form and with emotional effect than with storytelling. It's as
slippery and hard to define as that elusive beast, Art.
But my own reckoning, whether IF has puzzles in it or not has little
bearing on whether it's literature or not. The integration of the
puzzles may have an effect, but not their mere presence. To take two
almost-random Galatea (my absolute favourite piece of IF, btw) and A
Change In the Weather are both literature, as far as I'm concerned.
Despite my preference for Galatea, A Change In the Weather's overall
structure is much more elegant. The writing in both instances, though
very different, is beautiful. They have almost nothing in common
other than being IF, but they're both literature to me.
Regards,
Joe
Kathleen
> "Kathleen" <mfis...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:e6fc9551.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be
> advised
> > >to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
> > >direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because
> > >the narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be
> > >by a static reader.
> >
> > ? You lost me (have pity on a lowly programmer). Isn't everything
> > that results from a command going to be narrative of some sort?
>
> Let me use an example.
>
> There's a passage at the very end of Part I of
> "Madame Bovary" (now, I'm only use this work as illustration
> and not as comparison to works of IF.):
<snip eloquent passage with bouquet of flowers and multiple levels of meaning>
> A "beginning" reader would think, "yeah, OK, interesting description,
> what's next?"
>
> The "experienced" reader might speculate, "I wonder if
> that was a metaphor for her marriage with Charles."
Yup, I'll buy that.
> Had this been IF...
> the player might UNDO because she probably needed the bouquet
> later to solve a puzzle and has just made the game
> UNWINNABLE. ;) She might "LOOK in FIREPLACE."
> She might go back in the text looking for first-level
> nouns to examine. Because of the responsibility of advancing
> the story, she might just think "yeah, OK, interesting
> description. Do I have to do anything else to advance the
> story?" -- ending up with the same effect as the beginning reader
> experienced.
Yup, as a player I would have done all of the above. :) I would hope
the author would supply equally compelling responses for LOOK IN
FIREPLACE.
> Would Flaubert-as-IF-author needed to have funneled
> the above interactively? I know there are people here who
> don't like to read more than a few sentences at a time
> or who want the fiction broken up into interactive bits.
> (And, yes, I'm no Flaubert...)
>
> > get bouquet
>
> Some of the brittle blossoms break as you pick it
> up.
>
> etc...
Sounds sort of familar... Wasn't there a game that did that? Something
about the sea and woman and a rose... name escapes me. :)
> What I was originally getting at, then, was, would
> the beauty of Flaubert's paragraph lose anything
> either in beauty or in conveying the metaphor.
Not if the paragraph was kept intact. I think, if the game had
positioned itself as a literary piece (cringes at the label - perhaps
story piece is better), then the original would be fine. If you
threw a paragraph like that into... oh... 9:05... then it would seem
out of place. You could make the same argument for movies as well -
the lovely voice over to start LotR would seem ludicrous at the
front of Die Another Day... even if there were crystal women swimming
in the background.
By the time the player reaches the bouquet passage in a "Madame Bovary"
game, they should be primed for it. Of course, that still doesn't prevent
then from trying THROW MASHED POTATOES AT CEILING, and spoiling the whole
effect - but that's another thread.
> I realize people like Andrew would be fine with the
> full text as originally written, while simultaneously
> being able to act as puzzle-solver and plot-mover.
>
> Just wondered if that's the norm.
I thought our bylaws specifically prevented having a norm.
Kathleen <thumbing through them and frowning>
MFischer5
>of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience also differ?
Yes. It has to differ, much as watching a baseball game isn't the same
experience as playing the game itself.
>IF mindset: solve the issues at hand. (A game mentality)
>
>If I'm a player, I'm likely to be the protagonist of the work. Achieving
>this character's goals and/or making the story progress are my top
>priorities. I'll be wrapped in the immediacy of the situation, just as the
>PC would. I, the player, may catch on to the story's overall theme
>while playing, but only when I've finished the game might I ponder its
>minor themes and metaphors.
Unless those themes are necessary for solving bits of the game.
>SF mindset: connect with the work itself. (An experience mentality)
>
>If I'm a reader, I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not the protagonist
>(although I may identify with him.) The story progresses as long as
>I keep reading. I therefore can spend my mental energies thinking
>about the nature of what has been presented and what its elements
>may represent. I'm likely to speculate on what will happen next, soon
>and much later. Also, I can get lost (in a good way) in the stream of
>consciousness, not worrying about a timer that will cause the story
>to end abruptly if I don't find the platinum key.
Right, and with that lack of control comes a lack of responsibility. You put
yourself in the hands of the author and hope it turns out alright. While that's
also true of IF, in IF more of the burden of the quality of the experience
shifts
to the player. Of course, a good book can have you racing through pages
to try to get to the end, ultimately requiring you to reread the book to
figure out what actually happened once you got there.
>does the burden of the protagonist's responsibilities affect the
>experience of the work-as-literature?
Of the protagonist responsibilties or of the players? Is the protagonist
so rushed the player can't afford to experience the world (as was complained
about of Prized Possession - "4 moves and you die unless you do something
right"),
or is the player rushing through the game and simply not taking the time
to look around (as I feel during many comp games - particularly large comp
games.) If it's the former, then it's bad game design. If it's the later then
it's an unfortunate side effect of the competitions 2 hour limitiation and
possibly
the fault, again, of the author for not keeping that in mind. Both cases would
obviously be a "Yes" answer to your question, and negatively so.
However, a clever author could turn that to their advantage, using that
adreneline rush to increase the literary bite of the game (by keeping the
player
focused and decreasing the players interest in fruitless, mimesis killing
actions (THROW POTATOES AT CEILING)), while still allowing them to feel in
charge of the play... a best of both worlds. A Yes, for the positive.
>If so, does this explain why a work of IF often gains on replay? The
>next time through (if there aren't vastly different paths), it's
>experienced on a static level (because progressing now becomes
>almost as simple as just reading).
No, not static - at least not in a good game. The first time through
I try to be mind reader - trying to find the "right" way that will lead to
the end. Interesting side paths bypassed as "too risky" the first time
through can be explored in depth on futher play. In fact, for a non-puzzle
game (as I inveriably end up try EVERYTHING anything before I find the
solution in a puzzle game), I find a second time is often MORE interactive,
as I'm no longer afraid of making a wrong turn and "ruining" it.
For me, Galatea was much more enjoyable the second time through.
>And, if so, (my main question, really), would the IF author be advised
>to focus themes and employ literary techniques through the PC's
>direct experiences rather than through the narrative. Because
>the narrative won't be processed and absorbed the way it would be
>by a static reader.
? You lost me (have pity on a lowly programmer). Isn't everything that
results from a command going to be narrative of some sort?
Kathleen
Jdyer41
>So maybe people should code in a makes_game_unwinnable variable that changes
>all text to red (or emphasized, or just print an error message, or SOMETHING)
>from then on, so that the player would _know_?
It has been done before in _Path to Fortune_ by CE Forman and Jeff Cassidy.
http://www.wurb.com/if/game/237
It is simply a *** You have made the game unwinnable *** prompt which can
be turned off if the user so desires.
I vaguely recall one other IF that does the same, but it is escaping my
memory. Anyone?
Jason Dyer
jdy...@aol.com
Lucian P. Smith
:>From: robo...@aol.com (Robotboy8)
'Nevermore' had a command ('>WINNABLE', IIRC) that would tell you if you
had put the game in an unsolvable state, and I don't think that was the
first to use this technique.
-Lucian
Gadget
wrote:
>: It is simply a *** You have made the game unwinnable *** prompt which can
>: be turned off if the user so desires.
>
>: I vaguely recall one other IF that does the same, but it is escaping my
>: memory. Anyone?
>
>'Nevermore' had a command ('>WINNABLE', IIRC) that would tell you if you
>had put the game in an unsolvable state, and I don't think that was the
>first to use this technique.
>
>-Lucian
How does this help? If the player forgets to check this he might play
on and on while never knowing if he may be wasting his time...
And typing WINNABLE after every move of consequence would break
mimesis considerably...
Daphne Brinkerhoff
_At Wit's End_ and _Zero Sum Game_ also had this feature -- in AWE the
"winnable" command, in ZSG the automatic warning. But I think someone
had tested ZSG by committing irrevocable acts, and it didn't warn
them. <searches>
Yep, it was Paul O'Brian:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/97rev2.html#zero
--
Daphne
Jaap van der Velde
<ke...@lysseus.com> wrote:
>> > If the mindset of an interactive fiction (IF) player differs from
>> > that of a static fiction (SF) reader, does the fictional experience
>> > also differ?
>> Is the IF mindset the same as raif's entrenched mentality?
>I suspect that this is indeed the case. One can perhaps equate the two
>through the transformational geometry of the GPL.
Stare into the trench and the trench will stare into you...
Grtz,
JAAP.
Rikard Peterson
> On 14 Jan 2003 15:03:58 GMT, "Lucian P. Smith" <lps...@rice.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>'Nevermore' had a command ('>WINNABLE', IIRC) that would tell you
>>if you had put the game in an unsolvable state, and I don't think
>>that was the first to use this technique.
>
> How does this help? If the player forgets to check this he might
> play on and on while never knowing if he may be wasting his
> time...
He wouldn't have to wonder if he's made something unwinnable every time
he's stuck. That's something I tend to do.
Rikard
Lucian P. Smith
: On 14 Jan 2003 15:03:58 GMT, "Lucian P. Smith" <lps...@rice.edu>
: wrote:
:>'Nevermore' had a command ('>WINNABLE', IIRC) that would tell you if you
:>had put the game in an unsolvable state, and I don't think that was the
:>first to use this technique.
:>
:>-Lucian
: How does this help? If the player forgets to check this he might play
: on and on while never knowing if he may be wasting his time...
: And typing WINNABLE after every move of consequence would break
: mimesis considerably...
The nice thing about 'winnable' is that it gives meta-information when
(and only when) the player is in the mood to get some meta-information. A
*Bzzt! That was Wrong!* message 'breaks mimesis' by inserting
meta-information in the middle of the gameflow, forcing the player to
switch mental gears. Later on, when the player is taking a mental respite
from acting out the character, and types, 'winnable', they don't have to
shift gears to process the information.
As for playing on without knowing they're 'wasting their time'--that's a
game design issue. Either you design the game so the player can
accomplish meaningful things even though they can't reach the optimal
ending (by gaining more information; experimenting with items or the
environment, etc.) or you try to push them back out of gameplay so they
realize they're stuck and go back to an earlier save. A 'Winnable'
command eases this transition.
But it's not an easy thing to pull off in a non-annoying way, which is why
so many games have moved to the 'you can always reach the ending' model.
(A good example of a game that *does* pull this off--without a 'winnable'
command, mind you--is 'So Far'. At least, it was for me.)
-Lucian
OKB (not okblacke)
> As for playing on without knowing they're 'wasting their
> time'--that's a game design issue. Either you design the game so
> the player can accomplish meaningful things even though they can't
> reach the optimal ending (by gaining more information;
> experimenting with items or the environment, etc.) or you try to
> push them back out of gameplay so they realize they're stuck and go
> back to an earlier save.
I guess that's potentially true, but I think it's just as
possible in practice that the unwinnable state crops up accidentally.
That is, the author hadn't intended to allow "important" stuff to happen
after victory was blocked, but whoops, he forgot to make sure that the
player picked up the cheez key before the space station exploded, and
now it (along with the key) has indeed exploded and you can go on doing
all the meaningful actions you would have done otherwise, except when
you get to the very end where the cheez door is you'll find you're
totally blocked.
This may not even be an accident, but more of an indifference on
the part of the author. ("If the player gets herself into an unwinnable
situation, that's her problem.") Obviously the author CAN take this
issue on consciously, but I think that it's much easier to avoid doing
so. That is, unwinnable situations sort of crop up organically in
writing games, whereas always-winnable games don't really, so unless he
makes a special point of caring, he's likely to produce a potentially
unwinnable game.
Most likely this means the game author should make an effort in
this area, but I'm just saying there's an important third case besides
the two you mentioned.
--
--OKB (not okblacke)
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is
no path, and leave a trail."
--author unknown
Zachary H.
which all there is to do is start the game and hit the space bar 100
times cycling through 100 'more' prompts. Is that still a game?
If you answer no, then some sort of delaying technique is needed to
make it IF. Puzzles. I would argue that from the point of the casual
novel reader, even moving from room to room, the most basic of all IF
commands or techniques is a puzzle, because the question is
essentially: can I win the game from this room or do I have to type
'north'.
By claiming the above, I am saying that the responsibility of the
player (i.e. puzzles) is also part of the story. The text one reads
and the actions one takes are the whole of the experience. If the
player merely scans the text for words he might employ in his next
command, he is focusing more on the interaction and less on the
fiction. However, the concept that the fiction is literature in spite
of the responsibility is bogus. The two are inseperable from that
point of view (but not necessarily from the other). If, you were to
write say an IF game of Crime and Punishment, the text taken straight
from the novel, but you focused the players action
upon..say...something mundane and completely beyond the themes of the
novel...like finding a key to a chest where the axe is hidden or
combining all the ingredients to make the protagonist a cup of coffee
would be to destroy the 'literature.' Even though all the text is the
same.
Claiming to write a puzzle game, or even a puzzle game with a good
story, is entirely different from writing a story one can move through
personally. For the former, the puzzles are the story...the
latter...the story is the puzzle.
If you are attempting to write literature as IF, and I can only speak
on that in terms of what has already been declared literature, meaning
classic works, then everything ought to focus the players attention
upon the situation. Admittedly, the verbs in standard IF libraries
focus more upon action in the sense of doing, than experience. They
are geared toward puzzle games. I wouldn't categorize all action
within a game as necessarily 'responsibility' in the sense it detracts
from the flow of the narrative. If Raskolnikov enters the old ladys
apartment building to kill her and suddenly finds himself in a
maze...then yes, the theme is lost in a senseless responsibility.
But I do think the last question you posed brings into focus an
extremely difficult subject for IF, which novels on the otherhand have
little structural problem with...motivation.
As players we begin a game with a predisposed motivation to see the
final credits, but it is difficult to create an in-game motivation for
every move the player must make. Obviously, it is near impossible and
has to be left most of the time to the default "I-gotta-finish-this"
motivation. However, a good formula would be to view it on a chapter
level, which might bring into focus the themes and the story to a
greater degree.
To do that, I would suggest the structure in which the story is the
puzzle to each chapter, but each chapter's mystery, its puzzle, is
uncovered by a series of relevant object/item/move/action puzzles. In
other words, from a hierarchical view, an action puzzle should lead
back to, or to greater understanding of, the question concerning the
story in each section. A puzzle that leads directly to another puzzle
is redundant as far as the story is concerned and should be avoided if
the author is concerned with his work as 'literature.' Personally,
instead of 'literature' I'd just say that the author is more concerned
with telling a story, than stumping you with a game. Literature is too
loaded.
And don't take any of this to signify contempt for puzzle games. I
know many don't think they are the fashion, but I still like them.
They are usually less bogged down.
Kathleen
news:b5eb7bcb.03011...@posting.google.com
> For all practical purposes one could upload a 'game' to the archive in
> which all there is to do is start the game and hit the space bar 100
> times cycling through 100 'more' prompts. Is that still a game?
Do all uploads to the archive have to be games?
> If you answer no, then some sort of delaying technique is needed to
> make it IF. Puzzles.
I disagree... and I'll explain in a second...
> I would argue that from the point of the casual
> novel reader, even moving from room to room, the most basic of all IF
> commands or techniques is a puzzle, because the question is
> essentially: can I win the game from this room or do I have to type
> 'north'.
What about pieces where there is no winning, or even an end (JDBerry's
_Ribbons_ comes to mind). What about games where there really aren't
any puzzles and no matter WHAT you do, the game ends (_Aisle_)?
> Claiming to write a puzzle game, or even a puzzle game with a good
> story, is entirely different from writing a story one can move through
> personally. For the former, the puzzles are the story...the
> latter...the story is the puzzle.
But are they really so different? In both cases you could think of
the player as being required to manipulate something for the piece
to continue. The nature of the manipulation (objects/people/text)
determines how people with catagorize the piece (game/story).
> But I do think the last question you posed brings into focus an
> extremely difficult subject for IF, which novels on the otherhand have
> little structural problem with...motivation.
Yup... that's a toughie.
> As players we begin a game
... there's that word again...
> with a predisposed motivation to see the
> final credits, but it is difficult to create an in-game motivation for
> every move the player must make. Obviously, it is near impossible and
> has to be left most of the time to the default "I-gotta-finish-this"
> motivation. However, a good formula would be to view it on a chapter
> level, which might bring into focus the themes and the story to a
> greater degree.
I've tried to do that with my last few pieces** (though I consider them
to be more scenes than chapters). The problem you can run into - and
one which I never resolved - is that you end with a piece that feels
on rails. It's not easy (at least it wasn't for me) to figure out
how to allow freedom of movement for the player but still constrain
them to a "chapter" (or scene). The more the author tries to enforce
the story (as the author sees it), the less choice the player ultimately
has.
After several attempts, I've decided that path is "doomed" (at least
as I've implemented it) and I'm trying a different approach with
with my current WIP.
Kathleen
** Masquerade and Prized Possession
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
J. D. Berry
> is redundant as far as the story is concerned and should be avoided if
> the author is concerned with his work as 'literature.' Personally,
> instead of 'literature' I'd just say that the author is more concerned
> with telling a story, than stumping you with a game. Literature is too
> loaded.
I wasn't intending the snotty meaning of the word "literature".
Story-telling and the literary elements used to achieve that was what
I was going for. So I lumped them all under that word.
But I agree that the word is loaded. And only now do I realize
the cringes, especially in this group, it might have caused. But, really,
I was just trying to spur some discussion on how to make better
IF in general. And better writing usually equals better games.
Jim
Joe Mason
> For all practical purposes one could upload a 'game' to the archive in
> which all there is to do is start the game and hit the space bar 100
> times cycling through 100 'more' prompts. Is that still a game?
A good example is "Journey to Alpha Centauri (In Real Time)". It's what
the title says. Is it a game?
Joe
Jdyer41
>>>So maybe people should code in a makes_game_unwinnable variable that changes
>>>all text to red (or emphasized, or just print an error message, or
SOMETHING)
>>>from then on, so that the player would _know_?
>> It has been done before in _Path to Fortune_ by CE Forman and Jeff Cassidy.
>> http://www.wurb.com/if/game/237
>'Nevermore' had a command ('>WINNABLE', IIRC) that would tell you if you
>had put the game in an unsolvable state, and I don't think that was the
>first to use this technique.
I vaguely recall this newsgroup had discussion of the feature some time
before Path to Fortune but Path to Fortune was the first to implement it.
Then again, I haven't played *everything*. Some early IF can be surprising.
Anyone have an earlier candidate (than 1995)?
What are the ways things can be made unwinnable?
- Left an item behind/didn't perform an action in a section that can no longer
be
reached
- Broke something
- Used a one-shot item in the wrong place (try Return to Doom for some
interesting examples of this)
- Forgot/didn't write down information necessary later (not trivial, for
instance
Journey has a really nasty bit with that)
- Missed something in timing (all of Change in the Weather, really)
- Countdown with not enough time (say, Varicella)
For timing and countdown instances the unwinnable prompt doesn't make much
sense -- by the time you get it even if you could win backing up one step you'd
have
to make every move perfect thereafter.
Of course the game can't check if you've been writing down information.
If you've got "one-shot item in the wrong place" puzzles unwinnable prompts
defeat their purpose.
If you leave an item behind, the unwinnable prompt gives no clue as to what
was left behind, or if it wasn't leaving something behind but you had to push
the
red button.
So, out of this list, the only completely acceptable prompting would be for
'broke something',
but then it's usually obvious the game is unwinnable.
Jason Dyer
jdy...@aol.com
Mike Sousa
I've included a WINNABLE system command in all my releases. At first
blush it doesn't appear to be a big deal to code -- but it is. The only
time the WINNABLE command is executed without player intervention is
when the meta-command SAVE is attempted. Saving an unwinnable game just
didn't make any sense to me.
-- Mike
Kevin Forchione
news:3E2C0866...@attbi.com...
> Lucian P. Smith wrote:
> > Jdyer41 <jdy...@aol.com> wrote in
<20030114014052...@mb-mm.aol.com>:
> > :>From: robo...@aol.com (Robotboy8)
> >
> blush it doesn't appear to be a big deal to code -- but it is. The only
> time the WINNABLE command is executed without player intervention is
> when the meta-command SAVE is attempted. Saving an unwinnable game just
> didn't make any sense to me.
Well... I should rather think it depends on how dramatic the *losing* is.
I pose the question - can a work of Fiction, even an Interactive one, be
_dramatic_ if there is no possibility of losing
_the_boon_that_is_being_sought_?
In which case, by removing the possibility of loss programmatically from a
game/story, aren't we removing it psychologically from the player's mind as
well, and consequently diluting the dramatic tension of the story?
Shouldn't the losing of a game be as enjoyable as the winning?
--Kevin
Rikard Peterson
news:ivYW9.13$si...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
>> first blush it doesn't appear to be a big deal to code -- but it
>> is. The only time the WINNABLE command is executed without
>> player intervention is when the meta-command SAVE is attempted.
>> Saving an unwinnable game just didn't make any sense to me.
IMHO that's a good idea. (Your system, I mean.)
> I pose the question - can a work of Fiction, even an Interactive
> one, be _dramatic_ if there is no possibility of losing
> _the_boon_that_is_being_sought_?
>
> In which case, by removing the possibility of loss
> programmatically from a game/story, aren't we removing it
> psychologically from the player's mind as well, and consequently
> diluting the dramatic tension of the story?
That partly depends on the definition of losing. Let me take a very
popular book as an example: The Lord of the Rings. I can be pretty
certain that Frodo won't die in the first two books, since the story
is about him and I know the story is divided into three books. That
doesn't stop me from being afraid for his life when he's attacked.
I could say that it's the same thing in a game. I don't find the
story weaker just beacuse I know that I will be able to experience
the whole story to the end (if I can solve the problems that are in
my way). If I were to compare the game with a book, losing would be
similar to losing by bookmark and having to read it all over from the
start.
In case you haven't guessed it yet, I generally prefer games where a
WINNABLE command always would return true. There are obvious
exceptions to the rule, but I don't think a game loses anything by
not having dead ends.
> Shouldn't the losing of a game be as enjoyable as the winning?
No, it shouldn't. Then what would the point of winning be? Losing a
game can be enjoyable, but never as enjoyable as winning unless
there's something wrong about the game.
Rikard
Mike Sousa
>
> I pose the question - can a work of Fiction, even an Interactive one, be
> _dramatic_ if there is no possibility of losing
> _the_boon_that_is_being_sought_?
>
> In which case, by removing the possibility of loss programmatically from a
> game/story, aren't we removing it psychologically from the player's mind as
> well, and consequently diluting the dramatic tension of the story?
>
> Shouldn't the losing of a game be as enjoyable as the winning?
>
> --Kevin
>
Good point. However, I think there's a difference between allowing the
player to get to the "You have died" message without the program warning
you vs. letting the player do irreparable damage (such as saving a game
that cannot be won). Then there are some games that never let you get
to the "You have died" message. I've written both types and I prefer
death -- sorta gives the game a bit of an edge. (by the by, death =
game over)
There are relatively few players today and with time being at a premium,
I made the choice of saving the game for them. You can certainly argue
that by having this safety net it does dilute the dramatic tension of
the story. Spoiler for "Till Death..." in the next paragraph.
There is a scene that gives the player one shot of opening a door which
leads to an escape. If the player doesn't do the right action, the game
will do it for them, thus continuing the scene. Of course, having the
PC die was not an option (plot-wise) so the game needed to account for
that. But by having no possibility of death, the sense of urgency is
definitely diminished... (now, one could argue that the player doesn't
know that they can't die, but I'm not talking as the player)
Anyway, having no possibility of losing is not what I meant to convey.
Anyone that has played "At Wit's End" knows all too well that the "You
have died" message can pop up way too often. However, if you're about
to save the game 1 turn before that message is preparing to display, the
game will warn you. FWIW, I've actually received positive feedback on
this feature.
I think your initial question is aimed more at games that will never
produce the "You have died" message...
-- Mike
Mike Roberts
> I pose the question - can a work of Fiction, even an Interactive
> one, be _dramatic_ if there is no possibility of losing _the_boon_
> _that_is_being_sought_?
>
> In which case, by removing the possibility of loss programmatically
> from a game/story, aren't we removing it psychologically from the
> player's mind as well, and consequently diluting the dramatic
> tension of the story?
This is certainly at the heart of the question of what "interactive" really
means, and I think it underlies a lot of the recurring design debates here
(ask/tell vs. menu conversations, should it be possible for the player
character to die, are motivational/moral/ethical boundaries good or bad). I
think this is a more complicated question than it's commonly taken to be,
though, and I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for the contrarian
answer to your question.
Let me start by pointing out that you could think of static fiction as a
sort of degenerate case of interactive fiction, where the interaction has
been reduced to the *MORE* prompt. In a book or a movie, there's no way for
the viewer to affect the outcome; everything that happens has been
determined by the author, and there's no possibility of any variation. And
yet it's been well demonstrated that it's possible to have drama in static
fiction. Clearly, the viewer's control over events is not the source of the
drama.
You could argue that in static fiction, it's the viewer's uncertainty that
gives rise to the dramatic tension. Yes, the book or movie has been fixed
in its medium, the events set down, the fate of the characters a certainty;
but until the readers reads the book or the viewer views the movie, she
doesn't know what's going to happen. For the viewer, the events unfold as
they're viewed, and the tension comes from not knowing what comes next.
But I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Consider this: have
you ever watched a movie or read a book more than once? The experience
re-reading or re-watching something isn't exactly the same as the first time
through, so the not-knowing is certainly worth something; but, at least for
me, repeated viewings are definitely not completely free of dramatic
tension. There are a few movies and TV show episodes that I've seen so many
times that I know exactly what happens in minute detail, and yet every so
often, I'll be watching one of these yet again and I'll catch myself
experiencing anxiety or some other vicarious emotional response, and I'll
think to myself: you *know* they're going to get out of this safely, you
even know exactly how and when they get out of it safely, so why all the
nervous tension? Maybe I'm the only one with this defective capacity for
re-experiencing vicarious emotion on repeat viewings, but I very much doubt
it, because I don't think so many people would go back to see the same movie
again and again if they didn't get anything emotional out of the repeat
viewings.
For an analogy from static fiction that's perhaps even closer to the
always-winnable IF game, consider series television. If you're watching a
weekly action series, you know with very high confidence that the main
characters are going to get out of whatever bind they get into, and you can
even predict when they're going to get out of it, certainly to five-minute
precision but often better. Does this rob series TV of all dramatic
tension? A little, maybe, but not all.
So here's my theory. You're absolutely right that dramatic tension requires
some sort of uncertainty, some danger of loss or danger of failure. But I
think that that uncertainty and that danger is, and has to be, entirely
internal to the story's world, not part of the outside world that contains
the viewer and the book. And not part of the outside world that contains
the player and the computer: so the number of possible ways the story can
play out on the computer isn't relevant, because it's not part of the world
where the drama happens. I think this is the only way repeat viewings or
series television could possibly be rewarding; in the outside world, you
know that the story is set in stone and can only play out one way, and you
might even know exactly what way that is, but the joy comes from putting
yourself into the story's world where the dice have yet to be thrown.
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com