[MoriartyL]

Yep, I'm going to go on another rant on terminology. (At least I won't be inventing any new words this time.)

Interactive Fiction. It's such a broad term. Literally, it is any story, world or character which is fictional and can be interacted with. The usage, I do not really need to point out, is not like that.

And why? We've already got a perfectly good descriptor for that type of game: "Text Adventures". Is there something wrong with calling it by a name which makes its connection to graphical adventures plain to see? Is the text adventure the only good way, or the best way, to present fiction interactively? That sort of judgement call is subjective, and absolutely should not be allowed to be put into our (somewhat) objective vocabulary.

What is this like? Imagine we used the term "Digital Entertainment" from this day on to refer only to first-person shooters. So on the one hand, DE fans would be proud to have their favorite hobby so objectively declared as the only digital entertainment that matters. But on the other hand, this misuse of language would prevent people from talking about the real subject!

Or to get even more extreme, let's say we took the broad term "Electronic Arts", and then limited it (so that no one could talk about the real subject) to mean just licensed trash churned out by- ummm.. pretend I didn't write this paragraph.

I think the real issue is snobbery. "Our art form is better than all your lower crass commercial entertainment. We have nothing to do with any sort of Industry!- and never mind that it came from the same place as commercial adventures, we'll just change the terminology to sever that tie to the rest of the world." This elitist attitude can be seen not only in the title, but also in text adventure writers' refusal (to their detriment) to use anything which even remotely resembles anything commercial.

I'll give an example. Have you ever read a book in which it tells you that the character went down the street by saying "He went northwest."? Have you ever seen a movie where a compass is shown at the top of the screen so you know where the character's going? For that matter, have you ever walked around your neighborhood using a compass?! No, because you can see where you're going. The character can see where he's going.

How would this be done in a text adventure? Very very simply, as long as you're not obsessed with hiding from the rest of the world- you show the area graphically, in an extremely primitive top-down view. Just a simple, black-and-white map of the area to give you some sense of where everything that's being described in the text is located. The character would be represented as a little black dot in the middle. And then, to move, you don't write "nw", because then you're controlling a robot operating by GPS and not a human character who is aware of his surroundings. Instead, you use the arrow keys (what a revolutionary idea!) to move the character on the map, and as you move the text changes to reflect what you're walking near.

It would be much less clunky, it wouldn't lessen the strength of the text parser, it would be less disorienting for the player, and most of all it would give more artistic freedom. (The writer could then decide to create any kind of world to describe in his text, and not just the kind of design which can easily be navigated blindly with a compass.) And it'll never happen. Why? Because the people writing text adventures refuse to acknowledge that they are adventures, because the people writing text adventures have put themselves in a stone tower called "Interactive Fiction".

[Kurufinwe]

I won't comment on the ideas you're offering to improve text adventure, as I don't play them, and therefore would not really be qualified to say anything. I'm not sure I see the connection between calling oneself interactive fiction and not using a graphical map, though.

Now, one thing I do agree with is with the phrase "interactive fiction" being inappropriate. "Text adventure" would probably be more accurate, especially since, from what I understand (but I might be wrong) many IF games are not more interactive story-wise (i.e. the player is just solving his was through the story, not choosing his path and modifying the story) than graphic adventures (most of which fail superbly in that department; well, "fail" is probably not the right word, since they don't even try -- but I'm rambling).

BUT I'm not going to follow you on "IF" being used out of elitism. It's not that I disagree -- I just don't know! I mean, when you think about it, "adventure game" is just an inappropriate a phrase; in the real-world sense of the word, Tomb Raider is far more of an adventure than, say, Leisure Suit Larry. But adventure games are not called adventure games because they are especially adventury, or out of a selfish desire to keep the phrase all to themselves, but simply because they follow the same mechanics as the original Adventure (a.k.a. Colossal Cave) -- a text adventure, by the way. So maybe the reason for IFs to call themselves IF is something similar? Does anyone know the etymology of the phrase?

[MoriartyL]

Granted, "adventure" does cause tons of problems on its own. So do you think they switched to the equally problematic "IF" just to get away from all those problems? Could be.

Graphical maps were just a random example of what could be achieved if they left what I perceive as their attempts to pretend they are not connected to the commercial world of adventures (and games in general). I certainly could be wrong- if so, I'd very much like to hear some differing opinions.

[Kurufinwe]

Yes, I hope people more knowledgeable on the matter than I are going to reply, because I'd certainly be interested in seeing a discussion on the implication of "IF", and whether this means that they see themselves more as literature than as games (which seems to be one of your main points, right?). This could make for a very interesting discussion.

[RLacey]

If I was at home I'd dig out a copy of Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages and subject you to his little rant about the term "text adventure" (complete with pretentious use of the term "interactor" rather than "player"). Personally I prefer the term "text adventure", though I can understand the argument against it, if not the argument in favour of "Interactive Fiction".

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

...just a random example of what could be achieved if they left what I perceive as their attempts to pretend they are not connected to the commercial world of adventures (and games in general).

I'm playing some (IF) games from time to time myself, and there is some interesting stuff going on. I don't have any knowledge in programming such games, but it could very well be that features like the one you are describing aren't that easy to implement. Most authors are using the Inform library to create their games, and since it's THE universal language of IF greatness and, ... enough of this! Of course you're right (well, in a way).

Yeah, navigating through the world of an (IF) game might be archaic, it might be kind of tiresome, limited, sometimes even plain silly. But it's what people are used to (since like 1899), it's what people absolutely LOVE to see (otherwise it wouldn't be a true IF game, right?), and it's what people have come to expect (since like 174... oh, we've been there before). Hey, sounds very much like what's going on in adventure gaming to me.


PS: wasn't "Colossal Cave" just Crowther's attempt to create something neat that got heavily inspired by his love for, oh my GOD, D&D adventuring? Or... something? Wowzers! Put a silly label onto a good idea and that's where the whole mess usually starts.

*runs*

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

it's what people absolutely LOVE to see (otherwise it wouldn't be a true IF game, right?)

So are you suggesting that games like Aisle (and the better examples that slip my mind at the moment) aren't IF?

Seriously, though, I'm going to agree with Sam here. I genuinely don't see the point in changing a system that works for one that would work differently, but, in my opinion, no better. I really fail to understand how moving a dot around a black and white map using the cursor keys is somehow more involving and realistic than using compass directions, and I don't see the point in changing something like this within a niche genre; it's not going to make Interactive Fiction more popular, and it may well annoy those used to the present system.

[MoriartyL]

I never said it was more "involving and realistic"; I just said it's not as primitive and it unties the hands of the designer. That's all. But this isn't really about navigation systems; it's about why text adventures have to be seen as separate from the rest of the world. I don't understand why you wouldn't welcome a graphical navigation system, but fine- that's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point is that no one is benefitting from this isolation.

The problem I have is more about the psychological and social implications than it is about the practical problem of "Why don't I get to walk around in text adventures without being given such a headache?". As I said, no one benefits from pretending text adventures are an island in the middle of nowhere. And the term "interactive fiction" reinforces this notion by ignoring the heritage of the text adventure and encouraging its fans to believe that it is the only type of interactive fiction that matters. Therefore (and without even getting into how it ties our hands when talking about the literal interactive fiction) we should not use it. That is the point.

[MoriartyL]

(Took me a while to find my point there.)

[AFGNCAAP]

Meh. What exactly IS the supposed problem with the term? That it's misleading if taken literally? Every genre label I know of can be, except maybe First Person Shooters. Why single out IFs?

What I find much more interesting are the different opinions on what it actually describes. Some will claim it refers to just all modern text games, others "retcon" it to old games by Infocom et al, as long as they were text-only; yet others to each adventure game which required typing commands (so King's Quest I EGA would be a piece of Interactive Fiction, while its VGA remake - wouldn't). There is also an idea to label "old school" games - "text adventures" and more experimental ones, with little emphasis on puzzling - "interactive fiction". I don't think such distinction is warranted, though (but I've been admittedly out of touch with IF in the last couple of years: if the majority evolved into either story-heavy experiences stories or "old school" puzzlers, with virtually no middle-ground games, dividing the text games into two separate genres might make sense).

As for the compass issue: there have been games that abandoned that feature, either completely or for a certain portion of the game where it didn't fit. I certainly have nothing against such experiments. I'm not sure I get your problem, though. That it's unrealistic for you to know what lies in which direction? Given that in nine out of ten cases the game will give you clear explanation what the exits from the location are, eg. "There is a tiny hut to the west. A ladder leads up to its roof. A road follows northeast ", what's the practical difference between typing "west"/"up"/"northeast" and "enter house"/"climb ladder"/"follow road"?

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

What's the practical difference between typing "west"/"up"/"northeast" and "enter house"/"climb ladder"/"follow road"?

The former deals with absolute directions which have no connection to the story, while the latter deals with objects and concepts which are a part of the story. So the former is a distraction from the story, while the latter serves the story. That seems like a pretty big difference to me. But I don't think "follow road" is practical- with more complex environments, that is not specific enough. Follow the road in which direction? That's why I proposed the graphical system. However, this is just an academic discussion, because I don't believe anything like this will be implemented any time soon.


Getting back to the point:

What exactly IS the supposed problem with the term?

1. It implies that text adventures are the only interactive fiction that matters, which could devalue all other types of interactive fiction in the eyes of TA fans.
2. The literal usage of "interactive fiction" is very useful, and allowing it to be defined as a synonym to TA limits our speech and forces even great game designers like David Cage to look for inadequate and limiting terms like "interactive drama" (which excludes comedy) or "story-centered games" (which excludes fictional characters outside of a larger plot).
3. By taking out the word "adventure", it suggests that interactive fiction has no heritage, which could lead to ignorance and the belief that little that graphical adventures have done is applicable to text adventures.
4. To take the general idea of 3 further, the word "game" does not fit in at the end of "interactive fiction" as you might say "textual adventure game" or "real-time strategy game". The implication is that text adventures should not be seen as games, and because of this implication no one will look to other types of games' successes to learn how to make better text adventures. Again, ignorance. (It also makes it a tough sell to other gamers, because it excludes them.)

Every genre label I know of can be, except maybe First Person Shooters. Why single out IFs?

Well, that's definitely an exaggeration (Simulation, RTS, FPS, sports game, flight, stealth action, etc. all are good, sensible labels.), but I see your point. I have personally (much to other's annoyance, and with very little social sense) made an effort to ignore the popularly-accepted terminology whenever it doesn't make sense. I understand full well that I'll never effect a change in those areas, so I do this only for myself. Here, however, I'm asking you to change the terminology you use. I'm singling out TAs because here very little change is proposed: We already have a perfectly usable label ("text adventure") which we are all already comfortable with! We don't need this bad term, so it is not asking much to say that we should do without it.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

We already have a perfectly usable label ("text adventure") which we are all already comfortable with!

There's a significant subsection of the IF development community that would strongly deny that they are making "games" or, at the least, "adventures". The whole reason that they changed the term in the first place is that they weren't comfortable with the term "text adventure".

[MoriartyL]

I absolutely agree that they object to it- that is why I bring up the issue of snobbery. They see "games" as inferior, they see "adventures" as inferior. This is a problem. TAs are adventures. TAs are games. Neither one of these statements is a value judgement. And we should keep value judgements from infecting our language when it comes to classification.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by RLacey

So are you suggesting that games like Aisle (and the better examples that slip my mind at the moment) aren't IF?

Dear Mr. Robert Lacey,

You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[stinking_dylan]

I agree, IF is and odd label for text adventures, and came about quite late in their life as I remember, mainly due to snobbery as you suggest. A better phrase would have been 'interactive novel'.

As for the use of graphics, top down maps and compasses in text adventures. Do you ever see these being used in fiction? Would you have prefered Tolkiens LotR if they had a map on every facing page showing the location and orientation of the party? The whole point of text adventures is that they are interactive novels. You read them and communicate back in text, so the whole game takes place in your imagination only.

Even the inclusion of pictures lessens the experience for some. Ever read a book which had the occasional illustration? Did you find the illustration kind of spoiled what you were reading because it looked nothing like what was going on in your head?

[stinking_dylan]

Also, little maps which allow cursor key movement, and the other stuff suggested, has all been tried before in text games. They never took off.

You CAN type 'enter house', 'follow stream north', 'climb ladder', 'go through the green door', 'get out of the car' in text games. Only the most primitive of parsers will not understand sentences such as that. Inform will accept those statements.

And Colossal cave was an experiment at an interactive map. It's a genuine cave system in America somewhere. I don't think it has a troll in there though. =)

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by stinking_dylan

Even the inclusion of pictures lessens the experience for some. Ever read a book which had the occasional illustration? Did you find the illustration kind of spoiled what you were reading because it looked nothing like what was going on in your head?

Not really- I'm thinking of Alice in Wonderland and other children's books, and I can't think of an example of it spoiling anything. But that really doesn't matter- I'm not talking about illustrations, just a very basic outline of the street/room. You still need the text to tell you what it looks like, what all the buildings are, what all the rooms are, etc. So I don't see how it changes anything except making it easier to navigate.

But I don't see why you're arguing- I'm not saying this should be the standard, just that it is a good possibility which is being ignored because of the current attitude displayed. If the TA community were less exclusionary, I think a lot of writers would come up with systems like this and find good ways of using them. If someone sees that this option is available to him and chooses not to use it, I've got no problem with that- I just probably won't play his game, because I can't stand textual navigation.

[Gordon Bennett]

"Interactive fiction" was the name Infocom used for their text adventures. They created the term as a way to emphasize the storytelling aspect of the game, and because it is more familiar sounding and easier to understand than "text adventure" is to someone who has never played a computer game, or only knows them from the arcades.

Take a look at any of their boxes. They all have it written on them. This is one of their ads, which mimics the box cover:



(I posted this instead of a box scan, because it is a smaller image)

[stuboy]

Given that people have to make their own maps to play TAs, I agree, yes, automatic maps (not pictures, maps) would be a helpful addition to many TAs. I'm also put off playing TAs because let's be honest, text parsers have never really worked properly.

[Ariel Type]

It is history. You can't change it!