I’ve been thinking about some of the issues in this essay for some time, and I don’t have all the answers. Part of the reason I’m writing this is to see contrasting opinions.
==The influence of typing==
I’ve noticed that certain types of interactions work very well in parser games, and others do not. Parser games traditionally tend to favor ‘aha’ moment puzzles, exploration, and story-heavy sequences that guide you on what step to take next.
Parser games traditionally do poorly with randomized combat and other CRPG-type things. Kerkerkruip is perhaps the most successful in this area. Parser games also do poorly with any kind of repetitive gameplay (like grinding), even though repetition is central to many other game types.
I’ve realized that both of these facts may be related to the cost of typing. Most game systems let you interact with a single button press, but typing commands takes much more mental and physical effort. This means that every command needs to count. Puzzles like the letter-remover in Counterfeit Monkey or finding the right color to use in Coloratura involve a lot of mental effort followed by a single, high-yield command. On the other hand, there was an IFComp game a few years ago where you had to go down a street and deliver a newspaper to 8 different people, talking to each of them, every day for a week, and this involved a lot of typing of arduous commands.
The exceptions are directional commands (n,e,s,w) and other fast commands (i,x,l). These are so easy to type that you can, in fact, recreate console-type gameplay. I experimented with this in Ether, and many other people have included fast-paced directional commands in their games.
Hadean Lands is a pleasure to play because it avoids the time-cost of typing by automating actions for you. Other games lower time cost by adding short cuts (A for ASK in some Emily Short games, and so on).
Edit: Story-driven games also have a high yield per command, because the commands are easy to guess and generally result in a large amount of exposition.
==Lack of graphical feedback==
The time-cost of combat in text RPGs can be reduced, and has been in many games, but such games still remain unpopular (outside of Kerkerkruip and perhaps a few others). Why? Such games tend to focus on numerical scores, and it can be difficult to gauge the effects of your actions.
This has long been addressed in console games. In those games, critical hits are shown in larger fonts, perhaps shaking the screen or your controller. Colors change to indicate low health or status effects. And it’s easy to judge the effectiveness of attacks when you can see ice shards raining down on a fire elemental.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and without graphical effects, it is difficult for players to keep up with combat. Even Fallen London uses graphics such as bars shooting up or down to emphasize the effects of your actions.
For a parser combat system, or (even easier) for a Twine game, finding a way to visually represent the results of your actions would make any RPG more effective, whether through bolding and italicizing, color choices, font changes, or other text effects.
Edit: Other repetitive actions can have a similar effect; it can be difficult to judge whether the response text changed at all, and so it can incur a large reading cost if you have to repeat an action many times in a row.
==Conclusion==
The traditional style of parser games is affected by the greater cost of each command, and by the lack of quick visual feedback on actions. Typing shortcuts and visual text effects can enhance a non-traditional parser game.
I’d be interested in hearing any feedback you all have on these ideas.