intfiction.org

Hey! I am currently completely and absolutely stuck at the end of Cave Story, thank you very much. (Intermediate ending.) Did get stuck for a long time at four other points, but eventually made it through:



What kills is me is 3D stuff, at least Lugaru and most Unity-based jumping games. I can't deal with anything that makes me fight enemies with the keys while I'm fighting the camera with the mouse. I really thought Jonathan Blow whiffed on this point.

Another issue is that real-time games demand all of my attention for a considerable length of time. With IF, I can listen to music while I'm playing, and even switch back and forth between that and other things at my leisure. If I'm playing say Aquaria (or even Don't Take It Personally or Your Life Flashes), I have to block out time to do just that. Of course here IF is no different from books.

Oh, I should have said, "like matt w but even worse" then. I have a hard time even watching 3D games.

Also, oh man I watched my boyfriend attempt that Cave Story ending at least ten times on two separate occasions before I wandered away. He did defeat it after a few more attempts, and then went back in to try for the hard ending just a few days later. He eventually gave up and watched a speed run video. Good luck!

Well, in a way there's a serious point -- if you just can't play a style of game, you won't get into it at all; like a novel written in a language you can't read. But even if you're moderately competent at the style, or with the basic mechanics, you can still get absolutely stuck. That's when it's like a novel where some of the pages are glued together.

Now I don't want to stand for any side, but RPGs and FPSs are being so recurrently mentioned that I think It's worth to state just one historical fact: IF's battle to stay in the video-game market was fought, and lost, more than 20 years ago. If it survives today is, among many other reasons, 'cause its current audience is not exclusively searching for that video-gaming experience. That doesn´t mean IF shouldn't be considered a ludical, enjoyable affair. In fact, when someone at job has some spare time and asks for something fun to do, I usually mention Violet or Lost Pig provided the person is fluent in written English, no matter wether she is aware of IF at all or not. Unexpectedly my suggest has worked succesfully at least a couple of times!
I could dig deeper into that, but I've been acting as an IF author recently so my point of view is clearly biased and I don't want to distort this thread.
Just remember all of you, to make your focus clearer, that, interactivity or not, it's not about video-games anymore.

--

_________________
English posts in my blog!

Well, I don't see adventure games in general discussed in this context. Why should anyone play Syberia, Monkey Island or The Longest Journey instead of Half Life? Because of the differences in the way you handle your weapons, battle tactics and armor?

Answer that question first. Then you can go on and ask the question of why someone should play Lost Pig instead of Monkey Island. And why "instead"? Can't someone play both?

I missed this before, but this is not my point. In real-time games, you can know exactly what to do and still be stuck, because you can't do it, because you're not good at dealing with the mechanics. That doesn't (usually?) come up in text games, where there isn't a separation between the mechanics and knowing what to do. (Well, sometimes you know what to do and can't guess the verb

The question of getting stuck with the mechanics seems to me separate from the question of having ambient happenings versus pausing for the command prompt. When I'm in the groove in IF, the command prompt doesn't register much more than I consciously register turning pages in an absorbing book.

These discussions happen all the time on gaming forums. For Monkey Island, the focus is usually on the fact that you can't really die and the humor elements (such as the insulting contests). The graphical ways that Guybrush Threepwood acts during certain scenes, especially when trying something dangerous are often brought up. The Longest Journey (and Dreamfall) are usually because of the visuals that are combined with the story, as well as how it's also somewhat difficult to get stuck. Dreamfall over Longest Journey usually has to do with the fact that you can roam more freely and the addition of combat (but that isn't too hard). Syberia is usually talked about in the context of its visuals and the relatively unique setting and puzzles that use the setting as triggers. So there are very clear reasons given to tell someone what game they might prefer based on their preferences (or at least try if they don't know their preferences yet).



Sure they can. But people often make choices at least for a time. And for the vast majority of gamers, text adventures are the last choice. I realize that's not the case with this crowd but that stands to reason since I'm posting on a forum for people who like to play text adventures.

I'm actually more surprised that people who are clearly passionate about text adventures can't actually come up with a simple, concise statement of why someone should give it a try.

To game designers it's not necessarily separate. Take Mass Effect. If you don't do certain actions -- like if you just stand there -- the game will prompt you about moves you might take. It doesn't have to wait for a command. It notices that I might be stuck. (If I turn off tutorial mode, that doesn't happen, of course.) It's not even "getting stuck" with mechanics. It's about the mechanics not having a flow. I already mentioned how F.E.A.R does this. Granted, though, much of this has to do with how the game author utilizies the mechanics in order to provide an experience. It just seems that in text adventures the game author has very few chances to modify the mechanics or allow for a variety of interactivity options (which, again, is what text adventures are often touted for: their interactivity).



Except perhaps where there's inconsistent or absent cluing and you have to type in ranges of commands to see what works. Or perhaps navigating all over the place, seeing what you might have missed. And then making sure to reread the static text in case the author sometimes changes the room description. (It'd be like each page of a book recapping the setting for a scene just in case you forgot from page to page.)

But you definitely sound like you have value adds that you see in text adventures. So what would your hypothetical elevator speech be? I'm genuinely curious. "Hey, if you're looking for a neat gaming experience, try text adventures because ...." <-- what?

So what are they searching for? What makes text adventures that unique "other" gaming experience. Clearly the fact that it's all text based is a driver of the unique gaming experience. Lack of graphics (often) and lack of sound (often). Lack of the need for manual dexterity or hand/eye coordination. Lack of concern for timed solutions (usually but not always). Emphasis on using imagination similar to how you would do so with a book: i.e., you have to picture scenes and characters in your mind rather than having them visually in front of you.

I guess I feel like I'm answering my own question but it also seems like (a) most people who want the imagination route could get that through a book so (b) it's the act of controlling the player character that makes the difference. You can do that in just about every game, of course, which then seems to come back to *how* you can control the protagonist that would make the difference; i.e., the level of interactivity afforded by the agency you allow the player. And, again, I don't see where text adventures provide more of that. Others have said "maybe it's not more or less" but, as you said, the battle was lost for text adventures -- at least in a mainstream format -- many years ago. So perhaps for many people it does come down to "more or less" and the notion that text adventures are too much like a book but with extra "complications" and not enough like other game formats, so people by and large (a) choose a book or (b) choose other game formats.



What is it about then? I don't know what you mean here.

The same holds true for an IF game. There's setting, humor, not getting stuck, visuals, sound... Of course, the number of truly polished text adventures (with graphics and sound and whatnot) is extremely limited these days. I myself don't like 100% text IF that much. They simply seem to be lacking something vital. It's bearable with short games. But for a longer work of IF without any graphics and sound, nah. It gets quite boring after a while.


Here goes: "Because you might like it."