So every time I try to figure out “interactive fiction”, I find that people often sell it by touting the interactivity. Okay, fair enough. If I just wanted to read a bunch of text, I’d probably pick up a book. If I just wanted a story that I could engage with visuals, I’d probably go to a movie. Those are the presumably less-interactive options.
So interactivity.
This past weekend I played the F.E.A.R games again. Very linear shooter, much like Half-Life 2. And, yet, while playing there are genuinely creepy moments and some outright jumps. There’s an evolving story as you figure out what Armachem was up to, what Alma has to do with it all, and just whether or not Paxton Fettel (and Alma) are helping me or trying to kill me. I get a visual, auditory, and textual viewpoint of how an evil is spreading and what role I may have to play in that.
I also started playing Mass Effect 2. There I have an evolving story of a threat with a group called the Collectors (who may be working with aliens called the Reapers). I have to assemble a team to take on this threat, all the while not entirely trusting my employer or the people he has me working with (most of whom are mercenaries and thieves). While I don’t trust my employer, he did raise me from the dead so I suppose I have to at least try to work with them. So good dialogue moments, good tension, and lots of building up of my motley crew, learning how to communicate with them so that they’ll help me on what everyone already believes is a suicide mission.
Lots of interactivity, all of which encourages my participation in visual, audio, and reading aspects. And it’s all continuous. Even if nothing immediate is happening on screen (talking to characters, bad guys shooting at me, etc), I can still interact with the world, run around, check out areas, etc. I can hear atmospheric sounds (some of which are really creepy in the F.E.A.R. games). But it’s also constrained: there are limits to the interactivity so that the story does progress and at a fairly decent clip in both games mentioned above.
So then I play “interactive fiction”. (A good comparison with F.E.A.R in some ways is “Slouching Towards Bedlam” or “Babel” – both of which have you learning about events that have already taken place via tapes or memories. In F.E.A.R it’s finding laptops and listening to phone messages.) Anyway: “interactive fiction”. So I read some static text. Then I get a command prompt. I try to type a command. I get a new batch of static text. Maybe an NPC is encountered. I get a menu to list some text items to speak to them about. (Or I have to sit there trying "ASK CREEPY DUDE ABOUT {something} and hope that {something} works.) To get to a location I have to type a bunch of direction commands. Or maybe I can just say "GO TO {room}, which of course makes all the rooms just sort of blur by.
My point here is that it’s all very mechanical. Text adventures can’t help but expose their mechanics at each and every point. The same could be said of any game, of course, but those other games are busy engaging all of your senses in various ways and at various times. Text adventures are like reading a book where I have to turn the page after every paragraph (and where the pages are stapled together in some cases). I notice it most when I find a text adventure game that has what seems to be a really good story. I’m then frustrated that I can’t just keep the story going because the game mechanics keep intruding. Again, wouldn’t any game do that? Yes, but also again, those games are engaging my senses and thus are interactive at various levels without violating a convention. (I.e., I don’t feel like I’m reading a book that just stopped on me until I do something or watching a movie that won’t continue until I say the right thing.)
I don’t see “interactive fiction” as being limited to text games so I still prefer “text adventures” because graphic games ARE fictional worlds that you interact with. “Text adventure” at least makes it clear that the emphasis is on text. And I actually see text games offering much more limited interactivity than other games. They do offer more interactivity than books and movies – but so what? Unless the story is comparable to what I’d read in a book or see in a movie, I don’t see the interactivity being all that much of a value add because it usually means I have to jump through numerous hoops – all the while usually only having one sense engaged. Since it’s purely textual, that means pacing and tension can be more difficult to sustain since you have no idea where the player will get stuck, so sometimes story suffers.
I’m not saying all this to bash text adventures. (I used to love text adventures back in the day. I remember playing Moonmist, Planetfall, Ballyhoo, etc.) But I’m really trying to understand the value add of the interactivity that text adventures bring over other formats since many of the most ardent supporters continually say that the interactivity is what sets text adventures apart.
Maybe a good question is the “elevator speech” you would use to convince someone to try text adventures. “You should totally try text adventures, because you …” <— what?