Hi people,
One of my best favs from the past #ECTOCOMP2020 was Toadstools, by @bitterkarella
I loved the game, the atmosphere, but I liked the most the building of a world for me to visit, get lost, and be intoxicated. But while I was traversing that nightmare, I found that the Twine interface was a little “in the middle” of the experience. I found it a bit complicated and taxing to traverse the interface in order to interact with the game and the world.
This is not a post about why parser games are better than Twines, or worst… or how parser games are the real THING, and such. I love all systems. For someone who is middle age, and have touched most main IF systems, I love each one for what work needs the better.
Anyway, about this rambling… so yeah, this is just a thought, and I want to know what you think.
Do you think complex Twine games with deep worlds or systems, and interactions, would benefit better of the immediacy of a parser system? You know. In Toadstools, the player must traverse several nodes to get to where he wants, for example, consultation of the guide, or regarding the inventory, or be taken back to the work to continue the exploration. On the contrary, parser games have a “one distance” immediacy with every system, just an action away.
Also, when this though assault me, I remembered that Karella is an experienced author in parser games, so, that added to the weirdness, in my head, of the doubt.
Do you think games like Toadstools, or How to kill Vampires at a McDonalds would fit better in parser? or benefit from it?
Thanks.
TLDR; this is not a flamewar question. I love all IF systems, but I think it is interesting to ponder on if complex systemic twine games would benefit of being a parser game.
Your thoughts are especially interesting, because I originally wanted to make Toadstools as a parser game. For example, I think it would have been much easier to implement the “guidebook” in a parser game. Twine required a lot of finagling to make it work; it was surprisingly difficult to rig Twine so that the player could be returned to their previous node after consulting the guidebook or the inventory. The main reasons that I ultimately decided it would work better as a hypertext game is that I wanted the player to have a more “linear” experience. A parser game lends itself better to open world exploration, but I wanted the player to experience Toadstools as a journey down a very specific path without feeling them they were being led. Of course, you’re being led in a hypertext game just as much as you would in a parser, since the game author has made design choices as to what options are available to the player, but I feel that hypertext games are expected to be a little more linear so the leading becomes more invisible. The other advantage of hypertext in this situation is that I knew this would be a game that would involve A LOT of description. Parser games generally thrive on shorter, less verbose description, because parser players want to be able to more quickly interact with more of their environment and have less patience for longer text dumps. Anyway, that’s the reason that Toadstools is hypertext but adapts a few more parser-y conventions XP Thanks for indulging me!