At the end of the day it’s a descriptive definition, I think - IF is the set of games/game styles the IF community produces, plays, and discusses. We can deduce some common traits by looking at the corpus, but again, that’s descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the corpus can and has shifted quite radically; the fluid definition is meant to facilitate that.
This of course opens up the second-order question of who and where is the IF community, of course - which is also quite fluid, but does at least include this forum. But I think this approach is more concrete than looking at games by themselves, shorn of their social context, considering that a given IF game might not be interactive, might not be fiction, and might not be a game!
It’s worth pointing out that the forum’s definition of IF (what we discuss here) is not the same as IFComp’s definition (what voters think is a reasonable IFComp entry). And that’s slightly different from what IFDB accepts (there are IFDB entries for Fallen London and Disco Elysium). Nor is it the same as the range of topics that NarraScope accepts for talks (LARPing, all sorts of stuff).
None of this is a problem. But you might imagine that because there’s an “IFTF” supporting all of these services, then we have an “official IFTF definition of IF” that we apply everywhere. We don’t! Each of these activities finds its own level.
Similarly, Aaron Reed came up with his own guidelines for his 50 Years of Text Games project. (And then broke his own guidelines judiciously.)
It’s all like that.
I observe that we keep coming back to “text”. But not because it’s a hard-edged definition. (Many, many games contain some text.) It’s because if a game has enough narrative to be interesting for our purposes, it probably has a lot of text – enough that the game is designed around that text and how it is handled. So it’s a design definition, just an indirect one.
But, again, plenty of exceptions. (There’s a strong tradition of non-verbal narrative games, which are at least as relevant to IF as text-heavy walking sims, etc.)
I’m partial to the definition that the Neo-Interactives jam-runners define for their various jams, because it’s quick and simple – a good shorthand for what IF usually is – the parenthetical here:
The Jam is open to any program/medium, as long as the piece can be considered Interactive Fiction (i.e. the game is interactive, and its focus is on the text).
However, what one wants to define as “interactive”, “game” and “focus on text” is wibbly (on purpose). And as many have said, there are plenty of IF games that don’t fit easy definitions (even this one), even some submitted within these jams. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.
That reminds me…if you want to get a general feel for what kinds of games this community considers IF, you could look at what games are on IFDB. I’m sure there is some disagreement about edge cases, but it should at least give you a general idea. (IFDB users are not exactly the same group as intfiction users, but there’s significant overlap.)
OK. Your opinion, and you’re in the majority. Absolutely nothing depends on anyone sharing my opinion, and there’s no need for a disagreement like this to rub anyone the wrong way. We can just disagree and go about our days. I’ve never understood why this topic gets so hot when it doesn’t matter if there’s some disagreement on edge cases.
I fully understand, as I have a similar experience. The IF wiki does have a definition, but it also admits that the nature and thus what if is is thus fluid, and varies by person and time. In a way, this fluidity is what makes IF inclusive. And this fluidity is part of what we are, as a community. IF can only be (un)bounded as far as its community permits.
Somebody mentioned Bitsy games in Spring Thing. I admit to giving Bitsy games a low score and mentioned “I’m not sure if this is even IF…” - probably since I have little clue to how to use Bitsy. Whereas in another thread I posted a photo that had CYOA books in it- but I say that it IF, since it can be converted to Twine without the need of a stats page. Am I hypocritical? To some extent. But that’s because IF is fluid, and this is what “my type of IF is”.
Emily Short and the IFwiki used to have a definition of what the IF community is, but that one was never accepted to be a hard consensus and is more a relatively loose set of resources that are always changing and evolving.
I won’t want this minor issue (in my opinion) to rub anyone the wrong way. I’m trying to be more sensitive to whomever here.
The actual point of the “Don’t Argue What is IF” rule is to avoid any “mob and pitchforks” situation in the first place.
Over the years that this forum has been running, it has been historically determined that the “definition” of IF is amorphous and subjective. Any attempts to codify a definition or some sort of rules about what we can and cannot discuss here have developed into flamewars or mind-numbing syntactical hair-splitting arguments about what fiction means and what interactive means - “Is IF a genre or a loose definition?” and what a game even is.
In the early days of 2006, this forum served as a landing place and quasi-continuation of the increasingly-fragmented usenet rec.arts.int-fiction and similarly-named newsgroups. Post-Infocom, complex author-accessible parser systems such as TADS, Inform, Adrift, Alan, Hugo, and many more inspired a hobbyist renaissance in text adventures. Several years later in the early 2010s, Twine and other choice-engines emerged and made narrative adventure games of a different type even more accessible to authors.
Some factions of the original old-school usenet and parser enthusiasts strongly resisted this new style of storytelling hard enough that it caused problems. Many individuals declared choice-narratives “were not IF” and should be excluded from interactive fiction competitions such as IFComp and from this forum. Long story short too late after years of discussion, arguments, flame wars, and ultimatums, people either changed their mind, rage-quit the community, or grew more accepting and the our community flourished through the inclusion of new emerging types of IF storytelling methods and paradigms.
The result of this is a Code of Conduct rule was codified:
Intfiction.org promotes a broad definition of Interactive Fiction. Don’t claim a type or style of game already accepted by the community doesn’t belong. If in doubt, ask questions or see if it has been previously discussed.
This is commonly referred to as the “Don’t argue what is IF?” rule as it can become a third-rail situation that tends to cause hair-splitting arguments and hurt feelings in our peaceful community where people usually get along really well.
While friendly discussions that deconstruct elements of interactive fiction toward defining the term and the genre can be on-topic, useful, interesting, and educational, we know how easily these discussions always manage to devolve.
[while I was composing this message]
Notice the pigeon-holing of “Signs You Don’t Know IF” and what resulted.
Since Interactive Fiction elements and tropes are used in many games sprawling across genres, what we strive to avoid is one user telling another user “you can’t discuss that, it’s not IF” because the genre boundaries are so slippery and the term “IF” can refer to what we specifically engage in as a “genre” or as a “definition” which upends the argument.
We also on the back-end need a defined rule to deal with the “My App Store match-3 puzzle game has a fictional plot and it’s interactive therefore it’s IF and I should be allowed to spam the links to my commercial store page on your forum…” type of situations and we can make an executive judgement call when necessary.
The spirit of the rule is we want to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.
We try to keep the forum on-topic, but we all have other interests and can also discuss any type of game we want. We have an Off-Topic Discussion category where you may discuss pretty much anything except politics. (Also a third rail as we enjoy a diverse community here and wish to keep it that way for everyone.)
You may receive raised eyebrows for insisting on defining Call of Duty as IF and your discussion likely will survive better in Off-Topic Discussion, and Moderators always reserve the right to shut down any problematic topic, but the rule is here so we can prevent people from verbally abusing you (torches and pitchforks) for even suggesting it.
Well, let’s start a thread to discuss it, with the caveat that if you can’t handle civil disagreement civilly, you shouldn’t participate in it. I actually love this conversation and love being respectfully challenged on my opinions and don’t care if people disagree with me-- after all, all of us agree on what IF is 99% of the time. It sucks that such a lively and interesting point of debate is always getting shut down because people think if you disagree about this, it’s a problem. It’s about as much a problem as disagreeing about the validity of exotic cake flavors, y’all. I made a green tea cake and lots of people were like, “ugh.” That’s OK! I make chocolate most of the time.
Surely we could get a defined rule, which could evolve if needed.
Unless by “We on the back-end” you meant this should just be a mod decision. In which case I accept that my input isn’t necessary.
Is the entire topic (“What is IF?”) not allowed to be discussed, or is it only claims like “choice games don’t belong” that aren’t allowed? I had thought it was the latter that was not allowed, but now I’m a little confused.
As people have said in this thread and in several other threads besides, it’s hard to arrive at any sort of rigid definition. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I think that’s largely because many (most?) people who use the term are characterizing subjective experiences rather than some sort of specification-derived widget.
I include myself. I do that.
There was a time, long ago, when “interactive fiction” was almost universally designated according to specification. A world model, an interface to parse text input and deliver text output. There were many craft essays and usenet posts built around that specification.
But new experiences emerged, which people valued, that the old specification did not describe. And that’s been fine. Great, even! These new experiences were more than worth obsolescing rigid definitions, and I think being open to new things is essential to enjoying contemporary IF. It is essential to me, anyway.
Still, as someone who writes about IF, and tries to write IF, I do find myself interested in characterizing what I do, in saying it is something. In my mind, IF is a broad thing, and I usually think of it in terms of a rhetorical model. I think Graham Nelson’s “Triangle of Identies” is a useful thing to think about, for instance. It invites us to think about the player’s place in a narrative system. Instead of trying to define IF mechanically, which has a lot of problems, I try to consider it rhetorically.
I think another consideration is where 1980s “IF” (a marketing term at the time) is situated in the history of narrative games. Some think those 1980s games are a kind of evolutionary dead-end or backwater. In which case, you won’t be looking for a relationship between, say, Deadline and Mass Effect. I don’t think those old games are evolutionary dead ends though, which means that I see the influence of IF everywhere in contemporary games. It’s everywhere!
In terms of its rhetorical structure, predecessors, and influences, I do think Disco Elysium is IF. I think a lot of things are IF, actually, that many might exclude.
I’ve also said some things about empathy and IF in the past, which I’ve tied back to the relationships between players and protagonists.
But really, I think it’s a trap to think about these things from a specifications point of view. The technologies and interfaces vary greatly, and those differences are largely welcomed by the community. So how else can we look at these things? I suggest, without having a well-baked (let alone prescriptive) answer, that any definition–if one can ever be reached–will have to account for subjective player experiences.
On paper, that sounds great. Give it a shot. We’ll summarily shut down anything that gets out of hand since it’s a rule and therefore we won’t entertain lengthy court arguments about who is right.
As I said, any well-meaning “what is IF” topic invariably goes bad. We invite all civil discussion, but the intention is we won’t allow anyone to argue for exclusion of people or groups from the IF community based on a definition.
Discussing “what is IF” almost requires “what isn’t IF” for contrast, and then someone’s going to go “but Kings Quest is my favorite IF and now my worldview has been shattered” [flamewar ensues as people take sides]
TL;DR: Discussion is fine. Arguing is not, and will be moderated summarily on these types of topics instead of our usual slow escalation of slaps on the wrist “behave people” < “here’s what you can and can’t say” < “Stop that or we’ll get serious” < [individuals moderated privately] - Since this is in the Code of Conduct we’ll just take it down if it’s a problem and moderate individuals who don’t get the clue after being reminded.
Honestly, anyone, including myself, who starts splitting hairs about what is or isn’t IF, is just indulging their personal likes and dislikes and trying to penalize other people for not sharing them. When I rate/review games for a competition and I find myself not enjoying a game because it doesn’t check my boxes for what I like in IF, I stop playing and I don’t vote or review it. Not because I’m a jerk (though I might be, the jury’s still out on that one), but because it wouldn’t be fair to the author.
It’s natural. Opinions divide, people believe different things, people like different things, etc. Etc.
We’re not meant to put hard boundaries on stuff. These kind of “X is y but z is not y” rules are meant to be bent. They’re meant to be challenged and pushed at until it gives in, but notice I didn’t say “rules are meant to be broken”. Breaking them is another thing altogether.
Make the limits fuzzy, but there still are limits. It’s up to each person to say “the flower is in the square” or not.
If you’re not familiar with prototype theory I think it would help to look into it. Prototype theory says that most of our mental categories are actually based on the central prototype exemplars, rather than definitions based on rigid boundaries or necessary/sufficient properties.
For IF, that means that we have two strong prototypes: parser games like Zork, and choice games like a CYOA book or the Choice Of series. Less central are things like 80 days, which have choice based conversation, but also other game mechanics. Early Sierra games were point and click with a functional parser, so they’re in there too, but the later Sierra games that jettisoned the parser are way out on the periphery, like third cousins twice removed. A match-3 or a 4X strategy game are not really part of the category, just like a multi-function printer isn’t really part of the furniture category. But that doesn’t mean that someone won’t make some hybrid game that explores the periphery of “IF” in really interesting ways.
Personally, I think that IF has to be categorized sort of the way genres are categorized. How do we define, say, the whodunit? Are there specific necessary and sufficient conditions that let us say if a particular book is a whodunit?
In my opinion, the thing that makes something a whodunit is the intertextuality—the fact that it was written with other whodunits in mind, or has something to say about whodunits, or the whodunit style was codified as a backlash against it, and so on. The fact that it’s part of the artistic “dialogue” of that genre.
I will freely admit that I find literary analysis fascinating but I’m absolutely terrible at it, so this might be a concept that serious theorists have shot down decades ago. But to me it seems like the thing that defines “IF” is that it’s part of this sort of artistic dialogue. This is a real thing that happened has to be IF by this definition because it’s designed to make you question what counts as interactivity, and so is the Inform adaptation of Moby Dick where all you can do is turn the page.
My personal fuzzy definition of IF: All story and gameplay and controls are conveyed by words. At no point does the game require you to hit a target or navigate a jumping puzzle graphically where the words aren’t necessary. You must type words
>put jaggledy piece in puzzle >put roundish piece in puzzle
or select words Put the red piece in the puzzle. Put the blue piece in the puzzle.
instead of physically dragging a puzzle piece with your mouse.
I’m not saying something that has a physical manipulation puzzle isn’t IF, I’m saying it isn’t just IF.
Discussion topic: Insult Swordfighting in The Secret of Monkey Island notches it closer to IF than sword fighting in a game like Skyrim.
Dannii, I’m still in “fooling around” phase in tackling Twine, but I feel that twine-chapbook IS the ideal for non-interactive but mind-stimulating stories, like, for example, pen-and-paper RPG, not only core/setting books, but also adventure modules… so, I concur and agree with you.