Interactive fiction is an interesting combination of a game and a story. It is essentially based upon the concept of the user’s typing of text and the software’s response thereto. In his article, Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction, Nick Montfort quotes interactive fiction as being “a text-accepting, text-generating computer program; a potential narrative; a simulation of an environment or world; and a structure of rules within which an outcome is sought, also known as a game.”

What I think is interesting is how interactive fiction resembles storytelling and how it can be manifested in the form of a game. You basically have a conversation with a computer. You type input in the form of a command or question, and the computer almost immediately responds to you with text output. Add a simulated world and a few basic goals, and you’ve got yourself a playable game that is based entirely on text input. Dennis G. Jerz’s instructions for interactive fiction describe how the player can do such things as move around, manipulate objects, interact with non-player characters, and save the game—all just by typing a command on the keyboard.

The way I see it, interactive fiction has a lot of resemblance to a role-playing game. Think about it; you are free to interact with a virtual environment in which you make decisions that make things happen immediately or influence events that happen later in the game. Each type of game has a set of goals that the player is responsible for completing. In both interactive fiction and a role-playing game, there is a character that the player can control. The only difference is that in a role-playing game, the player uses a controller to determine what happens instead of a keyboard.

Interactive fiction is a type of game that I have not previously considered before now. It is a unique and interesting type of game that I think has not received enough attention. I am still absolutely fascinated by how interactive fiction, as described by Montfort and Jerz, is so similar to a role-playing video game.

In the second chapter of his book, A Casual Revolution, Jesper Juul describes five major traits that are prominent in casual games—fiction, usability, interruptibility, difficulty and punishment, and juiciness. He argues that casual games contain positive fiction, are generally easy to use and play, are capable of being interrupted, have lenient punishment for mistakes, and contain very juicy gameplay. I agree with the first four arguments, but his opinion about the fifth point sharply contrasts with mine.

Juul mentions that hardcore games like Gears of War have a large amount of juicy content, including massive gunfights and explosions. As a frequent player of the Gears of War games, I believe that it is necessary to mention that the game includes obscene amounts of evisceration and disembowelment—two things which one could arguably call “juicy.” I agree wholeheartedly that such games are quite juicy.

However, the description of casual games, such as Pacman or Bejeweled, as “juicy” is something with which I disagree. Perhaps this is because my definition of “juiciness” differs from that of Juul. While his definition of “juicy” is “giving excessive amounts of positive feedback to the player in response to user input,” my definition is simply “evoking exorbitant amounts of emotion, including—but not limited to— excitement or pleasure.” Being the huge fan of first-person shooters that I am, I believe that games like Gears of War (which is actually a third-person shooter—minor details can be ignored) and Call of Duty are very juicy. Intense games such as these fit my definition very well, because they stimulate strong feelings of excitement and exhilaration.

On the other hand, casual games like Pacman are not exactly what I would call “juicy.” While Juul may view them as such, I certainly do not. Whenever I play casual games that aren’t particularly exciting or adrenaline-pumping, I don’t receive nearly the same emotional stimulation that I receive from playing a shooter game. In my opinion, Pacman or Bejeweled are both fun, quick games that offer the player a bit of a challenge, but they lack substance. This lack of substance is directly responsible for the failure of these games to be classified under my definition of “juicy.”

I’m not denying that casual games are fun; on the contrary, I frequently play sports games on the Wii very competitively. The problem is that the simplicity of such games is simply incapable of arousing the same feelings of fervor that more intense games are capable of delivering.