In Nick Montfort’s Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction,  it struck me that this topic is different from other games in that the interaction is strictly intellectual, rather than physical. Almost all video games involve an interaction with or contribution from a player. This often involves a certain amount of physical skill on the player’s part to do well in the game. If one were to think of these games as the telling a story, a portion of the narrative could be imagined as either the epic strength or skill of the player or conversely the weakness and ineptitude.

Unlike these game forms, there is no physical requirement necessary for the player/interactor (other than to be able to type the interaction text). The player’s physical capabilities (i.e. agility, aim, etc.) do not contribute to the story. The player’s contribution is purely intellectual. The “story” told by these games revolves not around the epic abilities of the player, but the pure narrative of what the player is doing and why. Even skills of observation are virtually irrelevant, as there is no time constraint on actions and all available information is presented through the text in response to the player’s interaction.

Indeed, one might even question if these are truly games. As Montfort says, “…a work of IF is not necessarily a game. A work can present a world which is pleasant to explore, but which has no quest or intrigue.” But do not some graphic video games behave in this way? Games such as Minecraft and others focus heavily on the open-ended exploration aspect of virtual worlds and are no less games for it. Perhaps what we’ve really cared about video games has been the intellectual interaction all along. Perhaps Montfort has hit upon something in the reason we play video games–something that interactive fiction is a clear reminder of: that we want a world, a story to tell, and that we play any video game first in our heads before our fingers even move on the controller.