Like some of my other classmates, I found the interactive fiction video games quite intriguing. This is basically the first game I have played that makes the player visualize the game play. I found it quite interesting that players all visualize a different game before them.
This kind of game was both fun, entertaining and frustrating for me. Some of the actions I could take in the games were quite unexpected and difficult to discover. The unexpected violent actions, such as the ability to attack the woman with the Gnocchi, or the sauce cans, were especially eye-opening for me. Like other classmates, I was also somewhat perturbed by the lack of finality to the game. I usually feel a sense of productivity and accomplishment when I finish a level of a game, win a certain amount of points, unlock hidden game aspects, or win the game entirely.
These senses of accomplishment are almost always the main focus and reason I play games. The diegetic aspect of games was often the most intriging part of a game for me; the lack of a concrete ‘story’ in these games bothered me, as a multitude of endings were possible.
It’s not unusual to feel like there’s no sense of finality to some interactive fiction. Works like Aisle are more like extremely short stories. But what’s really interesting is that these kind of games highlight how much we want and expect a satisfying narrative conclusion in the games we play.
I thought it was interesting how Carly commented on how the options were a bit hard to discover, and her actions in the game were not necessarily straight forward. On the other end of the spectrum “ET” (blog name) suggested that the problem with Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy had too many options, and so both situations create a problem for the player as there is no set goal. I was considering the implications of this as I played several of the games.
One implication in comparison to normal video games is that you really can’t chunk an IF game. Even if you memorize how to get to certain places, each time you play the game you are essentially learning something new, reading something new, and having to think about your next steps. In many video games, even if you are some where new it still seems possible to just follow a general pattern of movement, ie jump run shoot. Taking this even further, it seems easier to chunk a game like the Baron than the Hitch Hikers guide because the Baron has long descriptions and set movements that get you to where you need to go, where as Hitch hikers guide seems more limitless in the players direction.
Another implication I was considering is the realistic appeal of each type of game. In considering the large amount of possibilities of Hitchhikers Guide, it feels as if you could decide to do anything you want and the game would have some sort of response to you. While this may be distressing, it very much parallels reality rather than a game, because there is no explicit purpose that the player is immediately aware of. With the other sort of game, where it is hard to determine which actions the game seems to expect from you, it feels much more like a game because it has a purpose for the player, and if you don’t move towards the goal in some form it will return the a phrase like, This is not important at this time.
I found the lack of finality very dissatisfying as well, especially with “Aisle.” At first, I found the vast amount of possibilities exciting. It was a kind of exploring, even– trying to rack your brain for interesting or possibly productive actions. But after awhile, I grew bored and frustrated with the game. Nothing was really happening. Sure, I was getting all of these different insights into the character, but it wasn’t going anywhere or adding up to anything. Without any kind of final goal, the game ceased to really be fun, once the novelty had worn off.
This is especially interesting because I thought I played games mainly for their stories. I’ve always loved stories, whether through reading, movies, or games. So it would seem that I’d love this game, right? It’s all story. So I was surprised when I became bored with it so quickly. I guess it’s because Aisle could have been considered a bad story– there was no progression or climax or anything like that.
Judging from my long experience with interactive fiction, I’d say that it is in fact possible to “chunk” these kind of games. As the map of Zork I that I should showed in class on Thursday should illustrate, many of the worlds in IF are huge, complicated spaces that can be reliably mapped out (for the most part). As you explore and re-explore these spaces, it’s quite common to build a mental map of the area. Even now, twenty-five years or so after playing Zork for the first time, I could probably sit down at a computer and navigate through the game with the N, E, S, W, U, and D commands without reading the room descriptions or looking at a map. I’ve chunked the game.
But as you hint, chunking leads to problems…I may be relying on auto-pilot so much that I fail to see anything new. And the chances are, there are still things in the game I haven’t discovered, all these years later.