For me, the most fascinating aspect of the Interactive Fiction games that we played for this class was the extreme diversity in what the games could accomplish simply through the use of text. Lost Pig and Aisle are two dramatically different games. The former is more typical of what we consider a ‘video game’ – it has a clear objective, a scoring system, and set dimensions and directions. You direct a character (the simple-minded Grunk) on a quest to retrieve his lost pig. Unlike in a visual video game where you could take the perspective of the character through literally seeing his/her viewpoint, in Interactive Fiction you receive a narration of the character’s thoughts. I really enjoyed this approach to the game, and I think it offered an opportunity for a unique sense of humor, especially in Lost Pig where we get to laugh at Grunk’s innocent and underdeveloped thought processes (he even refers to himself in the third person – “Grunk fall down deep hole!” and “Grunk see Pig”). However, even after this first impression of Interactive Fiction games, I was even more delighted with the game Aisle. I thought that Aisle really demonstrated how IF games push our definition of video games to the limit. While there is no concrete objective or direction in the game (no way to ‘win’ or ‘lose’), you still get to control a character and determine the course of action. The action that happens in Aisle works beautifully as an Interactive Fiction game, but I doubt whether it would work as a Playstation or Xbox game, or in any visual representation. I thought this was the most important aspect of IF games in general — how the genre expands our notion of what video games are, and presents new opportunities for what video games can do.
Videogames in Critical Contexts
HNRS 353 Spring 2010
In many recent posts I see statements effectively declaring that “Aisle” tests the boundaries of our conception of videogames, at least in part because it lacks a “concrete objective or direction… [with] no way to ‘win or ‘lose,'” to use this First Reader’s words.
I have trouble accepting this. What all is encompassed in an objective? Is it simply a known task which the operator attempts to achieve? I can think of plenty of games (especially old RPGs) in which the operator starts out having no idea what he or she is supposed to be doing other than that he/she is controlling a boy in his bedroom, recently roused by his mother on the grounds that he’s “running late!” or “got a big day ahead!” This is roughly the same amount of context revealed in the intro to “Aisle.” You’re aware of your location and a few tidbits about the nature of your character, including his gender and a bit of his past. As the player peruses his way around the game world he/she might infer one objective or another and strive to achieve it. But surely whether or not the objective is achieved doesn’t affect our understanding of the game as a “game”!
Objectives in games are often subtle, often unachievable, and often change innumerable times before coming to the ending, and even then might end in despair. But “Aha! you might say, “That’s just it! You’ve come to the ending. That’s the objective!” But what in that idea doesn’t apply to “Aisle”? Sure, the objective is not directly stated to you, but as I said there are plenty of games in which the objectives are subtly suggested at best. The intro of Aisle itself could arguably imply certain objectives. The presence of the brunette alone could inspire any number of culturally contextual objectives. And as with any game, the operator makes decisions in accordance with his or her own goals (keeping your kings lined up on the back row, to use an example for all you Salinger geeks out there) and experiences the results. “Aisle” just happens to be a one-choice game. It also happens to be a terribly boring game after the first 10 minutes for that very same reason, but that’s beside the point.
Toodeloo,
Jamie
I also enjoyed Aisle – much more so than I enjoyed Lost Pig. As Lauren said, these are two very different games, and while the former is a more like a typical video game than the latter, I don’t think that necessarily worked to its advantage. Perhaps I formed that opinion due to my inexperience in playing IF games, but I felt that Aisle’s simplicity helped me enjoy the game more. In Aisle, the player reaches an ending after typing in just one command (for the most part), and I think that motivates the player to keep “restarting” the game in order to discover more endings/gain more pieces of information about the main character’s past, or just see what funny commands you can use and what entertaining responses the game gives. While you don’t earn points, you do get to see results more quickly. This contrasts with Lost Pig (or at least my experience playing Lost Pig…) where it took a few tries before getting the game to recognize commands, figuring out what you’re supposed to do/where you should go, and scoring points. However, I did somewhat enjoy having to make a mental map of the environment Grunk and the pig were in (in my case, the cave) – this aspect of exploration was lacking in Aisle. I think this is one reason why Lost Pig would translate better into a visual form than Aisle, even though both games still would not work well in visual form. This isn’t a disadvantage to Aisle at all though, since it is more literary than Lost Pig (and appropriately so).