Did anyone use a walkthrough while playing one of these games? I attempted to do most everything on my own, but if I got stuck for an extended period of time I decided to save myself the trouble and refer to a guide. If we think about IF as a game, this would certainly count as cheating; but if IF is just a story that we’re participating in, is it the same thing? Can you “cheat” at fiction?
With a traditional book you can flip forward and read ahead, or read the back, or go online and read a plot summary or someone else’s analysis. Is reading the back of a book or the dust jacket “cheating”? You would be gaining information about the story from a place external to the main text. I know most people avoid online synopses about a book they’re reading – some even avoid reading the back – because they are worried about spoilers. Perhaps “cheating” is to IF as “spoiling” is to a traditional book.
But let’s imagine that spoiling gives us a 2-dimensional view of a book, allowing us to look forward and backward through the narrative’s timeline as we please. With IF, cheating gives us a 3-dimensional view, as it can sometimes show us things that are “hidden”, things that we never would have noticed in the first place.
For example, the game I played was Bronze. I finished it, and some of the stuff I referenced in the guide I probably would have figured out if I had been paying more attention, but there’s one entire plot branch (involving a gong) that almost certainly would never have occurred to me, had I not seen it in the guide. Easter eggs come in here, too – things that the author has deliberately hidden in the game. Did any of you type in the command “xyzzy” while playing Violet? Go give it a try. How would you even know to do that, unless you knew it was in there beforehand?
What I find really interesting about IF are plot points, information, or easter eggs that are “embedded” into the text, tucked in someplace for the player to find them. Either through cheating or just extreme patience. That’s something you can’t really do with a traditional book. Though in a weird way, as others have mentioned, House of Leaves attempts to cross that gap. Danielewski veiled information in footnotes, codes, or symbols, and although he could not outright hide information in a tucked away space only accessible with the right command input, he set up a pretty close textual equivalent.
Great questions about the relationship between “cheating” and “reading.” I suppose the answer partly has to do with context. If you’re assigned Moby-Dick for a class and instead of reading the middle third of the book, you read a synopsis online, that would probably count as “cheating.” But if you’re reading it for your own pleasure, then maybe that’s not cheating but just an effective way to make sure you get to the really good part of the book.
I also think the inclusion of puzzles and Easter Eggs changes the context as well. As you note, House of Leaves does this, and it makes the book seem as much a game as it is a narrative.