Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (
More info?)
Tomasz Pudlo wrote:
> Has it occured to you that "plot" in IF can be a very different thing
from
> what it is in non-IF?
It's occurred to me, but I'm not convinced that there really is a
substantive difference.
> The baffled reader of a non-interactive narrative can
> safely assume that the events that he already encountered, no matter
how
> bewildering, will make sense in the end, assuming the plot is meant
to make
> sense to start with.
If the plot makes no kind of sense at the end, then the author is not
succeeding in his goals, unless his goal is merely to confuse the
reader.
> The player of a text adventure, however, is not
> guaranteed that the events he encountered so far are at all relevant
to the
> solution of the game. This has to do with the fact that in non-IF the
plot
> is usually "reconstructed" by the reader after the end is reached.
This
> isn't always possible in IF, because of "stuckness", early death and
> multiple non-optimal endings.
I'm assuming in my criteria that I am critiquing an IF game where the
author is *trying* to deliver an intelligble plot. If he/she isn't,
then I shouldn't be applying my criteria to it. As such, the
opportunity for "stuckness" in IF is something authors who are trying
to deliver an intelligible plot should minimize. Early deaths are also
not optimal unless they are teaching the player something about the
choices the plot is trying to show them. Multiple non-optimal endings
should be doing the same thing. If these elements are working
together, a good, plot-driven IF piece will keep the player playing
through these and will indeed be strengthened by these devices, or else
the author should rethink their purpose.
On the other hand, I'm not attempting to apply these criteria to any
game that is not trying to advance an intelligible story. A pure
adventure game, or the many other variations I have listed on this
thread, obviously shouldn't be graded on how well it delivers a plot
and/or intelligible story to the player.
> Games with single endings still have the problem of "opaqueness":
> it's reasonable to assume that the player hasn't read all the game
text,
> even after reaching the optimal ending, and thus won't be able to
> reconstruct the plot.
I think it is incumbent upon any author who is trying to tell a
full-blown story in his IF game that he/she give the player maximum
opportunity to reconstruct the plot and to understand the game. The
author is God here; it's up to him/her to deliver the stone tablets in
a language the average player can understand.
> IF is a medium of its own, with unique aesthetic possibilities, and
must be
> judged on its own terms.
Actually, my criteria are pretty much unique to IF, other than asking
if the story is any good in its own right. So I am judging IF on its
own terms, though I am making use of a rather common lexicon of words
around the art of storytelling. Sorry about that, but that's what I'm
interested in and commenting on here.
> I'm afraid Wikipedia won't do, and neither will dodging fundamental
> questions.
I wasn't dodging it. I think either definiton adequately describes what
I am talking about. If you've got a firm definition of plot in IF as
opposed to other media, I would like to hear it. As I said above, I
don't believe there is a difference. Movies have plots, plays have
plots, novels and short stories have plots. All can be discussed with
the same basic definition, which is pretty simple at heart. But if
you've got something more complex that you think really nails it for
IF, by all means post it and I'll be happy to give you my opinion.
Thanks for your commentary. I don't mind answering the tough questions
delivered in a tough fashion. But I'm not really going to bother with
the one-line demands that simply imply something is wrong with my
thought process without spelling out the real beef. If you want to
work as hard as I am in thinking through these issues, I'm happy to
engage with you.
PJ
The
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram