Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
In a post on r.a.i.f., I recently proposed a set of criteria for
reviewing or possibly "grading" interactive fiction. The purpose was to
identify the elements of an outstanding *fiction* or *story-based*
game, with the idea that the criteria serve as a set of
minimum-standards that most games of that type should meet.
As an exercise in using these criteria, I graded the top 3
games in the IF Comp to see how they would measure up. These were
posted last week (January 5th, 6th, & 7th) on r.g.i.f. and attracted
some commentary.
This is the follow-up post I promised to summarize what I got as
responses and to highlight possible ways in which I may change the
criteria before doing another review in this type of format.
> Criterion 1: Does the game deconstruct the rooms paradigm so
> effectively that no map is required to play the game? If not, does
the
> story itself have elements that actually focus the PC on geography,
so
> that a map is necessary to the story itself, not just to the
gameplay?
> If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Most people had a problem with the idea of "deconstructing the rooms
paradigm." The concept was unclear and could be taken to mean too many
different things. What I am probably going to do is reword this in
some form to convey the thought that, in regard to the world map, (1)
the story must come first, the world map second; (2) wide map IF is
suspect unless the story clearly requires a wide map; and (3) any game
that you can't complete without actually making a map is highly suspect
indeed, the exception being games like ATD where making a room/route
timing map was an integral part of solving the main puzzle.
> Criterion 2: Does the author make game-related choices or
> plot-advancing consequences inherent in the majority of actions the
> player takes? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This criterion got little discussion. I think it was subject to
misinterpretation because I didn't define what I meant "game-related
choices" and "plot-advancing" consequences in any detail. I will
probably correct that in future efforts.
> Criterion 3: Does game play and choices made as a result advance the
> player to multiple endings, with multiple paths to reach those
endings,
> in ways that are both supported by and supportive of the main story
> trying to be told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Posters here had some problem with the idea that all games should have
multiple endings. There was also some debate regarding what "an
ending" is, as well as what a "path" is. Again, I will try to tighten
up my definitions but, in principle, I think this criterion is a
valuable measure of modern, literary IF, because it does something
standard fiction can't: it enables player choice. So it's up to the
author to make that choice valuable and worthwhile by creating and
showing the player different endings based on that choice.
Note: I downgraded EAS3:LH a bit on this, because the overall ending
was fairly binary: win and save Earth; lose and have Earth basically
in a pickle. I don't count deaths as real endings, for the most part,
because it is usually involuntary. Some responders pointed out as
well, that although there weren't really different paths through
EAS3:LH, there were different solutions to the puzzles. I prefer to
keep that attribute of scoring in with the puzzles, not the endings, as
discussed below.
> Criterion 4: Is the story itself actually worth telling? Does it have
> a narrative dynamic that would be worth relating in other media, so
> that it is not purely a technical exercise? And is that dynamic
> sustained throughout the course of the game so that the player
> essentially *knows* the story, even if he/she doesn't fully
understand
> it or all its implications, on the first playthrough? If yes, thumbs
> up. If no, thumbs down.
Complaints here were on the basic subjectivity about what constitutes a
"good story," as well as on the "is it worth telling in another media?"
One of my beefs with IF in general is the thinness of the story in
many games, even ones that are meant to be story-driven. I do think
that any good story can be told in other media, though the same story
may be more *effectively* told in some media than others. I don't see
a real need to edit this one, as of yet.
> Criterion 5: Do commands -- including movement commands -- really
> support the story, i.e., if you are using compass directions, is the
> player using a compass to navigate with at the time? If not, do the
> commands truly enhance the mimetic effect being achieved in the game?
> Are uncommon commands natural to the story and the responses to
> incorrect commands helpful? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Much discussion here centered on whether you really need to get rid of
compass directions or not. I think it was a bit of a distraction to
the overall point of: do commands -- particularly unusual one -- come
naturally and act like you think they would? I am probably going to
reword this to minimize the compass directions issue until I see a game
(or write one myself) that shows an example of what I think is
possible.
Criterion 6: Does the author have sufficient control of the pacing,
the narrative, the hints, other authorial mechanisms such as
flashbacks, memories, event intrusion, etc., so that the player can't
ever really get stuck and therefore fail to finish the game? If yes,
thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
There was little argument on this one, though some posters thought I
was talking about leaving the game in an unwinnable state. What I mean
here is, does the game create so little story, so little dramatic
tension, have such poor pacing and few clues or hints, etc., that a
player would rather quit than deal with a hard puzzle or confusing turn
of events. I may reword this criterion to say that expressly, just to
avoic the winnability issue.
Criterion 7: Does the author use timing or turn-related events or
scene-cuts that give the player the appropriate forward momentum
necessary to move from scene to scene and complete the game? If not, is
a slow pace and relatively open player "wandering" reflective of the
story and how it is being told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This criterion is sort of a corollary to the previous one. This one is
asking whether the author is able to move you from scene to scene
instead of puzzle to puzzle or room to room. It may possibly be that
this one should be boiled up into #6.
Criterion 8: If puzzles are included, are they natural byproducts of
the world model or the interactions of the PC/NPCs? Are the puzzles
absolutely necessary to advance the story being told? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
Two major critiques here. I need to either add something about
"puzzleless" games so they can get this point, or rebaseline the whole
set of criteria so that puzzleless games are not starting at a
disadvantage. The other is that "absolutely" is an unnecessary
qualifier, since almost any puzzle could conceivably be left out other
than game like ATD, which is essentially one large puzzle. I agree on
both these points and will make some changes. I also want to make the
point that most puzzles should have multiple ways to solve them, or
paths that clearly can be taken around them, one or the other.
Criterion 9: Does the game take risks in switching viewpoints (varying
the PC view between one or more of the game characters), using
different voice at different times (applying 1st, 2nd, 3rd and/or
stream of consciousness, perhaps all in one game), and/or breaking with
any other standard PC/NPC conventions (look, inventory, x me, etc.)?
Are those risks successful in the context of the game? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
Here, some posters took issue with the idea that switching views,
voice, or breaking with other standard IF conventions was really
necessary. I think the best games do this, and do it consciously.
Since I am trying to promote the best types of games, I will leave it
as a criterion, but I will probably reword it a bit to get at what I
think are the *best* elements that I am seeking.
Criterion 10: Is it well-written, well-told, well-edited, well-tested?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This catchall got little debate, though some posters felt it was too
broad and that some of the elements should be divided into their own
categories. Since I meant it to be a catchall, I'm not too motivated
to change it at the moment.
Extra Credit Criteria: Does the game break new ground in the story
being told, new genres, new plots, new structures, etc.? Does it avoid
complete cliches (amnesia, underground empires, etc.)? If yes, extra
credit. If no, then no extra credit.
Posters here thought the criteria as a bit unclear. I think extra
credit is anything not covered in the previous ten points that is
outstanding, i.e., it blows you away. That's the best definition I can
come up with. So I will probably change it to reflect that, dropping
the cliches part so that a game can't try to claim extra credit merely
by avoiding cliches.
General Points:
-- One good suggestion, since this is meant to be a minimum standard,
is to treat this as the baseline and subtract thumbs rather than adding
them up. I will probably make that change. Extra credit then would
fill out what is even more outstanding about a game that makes the
baseline cut.
-- Some posters felt that, while interesting, the criteria were never
really going to be accepted or considered by most authors, so why
bother? To which all I can say is, I think the criteria ARE useful as
a sort of conceptual watering hole. Whether the horse will drink or
not, or even feels it's thirsty, is another story.
-- One poster used the criteria to look at Ninja, which scored the
lowest in the IF Comp. He came up with a score that was considerably
higher than I would have, but still not necessarily unreaonable on the
basis of the criteria as written. The thought was, if the criteria are
not equally good at identifying bad games, then they may not be useful
overall. My response to this, and the reason for including this in the
general points, was that Ninja was not meant to be a "literary" or
"story-based" IF game. That's what the criteria are for, so they
should not be used artificially on games that have no story intentions
but are instead adventure-focused. Another poster suggested that I try
this on a story-based game that was not as good as the 3 I reviewed, to
highlight how the game could be improved. I think that is a good idea,
and if anyone has suggestions from the last IF Comp, I would be glad to
consider it.
-- No sooner had I dealt with the above point, than another poster
pointed out that it might not be accurate to have graded ATD on my
scale, since ATD might really be called an adventure game, not a
story-based game. There is something in that notion, though I am not
convinced ATD was storyless. What it says, however, is that maybe I
need some way of identifying candidate games to undergo this grading
(pre-criteria criteria?).
It's all a work in progress. But I will continue to do reviews in a
format like this at least through IF Comp 2005. Maybe with a year's
worth of effort, something useful will come out of this approach.
Thanks for responding.
PJ
In a post on r.a.i.f., I recently proposed a set of criteria for
reviewing or possibly "grading" interactive fiction. The purpose was to
identify the elements of an outstanding *fiction* or *story-based*
game, with the idea that the criteria serve as a set of
minimum-standards that most games of that type should meet.
As an exercise in using these criteria, I graded the top 3
games in the IF Comp to see how they would measure up. These were
posted last week (January 5th, 6th, & 7th) on r.g.i.f. and attracted
some commentary.
This is the follow-up post I promised to summarize what I got as
responses and to highlight possible ways in which I may change the
criteria before doing another review in this type of format.
> Criterion 1: Does the game deconstruct the rooms paradigm so
> effectively that no map is required to play the game? If not, does
the
> story itself have elements that actually focus the PC on geography,
so
> that a map is necessary to the story itself, not just to the
gameplay?
> If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Most people had a problem with the idea of "deconstructing the rooms
paradigm." The concept was unclear and could be taken to mean too many
different things. What I am probably going to do is reword this in
some form to convey the thought that, in regard to the world map, (1)
the story must come first, the world map second; (2) wide map IF is
suspect unless the story clearly requires a wide map; and (3) any game
that you can't complete without actually making a map is highly suspect
indeed, the exception being games like ATD where making a room/route
timing map was an integral part of solving the main puzzle.
> Criterion 2: Does the author make game-related choices or
> plot-advancing consequences inherent in the majority of actions the
> player takes? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This criterion got little discussion. I think it was subject to
misinterpretation because I didn't define what I meant "game-related
choices" and "plot-advancing" consequences in any detail. I will
probably correct that in future efforts.
> Criterion 3: Does game play and choices made as a result advance the
> player to multiple endings, with multiple paths to reach those
endings,
> in ways that are both supported by and supportive of the main story
> trying to be told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Posters here had some problem with the idea that all games should have
multiple endings. There was also some debate regarding what "an
ending" is, as well as what a "path" is. Again, I will try to tighten
up my definitions but, in principle, I think this criterion is a
valuable measure of modern, literary IF, because it does something
standard fiction can't: it enables player choice. So it's up to the
author to make that choice valuable and worthwhile by creating and
showing the player different endings based on that choice.
Note: I downgraded EAS3:LH a bit on this, because the overall ending
was fairly binary: win and save Earth; lose and have Earth basically
in a pickle. I don't count deaths as real endings, for the most part,
because it is usually involuntary. Some responders pointed out as
well, that although there weren't really different paths through
EAS3:LH, there were different solutions to the puzzles. I prefer to
keep that attribute of scoring in with the puzzles, not the endings, as
discussed below.
> Criterion 4: Is the story itself actually worth telling? Does it have
> a narrative dynamic that would be worth relating in other media, so
> that it is not purely a technical exercise? And is that dynamic
> sustained throughout the course of the game so that the player
> essentially *knows* the story, even if he/she doesn't fully
understand
> it or all its implications, on the first playthrough? If yes, thumbs
> up. If no, thumbs down.
Complaints here were on the basic subjectivity about what constitutes a
"good story," as well as on the "is it worth telling in another media?"
One of my beefs with IF in general is the thinness of the story in
many games, even ones that are meant to be story-driven. I do think
that any good story can be told in other media, though the same story
may be more *effectively* told in some media than others. I don't see
a real need to edit this one, as of yet.
> Criterion 5: Do commands -- including movement commands -- really
> support the story, i.e., if you are using compass directions, is the
> player using a compass to navigate with at the time? If not, do the
> commands truly enhance the mimetic effect being achieved in the game?
> Are uncommon commands natural to the story and the responses to
> incorrect commands helpful? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Much discussion here centered on whether you really need to get rid of
compass directions or not. I think it was a bit of a distraction to
the overall point of: do commands -- particularly unusual one -- come
naturally and act like you think they would? I am probably going to
reword this to minimize the compass directions issue until I see a game
(or write one myself) that shows an example of what I think is
possible.
Criterion 6: Does the author have sufficient control of the pacing,
the narrative, the hints, other authorial mechanisms such as
flashbacks, memories, event intrusion, etc., so that the player can't
ever really get stuck and therefore fail to finish the game? If yes,
thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
There was little argument on this one, though some posters thought I
was talking about leaving the game in an unwinnable state. What I mean
here is, does the game create so little story, so little dramatic
tension, have such poor pacing and few clues or hints, etc., that a
player would rather quit than deal with a hard puzzle or confusing turn
of events. I may reword this criterion to say that expressly, just to
avoic the winnability issue.
Criterion 7: Does the author use timing or turn-related events or
scene-cuts that give the player the appropriate forward momentum
necessary to move from scene to scene and complete the game? If not, is
a slow pace and relatively open player "wandering" reflective of the
story and how it is being told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This criterion is sort of a corollary to the previous one. This one is
asking whether the author is able to move you from scene to scene
instead of puzzle to puzzle or room to room. It may possibly be that
this one should be boiled up into #6.
Criterion 8: If puzzles are included, are they natural byproducts of
the world model or the interactions of the PC/NPCs? Are the puzzles
absolutely necessary to advance the story being told? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
Two major critiques here. I need to either add something about
"puzzleless" games so they can get this point, or rebaseline the whole
set of criteria so that puzzleless games are not starting at a
disadvantage. The other is that "absolutely" is an unnecessary
qualifier, since almost any puzzle could conceivably be left out other
than game like ATD, which is essentially one large puzzle. I agree on
both these points and will make some changes. I also want to make the
point that most puzzles should have multiple ways to solve them, or
paths that clearly can be taken around them, one or the other.
Criterion 9: Does the game take risks in switching viewpoints (varying
the PC view between one or more of the game characters), using
different voice at different times (applying 1st, 2nd, 3rd and/or
stream of consciousness, perhaps all in one game), and/or breaking with
any other standard PC/NPC conventions (look, inventory, x me, etc.)?
Are those risks successful in the context of the game? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
Here, some posters took issue with the idea that switching views,
voice, or breaking with other standard IF conventions was really
necessary. I think the best games do this, and do it consciously.
Since I am trying to promote the best types of games, I will leave it
as a criterion, but I will probably reword it a bit to get at what I
think are the *best* elements that I am seeking.
Criterion 10: Is it well-written, well-told, well-edited, well-tested?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This catchall got little debate, though some posters felt it was too
broad and that some of the elements should be divided into their own
categories. Since I meant it to be a catchall, I'm not too motivated
to change it at the moment.
Extra Credit Criteria: Does the game break new ground in the story
being told, new genres, new plots, new structures, etc.? Does it avoid
complete cliches (amnesia, underground empires, etc.)? If yes, extra
credit. If no, then no extra credit.
Posters here thought the criteria as a bit unclear. I think extra
credit is anything not covered in the previous ten points that is
outstanding, i.e., it blows you away. That's the best definition I can
come up with. So I will probably change it to reflect that, dropping
the cliches part so that a game can't try to claim extra credit merely
by avoiding cliches.
General Points:
-- One good suggestion, since this is meant to be a minimum standard,
is to treat this as the baseline and subtract thumbs rather than adding
them up. I will probably make that change. Extra credit then would
fill out what is even more outstanding about a game that makes the
baseline cut.
-- Some posters felt that, while interesting, the criteria were never
really going to be accepted or considered by most authors, so why
bother? To which all I can say is, I think the criteria ARE useful as
a sort of conceptual watering hole. Whether the horse will drink or
not, or even feels it's thirsty, is another story.
-- One poster used the criteria to look at Ninja, which scored the
lowest in the IF Comp. He came up with a score that was considerably
higher than I would have, but still not necessarily unreaonable on the
basis of the criteria as written. The thought was, if the criteria are
not equally good at identifying bad games, then they may not be useful
overall. My response to this, and the reason for including this in the
general points, was that Ninja was not meant to be a "literary" or
"story-based" IF game. That's what the criteria are for, so they
should not be used artificially on games that have no story intentions
but are instead adventure-focused. Another poster suggested that I try
this on a story-based game that was not as good as the 3 I reviewed, to
highlight how the game could be improved. I think that is a good idea,
and if anyone has suggestions from the last IF Comp, I would be glad to
consider it.
-- No sooner had I dealt with the above point, than another poster
pointed out that it might not be accurate to have graded ATD on my
scale, since ATD might really be called an adventure game, not a
story-based game. There is something in that notion, though I am not
convinced ATD was storyless. What it says, however, is that maybe I
need some way of identifying candidate games to undergo this grading
(pre-criteria criteria?).
It's all a work in progress. But I will continue to do reviews in a
format like this at least through IF Comp 2005. Maybe with a year's
worth of effort, something useful will come out of this approach.
Thanks for responding.
PJ
The
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram