Re: "Serious" IF (was Re: Gareth's competition comments)


16 Oct 1995 18:45:26 GMT

In article <1995Oct16.151903.269994@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
Christopher E. Forman <ceforma@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:

>Perhaps it's been brought about by the fact that there's no longer a
>shortage of quality I-F out there -- as more and more titles become
>available, people become more critical.

I have to be honest here: in the five years I've been following this group,
this is probably the most encouraging sign I've seen that IF may actually
have a future as a serious medium.

No art form can exist in a critical vacuum. Frankly, IF has been ignored
by well-informed critics, and this has certainly contributed to its almost
universal reputation as a crossword puzzle genre.

Now that some people are at least *trying* to apporach IF criticism
intelligently, there's a glimmer of hope that others will begin to see that
we're not all just making textual Rubik's Cubes.

>Personally, on the occasions where I reply to an author (and I haven't
>played the competition entries, so I haven't sent commentary there), I
>prefer to stick with constructive criticism: "Great game, but here's some
>suggestions for improvement in the future," as opposed to "This is just
>plain wrong."

Hopefully the new "critical" atmosphere will encourage authors to accept
crtics' sometimes harsh opinions (and these are always opinions, not facts)
not as personal attacks, but as what they are: opinions.

If you write a novel and get it published, you can hardly expect people to
refrain from critcal comment to spare your ego. Why should IF be any
different?

>Another author might not see the points you make in reference to
>"Christminster" as flaws or limitations, particularly your criticisms of
>your NPC's, since virtually all text adventures to date have these same
>limitations.

Then that author is free to ignore or disparage such comments. But this
isn't, in my opinion, an argument against making the comments in the first
place.

Elements of this thread smack of the notion that all things are equally
good when considered in the appropriate context. I admit I don't buy that;
for example, IMHO, Handel's _Messiah_ is better than Michael Jackson's
_HIStory_ in an absolute sense.

I'd say the same thing of _Detective_ vs. _Trinity_ --- wouldn't you?

>Personally, although the NPC's in my upcoming game aren't even as complex
>as in "Christminster" (most of them stay in one place the whole game), I
>don't see this as a weakness, since it fits with the story.

Then you can (and perhaps others will, on your behalf) argue that more
developed NPC's would either add nothing, or would detract from your work.
Not all novels have the same amount of character development either.

>I would personally become very defensive if someone chose to nitpick my
>game in the manner you've done with yours.

Certainly a natural reaction, but this doesn't mean that people shouldn't
honestly critique your work if you release it to public scrutiny.

>Everyone has differing opinions of the "ideal" game, and what a "real" I-F
>experience is like for them. Can't we just accept each quality game for
>what it is, rather than dwelling on petty issues?

Saying that all works are equally good benefits neither the readers nor the
authors. All IF works are not equally good; not even close.

Dave Baggett
__
dmb@ai.mit.edu ADVENTIONS: Kuul text adventures! Email for a catalog.
"Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
--- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)