>Does game-playing in IF enhance the reading of text in some way traditional
>writing can't, or does this make reading like a word search or scavenger
>hunt instead of like literature?
I'm not sure I can make a good case for game-playing alone, but
interactivity in general can certainly draw the reader further in, as
several other people here have already mentioned.
I always bring up _Horror of Rylvania_ in discussions about what the "I" in
"IF" adds. (Major spoilers!)
There's one bit where you've got to kill a priest who's after you because
you're a vampire. One person complained about this vehemently. This
person couldn't complete the game, because murdering a priest -- even
"virtually" -- was morally unacceptable.
While I do think this reaction is a bit extreme, it certainky shows that
some people really do mentally place themselves in the role of the
protagonist, to a degree that seems unlikely with static fiction.
I can identify with this to a certain extent. I felt really bad munching
the goat in _Rylvania_. Silly? Sure. But for a moment, I was *there*,
not just reading. This is a very powerful medium when used expertly.
>: Does the form of the piece make it
>: interesting for some reason --- for example, did conceiving such a form
>: alone require great thought? Does studying the work over a long perios of
>: time still yield new insights into its form?
>
> These are questions which, when asked about much IF, will almost
>ceratinly be answered 'no,' unless you consider 'studying the work over a
>long period of time' the process of puzzle-solving, which I don't think
>is study.
I certainly agree, and I think that IF's puzzle heritage is for the most
part an obstacle to further progress.
Dave Baggett
__
dmb@ai.mit.edu
"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)