Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!godzilla.quotron.com!duke.quotron.com!greg
From: greg@duke.quotron.com (Greg Knauss)
Subject: Re: Are text games male oriented?
Message-ID: <CG71vr.43J@quotron.com>
Lines: 47
Sender: usenet@quotron.com (USENET)
Organization: Quotron Systems, Inc.
References: <9311061819591.bnewell.DLITE@delphi.com>) <2bhgobINNj8b@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 22:16:39 GMT

dmb@min.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett) writes:

>Furthermore, I don't see much factual content in this argument.  *What*
>kinds of puzzles are so "right brained" and "male"?  *What* kinds of
>puzzles could she envision that wouldn't be that way?  Is the very idea of
>solving puzzles in a text game context perhaps too "right-brained"?  What
>particular passages were especially coke-flat?

The way I read her complaints, she's not so much interested in factual
content, in games or her criticisms.  That's not necessarily a bad thing
-- just blowing off emotional opinions can open up a lot of doors and
express frustrations that aren't "logical," "right-brained," or (heh)
"male."
	But just doing so is going to drive logical, right-brained male
IF authors nuts.  There's nothing to grasp as an "OK, I can implement
that" improvement.
	What I think she wants isn't so much a game to solve, but a game
to experience.  Trinity and Plundered Hearts have been mentioned, but I
think A Mind Forever Voyaging suits what she's talking about (in terms of
content, ignoring the Noun Problem) much better.  It's IF in the strictest
sense, in that it's fiction that's interactive.  There's a few puzzles
thrown in, but it's the most story-based game I know of.  With a pretty
big wad of emotion, to boot.  I don't think she's interested in
non-right-brained puzzles, but in non-puzzled-based IF.
	I haven't used T-Zero, but if it's like most of the IF I've
played (and written), then it's almost totally devoid of emotional content
-- there's nothing beyond solving puzzles in the context of the story.
Which, again, is fine.  I, personally, enjoy that, just like I enjoy
explosion-messy-head-wound-snappy-one-liner movies.
	The problem I think she's trying to express, though, is that almost
all IF is of that genre and it frustrates her.  (Or it would if she ever
gets around to playing something beyond T-Zero -- I'm extrapolating here.)
Hollywood manages to put out a "Joy Luck Club" or "Ruby in Paradise" for
each "Demolition Man" or "Die Hard" and the choice allows a lot more people
to go to the movies.  Turns out to be a good thing for everybody involved.
	What I think she's talking about aren't "OK, I can implement
that" changes to what currently exists, but a re-thinking of the way
games are written.  Why must IF be puzzle-based?  Why must it have a
goal?
	The short answer is because that's what the people who write the
games enjoy.  The slightly less short answer is because that's what's
succeded historically.  The long answer is, "No reason," and authors just
haven't gotten around to exploring the boundries yet.
-- 
Greg Knauss (greg@quotron.com)                    "Llamas, dammit!  Llamas!"
