Re: Infocom and the Test of Time

[Second April <dns361@merle.acns.nwu.edu>]

> First, I point out that, in the earlier Infocom games, you could do
> just about anything.  Many of these games had a begin-game and an
> endgame, and then the middle was whatever you wanted to make it.  That
> was certainly an appeal behind Zork I & II; go, have fun, do things in
> whatever order, etc.  Think of Suspended.  "You are here.  Much must
> be done.  What do you do?"  This appeal reached its logical extreme in
> Deadline, where you could do bloody-well ANYTHING (or nothing); the
> plot would begin or end with or without you.

Well, sorta. Lots of things would only happen if you took the right
actions to initiate them. But it's true that there were timed events that
you were likely to miss if you weren't on the ball.

> But towards the end of the beginning period (ugh), games were coming
> out that were more linear.  This is, I suspect, inevitable, given the
> nature of fiction; the demand for more story than "wander, get stuff"
> or "wander, get stuff, kill bad guy" means the story can't possibly
> branch to include every intricacy -and- still maintain the illusion of
> a determanistic story.  Usually, then, they try to "fudge" it with
> non-linear portions of a linear game (ala Hitchhiker's Guide to the
> Galaxy).  At its worst, this technique results in things like Sherlock
> and (to a lesser extent) Once & Future:  "The complex, intricate,
> weaved story will progress once you accumulate the four beakers of
> Foozle!"

True, but it wasn't always so clumsy. In Ballyhoo, the story advanced once
you did certain things, and the connections weren't too obscure or
contrived. Trinity, moreover, combined linearity--the ending chapter--with
non-linearity--the middle section of the game, quite well at that. (At
least, I thought so.) Plus (I'm not saying that you were arguing this) I'm
not sure that the "wander around and get stuff" model always produced a
poor story; Spellbreaker, for instance, pretty much fit that model, but I
thought it told a fairly compelling story.

> You also mention a couple of times that, if you know what you're
> doing, the games are quite short.  Well, that's true... but I don't
> think they were really meant to be replayed.  Now, if you're a psychic
> playing Seastalker, you're in for a short experience. :)  But
> otherwise, it'll take you a while (and Seastalker -was- meant to be
> solved and solvable by younger players).

Also, hints cost something, so one gave the games a good shot with one's
own wits. With Masterpieces, the hints are right there in the CD, or on
Peter Scheyen's web site if you prefer it that way. Sure, if you have lots
of willpower, you can stare at a problem for months, but I don't think
many people have that kind of willpower--and when hints are readily
available, it shortens the total time spent playing the game a whole lot.

Duncan Stevens
d-stevens@nwu.edu
773-728-9721

Love in the open hand, no thing but that,
Ungemmed, unhidden, wishing not to hurt,
As one should bring you cowslips in a hat
Swung from her hand, or apples in her skirt,
I bring you, calling out as children do,
"Look what I have!--And these are all for you."

--Edna St. Vincent Millay