Congratulations on a superb article. I have read the piece very closely
several times while producing this review, and I must say: well done.
This is very well theorized, of great practical use for game writers,
and of great general interest to IF afficionados. But I should limit
myself to criticism, and save further applause for the warm review, soon
forthcoming I hope.
<P>
Before I get to the criticism, I should first remind you that my role as
reviewer has naturally colored my reading. Your normal reader will not
ferociously note, as I have tried to do (motivated by the kindest
intentions of course), the problems of this piece. When working through
my response, please keep firmly in mind your *reader*, and not so much
your reviewer -- they are two different creatures.
<P>
Ok, so on to the criticism. There are two main problems I would like to
address, one being the strategy of introduction, and another problem
which carries throughout the essay. In my extended commentary, I will
begin with the introduction, so I will first address the latter problem.
<P>
Throughout the essay, you frequently avoid concise theoretical
explanation, relying instead on the implications of "made up" examples.
I strongly recommend that you work through the piece once more, and in
each case where you have a "made up" example, explain precisely your
point in the abstract. Then, after this work is done, decide for
yourself which way you think really works better, in each specific case.
I expect you will find in most cases that a clear exposition of your
idea is far more decisive and clear than an example's suggestion.
<P>
==Introduction==
<P>
A sophisticated reader might find in your roundabout introduction a
well-conceived performance of the excellent claim which you ultimately
make in the second and third sections: that in order to keep the
reader's attention, you must puzzle them, and not drive towards the
solution straight away.
<P>
That said, the introduction is puzzlingly indirect, and this is probably
not the best strategy. You linger here and there discussing yourself
rather than discussing your subject. The first-person style is not
necessarily bad (though it is a conspicuous and therefore a distracting
break with the assumed convention). But where the logic of the argument
is interrupted by the intrusion of the personality, the reader's
attention is all the more broken. One stops thinking about puzzles and
their purpose, and one starts thinking about Jon Ingold. This is all
very flattering of course, but then again, that's the last thing you
want.
<P>
Further, while sure the distinction between CYOA gamebooks and IF is
interesting, it does not clearly bear on the subject at hand. On a first
reading, at least, it will appear that the introduction has no bearing
on the essay's topic. I fear that the introduction is a liability in its
present form. But a revision can recussitate; see my comments two
paragraphs below.
<P>
==A Thought==
<P>
Ah! Here we have a clear and compelling, (indeed, gripping) and truly
relevant bit of text: "The important element of Interactive Fiction is
not the ability to decide, [but rather] it's the requirement to consider
that decision first." This is an excellent observation! I would not
hesitate to put this sentence first in the essay.
<P>
There is some room after this point to explain that the distinction
between CYOAs and IF is a matter of complexity and concealing choices,
as a way to elaborate on what "consider the decision" means.
<P>
But very quickly I would proceed, as you do in the next section, to
explain that the greatest purpose of the puzzle is to force the reader
to become interested in closely examining the text. You are then wasting
no time getting to the subject at hand.
<P>
Again, I certainly appreciate the roundabout performance of the point,
but I doubt many of your readers will have this specific appreciation,
and I think a more direct approach would in fact be much friendlier and
more readable. As I said, I don't mind the casual first-person style,
and I'm sure that many will find it refreshing; but, again, at times it
evokes (in this context) a sort-of egoism, so I think you're better off
limiting this "intrusion" somewhat.
<P>
==The Role of Puzzles==
<P>
This is where the essay really takes off, and the essay remains superb
from this point forward. The abovementioned problems mean that this
takeoff has come regrettably late.
<P>
paragraph 4: "Here we ought to define puzzle. A Tower of Hanoi is a
puzzle, so is a maze. So is a code, or a complicated system of pulleys."
So is an navel. This is a bit tedious. Perhaps more on-topic would be a
treatment of common IF puzzles: lock and key or, more generally,
obstacle and obstacle-removal-mechanism. I would also say more (towards
the beginning of the piece) about the familiar "eureka!" moment, the
feeling of euphoria when the solution suddenly bursts to mind. That is
the really *exciting* and sexy part of puzzles, and celebrating it will
surely activate your readers' interest. That's the aesthetics.
<P>
==Thinking Like A Player==
<P>
paragraph 1: I like very much the magician analogy. Your approach to the
subject is perfectly done. (One parenthetical remark: I have always been
fond of the term "misdirection," as applied to the art of the magician;
your term "distracting" does not carry, for me, quite the same romance.)
<P>
paragraph 2: You are a bit too long in introducing the point. The previous
paragraph has already made the distinction between the trick and its frame.
In this paragraph, you can move directly to your theory for categorizing
the tricks proper.
<P>
==Hunter-Gathering==
<P>
Your treatment of "scouring the area" lines up perfectly with your
larger argument. Superb.
<P>
paragraph 2: why "only in retrospect"? I understand that puzzle-oriented
IF will encourage players to scour the area, which is perhaps "mimesis"-
or enjoyment-breaking; I see that sometimes encouraging scouring is
clearly good, and sometimes it has questionable gains at best. If that's
the point, perhaps you can say so flatly.
<P>
paragraph 3: "take his inventory every [other] turn"? I know you're
going for hyperbole here, but perhaps the point has already been made.
In this paragraph you suggest the point by example, but I would instead
clearly explain the point theoretically, and demonstrate by specific
examples as necessary.
<P>
paragraph 5: "To get around this": there's no clear antecedent for
"this." I.e., what is the "this" you're referring to? (A careful reader
will backtrack and find that "this" approximately refers to the above
notion of "the player's apprehension of the device forcing them to
become familiar with the environment," but still.)
<P>
paragraph 6: This interesting and noteworthy device is not perfectly
explained. Your examples are perfect, but the reader may not be quite
sure the point: that the actual location of the object is not static;
where it can be found dynamically depends on where the player has
looked.
<P>
==Research==
<P>
paragraph 1: I wouldn't mention bit-error. Avoid distracting cleverness,
especially when it cries out as such.
<P>
paragraph 4: I think "consult" and "ask about" are on even footing. In
Tads-3, at any rate, "ask about" is not more difficult to code than
"consult." (And in any case I wouldn't mention that one is more
difficult to code than the other, as this is irrelevant to your point.)
<P>
==Simulation==
<P>
paragraph 1: I'd kill the first two sentences, beginning simply:
"Simulation covers those interactions where...." I suppose this
suggestion is a parcel of my general criticism that you occasionally
spend a bit too much time in the wind-up. (Hm. I hope this is a useful
general remark; please understand that this is not an ugly general
condemnation.)
<P>
On the other hand, this essay is not about simulation; indeed, Sean
Barrett already has a simulation article in the book. Perhaps assume
that the concept of simulation is already clear, and get to the part
about how this is relevant to puzzles. (So, perhaps the first three
paragraphs should be aggressively curtailed.)
<P>
paragraph 4: This is one case of many in this section where you
explaining by example, as opposed to explaining by explaining the point.
It is the task of the writer to synthesize the point, and then expound
by example; leaving your reader to perform the synthesis is not ideal.
In this case you can fix by reordering the sentences with minor
revision: begin with the sentence "IF takes this concept..." and make it
your task to explain clearly from the beginning exactly what *this
concept* refers to.
<P>
[skipping some excellent bits]
<P>
==Plot==
<P>
paragraph 2: You are right to point out the connection with research.
The same can be said for "hunter-gathering."
<P>
[skipping more]
<P>
==Hooks==
<P>
I love the comparison of Lemmings to Metamorphosis. Amazing.
<P>
==
<P>
Most articles in rough form are great towards the beginning, and get
increasingly unfinished towards the end. This is expected, as the writer
has read and revised the opening paragraphs perhaps ten times, while
still fleshing out the later parts. In this case, it's somehow the
reverse; the essay gets increasingly better as it progresses.