You can also see some marketing here.

So Jonathan Blow’s recent criticism of the IF community has been getting a lot of attention (Aric Maddux, Chris Klimas, Robb Sherwin, Stephen Granade, indiegamer, metafilter), and that may be why we got a spin-off Metafilter thread on the topic of parsers today.

I have a couple of thoughts about this.

1. This is Jonathan Blow. He tends to be outspoken — what he has to say about adventure games in this article is nothing compared with what he has to say about social games, which he labels as outright evil. There’s some content backing both points, but it’s been generalized and strongly stated for effect. While I disagree with a lot of the substance and think it could stand to be quite a bit more nuanced, he’s giving an interview about a future product, in which he has successfully said a lot of provocative things, generated a buzz, and positioned himself memorably with respect to a couple of other schools of gaming. To a reader less sensitized than we are, this might come off as no more than “this game will be content-rich, not work like social games, and will have some of the appeal of an adventure game, but more accessible.”

2. That said, the examples that he’s using suggest that he’s not really responding to the latest and greatest. So I feel free not to take them especially seriously as criticism of the latest community output.

2a. Yeah, the hat tip to the awesome plot device that is amnesia — that’s worth a snicker, but so what? Someone sufficiently skilled could still do a cool game about amnesia. Whether that person is Jonathan Blow remains to be seen.

2b. It looks like he is taking a specific potshot at Telltale’s episodic adventure games. I haven’t played by any means all of them, but I find them relatively free of maddening adventure game logic, pleasantly accessible, and really funny. That said, they are closer to graphical adventure roots than much modern IF is to its roots. IF has made forays into the puzzleless, the systematic/simulationist (where puzzles are based on a standard set of learnable rules and multiple solutions are available for most problems), and the tactical (where there is a whole scale of possible win/loss via randomized combat, etc.) I do occasionally wonder what would happen if there were more graphical adventure games that explored some of that territory — though I’m sure there are more than I’m currently aware of. See also Life Flashes By.

3. The idea Blow repeats here is a standard meme. On the big scale of Cluelessness about the Thing He Is Critiquing, this rates only about 5 picoEberts. And that’s our problem to solve. There will always be a serious barrier to sharing and marketing IF as long as the standard perception is that it’s about fighting the parser.

Part of the problem is that lots of people haven’t really played much IF since 1980-odd; another part is that the way IF has developed isn’t in the direction that they think it should have developed. There are good reasons why the parser hasn’t (and shouldn’t!) become a chatbot that pretends to understand all player input, but that’s a natural direction to wonder about; see this old chat with Brian Moriarty, who, I think we can agree, has more of an insider view on the problem than Blow ever has.

Meanwhile, we’ve made some progress on teaching the player IF affordances — which I think is the real solution here — but it’s not a finished process. We’re working on these issues, in a lot of different forms and projects.

Anyway. Long story short: yeah, I agree Blow is incorrect about what we’re doing and about our evolution. But I don’t think his being off base is really anything more than a reminder of something we all already knew: IF has PR problems. Our best steps forward aren’t visible enough. They don’t do enough to supplant what people already think about interactive fiction.

Demo Fair intents deadline

Just a reminder: if you want to enter the IF demo fair but haven’t told me so yet, now is your chance. Intents close tomorrow night, the 18th of February.

We’ve got an excellent line-up so far, with a mix of new and veteran IF authors and some participants from outside the standard community; I think it’s going to be exciting, but I don’t want to miss anyone who wants to be in.

Tomorrow night is a hard deadline because I then have to design flyers, wrangle equipment, and so on, so I need to know what I’m covering.

Interactive documentary

Just got a press release about a symposium in interactive documentaries, which sounds like it might be pretty cool, with overlaps to the kind of educational/gaming/interactive story/research work done by the people at PlayThePast, ARGs, and Failbetter’s historical, museum-situated project An Expedition with Mr Mirrors.

I can’t go myself, but maybe some here will be interested:

A lab/symposium dedicated to the rapidly evolving field of interactive documentary

Friday 25th of March 2011 at the Watershed Media Centre, Bristol, U.K.

i-Docs is a one day lab/symposium dedicated to the exploration of new forms such as web-documentaries, docu-games, mobile films and locative projects. During the day artists and producers will present their latest work to generate debate with academics and media researchers on what is currently being made. What can be learned by the first success stories of the genre? How to deal with user’s participation? Can a game logic be applied to a documentary? What are commissioning editors expecting from a cross-media documentary? These are a few of the topics that will be discussed on the day. i-Docs is bringing together some of the world’s most active and creative interactive documentary experts. Confirmed key speakers are:

• Nick Cohen – Multiplatform Commissioning Editor, BBC, UK
• Alexandre Brachet – Upian, FR
Upian is the company behind Prison Valley, Gaza/Sderot and Portraits d’un Nouveau Monde
• Matt Adams – Blast Theory, UK
Pervasive games specialists, Blast Theory is famous for Can you See me Now?, Rider Spoke, and their latest A Machine to See With
• Florian Thalhofer – New Media Artist, DE
The inventor of the Korsakow System, the non-linear authoring tool which made Forgotten Flags, the [LoveStoryProject] and Rehearsing Reality possible

For further information, and the full programme, see: http://i-docs.org/

i-Docs is convened by Judith Aston, Sandra Gaudenzi and Jonathan Dovey on behalf of the Digital Cultures Research Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Announce: IF Demo Fair

Do you have a vision of the (or a) future of interactive fiction that you would like to share with interested players, authors, implementers and theorists?

The IF Demo Fair will be running during PAX East (Boston, March 11-13), showcasing new and interesting demonstrations in the IF world.

These don’t need to be polished, complete games, just pieces that show off your concept. We’re particularly interested in demonstrations that explore one of our themes:

  • novel ways to interact with in-game characters
  • innovative user interfaces for text/story-based games

But if you have a great idea that doesn’t match either of these themes, send it anyway! We welcome any demonstration that can reasonably be construed as relating to interactive fiction and storytelling: traditional parser-based IF, works with multimedia and graphical components, choose-your-own-adventure, or interactive poetry.

Entries in the Fair will be set up on laptops in the IF suite for players to explore. Saturday afternoon, there will also be an official playthrough in the Alcott Conference Room at the Westin, where we will go through all the entries on a projector screen (exact time TBA).

Authors who are there with their submissions are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to talk briefly about their design concepts.

Note that this is not an official PAX event. No badges are required to attend or participate.

Entry restrictions. This is not a competition, and there are no judges or prizes. Authors who have submitted content are welcome to comment on each other’s work. The only restriction is that you must be willing to have your work showcased in a public forum, and presented or linked from a website afterward.

Intent to enter: Friday, February 18. Email me (emshort@mindspring.com) with your intent to enter and include your technical requirements, answering these questions:

  • does your project need software to run other than a standard IF interpreter?
  • is it restricted to one OS?
  • will your project need internet access to run?
  • are you going to be present in person to install your project and/or present it on your own device?

I reserve the right to refuse an entry that is technically infeasible for us to present, but will do my best to accommodate reasonable requests.

Submission: Sunday, March 6. Email me (emshort@mindspring.com) your project or a link to where it lives on the web, and installation instructions.

Optionally, you may also submit an author’s note (no more than about 500 words, please) explaining the background of your project, anything you want players to know about it, and your hopes/expectations for the project.

Feedback for authors. Forms for anonymous feedback will be available both in the IF Suite and during the live presentation. Players and audience members who would like to share their thoughts without attribution can do so via these forms.

After the event, we’ll provide website coverage for the submissions, with links to author projects, as well as an article on the event in SPAG.