Talk:Interactive fiction/Archive 3

Citations for Disch's Amnesia
I'm afraid I'll have to give up on finding a cite for the fact that Amnesia was EA's only text adventure. I have searched long and hard, but apart from the many reviews open to the public and self-published sources, there seem to be no sources which address the fact that this is the only text adventure. I have found sources that give a list of all EA games and I have checked to see that of the ones in the list the only text adventure is Amnesia, however that could easily be interpreted as synthesis and with matters as they currently stand I have great reason to believe it would be challenged as violative of this policy (or possibly as violative of WP:RS somehow...). I think the only solution is to either come to a consensus that in this case WP:UCS trumps WP:OR, or to remove the word "only". Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no citations or agreement to use UCS, I'll go ahead and act BOLDly to remove the word "only." -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have Grue in the See Also category?
Just wanted to know if there's any reason, since it appears to be mostly out of topic. 203.116.243.1 (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a damn good question. I deleted it.  While it's related, it's pretty tangential.  The specific articles where grue is specifically relevant (Zork, Spellbreaker, many other games) can handle linking to it just fine.  If grues are so key to IF to justify the link, they're key enough to justify that link being part of a sentence providing some explanation for why in the main body text.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge of interactive novel?
I'm suggesting a merge of Interactive novel into this article. I'm not insistent, as it might sit better as a standalone article and I've copied in the lead for a summary-style section already. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see for previous discussions about terminology. Personally I think it would make more sense to merge your article with Hypertext fiction. --Curiousdannii (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's worth noting that other definitions of IF don't restrict themselves to the command-line parser interface, but hypertext fiction is a better match for the interactive novel. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's merge it with the "make your own damn map" games category along with all those Wizardry-like dungeon crawlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.135.188 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Archival
I'd like to configure archival for this rather enormous talk page using the same settings as at Talk:Talker. Any objections or other thoughts? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. There are some good suggestions at WP:ARCHIVE. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

✅ &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken link
The link to feelies.org is broken - that no longer exists. Is there a current one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.235.127 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

IF/Text Adventure
The article is biased towards the term "interactive fiction". To many the term is "text adventures" and the first sentence should make this clear, not present IF as being the more prevalent term. (The almost parenthetical reference to "text adventure" is more than a little arrogant) When these games were played in the 1980s the terminology "interactive fiction" was not used at all. Note that "interactive fiction" should also properly be applied to the genre's successors point-and-click and graphic adventures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.32.66 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Infocom coined the term interactive fiction. It was certainly in use in the 1980s. The reason why this has become the preferred name in the post-Infocom era is because it's more inclusive, embracing the many text-parser-based works that don't fit in the genre of adventure games. And of course graphic adventure game has its own article, prominently linked from this one. Ntsimp (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Google Books, "interactive fiction" was more common than "text adventure" even in the 80s. While the term IF has been applied more generally, so many of those historical hits will refer to hyperfiction or gamebooks, for over a decade there has been an annual "Interactive Fiction Competition,"  so as a term, IF has traction. http://jerz.setonhill.edu/weblog/2010/12/interactive_fiction_trumps_tex/. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Visual novels
I think it's a symptom of the problem that's been discussed here before (people interpreting interactive fiction compositionally instead of as a defined term of art), but I don't understand all of the visual novel material in this article. There are several sourced items, so rather than boldly jump in and root out all of the stuff that doesn't have anything to do with text adventures, I thought I'd check on the current consensus. Do other people agree that visual novels belong here, or that interactive fiction should just discuss the kind of game descended from Colossal Cave Adventure? Ntsimp (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Visual novels are better covered in that article, not here. We should include a note that the term is sometimes used to describe visual novels, but direct people to that article for better coverage. — Alan De Smet | Talk 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at cleaning it up. I think brief coverage of the other uses of the term with "Main article: Interactive storytelling" links are a good idea, but I'm not sure how best to handle it. Near the end (what we have now) is clumsy, but near the beginning would over emphasize them.  We could put the leader style "For the still-graphic adventure games originating in Japan, see visual novel" and the like, but to make it useful they would need to be pretty long. — Alan De Smet | Talk 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoth the owl, "Pottermore."
Does Pottermore fall within this medium? I wish the video announcement was more clear on whether or not this would be anything like a text-adventure game.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the answer for now should be: wait and see. The nice thing about being an encyclopedia is that we can move cautiously.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RAIL - Rainbird Adventure Implementation Language
Just wondering whether R.A.I.L. ever made the press - or perhaps not, as it's unfinished. --Trevj (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Interactive Fiction vs Text Adventure
Firstly, let me thank the people involved in maintaining these pages for their work - there has been some stellar contributions to the digital games history content on the Wikipedia, which is entirely commendable. Bravo!

However, I've been deeply concerned about this page for some time, as I do not believe it represents the best standards of the Wikipedia's referencing principles to collect adventure games/text adventures under the heading "interactive fiction" - this is a retrospective reclassification of a historical genre on the basis of a contemporary movement descended from it. It is not good practice in history to reclassify in this way - revisionist history violates the Wikipedia's "pillar" of neutrality by privileging one community perspective (the interactive fiction community) above historicity.

For example, in any conceivable reference contemporary to Magnetic Scroll's "The Guild of Thieves", it will be referred to as "an adventure game" or "a text adventure". No contemporary source cites it as interactive fiction. The construal of commercial text adventures as consumed within the non-commercial interactive fiction community serves this community's internal mythology, but violates the Wikipedia's presumption of offering content as if it were an encyclopaedia, and of neutrality.

We do not call MUDs by the contemporary term MMO, because we recognise the historicity of the term MUD as contemporaneous to the phenomena being described. Similarly, if the goal is to offer content as if the Wikipedia were an encyclopaedia, commercial text adventures should be referenced either as adventure games or as text adventures, and not by the contemporary term interactive fiction which post-dates the phenomena being described. This requires reworking the taxonomy of the adventure game currently deployed - but maintenance of that taxonomy should not take precedence over Wikipedia's values of referencing, neutrality etc.

Please consider this issue seriously, as it demeans an otherwise excellent corner of the Wikipedia's ever-changing content. ChrisBateman (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The term interactive fiction dates back to its commercial heyday. It's usually said that Infocom coined it, and indeed they popularized it in the 1980s, but Jimmy Maher has antedated that to 1979. Ntsimp (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me start by saying that I think an argument to rename this article "adventure game" is a nonstarter. Text adventures may have been loosely co-opted into Interactive Fiction in the modern day, but the modern use of the term "Adventure game" completely subsumes a vast swath of gaming. In this context the term "adventure game" has experienced such dilution that I don't think it is any longer usable as a title for the article.
 * The argument to rename the article "text adventure" has distinct merit, however, and I think it deserves more thorough consideration. We can begin with Wikipedia's titling policy, WP:TITLE. Regardless of whether it was caused by gamer confusion/disinterest in the commercial/non-commercial aspects of the games or by the more sinister revisionist mythology of a descendant cabal, it is quite clear that in the modern day "text adventure" and "interactive fiction" are used largely synonymously.
 * In determining which one is the better term to use as the title for an article on the topic here at wikipedia, the area of WP:TITLE that most closely guides us is WP:UCN. UCN has the effect of elevating two kinds of names for use as titles: Official names, and Common names. I would argue in this case that neither "text adventure" nor "interactive fiction" is an "official name" as the former was always intended descriptively and the latter has now succumbed to Genericide. So we must look to the common name. A brief google-test covering Google Books, Google Scholar, Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources for Video Games" Custom Google Search, and Google proper reveal that at worst "interactive fiction" is used nearly 3 times as often as "text adventure" (in Google Books) and at best it is used over 6 times as often as "text adventures" (in the "Reliable Sources for Video Games" Custom Google Search).
 * Although I tend to generally agree with the notion that historic terms should be used preferentially over modern neologisms, in the case at hand the "neologism" only post-dates the original term by 3 years (a period during which few such works were produced) and it had been used as a synonym for at least the last couple of decades. Given Wikipedia's structure I think it is harder to defend the use of a now less-commonly used term as the title of the article. There should be little concern that readers will become confused about the topic of the article because the term "text adventure" serves as a redirect to "interactive fiction" and indeed it appears in bold font in the third line of the article's lede.
 * It would certainly be improper to remove all reference to the terms "text adventure" and "adventure game" and indeed if these were to be stripped from the article then I would agree that the coverage of the topic was being damaged. The terms are historically important to a proper and full understanding of the genre. What I would suggest, however, rather than retitling the article it to a now more obscure historical term, would be to expand the history section of this article or even to write an entirely new article titled History of interactive fiction (or something along those lines). -Thibbs (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that there are exceptions to the titling policy. It seems you may have been making an argument going to WP:POVTITLE, Chris. If so, could you develop that part of the argument more? -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response here! I am very satisfied that the content as presented has been considered thoughtfully, although still not wholly convinced by 'interactive fiction' in this context, even taking into account the Infocom issue. I should note for context that I worked on the late point-and-click adventures with several people who worked on the early to late text adventures (e.g. Gregg Barnett, who ported "The Hobbit" to the C64, and Angela Barnett who worked for Magnetic Scrolls). I never once heard them use the term 'interactive fiction' which may in fact be brand-specific to Infocom. (Of course, this knowledge is inadmissible to the Wikipedia unless I publish it elsewhere, an irony that I face all too frequently when contributing here!) :) I did not hear the term 'interactive fiction' until circulating in the Game Studies community, where its use was constrained to the community I referred to in my previous comment - hence my concern at bias! The argument that 'adventure game' has become too diluted is certainly valid (although this was the de facto title for the form during the 1980s, at least in the UK); the case for 'text adventure' is stronger. An open question here is whether there is an issue of transatlantic bias, and whether that can or should be taken into consideration. The major magazines from the 8-bit era in the UK (Zzap and Crash) only ever use the term 'Interactive Fiction' in direct context with Infocom e.g. http://www.crashonline.org.uk/31/rpg.htm or http://www.zzap64.co.uk/zzap14/four_minds02.htm This isn't a straightforward matter, and I appreciate the careful consideration of the issues. My apologies if I phase in and out - I'm rather swamped right now, but I try not to 'Talk and run' on the Wikipedia all the same. Best wishes! ChrisBateman (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the term "interactive fiction" is more commonly used in the literature (see above), whether to change the name to "text adventure" or not depends on whether "interactive fiction" is still a proprietary term. Looking at the term itself, I would be surprised if it had ever been capable of bearing actual IP protection as to me it looks like a classic "mere descriptive" term. Nobody can trademark the term "carpet cleaner" because it would have a negative impact on all other floor fabric sanitizer products who would have to use complicated end-runs around the term. So too, the term "interactive fiction" looks extremely descriptive to me. However, if it was indeed a brand name, then whether the term was originally used proprietorially by Infocom or by Robert Lafore's company as Jimmy Maher suggests (see Ntsimp's link above), I think that in the current age it has fallen victim to Trademark erosion. If this is the case then we can take our example from the Aspirin article which uses the common name "Aspirin" (a former trademark) over the more obscure "acetylsalicylic acid" or "ASA". If "interactive fiction" is (or is still) a brand name, though, then clearly the article should be moved to a generic term and "text adventure" sounds best to me in that case.
 * In the event that the term is not demonstrated to be a trademark term, then the issue of transatlantic bias does still have merit and it should be considered separately. Wikipedia is intended not to have any bias when it comes to differing name or indeed prose usage related to regional variants of the language (see WP:ENGVAR). Problems do arise from time to time with titling, though, and historicity of usage often plays a part. One of the best recent examples of this can be seen in the FAQ at the top of the Sega Genesis talk page where all of the reasons leading to the use of "Sega Genesis" over "Sega Master System" or "Sega Genesis and Master system" are fully laid out. In that case, the deadlock resulting from a very large discussion of the issue was eventually broken by looking to which term was first used at Wikipedia. If we look back through the history of this article we can see that "text adventure" was created in April 2003 while "interactive fiction" was created on 25 September 2001. The "interactive fiction" article at this time was, however, no more than a redirect to "text adventure games", an article that was itself strangely created the following day on 26 September 2001. Although no attribution is given in either direction, this appears to mirror the usage of the term at Nostalgia Wiki as see here and here ("Interactive fiction" created 26 September 2001 as a redirect to "Text adventure games", itself created some 8 hours later). So it looks like "text adventure" may have a very slightly older use than "interactive fiction" on Wikipedia, however this only makes up one part of the analysis required for a titling discussion regarding transatlantic language variations. Another major piece of the analysis is still common usage which I think clearly favors "interactive fiction".
 * So I think at this point we need evidence that "interactive fiction" is a current trademark/brand term, or we need further consideration by the community if it is an issue of regional titling. If it's just a matter of deference to historical terms then I think the best solution would be to expand the history section here or to start up a new article on the history of text adventures/interactive fiction. -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

dead link - amateur adventure game
Article was deleted due to unsourced content. last known version. I found a documentary on text adventures, Get Lamp, but the content of the original article does not conform using this video as a source. Just wanted to provide a starting point for additional article development, or removal of "amateur adventure game" (AAG) dead link. Since that article was WP:PROD in 2006, that link has a historical significance for being part of the IF article. A new AAG article based on the GET LAMP source would be completely different if I make it.--Vorik111 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't completely follow. What do you mean by "the original article does not conform using this video as a source"? Which original article? "Interactive fiction", "Get Lamp", or "Amateur adventure game"? I can see that the documentary is referenced in the "See also" and "External links" sections of this article ("Interactive fiction") and its homepage is used as a source for the "Get Lamp" article, but none of these are examples of using the documentary as a source. Incidentally, the use of the documentary as a source would appear to me to be acceptable as it looks like it falls within Wikipedia's definition of a Reliable source regarding the topic of interactive fiction and it could definitely be used as a "self-published source as a source on itself" within the "Get Lamp" article. Whether or not the AAG redlink needs to be removed from this article is a question of how likely it is that the article will ever be written. According to its December 2012 PROD, User:Explicit noted that "I could not find any reliable sources to support the notability of this particular class of games". This seems to indicate that an article will never be written on this topic and so the redlink should be removed. If you plan to write an article on the topic in the near future, however, then I see no harm in leaving it as a redlink until the article is completed. Make sure you use reliable sources, and good luck with it! -Thibbs (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Interactive fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040928125218/http://www.ibiblio.org:80/pub/docs/interactive-fiction/magazines/XYZZYnews/XYZZY4.PDF to http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/interactive-fiction/magazines/XYZZYnews/XYZZY4.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060616010715/http://www.csd.uwo.ca:80/Infocom/Articles/NZT/Tslspr87.html to http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/Articles/NZT/Tslspr87.html#ztrilogy
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130514051428/http://www.thedoteaters.com/p4_stage1.php to http://www.thedoteaters.com/p4_stage1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation penny jar
Have a citation? Leave a citation. Need a citation? Take a citation. A place to dump promising looking sources you don't have time to integrate, or to find sources to investigate.


 * Wide ranging discussion of the modern (circa 1998) scene. Lots of links.
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_barss/20040113.html backup - article from CBC news.
 * Sadly not available online
 * Update, 40 megabyte PDF now online. http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=2000&pub=2&id=194 , or direct link , http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_194.pdf  Byrl Baker is on pg144or146. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly not available online
 * Update, 40 megabyte PDF now online. http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=2000&pub=2&id=194 , or direct link , http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_194.pdf  Byrl Baker is on pg144or146. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, 40 megabyte PDF now online. http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=2000&pub=2&id=194 , or direct link , http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_194.pdf  Byrl Baker is on pg144or146. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If Stephen Colbert is doing it... perhaps THAT is what the sekrit new project of Jon Stewart will be???? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ; this article is making fun of Microsoft's old-school UI for Visual Studio, but like the re-imagine-the-2014-fps-as-a-text-adventure cite below, shows that the concept of the text adventure is an enduring one.
 * ; see also the television broadcaster's website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_nolan.shtml
 * ; see also the television broadcaster's website, http://colbertlateshow.com/escape-from-the-man-sized-cabinet/
 * Possibly useful, this WP:BLOGS site includes a collection of links to academic conferences, authoring systems, and the like; some linked material might be WP:SOURCES useful to us here.
 * ; see also the television broadcaster's website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_nolan.shtml
 * ; see also the television broadcaster's website, http://colbertlateshow.com/escape-from-the-man-sized-cabinet/
 * Possibly useful, this WP:BLOGS site includes a collection of links to academic conferences, authoring systems, and the like; some linked material might be WP:SOURCES useful to us here.
 * ; see also the television broadcaster's website, http://colbertlateshow.com/escape-from-the-man-sized-cabinet/
 * Possibly useful, this WP:BLOGS site includes a collection of links to academic conferences, authoring systems, and the like; some linked material might be WP:SOURCES useful to us here.

I've just shifted the above section into a refidea template above. Please add additional suggestions to that template to avoid losing track of them during page archivings. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of genre
Does this belong on this page at all? It is all unreferenced and looks like a single individual's opinion on the genre. --Curiousdannii (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. It looks like the essay was added by in  where he notes in his edit summary that "the References have not been made in the text yet." Given that it's now more than six months since the addition took place, and Geryhall31 hasn't edited the encyclopedia since February, I think it's fair to assume that they may not ever be given. I'd remove the whole essay based on lack of sources, unencyclopedic tone, and numerous formatting errors (the italic subsection titles should also be removed from some of the earlier subsections (like 2.1.3, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2). The whole article needs work. I wish I had more time to devote to this... -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Came to this via WP:ORN. Responding there. A massive block of unsourced commentary, however, doesn't belong in the article. I moved the content here to make it easy for someone to draw from if they so choose. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Section text
A brief list of advantages, disadvantages, debate and criticisms of interactive fiction.

Safety

Until recently playing an IF title meant not only downloading a game file but also downloading an interpreter in order to read game files. This has the advantage that a story file is able to run on any number of different types of computer and as the story file is isolated from the host computer it is not possible to alter or damage any of the hosts other files. However, whilst this relativity easy method of acquisition, the disadvantage is that the story file can only be used with an interpreter.

Furthermore, many people are cautious downloading files and programs from the internet unless it is from a reputable source, in case they accidentally download unstable software or something malicious. The lack of a commercial Corporation or Company legally responsible for the product and its distribution only adds to the distrust. The presence of an official website for a title does not make this any less so.

With the development of web based interpreters also title to run in a web browser the risk has been reduced. The downside of this is that it is not possible to save or skip chapters whilst using these. This is essential for most people, for books you can use bookmarks and for computer games you have levels, which levels can be selected to play, and the gameplay progresses after the level is completed.

Unplayable

All IF title share a standard set of common commands based on a two word verb-noun combination. However, many players, particularly new players, can easily become frustrated with the lack of prompts, the limited vocabulary, and limited combinations that they are permitted to use. Some attempts have been made to include software that is capable of syntax guessing was a notable failure, perhaps the introduction of predictive text or spell check might help reduce some errors and "I don't understand".

The concept that you can type in any grammatically correct sentence and the game will understand your commands is simply not true. IF author Emily Short has noted, "the command prompt is a lie. It tells the player "type something, and I'll understand you. Which it won't". This implication that the player can type anything leads new readers to lots of frustration. However, she also points out "I haven't much interest in the simulate-everything, let-the-player-do-anything kind of IF...you could spend an eternity building the world-model to offer the player as much freedom as possible, and wind up with something utterly flaccid and dull when you were done, where no action is meaningful because all actions are possible".

Part of the experience is in the formulation of the command. Mike Roberts, one of the founders of IFDb, comments "I think a novice player is going to have a much more satisfying experience if you can hand him or her a short list of all of the command phrasing that they could possibly need to play the game, and tell them that if they get stuck, they should just remember that they never need any commands but those on the list."

To which Emily Short, responded "trick isn't to make the parser understand whatever a novice might type... It's a matter of making the game better at communicating to the player what kinds of things are valid actions in the first place... If you can do anything at the command prompt, where do you start?"

A similar criticism can be found with dialogue. The interaction with other players is often a difficult process. As a player interacts with a character the dialogue provides more and more data, however, this does not also match the player's needs, a player typically only wants the information that they require in order to progress the plot. A player can find that they have more information than the need, and others find that they have missed or misinterpreted some important detail.

Character agency

In fiction a character have their own motivations. They progress the plot more than the plot progress them, meaning the plot exists as a direct result of the character's actions.

This is what actors mean when they ask 'what is my motivation'. A character's personality, moods, morality, values, ego, understanding of the world and its rules should form a coherent decision-making process, and the various aspects of their character (e.g. bravery, happiness, empathy, sympathy) should reflect that process.

Instead of allowing a player to do whatever they want to do, a player should be limited to doing what the character they are playing would do. So if you are playing a kind and gentle person then you should not be able to perform cruel or harmful actions. This however may add to the player-to-avatar disconnect, in which a player may not feel in control of their character.

Unbeatable

Many titles can appear unbeatable unless the right words are phrased in the correct way at the correct time. This is particular fault is often referred to as guess-the-verb (GTV). For example, if there is a crate to be opened with a crowbar and the only way to open it is to "pry crate with crowbar", other actions like "open crate with crowbar" give a misleading response without hinting at the correct answer.

Some titles, failed in this respect, for example the text adventure game Cloak Of Death boasted of understanding "32 verbs" on the sleeve but failed to say what they were, meaning players were required to use the uncommon verbs KICK, MAKE and EXORCISE at specific points in order to complete the game without the slightest hint that they had to do so. It is for this reason that it is not only convention to refer to particularly unusual verb to in descriptive text, but also to capitalize it, highlighting it to both experienced and new players.

When titles introduce new verb commands it is common that the new commands are 'mapped' into old verb commands, i.e. make them actual synonyms instead of giving responses along the lines of 'Try INSCRIBE rather than WRITE'. For example, if a player types 'look in', 'look under', or 'search' the software silently tries 'examine' instead, and are often understood as the common command 'examine', since examine is the most common way to get more detail about something, meaning that such that the standard actions can be used consistently and that examining things is sufficient to obtain the required information.

An associate fault is often referred to as guess-the-noun (GTN). A famous example of this can be found in the video game Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge in which the player is required use a monkey as a wrench to turn a water pipe off, punning on the term monkey wrench. This colloquialism is unknown to many outside the United States, for whom this puzzle is near-impossible.

Many 'clues' can also cause this issue either because it assumes prior knowledge, it is a pun or reference, or it relies on an in-joke. For example, the game Dungeon Adventure, a pride of lions is carved over a doorway. Any player walking through falls into a lethal pit. The clue referring to the proverb 'pride comes before a fall'.

While problems of this nature are reduced through extensive beta-testing, the use of synonyms for nouns is now common practice. For example, hyphenated words like chat-room deserve the synonyms chatroom, and chat room. Words like television should have common nicknames understood, such as TV, telly and set, while words like pickup should allow for class-based synonyms such as vehicle, car, van or truck. One of the most common solutions to the issue of unbeatable situations is to allow for multiple routes or multiple solutions for any given puzzle, since rigorous simulation makes it possible to offer the player solutions which haven't even occurred to the author. For example, there are seven ways to open the child-proof medicine bottle in Curses, or in another example, a puzzle in The lost pig allows the players several solutions to the problem of seeing the item on the top shelf.

User interface

By its definition a puzzle is a problem that tests a person's ingenuity or knowledge. Puzzles can't be obvious or they are not a puzzle. However, puzzles need to be understandable, User-centered design implies that anything that is used should be self-explanatory, but many puzzles in Interactive fiction are not self-explanatory.

Visibility

The first point is visibility, for example many drawers have a handle so you know where to pull it, does a player know when they are confronted with a puzzle and do they know if the puzzle involve timing. A locked door in some titles sometimes represents a simple puzzle whilst in other titles it represents a door which an un-openable part of the scenery. Other puzzles do not make it clear whether the solution of a puzzle is the use of an object or a set of steps which need to be performed. The use of multiple rooms can make it unclear which rooms are required to solve which puzzle. The video game Portal for example uses transparent walls between rooms which are required for a related puzzle, and uses motion to signal the items that are required. If an incorrect action is tried then the game should give some form of feedback to help guide the player, the worst thing you can do is not say anything to the player, which often happens in Interactive fiction. For example, if you try opening a door and it does not open, the game should feedback to the player whether this is the correct pathway or not. Other video games place monsters in the direction that the player is indented to go in, to signal to the player that it is the correct way to go.

Feedback is also an important part of Visibility. For example, a kettle will click or whistle when it has boiled, the status of the system is 'visible' to the user. With the lack of visual and auditory signals feedback is much harder in Interactive fiction than in order media.

Randy Smith has written extensively on the design of computer games. He comments that if the puzzle requires the use of an object then it should be clear to the player if they use the wrong object, or the right object in the wrong way. Furthermore, when an item is used it is often unclear if the item will be needed again or not. If the puzzle requires a set of steps or actions which need to be performed, the player should receive feedback if they are trying the wrong actions or if they are tying the right actions in the wrong sequence. It must also be clear if the puzzle has be completed, if an action is tried then the game should give some form of feedback.

Affordance

The second is Affordance, the relationship between an object (or environment) and the player that affords the opportunity for that player to perform an action (such as pulling or pushing). For example, a push plate on a door without handles serves no purpose other than signaling to the user that it may be pushed. In a game if you see a ladder you not only assume that you can climb something, but that you are required to. Similarly, if you can talk to a character you assume that you are required to talk to them in order to progress the narrative. In video games the differences can be made clear using position, color, texture or resolution. The video game Mirror's Edge shows things that are climbable in red and things that are not climbable in blue, whilst in Thief: Deadly Shadows readable books are open whilst unreadable book are closed. Usual or novel ways to use items is not allowing for reasonable affordance.

To reduce the issues caused by the user interface many titles include descriptive introductions, the option to view hints, allow players to adjust difficultly, or access to a walk through for players to use. These, however, do not solve the cause they simply alleviate the symptoms. Some puzzles are solved by intelligence or trial and error, but some puzzles are solved by accident, such as using the hidden exit in the notorious 'Bank of Zork puzzle' in Zork II, which has been understood by almost nobody who solved it. The only effective solution is through the application of the above principle. For example, some puzzles prompt the player to try other senses such as TASTE, SMELL or LISTEN, which will describe an object in more detail, as a way to form subtle hints, giving the player a clearer direction whilst allowing the player to retain a sense of control and sense of achievement when solving the puzzle.

Unwinnable

It is common for players to find themselves in a situation (either due to a bug or by poor game design) where it is impossible for them to progress in the narrative or in an unwinnable state without the game notifying the player. This can be as simple as moving into the next area (causing a plot device such as a landslide) without finding a necessary item beforehand, or due to some other mistake, poor timing or oversight that the player is unable to correct. For example, the classic games Colossal Cave Adventure, the Zork series and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (video game) remain notorious for leaving players in unwinnable situations without telling them, more than twenty years later.

In modern interactive fiction, unwinnable states that fail notifying the player have gone out of fashion, but some are still made (designed for old-school text-adventure fans) which are not clearly described as being designed in this way. Killing the player is a common way to notify the player of an unwinnable state. Most titles now also allow the player the use of an UNDO command to allow players a bit more freedom without giving them a sense of invincibility.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Interactive fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011052502/http://www.wurb.com:80/if/ to http://www.wurb.com/if/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interactive fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xyzzynews.com%2Fxyzzy.1c.html&date=2008-10-30 to http://www.xyzzynews.com/xyzzy.1c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interactive fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xyzzynews.com/xyzzy.1c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202224036/http://www.xyzzynews.com/98winners.html to http://www.xyzzynews.com/98winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112115227/http://pr-if.org/play/ to http://pr-if.org/play/
 * Added tag to http://www.atypon-link.com/INT/toc/jgvw/1/1?cookieSet=1%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)