Shameless plug: http://chooseyourstory.com/story/dungeon-stompage~21
Dungeon stompage is one of the best games I have ever played.
Why god why is there not more
But we musn't forget how games must also have a non-linear storyline in general!
I want to see more alternative endings and less repetitive scenes. In my own storygames, I am trying to branch them out away from each other and have them repeat scenes as little as possible.
Well Snow only had two real endings, and they were pretty similar to each other. Snow was definitely more "story" than "game". Haunted is (in my opinion) one of the most diverse and non-linear games here.
Everyone is Entitled to an Opinion - and My Opinion is that You are Not Entitled to one.
And everyone's entitled to freedom of speech... So I'm free to tell you to shut up!
And This Should be a Non-Linier Discussion!
A. So There!
B. SNAKES ON THE MUTHAFUCKAN PLANE!
C. I Respectfully Submit
D. Both B & C
I make my own non-linear choice!
E) Scold Berka for spelling 'linear' wrong
Unless, of course, he wants the discussion to not be full of lines...
Isn't this kind of getting off topic? And seriously, Linier? More... liny?
There's actually a "different" third ending for Snow, but I f*cked up the variables, so it's unreachable.
Why not just unpublish it for a bit and fix it then?
Just remembered now when a couple people mentioned it only had two endings.
Otherwise i think Eternal (http://chooseyourstory.com/story/eternal) was really good, I could very easily buy this as a book or online game it was brilliant!
Eternal is one of the best books i have read but why mention it hear. Eternal is VERY linear. Most of the choices lead to death.
Well if you consider only one direct path to be canon and have only played that path then you might consider it linear by your bias and ignorance. :P
I'm working on two stories like that. "In The Dark" and "Magick Academy" ... you could argue Game of Life and Death allows for customization, but it's not really that much.
Also, there's a difference between "non-linear" and games with ageless, nameless, faceless, genderless, backstoryless protagonists.
A game can let you customize your protagonist to ridiculous levels of detail, but still have a railroad plot with only one "real" ending.
Or, it can give you a prebuilt character, and have incredible variation in the storylines for that character to follow.
If you don't like it, feel free to call me a bunch of names in the comments section, but just don't bitch about the lack of gender choice. I've gotten two of those facepalm inducing comments recently, so right about now I'd welcome someone just calling me a sick bastard or something similar. (Misspelled words optional)
OMG YOU DIDN'T ALLOW A CHOICE FOR ETERNAL TO BE A GIRL OMFG YOU MISOGYNIST FUCK! WHY DO YOU MAKE ALL THE WOMEN SO SLUTTY OMFG IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER PAGE I SEE LIKE SOME SEXUAL INNUENDO OMFG UR SO STUPID.
GO HANG YOURSELF ON A ROPE. STUPID. WOMAN BEATER. I HOPE YOU END UP LOCKED IN JAIL FOR A BILLION YEARS GETTING BEATEN BY FEMALE GUARDS.
^You were saying?
If only the ones complaining about that stuff were THAT amusing!
Come on, it's not like being female would require any sort of rewriting/revision to the story!
Seriously, just throw a gender-selection screen up right at the beginning, and you're good.
But then when other characters refers to you, they have to use either he or she pronouns. xD Why do you have empty spaces after your comment?
Pretty sure Seth wasn't being serious.
Besides if the Eternal was female, I'd also have to go back and change up all the love interest stuff as well as adding in a bunch of sandwich making scenes when she's directly serving the Emperor.
@nmelssx: it's sarcasm. See, when I said "you wouldn't have to change anything" it was a joke, because obviously, you'd have to rewrite the entire story.
@EndMaster: No, you can't just change the love interest things! What if I want to play a lesbian Eternal? And what if I don't want to be Eternal? Why can't I be Mistress? Or the Emperor?
I love that you're only pretty sure I'm not serious.
Hey, it's the internet, always got to leave a little leeway on what is possibly serious business!
Probably would be interesting to do a story where you play as Mistress, though to avoid a writing nightmare of syncing up every possible outcome and event in Eternal, it would HAVE to be a prequel.
Yes. Make it so that you can be anyone you want. Your whole personality, and appearance changes base on who you picked to be. You can be a farmer, to a king, or queen if you so desires. Then in the game, makes infinite amounts of paths that let you do anything you want. xD
Maybe there would be an option for being female in a later Eternal update? Just don't rage on it.
"Maybe there would be an option for being female in a later Eternal update" - I highly doubt it xD
I understand people raging on it to be honest. It just doesn't bother me as much as other people.
Nope, no update, the story's done. You're stuck with having a penis, it's not a choice, you're written that way.
(There is an ending where you get your dick cut off though)
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Should Moby Dick be re-written with a female protagonist? Does every work of fiction need to have multiple POV characters?
Just because something is interactive fiction, does not mean that the reader is suddenly entitled to every possible different protagonist or path. Interactive fiction means that the reader must have some input on the direction of the story, it does not mean that the reader should be allowed to design their own character, play through every possible scenario (including ones that the author hasn't thought of) and generally have their way with the entire world.
It's incredible how many people genuinely believe that they are owed this by the author.
Come on 3J, it's an interactive game! If it doesn't give me every possible option ever, it's garbage!
They believe they're owed it because the idea of interactive fiction is self insertion and if they aren't the gender of the protagonist, it's harder to picture ones' self as part of the story. So, I understand why they want the option.
Personally, I've never given a damn, I've played protagonists of both genders without complaint--but I will admit, there are a lot more male protagonists out there. If I cared, and if I wanted to play as a girl, it might bug me ... but bitching is useless, let alone at another person. They should just write their own. *shrug*
We should petition for English pronouns that are gender neutral. A bunch of other languages have them, and we all know English is the language that beats up other languages and rummages through their pockets for spare vocabulary.
So 'xe' should totally become a real word to replace 'he'/'she'.
A diplomatic idea. I was always kind of fond of the "watashi" ("I, me," non-gender specific) or "ore" ("I, me" non-gender specific and heavily braggy or prideful) of Japan, and it adds an element of mystery depending on the circumstance of the story. I don't think it'll ever happen, mind you, but if it did, I'd be happy to use it.
I always thought ore was strictly male; only watashi was truly gender-neutral, and boku was typically male, but could be used by girls who don't want to appear feminine.
Whether grammarians want to accept it or not, general public use says "they" is the gender-neutral singular pronoun.
But the important thing here is: Some people approach interactive fiction with the intent of immersing themselves in a story where their choices help define the outcome. Other people approach it with the expectation that the story is about them and for them. Those people are likely to be disappointed.
Ore is typically used by men, but as far as I recall, it can be used by a woman ... I confess, it's been years since I've studied and my Japanese is a tad rusty.
I tend to approach interactive fiction with more of a middle ground, thinking of it as an alternate version of one's self.
That sounds like you're thinking of boku. (As if I'm an expert. . .)
You mean like "if I were the protagonist, what would I do in this situation?"
Pretty sure I'm not, though. I was always taught boku was a guy thing, period.
"Boku (?) is what you could think of as the “soft-masculine” I-word. It literally means “manservant” so when you use it there is a sense that you are humbling yourself before the speaker.
It has a more informal feeling than watashi, however, so you may want to be careful when using it with strangers, authority figures and colleagues.
Boku is used primarily by men, but very young and/or boyish girls sometimes use it too. I’ve also heard women use boku in song lyrics.
If boku is the “soft-masculine” I-word then ore (?) is the “hard-masculine.” This is the word tough guys use, and as such you would almost never hear it used with a polite verb form.
It’s not polite by any stretch of the imagination, but to say it’s a “rude” word would be a mistake as well. Ore can actually convey a sense of intimacy (we’re close friends, so I don’t need to worry about being polite with you). This is probably the most common I-word among groups of men (except in business or other formal settings)."
Although, according to Wikipedia, ore used to be used by both genders, and still is in some dialects.
I knew most of that, the only thing I wasn't aware of was that women used boku. I do distantly remember learning that Ore is not used by women nearly as much as it use to be. Both are probably discouraged.
The idea of interactive fiction is playing through the eyes of a protagonist, not self-insertion. You are meant to temporarily become the author's vision of the protagonist. The author's protagonist is NOT meant to become you. This is why we bother with a backstory for the protagonist. You are contributing to the problem here.
"Contributing to the problem"? Jesus ... what are you talking about? I'm agreeing that people who bitch about what a writer allegedly 'should' or 'should not' do need to shut up and fuck off. Besides, you're wrong. We both are:
Definition: "an adventure or mystery story, usually presented as a video game or book, in which the player or reader is given choices as to how the storyline is to develop or the mystery is to be solved."
It's a broad definition and they can involve either you becoming a character OR that character becoming you, neither of which scenarios are either necessary or defining.
Your definition has nothing to do with characters though. It literally just says the reader/player decides what happens.
Which is my point. The definition is too broad and vague for either of our statements about it to be true.
... Killa, I already said that. -.- Three hours ago. Please read posts / discussions thoroughly before commenting.
What you said was:
"They believe they're owed it because the idea of interactive fiction is self insertion and if they aren't the gender of the protagonist, it's harder to picture ones' self as part of the story. So, I understand why they want the option."
That's contributing to the problem. The problem is that readers believe that the author owes them all of the amenities required for them to do the mental gymnastics of inserting themselves into the story. That's not the case. When you start reading interactive fiction, you are always playing as the author's protagonist. Always. Well, unless the protagonist has no backstory, no name, no given appearance and no gender. If the protagonist has been given any description, then you're not yourself, you're the protagonist of the story as written by the author.
The reason that's not given in your definition (which, by the way, if you're going to cite a definition, you always need to source where you got it from) is because it's an obvious given.
"When you start reading interactive fiction, you are always playing as the author's protagonist."
That's not true, though. I've played interactive fiction where I'm not -any- character in it, I'm just making choices about what happens to them.
"because it's an obvious given."
Or maybe it's because it's not part of the definition. Maybe it's just not that specific. :P
"That's not true, though. I've played interactive fiction where I'm not -any- character in it, I'm just making choices about what happens to them. "
My point was that it's not about self-insertion because it can't be about self-insertion because the author doesn't know you.
"Strawman"? :P Why? You said something that I have found untrue, and I said so.
... The author doesn't need to know you for you to insert yourself into a story when reading an interactive fiction. As long as it's vague enough, you can, but I've already stated that neither one of us was right. It doesn't need to be about self-insertion. Not that it can't be, but it doesn't define the genre and isn't required.
Inserting yourself into the story is making the protagonist you. That will literally never happen, so long as the protagonist holds a single trait that you don't hold. At that point, the protagonist isn't you, anymore. The protagonist may be given no personality, so you can insert some of your own if you choose, or he may be given tons, but either way, it's not you, it's the author's protagonist.
Interactive fiction as a whole is not about self-insertion.
... "If I was in this scenario and had to choose between these things" is self insertion as far as I'm concerned. Lots of people do that while playing IF, but fine, you apparently have very strict logic when it comes to what is or is not self-insertion, and is or is not interactive fiction.
"Interactive fiction as a whole is not about self-insertion." ... I already stated it doesn't have to involve it at all, which implies it's not "about" it. :P If I already implied it, why state it?
(You didn't explain your "strawman" comment.)
Oh, sorry, I thought it was self-explanatory. Our argument was about self-insertion vs playing the author's protagonist. Rather than addressing any of the points in that argument, all you did was nitpick a single statement with a comment that had nothing to do with the debate at hand, AND you actually didn't address anything relevant to the debate. That was a strawman.
"If I was in this scenario and had to choose between these things" is self insertion as far as I'm concerned. Lots of people do that while playing IF, but fine, you apparently have very strict logic when it comes to what is or is not self-insertion, and is or is not interactive fiction.
You are the author's character and you're given the options that the author sees the character taking. You are not yourself, given the options that you would take. For instance, in Love SICK, don't tell me that the options that are presented are options that you would take IRL? No, because the protagonist isn't you. You are not inserting yourself into the story, you are occupying the mind-state of the author's protagonist. It is not self-insertion.
This is why you are not entitled to any gender or appearance or characteristic that you may desire. You are meant to try to get into the mind of the author's protagonist and navigate that way. That's why it's completely ridiculous for someone to ask Endmaster to write Eternal again with a female lead.
I've never heard that either :P At least Google seems to recognise that.