Within the three games, Zork, Myst, and Legend of Zelda: Windwaker there are all different conceptions of space. In the text adventure, Zork, space is consistancy with linked textual "locations" which behave as an overview text and specific interactions only available within the "location". The consistancy is based on the relativity of locations and how they are sensical, if one were to head east, and then back west where they came from, they'd be in the original location and not a different link (unless story demands such a phenomenon). The same spacial sense holds true for Myst; where, like earlier text games, players have a choice between moving in directions (which are now made obvious by mouse pointer behavior) and specific interactions depending on what frame they're in. Myst's major difference is that now, instead of a textual overview, there is a single frame (or static angle full-motion video) repressenting each "location". After these two, there is Nintendo's Legend of Zelda: Windwaker, which, unlike the other two games, operates in a 3-D plane, meaning location is a numerical one. However, the same "linking" that was occuring between locations is present in this game when players move from plane to plane. Consider each plane a "location" like the frames in myst or the paragraphs in Zork. Windwaker still operates under the early conventions with that said. There is a high level of consistancy between each "location". If one were to walk into The Tower of the Gods and then leave from the way they came in, they would return to the ocean overworld from which they came from.
A sense of reality is present in all these games, however, the approach that the designers take to creating this sense of reality differs between the games. Windwaker has the advantage of being fully 3-d which allows players to assume basic logistical abilities similar to their own. Like real three dimensional life, Link can move not just in cardinal directions, but to ANY which that he chooses. Also, Link is not limited by how far he is moving which is unlike its counterparts that only allow specific transitions between frames. Myst has this problem, but it doesn't fail to present a complete visual reality despite the inability to completely navigate it(at least to the level one could with a 3-d plane). Myst's visuals are 3-d prerendered frames. This allows for conceptual sense of location. Although a player cannot move half a frame forward, one could still visualize it. This leaves players open to how complete the visual representation of Myst is. A computer game released shortly after Myst, Are You Afraid of the Dark The Tale of Orpheo's Curse, suffered from such a problem. Using a similar(if not the exact same) engine as Myst, the game lacked the level of art design that Myst had. Environments would be limited to Specific location without expressing a clear sense of anywhere outside of such. The difference would be that Myst had something that seemed like true world while Orpheo's Curse would just be linked locations. Zork operates with a nearly identical system of logistics when compared to Myst, Zork however, is textual. This means that the environments are completely derived from the writing ability of the programmer. Zork itself is wonderfully over-descriptive and consistant with such. Like Myst, one could imagine an extended environment from Zork's writing. When standing over a cliff, the player is treated to the same full view that one would have in that location. They can see beyond the earlier forest and out into mountains and rivers. Like the comparisson between Myst and Orpheo's curse though, the presentation, if flawed will lead to a more imcomplete experience. If a player recieves under-descriptive or a highly "soft" sense of reality when it isn't needed, his experience will not be considered nearly as real as it could have been.
The interaction between environments in each game are perfectly derived from their presentation. Zork allows users to attempt any kind of interaction imaginable because its text based interface allows for any kind of input from a character based keyboard. This creates an excellent situation and a daunting problem. The good side to this is with players able to try any kind of level of ineractions(they can attempt any "verb" use that they like), there is conceptually infinite amounts of ways to interact with the environemnt. The problem that arises from this is that players are not consistantly aware of their options(they could be ANYTHING) . There is a level of standardization among the options, but a player could be stuck for half an hour going through verbs trying to figure out they were supposed to "dig" for something. The opposite happens with Myst. Since the interaction is simplified from text input(you now just click your mouse), the game can be reduced to simply clicking everywhere until something works. This of course, is not true for numerical puzzles that are obviously present throughout the game, but interaction still holds true. Windwaker, however, transends these two problems. Taking a hint from earlier RPG's and adventure games players have a very specific set of interactors(speak, attack, or tool) . With the level of interactors staying low, the player is still forced to make specific choices based on environment, but is never left at the whim of a sadistic programmer.
With these mechanics established, the games are far capable of creating a story told through their presentation. All games are similar in a sense that they are not entirely event derived. Zork players must gather items and alter their environment to move on. Players in Myst must turn on different island parts and explore what they open. Players in Windwaker are slowed by lack of tools in certain situations(how exactly would you dare to enter Gale Isle without Iron Boots?). Though pushed along with some interspersed cut scenes such as Sirrus and Artus guiding you in Myst, getting kidnapped by pirates in Windwaker, or even primary impressions of environment in Zork, the three games have a sense of non-linearity that is a standard for interavtive fiction. A standard where your own intrigue with your environment is what fuels you and every step you take into the game brings you further into the environment.
September 9th, 2005