This has happened to me several times, the last being “A Golden Wake” (which I liked, despite the railroading).
The moral and ethical features of the character had already been chosen and fixed by the writer, to the point that the story took unavoidable turns that personally I would have never taken.
this is interesting to me because I am not sure I consider this a problem. Even if I sense that I don’t really have the power to alter the course or the outcome of the story in the slightest, I still feel a significant difference between being a simple reader and being the one who issued the command “lift the blanket” (to see what monster is hiding under it). Even if it was totally obvious there was a bulge under the blanket and you had to lift it, and even if the game did not give you any other way to progress than to do that, still there is an important difference between just reading about it, and doing it. (This sounds curiously similar to the issue “in a deterministic world is there still free will?” 
)
Yes, there is a difference, and in the latter case I consider it to be a bad thing. When reading a story, I consider myself to be merely an observer. But in something interactive like a game, I expect to have some agency.
To give an example of where I found railroading in a game extremely distasteful, I played an RPG several years ago that at one point in the story required you and some other characters to drink some sort of potion. I immediately recognized it as a bad idea, but my character was literally stuck in the room until I did what the game expected me to. I didn’t even have the luxury of abandoning the quest line and giving up on further story progression, as the only other way to get out of the room would have been to restore a previous save. So I very grudgingly did what was required of me, and was then presented with a scenario where I needed to kill some ordinarily dangerous monsters. However, the monsters were moving quite slowly and weren’t attacking. I realized that I was being tricked into thinking some defenseless people were actually dangerous monsters, so I had no desire to kill them. No matter what, the game would not let me out of that hallucination until I did what the game told me to. The game then revealed what I’d already figured out, but any impact of it was lost, because the game forced me into doing something I knew I didn’t want to do.
I wasn’t allowed to try simply walking away, or confronting the people trying to trick me. Since the character I was playing was one of my own creation, and not a pre-made character with an established personality or backstory, being coerced into performing actions that were completely out of character severely harmed the story, and still annoys me well over a decade after the fact. Even with a pre-defined character, if there’s a disagreement between the writer’s interpretation of a character and the player’s interpretation, problems like this can still occur.
To complete what I said, I think we should distinguish three cases:
you don’t have any choice; (= a book)
you have many choices, but only one makes the story progress.
you have many choices, and the story progresses in different directions depending on what choice you take.
I think product (2) can still be an interesting experience because, even if at any time there’s only one choice that makes the story progress, the other choices (basically walk around, look around, talk, and operate) give you more details on the feelings of characters, and add to the immersion. For example… imagine any novel that you like. Now imagine if, before taking the action that makes the story progress, you could walk around to find where the various characters are at that point in time, see what they are doing at that time, and ask them how they are feeling at that time, and what their objectives are at that time. That, I think, would be an interesting experience. And it can be achieved at a cost similar to that of (1), by the same person who created (1). (it would also solve some typical writer problems like “I don’t know if this description is boring and should be cut, or I should include it”)
Of course (3) would be even better. No doubt. But I don’t see (3) as something that can be achieved at a cost similar to that of (1). And at any rate (3) is something that is very different from writing a novel. It requires a different set of skills, and it is not reasonably easy to convert a novel to it. So for (3) I can see why such things do not exist.
I think that’s the root of the problem here. I think we can solve the problem simply by falsifying that condition… for example, suppose you are playing an interactive novel based on a Stephen King’s book. At one point, you are given control of the killer (or monster). The only way to advance the story is to try to chase and kill the protagonist. I think you would not complain that you aren’t given the choice to do something else instead. Or at any rate you wouldn’t perceive this as annoying. (In alternative, you can be given that choice, and the monster turns good, and the story ends :))
Even with predefined characters the problem can occur. For an infamous example, let’s pick a random James Bond story. Similar to your example with the killer in a Stephen King novel, you’re at one point given control of the supervillain, whose primary goal is to kill James Bond. Anyone who’s even remotely familiar with James Bond stories is familiar with the trope of the easily escaped, very slow deathtrap that the supervillain can’t be bothered to personally supervise. Logically speaking, if I’m put in control of the supervillain, my goal is to kill James Bond immediately. Not over the course of a half-hour. Not with some Rube Goldberg contraption. Not while left unattended. The goal is to kill James Bond immediately. Shoot him, stab him, set him on fire, whatever. But the point is that it must be done immediately, with no monologuing, and it his death must be personally witnessed. But that’s not the way James Bond stories work. For something like that, the story would probably force me to put him on a raft in the middle of a large pool full of piranhas, and then I’d have to go have a premature celebratory dinner, so that not only does James Bond have the ability to escape, but I’d be personally embarrassed about it later. In such a case, why bother having control of the supervillain at all?
Or to do this:
and then walk away.
I see. But this example reveals an issue in the original story in the first place. I mean, in the movie too, there is a plausibility problem for the behavior of the villain. The problem is not exclusive to the interactive novel.
I think we need to find a case where the novel does not have a plausibility problem for the villain behavior, but, when you turn it into an interactive novel, a plausibility problem arises.
This is a very interesting question. From my experiences it depends on the device and the person reading the text. Some people are able to read long text on a e-ink device, others don’t.
I’ve met people who are prejudiced against e-ink and refuse to try it. But I’ve never met people who do try the Kindle and say that paper is better. For one simple reason: on Kindle the text is so much bigger and easier to read that this outweighs everything else. (given that there is no flicker or blue light to cancel that advantage)
Really? Do you know why?
Let me see… one seemed to have a need to “physically possess” the book. Another seemed to consider the act of reading on paper as a sensorial experience, something physical. Another said that she would see too few words at once (and if she zoomed out, the text would be too small).
I see. I thought you were specifically referring to “e-ink” technology, not e-books in general. I think e-ink technology is pretty amazing, in that it only takes power when the image “changes”.
People tend to be skeptical of change at first, but will get over it soon. I thought reading in a kindle was weird at first but it has a lot of advantages. Not least of which is reading in bed with the blue shade on.
Don’t know if anyone else has this issue, but I’m reading a giant hardcover now and it always annoys me to have to turn the page. By the time I’m comfortable laying on one side I have to completely readjust to read the opposite page. Never have that issue with a kindle.
http://tokyotek.com/automatic-page-turner-helps-the-disabled-enjoy-their-favorite-books/
btw: It’s great to see how computers and robotics can help ill or injured people.
Do you know perhaps the causes of the difficulties in reading long texts on e-ink devices?
I started reading this thread, and I got annoyed by the number of lenghty replies to read through, so I gave up and skipped to the end so I can put in my 2 pieces o’ eight.
In Thimbleweed Park, I found the initial dialogue with the Pigeons too long. Why? Because there are so many optional dialogue choices, not nested very deeply, but still a lot. Times two, because I want to know if the other agent is going to say the same things/get the same responses. Since you cannot go back after they drive off, that felt like a chore. Keep in mind I was heading for town and not wanting to talk to the Pigeons in the first place.
Then the Sheriff greets you and being presented with 4 or 5 opening lines that seem to setup to great and funny replies from the man-a-reno, he just cuts off with a generic thing and says this cutscene is starting to get long?! What cutscene? I was having fun with THIS dialogue and you stop the conversation? That’s where the sheriff became the biggest beep-hole in TWP county for me.
So for me (long) dialogues are a dread when I had another action in mind, but somehow a game forces me to talk to a character first.
But also a dialogue can feel too short when I wanted to talk a bit more or get some information and the game doesn’t let me. (E.g. Talk to Game Developer…)
Since it goes either way, I’d say the underlying mechanism is that dialogues become annoying if they conflict with your sense of free choice and feeling in control over the player character.
I think the same applies to reading books in real life and that is why long text never is an issue by itself. In games, long text may or may not be in the expectation of different players at that moment (which is why I sometimes do enjoy long dialogues on replays), but from a book, that’s what you expect… and you can always tell from the physical thickness what your progress is, regardless of the number of chapters/acts left and their individual length.
Meeting or setting expectations at that generic (non-content related) level is a key to avoiding dissapointment later on. Of course in a P&C adventure game, this is a hard thing to accomplish.
Second piece o’ eight: I always dislike game dialogue that’s generic and boring. When that kind of dialogue becomes mandatory to progress in a game, I dread entering a room full of talkable NPCs. Luckily, TWP strikes a good balance most of the time! (Runaway and Tales of MI are less well executed there).
Even the shorter version that you get when in-jokes are turned off?
The first time I played the game I found that dialogue long (and boring) as well but when I tried it without in-jokes it felt OK because it was shorter and more focused on the story.
That’s funny!
The rest of your comment is insightful.
In particular, you made me realize that, even in books, the problem can occur. When reading a novel it can happen, for instance, to find a description that is boring, but not because it is long, but because at that time the reader was eager to know something else.
And I don’t see how the writer could solve that problem in general. If you are eager to know who the killer is, it can be impossible for a writer to prevent you from being bored at dialogues or descriptions. The only thing you can do is to cut everything that is not strictly necessary. (interestingly, if instead of a novel you write an interactive novel, there is a better solution: to have optional descriptions and optional dialogues.)
Thanks.
The physically thick book is almost always scary. But sometimes you just enjoy it on kindle and then (months later) you’re surprised what a mastodont book with the same title you see on the shelf. That can’t be?!?
true
now I wasn’t necessarily talking about long, bulky books. It is just a subconsious thing, you can just see by your bookmarker relative to the book’s thickness how far you have progressed. Works equally for a 100 page novel as a 900+ pages mastodont.
In either paper or kindle format, I always quickly check the length of a chapter so I know I can finish it in 1 read before going to sleep. That’s another thing you can’t do with a P&C adventure game… which explains the “damn it’s already past 2 AM” moments