>Thinking about this has made me curious about my fellow IF writers. Do
>you tend to write in other forms, too? Do you find your strengths and
>weaknesses in one form are analogous to those in another form? Does
>writing in one form make you a better author in the other? Are you a
>programmer who thinks of IF as just another kind of programming, or a
>writer who thinks of IF as just another kind of writing?
I am neither; I am this guy who thinks that IF is a perfect blend of
the two, which happen to both be things that I like to do. I'm a
pretty strong programmer (all my clients seem to think so anyway), and
a very mediochre (at best) writer. I think my IF reflects that.
Luckily for me, you can write a decently fun game with only mediochre
writing skills. As Magnus said (accurately) in his review of
Firewitch, "the author seems to have no high-flying literary
ambitions". But I acheived exactly what I tried to do I think - a
small, beginner-level, decently fun game with a kind of Zorky/Scott
Adamsy feel to it. The sequel (now in progress) is of the same style.
A "Curses" or "Christminster" is probably better writing and better IF,
but not the type of thing I would write.
As far as straight writing, I've tried my hand at fiction and tend to
have decent ideas which turn out absolutely wretched when I implement
them. The writing that I tend to receive compliments about are essays
about important events (or not so important events) from my past. If I
were about 100 times better, I would fancy myself a modern Henry
Miller.
-- John Baker "What the hell does that mean? Huh? 'China is here.'? I don't even know what the hell that means!" - Jack Burton