You could argue these interactive stories/puzzles HAVEN'T stood the test of time in that I doubt younger people would be interested. They use the best graphic engine in the world...the brain but many nowadays people would look for real time action. Engaging though they were, they need patience and lots of time to get through. They still have a niche following on the Internet and go under the title "Interactive fiction"
>They use the best graphic engine in the world...the brain
That's a nice phrase.
I have been subconsciously considering quite a bit lately the relevance of pure IF games, but not deep enough to fiirmly come to any conclusions. Coming from a background with a part of my growing up being in a video store, and having read (non-forcibly) possibly fewer books than the number of fingers on my hands I strongly argue (well, my arguments may not be strong, but my position is stubborn) that movies are better than books (and happily reject the usual 'different mediums', and 'imagination' arguments)
As enamoured towards IF as I am, recently I have asked myself two critical questions about IF and modern games (If I'm prepared to consider movies being better than books, then I might as well consider the graphics adventure/RPG etc being better than IF)
1. How are they different or what aspects are unique to IF?
2. Do or can these aspects be incorporated into other game genres/modern games?
Is the demise of IF (except for the niche group) natural selection or evolution?
RIP simluations. Not too many of them around any more. And, diversity is dead, long live the franchises?