I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I wanted to share it here because I genuinely think it matters for the growth of the genre.
Interactive fiction is, in my opinion, still heavily under-marketed; especially when you consider that platforms like Choice of Games and Hosted Games are basically the largest names in this space.
To be clear, I don’t think the issue is quality. A lot of these games offer deeper branching, more meaningful choices, and stronger consequences than many narrative-driven games out there. The problem feels more like visibility and positioning.
From the outside, interactive fiction is still often perceived as “just text,” and that alone turns a lot of potential players away before they even try it. Meanwhile, other story-driven games succeed not because of their format, but because of how they present the experience; they focus on emotion, tension, and decision-making.
I think IF could benefit from leaning into that same approach.
Instead of emphasizing that these are text-based games, it might be more effective to highlight things like:
- high-stakes moral dilemmas
- impactful choices and consequences
- replayability and different story paths
Even something as simple as framing could make a difference. For example:
“Would you betray your closest ally for power?”
“Only a small percentage of players reached this ending.”
“You chose mercy, and it cost you everything.”
That kind of presentation immediately creates curiosity.
Another thing I’ve noticed is character presence. While imagination is a core strength of IF, having some level of visual identity; even minimal; could help make characters more memorable and easier to connect with, especially for new audiences.
There’s also a big opportunity in content-driven discovery. Short-form videos, creator playthroughs, and discussions around different choices or outcomes are already proven ways to grow narrative games. IF seems like it would fit naturally into that space, but it’s not being fully utilized.
I understand that interactive fiction is a niche, and it may never be fully mainstream. But there’s a difference between being niche and being underexposed. Right now, it feels closer to the latter.
Overall, I just think the genre has a lot more potential in terms of reach than what we’re currently seeing. With more deliberate and modern marketing approaches, it could grow into a much larger and more active community.
Other story-driven games such as? Genuinely curious which you had in mind for this comparison.
I’m guessing you aren’t talking about Fighting Fantasy gamebooks here?
We don’t emphasize that. We just have a standard line serving as a disclaimer that this is a text based game without graphics and sound.
I think most games highlight that in some form? I won’t claim I wrote a great description, but that was my approach too.
To take an example from First Bull Run
Customize your character with 30 portraits and 4 distinct backstories–professional soldier, political leader, German revolutionary, or Irish nationalist.
Personalize your regiment to be from any of 21 different states and territories, all chosen based on historical research.
Guide the army with a plan of attack. Support exhausted units, try to outflank the enemy, or charge up the middle.
Balance multiple priorities while under enemy fire. Face real consequences: mistakes will cost lives.
It doesn’t talk about text. It advertises the visual additions in the form of character creation, the various character backgrounds which tie into the game’s historical background and the difficult choices of battle.
This can be a mixed bag. Some folks like detailed descriptions for characters. Some prefer to be allowed to fill in the blanks with their imagination. Some titles use character portraits, which may or may not be your thing - I know some folks don’t like character portraits as they want to be able to imagine their character.
Unless you have a famous influencer willing to cover your work, I feel that this is not as effective as it looks.
I released quite a number of dating sim VNs on itch, mostly for jams. Some were streamed on twitch, and some folks liked them enough to make YouTube videos of their plays. Still, while I really appreciate the support, it didn’t necessarily convert to a surge in traffic to my games. Text based games aren’t also (in my opinion) good candidates for gameplay videos, articles maybe.
As for playthroughs and discussions, Scarlet Sorceress, my choicescript title, has over 18k views and has been added to about 280 collections on itch. I wrote some devlogs about various things, but in contrast, all have views in the low hundreds. I’d do a lot more if they brought in the traffic, but they do not.
Basically, from my experience, creator discussions might help, but are not necessarily a huge magnet for visibility.
I did enter my only published title in the Spring Thing on Intfiction. That helped to get it some additional reviews and online chatter, but I don’t know if it made a huge impact.
tldr: these things might help, but don’t expect them to be huge drivers of interest unless you can get a famous influencer to cover your work. If you know one, feel free to send them my way.
Fair enough. I do have some ideas for making this more mainstream too.
I have a huge list of ideas too, made with my management consulting brain.
My personal suspicion is that IF is not actually that underexposed overall, in the sense that I suspect most people still engage with IF in the way they engage with most games and media; a single playthrough that they might revisit a couple of times if they really liked it.
From that perspective, the most direct parallel to most IF is, imo, the novella / short story, in that most consumers will experience the IF in the same way and for a similar amount of time to a sub-50k word written story (maybe a bit more time to consider choices). That’s a pretty small market too, and I’d argue that it might be easier to get visibility as a new IF author than as a new short story writer (assuming roughly equivalent writing ability, story ideas, etc etc). I feel like people probably underestimate how challenging the market is for most genres and stories.
I do think that the really big doorstopper IFs, the ones that are long enough that a single playthrough feels more like reading a big fantasy or literary epic, probably are underexposed though, just on the basis that I think the underlying appeal of getting to navigate your own custom-made character through a literary epic, especially in a popular genre, probably could lead to stuff breaking out in a really big way. I could imagine a world where Fallen Hero is as popular online as Worm, for example, or one of the big fantasy series manages to tap into some of that core of people who love Sanderson or GRRM’s work but haven’t before heard of IF.
But that really requires a uncommon confluence of circumstances to pull off - the quality of a top-tier author working in a popular genre, the willingness to work on something for perhaps three times as long as it would have taken to make a linear version of the same story, and at least enough baseline game design ability to avoid tripping over your excellent story with bad mechanics… And THEN you need to land the marketing angles you discuss!
(This is not in any way a criticism of the quality of shorter IFs, which are the vast majority of the things I’ve read, by the way! Just a reflection on the market size for different genres and types of story).
That’s a fair question; I probably should’ve been more specific there.
I wasn’t really thinking about gamebooks like Fighting Fantasy, but more about modern story-driven games that emphasize player choice and consequences; just presented in a different format.
Stuff like Telltale’s The Walking Dead, Detroit: Become Human, Life is Strange, or even some visual novels. They all lean heavily into decision-making, branching paths, and emotional stakes; which is why I see them as adjacent, even if the delivery is more visual.
My point wasn’t that they’re the same as interactive fiction, but that they tend to market the experience; the tension, the choices, the outcomes; rather than the medium itself. That’s something I think IF could borrow from without losing its identity.
Curious if you’d draw the comparison differently.
That’s fair; I get what you mean, and I agree that the line itself functions more as a disclaimer than active marketing.
I think the point I was trying to make is a bit more about first impressions and how that line is experienced by someone new.
Even if it’s technically just a disclaimer, for someone unfamiliar with IF, it can end up being the most prominent piece of information they see early on; and it frames the experience in terms of what’s not there (no graphics, no sound), rather than what is there.
For existing players, that distinction probably doesn’t matter much. But for potential new audiences, that initial framing can influence whether they stay curious or click away.
So I’m not suggesting removing it; more that there might be room to balance it with stronger emphasis on what makes these games compelling; choices, consequences, and narrative depth; especially in the surrounding presentation.
Hopefully that clarifies what I meant a bit better.
That’s a solid example, and I agree; that description does highlight choices, consequences, and player agency pretty clearly.
I think where I’d draw the distinction is less about whether those elements are present, and more about how aggressively they’re framed and surfaced, especially to people who aren’t already browsing the forum or actively looking for IF.
Using your example, the description communicates depth well, but it still reads more like a feature list than a hook. For someone already interested, that works. But for someone unfamiliar, it may not immediately create that “I need to try this” reaction.
What I was getting at with those examples is more about front-loading intrigue; almost treating the pitch like a piece of short-form content rather than a traditional description.
For instance, taking the same game, you could still keep everything you wrote, but lead with something like:
“You’re in command, and every mistake will cost real lives. How far are you willing to go to win?”
Then follow with the features.
So it’s less about replacing what’s already there, and more about layering a stronger initial hook on top of it; something that targets curiosity first, and details second.
I think the current approach works well for an existing audience, but a slightly more aggressive framing could help pull in people who wouldn’t normally click on a text-based game in the first place.
That’s a really good point, and I agree; it is a mixed bag, especially in a genre where player imagination is such a core part of the experience.
I definitely wouldn’t suggest replacing or restricting that flexibility. For a lot of players, the ability to fully imagine their character (and others) is part of what makes IF unique, and it would be a mistake to undermine that.
I think the angle I was coming from is more about optional presentation, particularly from a marketing standpoint rather than an in-game requirement.
For example, having:
- optional character portraits that can be toggled on/off
- or even just consistent external visual representations used in promotional material
That way, players who prefer pure imagination aren’t affected, while new audiences still have something more immediately tangible to connect with at first glance.
Because from the outside looking in, having even a minimal visual anchor can make a big difference in whether someone stops to take interest or scrolls past.
So I see it less as a design shift, and more as an additional layer; something that supports discoverability without taking anything away from the core experience.
That’s really valuable context; I appreciate you sharing actual numbers and not just theory.
I think I largely agree with your conclusion; on their own, things like streams, YouTube playthroughs, or devlogs aren’t reliable traffic drivers, especially for text-heavy games. Conversion is the hard part, and IF has an extra layer of friction there compared to more visual genres.
Where I might see it a bit differently is in how those channels are used.
What you’re describing sounds like fairly organic coverage; people streaming full playthroughs, writing devlogs, etc. That’s great for community building, but it doesn’t always translate into discovery because:
- full playthroughs are a big time investment to watch
- devlogs tend to attract people already interested
- and neither necessarily creates a strong “hook” for new audiences
So I don’t think the issue is that creator-driven discovery doesn’t work; more that it needs to be packaged differently to function as a discovery tool.
For example, instead of full playthroughs, something like:
- very short clips centered on a single high-stakes choice
- “this decision ruined my entire run” type moments
- or highlighting rare/hidden outcomes
Those formats are a lot closer to how people actually discover games now; quick, high-impact, and easy to engage with.
And to your point about needing a big influencer; I agree that helps a lot, but I don’t think it has to start there. In other niches, what tends to work is volume + consistency; lots of small pieces of content that gradually build visibility, rather than one big spike.
That said, I do think your experience highlights an important reality check: none of this is a guaranteed lever, and for IF especially, the ceiling might be lower than it looks from the outside.
So yeah; I’d probably frame it less as a “huge driver” and more as an underexplored channel that could contribute, if approached in a way that fits how people actually consume content now.
But I completely get the skepticism, especially coming from real results rather than theory.
That’s honestly great to hear; I’d be really interested in what you have in mind.
I think this is exactly where the conversation gets more useful; less about whether it can grow, and more about how it realistically could.
If you’re open to sharing, I’d definitely like to hear your ideas. Even if they approach it from a completely different angle, it’s always helpful to see what people working closer to the space are thinking about in terms of reaching a wider audience.
That sounds dangerous in a good way
I’d actually be really interested in that; especially coming from a management consulting angle. That kind of structured thinking is probably exactly what this space needs more of.
If you’re willing to share even a few of those ideas, I’d love to hear them. It’d be interesting to see where our thinking overlaps, and where it goes in completely different directions.
Feels like there’s a lot of untapped potential here; just a matter of finding approaches that actually translate well to how people discover and engage with things today.
This is a really interesting thread, I don’t have the brain to add anything now, but I will mention one thing.
Back when I started marketing Fallen Hero, I had the advantage that tumblr was still a thing. I have been told that a lot of the marketing is still done on there, even though I haven’t been there since 2020. Which leads me to:
We are living in a collapsing social media ecosystem, and that doesn’t just go for interactive fiction, but for games, books and comics too.
Back when I started writing, LJ groups and Deviantart (yes even for writing) was the place to go.
For some games I write about, the main marketing is still facebook, which I hate, but that’s also a dead end that still has life, but doesn’t get new people. You just spread efficiently to the people who are already in the facebook groups. Had to start an account just for that.
Never got into tiktok or video content, but booktok was a huge thing for a while, but from what I hear from fellow authors, that is going bad fast after the US government stepping in to run it. Unclear what is going to happen now with AI added to the mix.
Twitter got Musk’d, which split a lot of games, book and comics communities everywhere. It was a fairly efficient personal marketing system, and a lot of publishers offloaded their work on the authors. And now the ecosystem is razed, but publishers don’t pick the slack back up. I’ve found parts of the community again on Bluesky, but not compared to what was lost.
Tumblr still lives (apparently), but after wave after wave of censorship and other stuff, it’s not the touchstone it was. Still one ofn the best systems for organic marketing there was. The tag system was so useful for things to spread.
Youtube is actively destroying its creators, at least if I am to trust the videos I see. Frivolous copyright takedowns, algorithm weirdness, demonetization, forced age-restricted content and so on. It’s bad there. And I never really got video.
Ads. Yeah, that had stopped working even back in 2016-18 when I was working hard on spreading the word.
Reddit. A crapshot. You can’t force something there, but if you are lucky you might become a meme.
Apple/android store. Most games are now sold as part of collections, and don’t get me wrong, I know there was no choice with the apple omnibus, but that has also killed individual visibility on the store. Not that there’s much chance of it now with the mass amounts of free AI slop games that takes up the spots. Back when Fallen Hero came out I genuinely had some weeks when I was in the top 5 of paid games in some markets, and I tracked those numbers religiously. Now I can’t even read the reviews in the android store, because I can see the numbers and the score, but all the reviews I can read are the ones that are deposited in my region. Sweden. Which is like one or two. Probably a way around it, but everything about these marketplaces has gotten SO MUCH WORSE.
Steam? Steam is good. No complaints. Steam still makes sense. Works as intended. Only way I look at reviews for games now.
So. In conclusion. Discussions on HOW to market our games are really good. But for me the big thing is…
Where the hell are we supposed to do that these days?
Fair enough. I tend to be a bit more… technical when writing blurbs and game descriptions. I think it’s also partly due to the fact that as writers, we check a lot of the same boxes in the description (number of words, play as what gender, romance who, etc) that it gets a bit cookie cutter.
We have copy/pasted that line across a lot of games. Perhaps we could vary it a little. Make it focus more on choices and less on limitations. Or maybe…
Unsupervised is a 665,000-word interactive superpower novel by Lucas Zaper and Morton Newberry, where your choices control the story. It’s entirely text-based—without graphics or sound effects—and fueled by the vast, unstoppable power of your imagination. Which is not as cool as an actual superpower, but you get the idea.
Yep
Fair enough. It’s good feedback.
My ideas are mostly around UI and save systems, although I also acknowlege that the current UI helps with screen readers.
I also have some… controversial… suggestions around monetization and pricing.
At one point, I did privately suggest a system where CoG/HG puts a random game on sale every week, to keep people checking back on the omnibus for the next surprise, and maybe creating some movement for older games which are not moving many copies at their current prices. A lot of indie game devs I know run steam sales regularly to boost their fanbase, and someone who pays $1 for your game now because it was 80% off might pay $10 for your sequel later.
I was also thinking of proposing a HC equivalent label for HG, but it’s currently filed in the ‘crazy ideas’ drawer.
