It is standard to refer to IF works as "games," but a work of IF is not necessarily a game {Giner-Sorolla 1996}. A work can present a world which is pleasant to explore, but which has no quest or intrigue. There may be no final reply that is a "winning" one, perhaps no final reply at all. Because of this it makes more sense in theoretical discussion to refer to a work of IF, rather than using game as the generic term for everything in the form. Even in the case of works that are actually games, using the former term can help to signal that it is interactive fiction from all relevant perspectives, rather than interactive fiction only as game, that we are principally interested in. The advantage of using a term like "work" is most clear in the case of certain IF works that do have no optimal outcome (i.e., cannot be won), do not keep score, and contain no puzzles. Ian Finley's simulated gallery opening Exhibition provides a simulated space in which the player character can look at paintings while chatting with four characters who have very different perspectives on the artist and his work; there is no way to win or lose it. Calling this a "game" is unfair to Exhibition, which is not actually a game. Calling Exhibition a game is also unfair to IF works such as Dave Anderson's Hollywood Hijinks, which simulates a treasure hunt in a mansion and has a very definite an explicit goal. Works of this sort clearly are games. But in a careful discussion, the generic use of the term "game" to refer to every interactive fiction work would denude that term of its particular meaning. The term "game" is the norm in casual discussion, and is admittedly used by this author in those contexts. Another theorist and author refers to her own (clearly non-game) work by making reference to "a game like Galatea" {Short 2001}. "Work" has real advantages as a term, however, in discussions where we are trying to be as clear and precise as possible, rather than simply using those terms which have become customary.
- Nick Montfort
In Nick Montfort's article, Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction, the subheading Interactive Fiction and the Interactor discusses in part why he uses the term 'work' rather than 'game' when referring to interactive fictions.
Montfort presents the idea that not all IF works are necessarily games 
. IF works may simulate a world for exploration, with no goal or quest. The IF work may finish without a closing phrase, or a winning ending. This reasoning is used to validate the term for interactive fiction as a work not a game. Montfort justifies this decision with the fact that many interactive fictions are games, however they are also always works because of their narrative content. He explains that to term all interactive fictions as games, when many have no aim, goal or way to win, actually takes meaning away from the definition of 'game'. This harmonizes with the idea of IFs not necessarily being games because the narrator often helps the interactor, and the rules of the 'game' are not set out in full. While admitting that the term game in its casual use in referring to IF's which have elements vital to games is natural, he proposes that for accuracy interactive fictions be called works.
The idea that IFs should be termed 'works' does not negate the notion that IFs "must succeed as literature and as game at once to be effective" (Montfort and Moulthrop). The question of where Hypertexts fit into this category is not addressed here. How much interaction is needed for a work to be interactive fiction instead of a Hypertext narrative? Is merely clicking the mouse to navigate a digital work interacting? If not, then is typing text into the piece the identifying mark of interacting with fiction? What about when word options are given, like 'yes' and 'no' ? Is the reader in effect saying 'yes' or 'no' to Hypertext when they choose one particular link over another? These questions may highlight the game side of the definition of interactive fiction when compared with Hypertext narratives.