Drama in IF: Limited?
Daryl McCullough
static fiction. However, in practice, it seems to me that
there are dramatic possibilities in short stories and novels
that can't be achieved in interactive fiction.
It seems to me that the types of dramatic situations for
the player character are limited basically to 1. Exploration
of the unknown, 2. Overcoming obstacles, 3. Problem solving.
I think that those areas are plenty big enough so that an
IF author need not run out of things to do for millenia to
come.
But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
drama associated with a character making a decision and
living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
always restart or undo any decision.
Of course, if the IF author wants the player to live
with some unfortunate decision, then he or she can always
put the decision-making into the prologue, or into a
noninteractive cut-scene between "acts". But I think that
players might resent being forced to live out the consequences
of decisions that they were not allowed to make.
Part of the problem might be the fact that the main character
in IF is (almost) always played by the player. The player always
has an aloofness from the world of the IF that comes from the
knowledge that no decision is irrevocable, nothing bad can happen
that he or she can't walk away from.
A brilliant solution to this problem in Adam Cadre's "Photopia" was
to have the main character *not* be the player character. I believe
that "Photopia" is really the only work of IF that has succeeded in
having drama that goes beyond the
problem-solving/exploration/overcoming-obstacles type.
I'm not sure whether the approach in "Photopia" is a one-shot
gimmick, or whether it is a new model of IF writing.
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Andrew Plotkin
> But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
> fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
> drama associated with a character making a decision and
> living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
> because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
> always restart or undo any decision.
But the character can't.
In planning what to do, you give the character (effectively) the gift
of foresight, but not the ability to change the future. And the real
dramatic moments of decision are when the character *has* some idea of
the consequences, and must choose anyway. A blind guess is an
inherently limited gag, so losing that option in IF isn't a real big
problem.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Gore won the overvotes:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53804-2001Jan26.html
http://miamiherald.com/content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/003701.htm
Daryl McCullough
>
>Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>> But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
>> fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
>> drama associated with a character making a decision and
>> living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
>> because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
>> always restart or undo any decision.
>
>But the character can't.
The *character* never needs to, since he never makes a wrong
decision.
>In planning what to do, you give the character (effectively) the gift
>of foresight, but not the ability to change the future. And the real
>dramatic moments of decision are when the character *has* some idea of
>the consequences, and must choose anyway.
But in static fiction, the character's knowledge of whether
his decision is the right one is limited. I believe that that
lack of omniscience is important for the dramatic effect.
>A blind guess is an inherently limited gag, so losing that option
>in IF isn't a real big problem.
I'm not talking about *blind* guesses, I'm just talking about
imperfect knowledge of the consequences of actions. I don't
think that imperfect knowledge is a limited gag, I think
that it is an important part of what it means to be human.
And I think that it is an important ingredient to static fiction.
A novel about someone who never makes a wrong choice would
not be interesting. (Well, actually, it might be, but if *all*
novels were like that, I think literature would be missing something.)
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <97m1s7$4h0$1...@news.panix.com>, Andrew says...
>>
>>Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>>> But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
>>> fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
>>> drama associated with a character making a decision and
>>> living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
>>> because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
>>> always restart or undo any decision.
>>
>>But the character can't.
> The *character* never needs to, since he never makes a wrong
> decision.
There are plenty of examples of IF games in which the character makes
wrong decisions. Even if you've played the game through once, and know
every possible plot variation, this remains true.
Sometimes every available choice is wrong. (And this, too, is the
better kind of dramatic scene.)
>>In planning what to do, you give the character (effectively) the gift
>>of foresight, but not the ability to change the future. And the real
>>dramatic moments of decision are when the character *has* some idea of
>>the consequences, and must choose anyway.
> But in static fiction, the character's knowledge of whether
> his decision is the right one is limited. I believe that that
> lack of omniscience is important for the dramatic effect.
I guess I shouldn't have called it "foresight". The character
*doesn't* have perfect omniscience, and if the writing is doing its
job, the player will be in the character's head *even if the player
knows something the character doesn't*. (And that's *certainly* a
technique used in static fiction.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Bush doesn't count.
Kaia Vintr
> [snip]
>But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
>fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
>drama associated with a character making a decision and
>living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
>because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
>always restart or undo any decision.
>
>Of course, if the IF author wants the player to live
>with some unfortunate decision, then he or she can always
>put the decision-making into the prologue, or into a
>noninteractive cut-scene between "acts". But I think that
>players might resent being forced to live out the consequences
>of decisions that they were not allowed to make.
>
>Part of the problem might be the fact that the main character
>in IF is (almost) always played by the player. The player always
>has an aloofness from the world of the IF that comes from the
>knowledge that no decision is irrevocable, nothing bad can happen
>that he or she can't walk away from.
Maybe you're confusing the player/reader and the player character. The
story can provide reasons why the character has to act a certain way or make
a certain decision and then force the game to go in that direction, even
though the player may not wish to. And it can express the drama by
describing the character's motives and feelings in the same way
non-interactive fiction would.
In a regular book, nothing bad can happen that you can't close the cover on.
As a reader you always have the choice to stop reading and you always return
to your own life afterwards. I suppose people might one day invent forms of
"extreme virtual reality" that you can't turn off and where death is for
real, but I doubt that it would become commonplace.
I think it is possible to communicate a much more vivid impression of a
personality in IF than in conventional fiction because the reader really is
placed inside the character's head, rather than just observing from a distan
ce or being monologued at. However it is true that most IF games don't take
advantage of this potential. If they do, the immersiveness can be an
unpleasant experience for the player/reader (e.g. the recent "1981" and
"123..." from comp2K) but the same danger is present in static fiction.
- Kaia
------------------------
"The patterned anthurid moves cryptically through algae and sponges just
subtidally."
David Samuel Myers
> Technically speaking, interactive fiction is a superset of
> static fiction. However, in practice, it seems to me that
I don't think I agree, though what I have here is a minor quibble. I would
assert that the sets of what IF and fiction can do (if not in practice,
then in theory) have a significant intersection, but neither is close to
being a proper subset of the other... which makes you next statement not
very suprising:
> there are dramatic possibilities in short stories and novels
> that can't be achieved in interactive fiction.
> It seems to me that the types of dramatic situations for
> the player character are limited basically to 1. Exploration
> of the unknown, 2. Overcoming obstacles, 3. Problem solving.
Maybe this is largely so in practice, but I would say not so at all in
theory. One significant problem is that the types of object-orientation
that are the building blocks of garden variety IF have not been enough to
deal comprehensively with NPCs so far. When an author does choose to open
the can of worms and face building not-entirely-puzzlebot NPCs, he/she has
to rethink the tools themselves virtually every time if there is going to
be any give and take. And this is not the only obstacle.
> because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
> always restart or undo any decision.
I don't seriously think anyone can offer an overarching, satisfying answer
to you on that point, but I don't think it is a serious cause holding back
creative talent from making dramatic IF. Without immersion to the point of
not knowing you are playing a game, even "dramatic" IF projects will
almost all call strongly for the presence of such functions.
> A brilliant solution to this problem in Adam Cadre's "Photopia" was
> to have the main character *not* be the player character. I believe
> that "Photopia" is really the only work of IF that has succeeded in
> having drama that goes beyond the
> problem-solving/exploration/overcoming-obstacles type.
> I'm not sure whether the approach in "Photopia" is a one-shot
> gimmick, or whether it is a new model of IF writing.
There are other games that allow for decisions of apparently highly
consequential nature. A lot are menu-driven. Photopia tricked the reader a
bit in ways other games don't, but it isn't the only one where the reader
has choices to make, nor the only one where the choices appear to affect
other characters- as opposed to only the status of inanimate game objects.
-d
Dennis G. Jerz
both about actions.
> But in static fiction, the character's knowledge of whether
> his decision is the right one is limited. I believe that that
> lack of omniscience is important for the dramatic effect.
This presumes that there is such a thing as a "right" decision in static
fiction.
Daryl, what do you mean by "dramatic effect"? Does "Quake" offer drama?
Does a race against time? Do you need an opponent?
One dead French guy called drama "the spectacle of the will striving toward
a goal, and conscious of the means which it employs".
Once the individual attains that goal (or recognizes failure), the tension
evaporates. In order to sustain the audience's interest, the playwright must
provide an obstacle, which prevents the character from attaining that goal.
That leads to any of the following struggles (tensions).
a.. the individual vs. fatality (that is, a fight for survival)
b.. the individual vs. social law (justice, morality, etc.)
c.. the individual vs. another person
d.. the individual vs. himself
e.. the individual vs. "the ambitions, the interests, the prejudices, the
folly, the malevolence of those who surround him"
http://www.uwec.edu/jerzdg/ORR/handouts/Style/crisis-vs-conflict.htm
Now, to return to IF. The fact that the player-reader and the
player-characters are different -- and may know different
things --complicates the matter in IF, but not irretrievably. Sometimes the
author of a detective story tells the reader more than the detective knows;
sometimes the reverse is true. But I regularly re-read books in which I
know the outcome, because the journey to that outcome is rewarding on its
own.
Brunetière, Ferdinand Brunetière. The Law of the Drama. Trans. Philip M.
Hayden. New York: Columbia University, 1914.
Brenda Laurel (who recently joined Jakob Nielsen's usability consulting
firm) has also published on the relationship between computers and drama.
--
Dennis G. Jerz, Ph.D.; (715)836-2431
Dept. of English; U Wisc.-Eau Claire
419 Hibbard, Eau Claire, WI 54702
------------------------------------
Literacy Weblog: www.uwec.edu/jerzdg
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:97m9t1$716$2...@news.panix.com...
> Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
> > In article <97m1s7$4h0$1...@news.panix.com>, Andrew says...
> >>
> >>Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
> >>> But, in my opinion, there are possibilities in static
> >>> fiction that aren't on that list. The big one to me is the
> >>> drama associated with a character making a decision and
> >>> living with the consequences. There is no such drama in IF
> >>> because a decision is never irrevocable; the player can
> >>> always restart or undo any decision.
> >>
> >>But the character can't.
>
> > The *character* never needs to, since he never makes a wrong
> > decision.
>
> There are plenty of examples of IF games in which the character makes
> wrong decisions. Even if you've played the game through once, and know
> every possible plot variation, this remains true.
>
> Sometimes every available choice is wrong. (And this, too, is the
> better kind of dramatic scene.)
>
> >>In planning what to do, you give the character (effectively) the gift
> >>of foresight, but not the ability to change the future. And the real
> >>dramatic moments of decision are when the character *has* some idea of
> >>the consequences, and must choose anyway.
>
>
Dennis G. Jerz
news:3a9eb...@dilbert.ic.sunysb.edu...
I suppose an author could get around this by not making the full
consequences of a choice apparent until later, so that the process of
mapping which action leads to which outcome becomes more tedious and less
rewarding... making it a little harder to see the man behind the curtain, so
to speak... but for some, the act of testing the limits of the author's
vision is quite enjoyable. Most of my students are amused by Inform's
default repsonse to "take me," for instance; yet they grow bored rather
quickly when they toy with "Eliza," whose grammar rules are readily
apparent.
Daryl McCullough
>>Part of the problem might be the fact that the main character
>>in IF is (almost) always played by the player. The player always
>>has an aloofness from the world of the IF that comes from the
>>knowledge that no decision is irrevocable, nothing bad can happen
>>that he or she can't walk away from.
>> [snip]
>
>Maybe you're confusing the player/reader and the player character.
I think it's much more difficult to separate the two in IF than
in static fiction. In a novel, I may identify with the main
character, but I don't make *decisions* for him/her. The main
character makes decisions and mistakes that I would never have
made.
>The story can provide reasons why the character has to act a
>certain way or make a certain decision and then force the game
>to go in that direction, even though the player may not wish to.
>And it can express the drama by describing the character's
>motives and feelings in the same way non-interactive fiction would.
I'm not saying that drama is impossible in IF, I'm just saying
that a particular kind---the consequences of living with a tough
decision that the character may come to regret---is, if not
impossible, much harder.
>In a regular book, nothing bad can happen that you can't close the cover on.
Nothing bad can happen to *me*, but plenty bad can happen to the
main character. In IF, there is the sense that if you "undo" or
"restart" and choose a different action, then whatever bad thing
happened to the main character is undone. There is no pity associated
with the main character's death in IF, if it is so easily reversible.
>I think it is possible to communicate a much more vivid impression of a
>personality in IF than in conventional fiction because the reader really is
>placed inside the character's head, rather than just observing from a
>distance or being monologued at.
Maybe it's possible, but I've never seen it happen.
The character in IF that I've ever had the most vivid
impression of was the main character of "Photopia" and she
*wasn't* the player character.
Daryl McCullough
>There are plenty of examples of IF games in which the character makes
>wrong decisions. Even if you've played the game through once, and know
>every possible plot variation, this remains true.
>
>Sometimes every available choice is wrong. (And this, too, is the
>better kind of dramatic scene.)
Well, that's the way I felt about the ending of "So Far", actually,
but maybe I just missed a possibility.
Adam J. Thornton
Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>Well, that's the way I felt about the ending of "So Far", actually,
>but maybe I just missed a possibility.
That possibility is explored in the deathless classic "Sins Against
Mimesis."
Just so you know.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Daryl McCullough
>
>Novels and short stories are narratives; drama and interactive fiction are
>both about actions.
>
>> But in static fiction, the character's knowledge of whether
>> his decision is the right one is limited. I believe that that
>> lack of omniscience is important for the dramatic effect.
>
>This presumes that there is such a thing as a "right" decision in static
>fiction.
>
>Daryl, what do you mean by "dramatic effect"?
I just mean the elements of the work that draw the viewer end,
and evokes emotions.
>Does "Quake" offer drama?
>Does a race against time?
Sure. I'm not saying that *no* dramatic effects are possible
in a game or in IF. I was only saying that *some* dramatic
effects that are achievable in static fiction are difficult
or impossible in IF.
>Do you need an opponent?
It doesn't hurt, but I'm not sure that it is necessary.
>One dead French guy called drama "the spectacle of the will striving toward
>a goal, and conscious of the means which it employs".
>Once the individual attains that goal (or recognizes failure), the tension
>evaporates. In order to sustain the audience's interest, the playwright must
>provide an obstacle, which prevents the character from attaining that goal.
>That leads to any of the following struggles (tensions).
> a.. the individual vs. fatality (that is, a fight for survival)
> b.. the individual vs. social law (justice, morality, etc.)
> c.. the individual vs. another person
> d.. the individual vs. himself
> e.. the individual vs. "the ambitions, the interests, the prejudices, the
>folly, the malevolence of those who surround him"
>http://www.uwec.edu/jerzdg/ORR/handouts/Style/crisis-vs-conflict.htm
>Now, to return to IF. The fact that the player-reader and the
>player-characters are different -- and may know different
>things --complicates the matter in IF, but not irretrievably. Sometimes the
>author of a detective story tells the reader more than the detective knows;
>sometimes the reverse is true. But I regularly re-read books in which I
>know the outcome, because the journey to that outcome is rewarding on its
>own.
Yes, but in a novel, there is a wall of separation between
the reader and the character. The reader can vicariously
experience what the character experiences, but he or she
can't influence it. This limits the reader's involvement,
to a certain extent, but in another sense opens up possibilities
that the reader couldn't have experienced otherwise.
For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That
may have made an interesting IF, but it wouldn't have been
Romeo and Juliet, and it would have (in my opinion) had a
lot less emotional impact.
Sean T Barrett
>For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
>Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
>So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
>mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
>rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after.
Plenty of IF doesn't allow the player/audience to make
decisions for the character, though, railroading (with
full interactivity) the player into a particular action
by simply making the game not advance until the player
allows the character to make the required decision.
As such, I really don't understand your entire argument,
which seems to be assuming that IF can't do that.
There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
of drama that are not attainable by good IF", but I think it's
pretty clearly false (although I believe something quite
closely related, but largely irrelevant to this discussion).
SeanB
Kathleen M. Fischer
>Nothing bad can happen to *me*, but plenty bad can happen to the
>main character. In IF, there is the sense that if you "undo" or
>"restart" and choose a different action, then whatever bad thing
>happened to the main character is undone. There is no pity associated
>with the main character's death in IF, if it is so easily reversible.
It doesn't have to be reversable. That's an authorial decision, possibly
based
on the game origins of IF. It is most definitely possible to write a game
where the player is given a choice of "X" things, and no matter what they
choose, bad things will happen, including their own demise.
If fact, IF can build even greater anxiety in players as they strive over
and
over again to get the PC out of their tight spot and failing. There is some
kind of culpability going on... "It's *my* fault the PC keeps dying." "There
must be something *I* can do to make it better." (as I felt in SUTW where
no
matter what I did, the window kept shattering...)
The feature in static fiction that I don't see how to reproduce in IF is
that
old literary trick of having the reader know more than the character does.
You
have one scene were you see the Aldeboran Fanged Beast hiding in a building,
then you skip to the maiden that is trotting up the steps about to go
inside.
"No, no!" you scream, but of course she going to climb the stairs anyway
because the author wrote it that way. That type of suspense just can't be
carried out (AFAICT) in IF. Once the player knows there is an AFB in the
building, writing...
>U
You skip up the stairs without a care in the world.
... sounds stupid. Well... even stupider than the stupid prose is. It
certainly isn't effective, as YOU are the player, and YOU aren't without a
care in the world because you know there is an Aldeboran Fanged Beast in the
building about to have you for lunch.
Kathleen
-- Masquerade (Comp2000)
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Mask.z5
-- The Cove - Best of Landscape, Interactive Fiction Art Show 2000
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Cove.z5
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Gabe McKean
>The feature in static fiction that I don't see how to reproduce in IF is
>that old literary trick of having the reader know more than the character
>does.
You can do something like this, but it takes some work. There are some
scenes in Photopia (which sometimes seems to contain an exception to every
'rule' in IF) where you know important things that the characters don't, but
you can't do anything about them. Of course, this requires you to limit the
player's impact on the world in some way. Another option is to give both
the player and PC information that will have great impact for another
character, and then force them to watch as that character makes a mistake
due to the lack of that information. I'm not aware of a game which does
this, but it may be something I work into a future game of mine. :)
Kaia Vintr
You started out by saying that IF was technically a superset of static
fiction. So when you say that IF cannot produce a kind dramatic effect you
are obviously talking about only a certain subset of IF (which presumably
doesn't include static fiction). I'm curious what characterises that subset
(in your opinion), and which of its qualities are responsible for destroying
the dramatic effect.
It obviously has something to do with "interactivity", but this term is too
vague and could describe anything from hitting a key to see the next screen
of text to typing in complex sentences that become part of the story. Some
possible specific characteristics I can think of are:
- Having the reader/player make important, life changing decisions for the
player character
- Giving the reader/player the ability to make trivial decisions for the
player character which still affect the experience of the story (e.g.
whether to smell the roses or the hyacinths)
- Allowing the reader/player to undo the character's actions (or restart)
and then make different decisions
- Giving the reader/player at least the illusion of freedom to change the
course of events (considering that in many "puzzleless" works the player
doesn't really have such freedom)
- Use of the "second person" mode of address
- Requiring the reader/player to solve puzzles in order to advance the
story.
Only one of the above items is really "technical" though so perhaps I'm on
the wrong track. But there must be something other than the fact that
you're reading the story off a computer screen instead of paper.
Joe Mason
Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
>Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
>So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
>mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
>rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That
>may have made an interesting IF, but it wouldn't have been
>Romeo and Juliet, and it would have (in my opinion) had a
>lot less emotional impact.
This just means that the interactive fiction author has to be more subtle in
setting things up. There are a couple of ways that you could 'force' this
ending and still let the player make a choice:
As you pointed out with Photopia, you could give the choice to an NPC. In
this case, make the player Romeo. Now there are still options: you could
refuse to be exiled and hide out in the city, so that you're close enough to
find out about the plan. Here the author would throw different obstacles at
you, so that there are branching paths leading to the same endpoint but in
different ways.
You can make all choices wrong, possibly in different ways, as Zarf said.
If you did tell he plan to Romeo, or tried a different plan, the author could
arrange things so that a different tragedy takes place. The player might
go back and redo the decision to see how the story would have gone, but if
all the branches were equally well-written they'd have no reason to
immediately say 'oops, wrong choice - let me try tht again'.
I'll also point to Losing Your Grip, which has several possible second acts
with no indication that you're only seeing one possibility. If the player
doesn't know that a better choice was possible, they may never go back to
try the choice again.
The thing you can't do is force the player to make an obviously bad decision
with no in-game payoff. If you want to tell the story of an alcoholic ruining
his life through drink, for instance, you have to find some way to make the
player keep typing 'drink' even when it's obviously not good. This may be
very difficcult, but if you can pull it off it has the ability to make the
player *really* feel like they're living with the consequence of a bad
decision.
So I wouldn't say this thing in particular (or anything in general) are
*impossible* in interactive fiction, just that the focus is different and
there are a lot more things that must mesh perfectly in order to pull it off.
Joe
Dan Shiovitz
Kathleen M. Fischer <greenG...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
[..]
>The feature in static fiction that I don't see how to reproduce in IF is
>that
>old literary trick of having the reader know more than the character does.
>You
>have one scene were you see the Aldeboran Fanged Beast hiding in a building,
>then you skip to the maiden that is trotting up the steps about to go
>inside.
>"No, no!" you scream, but of course she going to climb the stairs anyway
>because the author wrote it that way. That type of suspense just can't be
>carried out (AFAICT) in IF. Once the player knows there is an AFB in the
>building, writing...
Augmented Fourth does something like this. While you're trapped in
this wacky place and trying to get out, you see cutscenes of what's
going on back at home. This isn't exactly suspenseful, but it does
do a good job of keeping the attempt to get home uppermost in the
player's mind even when the goal seems somewhat far away, and it's a
attempt to up the ante by showing you how the conditions deteriorate
without you around.
>Kathleen
--
Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
Lucian P. Smith
: The thing you can't do is force the player to make an obviously bad decision
: with no in-game payoff. If you want to tell the story of an alcoholic ruining
: his life through drink, for instance, you have to find some way to make the
: player keep typing 'drink' even when it's obviously not good. This may be
: very difficcult, but if you can pull it off it has the ability to make the
: player *really* feel like they're living with the consequence of a bad
: decision.
This reminded me of an old post, fortunately archived at bang:
http://bang.dhs.org/if/raif/mol/msg02199.html
In it, Michael Graham posts a possible transcript of a game he was
considering where you play someone who's trying to quit smoking.
The point is: You're the author, you can make the PC do whatever you want
to. You'll have to keep it interesting for the player, but I think if you
acknowledge what the player wants to do *even if you don't have the PC do
it*, you'll still hold your audience. Another obvious example: Ramses.
Of course, if you *can* get the player to type in self-destructive things,
more power to you. But I have no idea how this would be accomplished.
-Lucian
Neil Cerutti
>This reminded me of an old post, fortunately archived at bang:
>
>http://bang.dhs.org/if/raif/mol/msg02199.html
>
>In it, Michael Graham posts a possible transcript of a game he was
>considering where you play someone who's trying to quit smoking.
>
>The point is: You're the author, you can make the PC do
>whatever you want to. You'll have to keep it interesting for
>the player, but I think if you acknowledge what the player wants
>to do *even if you don't have the PC do it*, you'll still hold
>your audience. Another obvious example: Ramses.
>
>Of course, if you *can* get the player to type in
>self-destructive things, more power to you. But I have no idea
>how this would be accomplished.
Didn't any of you play Shade?
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@together.net>
"The Analytical Engine weaves algebraic patterns just as the Jacquard
loom weaves flowers and leaves." -- Lady Lovelace
Andrew Plotkin
> For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
> Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
> So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
> mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
> rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That
> may have made an interesting IF, but it wouldn't have been
> Romeo and Juliet, and it would have (in my opinion) had a
> lot less emotional impact.
In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
to leave his group at the beginning. This is a choice which the player
has; but nobody who chooses the "correct" decision regards it as a
satisfying end to the game. Everyone goes on to make the mistake, as
it were, and then get into the body of the game.
I can think of a couple of ways to apply this sort of thing to a R&J
adaptation in IF.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* International election observers in '04...
Joe Mason
Lucian P. Smith <lps...@rice.edu> wrote:
>Of course, if you *can* get the player to type in self-destructive things,
>more power to you. But I have no idea how this would be accomplished.
Heh. I tried that once. Quite literally. Didn't quite pull it off, though.
Joe
Joe Mason
Sean T Barrett
>more power to you. But I have no idea how this would be accomplished.
One approach is to simply is to create the expectation that the results
of the action are interesting to the player, even if they are
destructive to the character.
Some players may do things that they will expect will kill
themselves, just to see what happens, given a convenient UNDO;
and instead of a one turn immediate death consequence, you can
imagine a slower downfall; someone mentioned Shade, and I think
you can understand it by the "interesting to the player, destructive
to the character" analysis.
In the extreme, you might limit your audience, but there
is a cadre of players out there who primarily view IF as
an opportunity to view interesting responses to actions...
SeanB
David Samuel Myers
> In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
> to leave his group at the beginning. This is a choice which the player
> has; but nobody who chooses the "correct" decision regards it as a
> satisfying end to the game. Everyone goes on to make the mistake, as
> it were, and then get into the body of the game.
As a further example of an extreme case, see the opening of
Little Blue Men.
-d
David Thornley
David Samuel Myers <dmy...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>> In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
>
>Little Blue Men.
>
among the others. What did it for me was the statement that work
makes you free. (Then again, I do know the nature of the institutions
the Nazis put "Arbeit Macht Frei" above the gates of.)
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Daryl McCullough
>
>Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>>For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
>>Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
>>So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
>>mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
>>rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after.
>
>Plenty of IF doesn't allow the player/audience to make
>decisions for the character, though, railroading (with
>full interactivity) the player into a particular action
>by simply making the game not advance until the player
>allows the character to make the required decision.
>
>As such, I really don't understand your entire argument,
>which seems to be assuming that IF can't do that.
Not that it *can't* do that, but that (in my opinion)
players would resent it. You may feel sad that Romeo
and Juliet made bad choices, but you don't resent it,
because it was *their* choices, not yours.
>There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
>interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
>of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
>of drama that are not attainable by good IF",
Yes, that's what I mean.
>but I think it's pretty clearly false
It may be false, but I don't think I would be saying
it if it were *clearly* false.
>(although I believe something quite closely related, but
>largely irrelevant to this discussion).
If it is closely related, then it's not irrelevant. This
is just an open-ended discussion about how the medium (IF)
affects the content.
Daryl McCullough
>
>Daryl,
>
>You started out by saying that IF was technically a superset of static
>fiction.
Well, it sort of is, and sort of isn't. You *could* have the
entirety of _War and Peace_ displayed in your IF, with the only
interaction being to tap the space bar when the word "[MORE]"
appears at the bottom of the page. But people would (I think)
resent it. In the same way, you *could* have a television program
that showed no picture, only sound. It works for radio programs,
but people expect something different from TV.
>So when you say that IF cannot produce a kind dramatic effect you
>are obviously talking about only a certain subset of IF (which presumably
>doesn't include static fiction). I'm curious what characterises that subset
>(in your opinion), and which of its qualities are responsible for destroying
>the dramatic effect.
>It obviously has something to do with "interactivity", but this term is too
>vague and could describe anything from hitting a key to see the next screen
>of text to typing in complex sentences that become part of the story. Some
>possible specific characteristics I can think of are:
>
>- Having the reader/player make important, life changing decisions for the
>player character
[stuff deleted]
>- Allowing the reader/player to undo the character's actions (or restart)
>and then make different decisions
Yes, these are the the big ones. If the IF author allows the player
such power, then certain dramatic possibilities (exploring the
consequences of a mistaken decision) are lost. If the author
doesn't allow the player such power, then the player will likely
resent it.
[Other possibilities deleted]
Daryl McCullough
>
>You started out by saying that IF was technically a superset of static
>fiction.
Well, it sort of is, and sort of isn't. You *could* have the
entirety of _War and Peace_ displayed in your IF, with the only
interaction being to tap the space bar when the word "[MORE]"
appears at the bottom of the page. But people would (I think)
resent it. In the same way, you *could* have a television program
that showed no picture, only sound. It works for radio programs,
but people expect something different from TV.
>So when you say that IF cannot produce a kind dramatic effect you
>are obviously talking about only a certain subset of IF (which presumably
>doesn't include static fiction). I'm curious what characterises that subset
>(in your opinion), and which of its qualities are responsible for destroying
>the dramatic effect.
>It obviously has something to do with "interactivity", but this term is too
>vague and could describe anything from hitting a key to see the next screen
>of text to typing in complex sentences that become part of the story. Some
>possible specific characteristics I can think of are:
>
>- Having the reader/player make important, life changing decisions for the
>player character
[stuff deleted]
>- Allowing the reader/player to undo the character's actions (or restart)
>and then make different decisions
Yes, these are the the big ones. If the IF author allows the player
such power, then certain dramatic possibilities (exploring the
consequences of a mistaken decision) are lost. If the author
doesn't allow the player such power, then the player will likely
resent it.
[Other possibilities deleted]
--
Daryl McCullough
[Stuff deleted that I agree with]
>The thing you can't do is force the player to make an obviously bad decision
>with no in-game payoff. If you want to tell the story of an alcoholic ruining
>his life through drink, for instance, you have to find some way to make the
>player keep typing 'drink' even when it's obviously not good. This may be
>very difficcult, but if you can pull it off it has the ability to make the
>player *really* feel like they're living with the consequence of a bad
>decision.
Yes, that's the big point. In real life, and in good fiction,
a person's motivations are often complex. *Sometimes* they take
the form of trying to get the best outcome given the circumstances,
but often not. These more complex motivations seem (to me) difficult
to capture in IF, at least for the player character.
>So I wouldn't say this thing in particular (or anything in general) are
>*impossible* in interactive fiction, just that the focus is different and
>there are a lot more things that must mesh perfectly in order to pull it off.
Right. I would never say that something is impossible, but I think
certain things are much, much harder in IF.
Kaia Vintr
>>- Having the reader/player make important, life changing decisions for the
>>player character
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>- Allowing the reader/player to undo the character's actions (or restart)
>>and then make different decisions
>
>Yes, these are the the big ones. If the IF author allows the player
>such power, then certain dramatic possibilities (exploring the
>consequences of a mistaken decision) are lost. If the author
>doesn't allow the player such power, then the player will likely
>resent it.
But the player can still use this power to explore the intended possibilites
and in that case the sense of drama may actually be heightened by the fact
that the player freely chose to lead the plot in that direction.
Interactivity means the player and the author share responsibility for
making the story work. However this is also the case in conventional
fiction because the reader can refuse to accept the story and keep thinking
things like "Why did he do that?" and "This is so unrealistic" instead of
being receptive to the author's message.
Lucian P. Smith
: In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
: to leave his group at the beginning. This is a choice which the player
: has; but nobody who chooses the "correct" decision regards it as a
: satisfying end to the game. Everyone goes on to make the mistake, as
: it were, and then get into the body of the game.
Wow. I am, quite frankly, amazed at this. 'clearly a mistake'? I never
got this from the game at all. The *text* is the same as the 'winning'
ending, sure, but the subtext is so drastically different, I really can't
imagine anyone thinking that staying with the group is the
"correct" decision, qualitative quote marks or no. Even the
your-feet-get-soaked-and-you-catch-pnemonia-you-putz ending seems better
than the wimp-out one. At least you tried, after all.
I'm beginning to see why Zarf makes a policy of not commenting on his
games ;-)
-Lucian
(er, not in a personal way, just a general way)
Andrew Plotkin
> : In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
> : to leave his group at the beginning. This is a choice which the player
> : has; but nobody who chooses the "correct" decision regards it as a
> : satisfying end to the game. Everyone goes on to make the mistake, as
> : it were, and then get into the body of the game.
> Wow. I am, quite frankly, amazed at this. 'clearly a mistake'?
In the fictional world, which is what we're talking about. I'm
contrasting that with the subtext of the game, which is, as you noted,
contrasty.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* It's about the vote, stupid!
Sean T Barrett
>buz...@world.std.com says...
>>There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
>>interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
>>of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
>>of drama that are not attainable by good IF",
>Yes, that's what I mean.
>>but I think it's pretty clearly false
>It may be false, but I don't think I would be saying
>it if it were *clearly* false.
The fact that players are not satisfied with a "supposedly
winning" (for the character) ending early in a game but
will instead opt for the "bad move" so as to experience
the full game is a well-known tendency that makes me lean
towards thinking this.
But I say "clearly" because there are far too many counterexamples.
Let's go back to HHGTTG: you may very well knowingly allow "your"
house to get demolished. I imagine there are even stupider
actions in other games. In Zelda 64 I knew for sure that the
initial quests I was completing were exactly procuring items
that the villain wanted, and that he would know doubt wrest them
from me and proceed with villainy; I still wanted to play the
game so I did them anyway, when the clear victory for the character
would have been to not do them, and so leave the villain stuck.
If you want to stick to IF, several counterexamples have been
discussed in other threads. I'm pretty sure if we took the
complete list of potential counterexamples, most people (except
the nuts) would agree that at least one game on the list was
"good IF".
>>(although I believe something quite closely related, but
>>largely irrelevant to this discussion).
>
>If it is closely related, then it's not irrelevant. This
>is just an open-ended discussion about how the medium (IF)
>affects the content.
It's largely irrelevant because it's more a matter of personal
taste than of truth. Let me quote the bit again:
>>There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
>>interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
>>of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
>>of drama that are not attainable by good IF",
The truth I believe is that "the best use of interactive media
is in allowing the player to make real decisions of significant
consequence, and hence there are certain kinds of drama that
will not be attainable." However, "best" is a quite squirrely
word, not to mention the entirely subjective aspect of this.
But it's a truth that I believe about most media; a great work
in one medium will leverage the unique qualities of that medium,
and adaptations of that work to other media cannot both be true
to the original and best leverage that medium. One can make
a good movie out of a great stage play; but I think the "art
form" of the movie is better advanced by "Aliens" than such
a stage play; and arguably, even a non-great movie that leverages
the medium of film may be a better use of everyone's time.
So for games, to me, the best use of the medium are games that
significantly leverage interactivity, and that means not just
by making puzzles that are a glorified "press spacebar to go
on"[*] but by making the player the author of a unique, personal
narrative. Simulation allows the moment-to-moment experience
of each player to be unique. Even just the rooms & portable
objects simulation of IF enables this significantly more than,
say, Myst, although it depends on the game (e.g. BAP experience
is essentially identical for everyone). Deeper simulation
enables it more. Simulating NPCs is a huge unsolved problem,
however, and most traditional drama is based around conflict
relating to other characters, thus throwing a huge barrier at
trying to capture those experiences.
I come from a background of working on commercial computer
games which had a definite simulationist bent of the same kind
normally considered as simulationist IF: an overarching story
and sequence of plot points, but a relatively-freely navigable
space and many "puzzles" which can be solved in arbitrarily
different ways, because the player has been handed a set of
problems to confront and a variety of tools to apply. As such,
the thing I'd like to see happen is moving more player influence
into the overarching story, instead of just the moment-to-moment
story.
How to do this is a big open question, and it does
lead to the consequence you've expressed concern about in IF,
e.g. that the player will make the choices that are the least
dramatic. There are ideas for how to address this (after all,
a gamemaster can give players freedom to choose while still
keeping things dramatic), but there's an awful lot of work
to be done, and it's not clear to me how to get there from
here via evolutionary steps, and nobody is willing to fund the
enormous effort needed for an attempt at revolutionary change
that might fail. (And perhaps the Oz project can be taken
as a signal that this approach is unlikely to pay off right
now, but I haven't followed what they're doing very closely.)
SeanB
[*] Actually, an entirely puzzle game with no narrative (or
a not too relevant one, e.g. 3 in Three or suchlike) is to
me a perfectly valid use of the medium, so I'm guilty of
oversimplifying here.
Duncan Stevens
"Sean T Barrett" <buz...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:G9KzL...@world.std.com...
> Lucian P. Smith <lps...@rice.edu> wrote:
> >Of course, if you *can* get the player to type in self-destructive
things,
> >more power to you. But I have no idea how this would be accomplished.
>
> One approach is to simply is to create the expectation that the results
> of the action are interesting to the player, even if they are
> destructive to the character.
Or, if not necessarily interesting, then natural or seemingly expected from
an IF player. 9:05 is a nice example (arguably so nice that it's difficult
to pull the trick in a more elegant way, so there are big shoes to fill if
you want to try something similar), since the player gets the PC caught by
doing what appears to come naturally. Somewhat similarly, in Varicella,
pursuing the PC's apparent interests (and succeeding, that is) ultimately
leads to a really nasty demise for the PC. Of course, not pursuing them
(typing Z repeatedly, say) leads to some other sort of demise, marginally
less nasty but just as fatal to the PC, so perhaps that's not the best
example. Also, while "winning" Varicella involves acting in a way that
appears to benefit the PC's interests, it's hard to say that the actions are
"good" as such, so you have the whole lie-down-with-dogs problem--if you
assume that evil begets evil, you're not necessarily expecting things to
come out OK in the end for the PC.
Another way to do this that avoids the latter problem is to give the PC
information that turns out to be inaccurate, for some reason. (Misled,
screwed up his calculations, or just obstinate.) The player pursues what
appears to be the right course and learns at or near the end that it wasn't
right at all.
> In the extreme, you might limit your audience, but there
> is a cadre of players out there who primarily view IF as
^^^^
> an opportunity to view interesting responses to actions...
I'll assume that was deliberate.
--Duncan
Lucian P. Smith
: Lucian P. Smith <lps...@rice.edu> wrote:
: > Andrew Plotkin (erky...@eblong.com) wrote in <97ok0d$fsm$1...@news.panix.com>:
:
: > : In _A Change in the Weather_, it's clearly a mistake for the character
: > : to leave his group at the beginning. This is a choice which the player
: > : has; but nobody who chooses the "correct" decision regards it as a
: > : satisfying end to the game. Everyone goes on to make the mistake, as
: > : it were, and then get into the body of the game.
:
: > Wow. I am, quite frankly, amazed at this. 'clearly a mistake'?
:
: In the fictional world, which is what we're talking about. I'm
: contrasting that with the subtext of the game, which is, as you noted,
: contrasty.
Er, hrm. I *was* talking about the fictional world. I think the final
end is better for the protagonist than the one-move end. And I think
that's clear from the beginning of the game.
Another way to say this, I suppose, is "If I were actually the
protagonist, I would make the same choices as I did when I was making
choices for the protagonist." So it could be that personality types are
involved here, too. For some, in real life they'd go join the rest of the
group. Others would go find the fox. In the IF game, the first group
manages to roleplay fairly effortlessly, but it's still roleplaying not
just, er, playing.
-Lucian
James R. Goodfriend
Kathleen M. Fischer <greenG...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AA1...@MailAndNews.com...>
> The feature in static fiction that I don't see how to reproduce in IF is
> that
> old literary trick of having the reader know more than the character does.
Well the first example that jumped to my mind was HHGTTG, where you, as
Ford, know the earth will soon explode, but since the player doesn't have
any anxiety over the moment, I don't know if really counts.
But the BEST example I can think of is the recent 1981, where my anxiety was
much higher than the character's because I knew the result of his actions.
As I'm sure many of us did, I intially tried to sabotage his actions when
the fateful moment arrived.
And one could make an argument for BAP, where you know more as Zarf than
Zarf does, at one point. That wasn't really used for dramatic effect
though.
Ok, well, anyway, I disagree. It's a far rarer and more difficult effect
than in static fiction, but it's there.
-Bob
James R. Goodfriend
> >Of course, if you *can* get the player to type in self-destructive
things,
> >more power to you. But I have no idea how this would be accomplished.
>
> One approach is to simply is to create the expectation that the results
> of the action are interesting to the player, even if they are
> destructive to the character.
>
> Some players may do things that they will expect will kill
> themselves, just to see what happens, given a convenient UNDO;
Minor "Shrapnel" spoiler.
There are some poorly written games, of course, where killing yourself can
have a positive effect, because you learn something about a puzzle and can
then UNDO. Somewhat similar is Shrapnel, where you can only advance the
plot by getting killed multiple times.
And I've actually begun to write a game that exists in a world where death
is a temporary state. Thus, I can add in puzzles whose solution can be
discovered ONLY by killing yourself (along with hints that this is the
case). eg., start a machine that both opens a door and destroys you,
restore yourself, and then go through the now open door...
-Bob
Aris Katsaris
> Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
> >buz...@world.std.com says...
> >>There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
> >>interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
> >>of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
> >>of drama that are not attainable by good IF",
>
> >Yes, that's what I mean.
>
> >>but I think it's pretty clearly false
>
> >It may be false, but I don't think I would be saying
> >it if it were *clearly* false.
>
> The fact that players are not satisfied with a "supposedly
> winning" (for the character) ending early in a game but
> will instead opt for the "bad move" so as to experience
> the full game is a well-known tendency that makes me lean
> towards thinking this.
But this "Change in the Weather"-kind of argument seems to me
to be cheating a bit. Because it's fullness of length and experience
that the player is then seeking, it being a better or worse kind of
ending being secondary.
This seems to me to prove more that people want games that take
more than one or two turns to complete them (games like Aisle or
Rematch non-included) rather than that it says anything about the
drama in IF.
Aris Katsaris
KayCee
news:fY0o6.1186$4W7.21...@den-news1.rmi.net...
> And I've actually begun to write a game that exists in a world where death
> is a temporary state.
Sounds like "Riverworld". That could be very interesting!
...KayCee
James R. Goodfriend
KayCee <kcol...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:97rc7b$td3$1...@news3.cadvision.com...
What is Riverworld?
-Bob
no...@notme.com
<ja...@weboffices.com> wrote:
=>
=>KayCee <kcol...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
=>news:97rc7b$td3$1...@news3.cadvision.com...
=>> "James R. Goodfriend" <ja...@weboffices.com> wrote in message
=>> news:fY0o6.1186$4W7.21...@den-news1.rmi.net...
=>> > And I've actually begun to write a game that exists in a world
where
=>death
=>> > is a temporary state.
=>>
=>> Sounds like "Riverworld". That could be very interesting!
=>> ...KayCee
=>
=>What is Riverworld?
<stunned silence> <g>
author: Philip Jose Farmer
category: science fiction
titles in the Riverworld series:
Gods of Riverworld
To Your Scattered Bodies Go
The Fabulous Riverboat
The Dark Design
The Magic Labyrinth
Riverworld and Other Stories
Enjoy. I did.
HTH,
Grim
no...@notme.com
=>On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 00:37:36 -0600, "James R. Goodfriend"
=><ja...@weboffices.com> wrote:
=>
=>=>
=>=>KayCee <kcol...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
=>=>news:97rc7b$td3$1...@news3.cadvision.com...
=>=>> "James R. Goodfriend" <ja...@weboffices.com> wrote in message
=>=>> news:fY0o6.1186$4W7.21...@den-news1.rmi.net...
=>=>> > And I've actually begun to write a game that exists in a world
=>where
=>=>death
=>=>> > is a temporary state.
=>=>>
=>=>> Sounds like "Riverworld". That could be very interesting!
=>=>> ...KayCee
=>=>
=>=>What is Riverworld?
=>
=>
=><stunned silence> <g>
=>
=>
=>author: Philip Jose Farmer
=>
=>category: science fiction
=>
=>titles in the Riverworld series:
=>
=> Gods of Riverworld
=> To Your Scattered Bodies Go
=> The Fabulous Riverboat
=> The Dark Design
=> The Magic Labyrinth
=> Riverworld and Other Stories
Erm, order is a bit mucked up. "Gods of Riverworld" should be second
to last on the list. I picked up "Gods..." around '86-7, so I
shouldn't be surprised if Mr. Farmer has added a few more titles to
the series since then. My taste in literature tends to fluctuate
wildly so I almost never know everything about any one thing. <g>
HTH,
Grim
Carl Muckenhoupt
wrote:
>For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
>Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
>So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
>mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
>rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That
>may have made an interesting IF, but it wouldn't have been
>Romeo and Juliet, and it would have (in my opinion) had a
>lot less emotional impact.
This reminds me of the graphic adventure based on "Indiana Jones and
the Last Crusade". Arguably, Indy losing the Grail at the end is
essential to the point of the movie. The Grail is as much a
temptation as it is holy. If he lacks the wisdom to stop, he'll fall,
just like the bad guys did. It's a pretty obvious metaphor.
In the game, however, you can avoid losing the grail. But the point
is preserved by giving you another choice: keep it (and have it
trigger another tremor that opens a pit right beneath you when you try
to remove it from the temple), or give it back to its caretakers.
It's still essentially the same choice with essentially the same
consequences. although with a less tragic bent.
Not that I want to compare the flick with Romeo and Juliet or
anything.
Carl Muckenhoupt
wrote:
>Not that it *can't* do that, but that (in my opinion)
>players would resent it. You may feel sad that Romeo
>and Juliet made bad choices, but you don't resent it,
>because it was *their* choices, not yours.
Witness the evolution of "Curses!". In the original release, the
player could not save Andromeda. This upset people, so Graham changed
it so that you could. (It's still unnecessary to winning the game.)
This shows a lot about players, if you ask me. We know from mythology
that Andromeda *was* rescued, by Perseus rather than Meldrew. But the
game left it hanging, so people wanted to resolve it themselves.
Carl Muckenhoupt
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>> The fact that players are not satisfied with a "supposedly
>> winning" (for the character) ending early in a game but
>> will instead opt for the "bad move" so as to experience
>> the full game is a well-known tendency that makes me lean
>> towards thinking this.
>
>But this "Change in the Weather"-kind of argument seems to me
>to be cheating a bit. Because it's fullness of length and experience
>that the player is then seeking, it being a better or worse kind of
>ending being secondary.
Indeed, this can be applied to other media. A person who reads a
novel made one choice that determines what happens in the novel: the
choice of which novel to read. We're certainly capable of only
choosing works in which nothing bad happens, but we generally don't,
because it's not satisfying. IF is the same way, except that we
sometimes have to make this decision later on.
Matthew Russotto
Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@wurb.com> wrote:
>
>This reminds me of the graphic adventure based on "Indiana Jones and
>the Last Crusade". Arguably, Indy losing the Grail at the end is
>essential to the point of the movie. The Grail is as much a
>temptation as it is holy. If he lacks the wisdom to stop, he'll fall,
>just like the bad guys did. It's a pretty obvious metaphor.
The metaphor is just a veneer on top of a more important reason he can't get
the grail: it would violate the rules of the genre. Indy can't get
the Holy Grail any more than Gilligan can get off the island or Rockford
can get paid.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Carl Muckenhoupt
Russotto) wrote:
>The metaphor is just a veneer on top of a more important reason he can't get
>the grail: it would violate the rules of the genre. Indy can't get
>the Holy Grail any more than Gilligan can get off the island or Rockford
>can get paid.
He got the Ark of the Covenant, didn't he? I see no reason why the
Grail should be more unattainable than the Ark.
Well, okay, one reason: unlike the Grail, the Ark was probably
historically real. But the fact that the object of his quest never
existed shouldn't be an obstacle to a fictional character like Indy.
Richard Bos
And another: unlike the Ark, which is merely supposed to be lost, and
probably destroyed, the Grail was supposed to be not only lost and still
existing, but unfindable (or unattainable) by anyone who is not
perfectly pure at heart. That's why Lancelot didn't reach it (although I
think he saw it), whereas wossname, L's son, did: Lancelot's affair with
Guinevere made him impure, even if only a little. I don't suppose Indy
is any more pure than Lancelot.
Richard
Matthew Russotto
Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@wurb.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:21:04 GMT, russ...@wanda.pond.com (Matthew
>Russotto) wrote:
>
>>The metaphor is just a veneer on top of a more important reason he can't get
>>the grail: it would violate the rules of the genre. Indy can't get
>>the Holy Grail any more than Gilligan can get off the island or Rockford
>>can get paid.
>
>He got the Ark of the Covenant, didn't he?
He couldn't hold on to it, rememeber? The government buried it in a
warehouse and wouldn't allow him to study it.
>Well, okay, one reason: unlike the Grail, the Ark was probably
>historically real. But the fact that the object of his quest never
>existed shouldn't be an obstacle to a fictional character like Indy.
The Grail was as likely real, too.
Aris Katsaris
Matthew Russotto <russ...@wanda.pond.com> wrote in message
news:PVNo6.2991$ro4.2...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <3aa30d15....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Carl Muckenhoupt <ca...@wurb.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:21:04 GMT, russ...@wanda.pond.com (Matthew
> >Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >>The metaphor is just a veneer on top of a more important reason he can't
get
> >>the grail: it would violate the rules of the genre. Indy can't get
> >>the Holy Grail any more than Gilligan can get off the island or Rockford
> >>can get paid.
> >
> >He got the Ark of the Covenant, didn't he?
>
> He couldn't hold on to it, rememeber? The government buried it in a
> warehouse and wouldn't allow him to study it.
>
> >Well, okay, one reason: unlike the Grail, the Ark was probably
> >historically real. But the fact that the object of his quest never
> >existed shouldn't be an obstacle to a fictional character like Indy.
>
> The Grail was as likely real, too.
It depends on how you define "Grail"... Originally the word had much to
do with pre-Christian Celtic beliefs - only later was it considered to be
the cup that Christ drank from...
Aris Katsaris
Daryl McCullough
>The character in IF that I've ever had the most vivid
>impression of was the main character of "Photopia" and she
>*wasn't* the player character.
Another example of a well-developed IF character is
the interrogator from "Spider and Web". Again, he
wasn't the player character.
Daryl McCullough
>But this "Change in the Weather"-kind of argument seems to me
>to be cheating a bit. Because it's fullness of length and experience
>that the player is then seeking, it being a better or worse kind of
>ending being secondary.
>
>This seems to me to prove more that people want games that take
>more than one or two turns to complete them (games like Aisle or
>Rematch non-included) rather than that it says anything about the
>drama in IF.
Yes. The character in a work of IF can be motivated by many
things---fear, anger, hunger, survival, love, physical pleasure,
etc. But the player is only motivated by one thing---producing
interesting results.
Sometimes the motivations of the player and the motivations
of the character are in alignment, and the interactivity
works in favor of the drama. But for some character motivations,
it is hard to motivate the player in a parallel way.
Daryl McCullough
>A person who reads a novel made one choice that determines
>what happens in the novel: the choice of which novel to read.
>We're certainly capable of only choosing works in which
>nothing bad happens, but we generally don't, because it's
>not satisfying. IF is the same way, except that we
>sometimes have to make this decision later on.
That reminds me of some crackpot theology that I thought up.
(I'm not a religious person, but I am willing to consider
the existence of God for the sake of discussion.)
It is supposedly a difficult question for theologians to
explain why God allows bad things to happen to good people.
It seems to me that the answer is obvious: Because otherwise,
things would be *boring*.
It seems to me that all the paradoxes
and mysteries involving the existence of an omnipotent,
omniscient, benevolent being (well, all except for the
question: Who created God?) are resolved by thinking of
God as the *author* of the universe.
God loves us, in the same way that Tolstoy loved Anna Karenina
and Shakespeare loved Othello. And He lets bad things happen
to us for the same reason---because that makes the story more
interesting and more meaningful.
Lesser paradoxes are also taken care of. Can God create
a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift? That question
makes about as much sense (in this view) as asking whether
Steven King could create a monster so deadly that it could
kill Steven King. Steven King doesn't literally reside in
the same universe as the monsters that he creates. An author
can of course write himself into the story, but the character
in the story is just a stand-in for the author, not the real
thing. If that stand-in dies, it doesn't mean that the author
is dead.
So God is an author, and the various incarnations of God
in this world (Jesus, or Krishna, or Mehr Baba) are just
characters that represent God.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
John Bytheway
I would say that he didn't. He lifted it out of a box, then it was taken.
He saw it from a distance when it was opened and that it had sand in but
none of the other stuff. We don't know how long he had it before it was
taken by those guys and put in that warehouse. He certainly seemed not to
have been given nearly as much chance as he would have liked to have studied
it.
Carl Muckenhoupt
wrote:
>Sometimes the motivations of the player and the motivations
>of the character are in alignment, and the interactivity
>works in favor of the drama. But for some character motivations,
>it is hard to motivate the player in a parallel way.
Then there's "Piece of Mind", which postmodernly uses the difference
in motivation between player and character to create drama,
culminating with the character begging the player not to make him take
the obvious action.
Mel
> Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
> >For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
> >Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
> >So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
> >mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
> >rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after.
> Plenty of IF doesn't allow the player/audience to make
> decisions for the character, though, railroading (with
> full interactivity) the player into a particular action
> by simply making the game not advance until the player
> allows the character to make the required decision.
> As such, I really don't understand your entire argument,
> which seems to be assuming that IF can't do that.
> There's a separate argument of the form "good IF leverages
> interactivity by allowing the player to make real decisions
> of significant consequence, and hence there are certain kinds
> of drama that are not attainable by good IF", but I think it's
> pretty clearly false (although I believe something quite
> closely related, but largely irrelevant to this discussion).
Is it only drama if it's available on a path to a "winning" (or
sought-after) ending? Many very dramatic variants can be allowed as
results of mistakes and, if the writing is good, they player may want to
see the ending through, even after it has become obvious the choice is a
bad one, especially if the system automatically saves the game state
right before crucial plot branches. If you allow the possibility of a
bad decision still leading to a good ending the player has all the more
motivation to stay with it for a while. Sure, not all players would
see it, but it could make for something to come back too see for players
that want to see everything even if they didn't make the mistake.
Mel
Michael Straight
> Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, in "Romeo and Juliet". It was a big mistake for
> > Juliet to fake her death without letting Romeo in on the plan.
> > So, if the audience could make decisions for her, the terrible
> > mixup wouldn't have occurred, and the two lovers would have
> > rode off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That
> > may have made an interesting IF, but it wouldn't have been
> > Romeo and Juliet, and it would have (in my opinion) had a
> > lot less emotional impact.
I'm fascinated by the possibility of multiple endings informing each
other. The best example I can think of is Muse, in which the
"best" ending is better if you've seen the less-good endings.
It's possible that you could write an IF version of Romeo and Juliet
where the tragic death has more impact if you've seen the "happy ending"
that might have been if they hadn't committed suicide. The trick would be
getting the player to think of the tragic ending as the "real" ending,
rather than a "losing" ending.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT