Overdone plot ideas
thres...@hotmail.com
trying to think of what sort of IF to write. Whatever I write, it's
going to be more plot than puzzle driven because I just like that sort
of thing.
However, I'd like to compile a list of plot hooks that have been
overdone. For example--amnesia (which is really just a cop-out for lazy
writers who don't want to invest time in a well-written setting.) So
what else should I avoid?
Tommy Herbert
> I'd like to compile a list of plot hooks that have been
> overdone. For example--amnesia (which is really just a cop-out for lazy
> writers who don't want to invest time in a well-written setting.)
Afraid I don't have a list of suggestions for you, but I wanted to
point out that amnesia is really a cop-out from the problem of player
knowledge: the player usually begins the game with less knowledge of
the game world than the character he's supposed to be playing. This is
harder to solve than the challenge of thinking up a well-written
setting. It has an analogy in drama - you know those hamfisted films
and plays that have lines like, "Let's go and see our father, who has
never been the same since he sustained a head injury twelve years ago."
Well, maybe nobody writes lines as bad as that, but you know what I
mean.
Kevin Venzke
<thres...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138661756.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> For example--amnesia (which is really just a cop-out for lazy
> writers who don't want to invest time in a well-written setting.)
Hmm, what do you mean? That a character with amnesia doesn't
need to have knowledge about the world?
Other than Square Circle I can't think of many games involving
amnesia... It seems like it could be a useful tool for making a
game mysterious beyond just "what's going to happen next,
and how will I get there?"
Kevin Venzke
Nathan
> However, I'd like to compile a list of plot hooks that have been
> overdone. For example--amnesia (which is really just a cop-out for lazy
> writers who don't want to invest time in a well-written setting.) So
> what else should I avoid?
The IF Wiki has a lot of information on this and related subjects:
Severian
> Other than Square Circle I can't think of many games involving
> amnesia...
Though I've thankfully managed to expunge most of _The Dreamhold_ from my
memory, I do recall two things. One is that Plotkin couldn't write a
sentence I wanted to read, and that the game relies heavily on amnesia as an
excuse for not providing a decent background story.
Adam Thornton
Severian <se...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Though I've thankfully managed to expunge most of _The Dreamhold_ from my
>memory, I do recall two things. One is that Plotkin couldn't write a
>sentence I wanted to read, and that the game relies heavily on amnesia as an
>excuse for not providing a decent background story.
Jacek, is it possible you're a Gene Wolfe fan? If so, please drop me
an email. I have a proposition to put to you. No, not *that* kind.
Adam
John the Player
> Though I've thankfully managed to expunge most of _The Dreamhold_ from my
> memory, I do recall two things. One is that Plotkin couldn't write a
> sentence I wanted to read, and that the game relies heavily on amnesia as an
> excuse for not providing a decent background story.
For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're
not a troll.
You are, however, part of a long line of posters to R*IF (get thee to
Google for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error
about Andrew Plotkin: "I don't understand his work, therefore his work
isn't capable of being understood, therefore he's a
fraud/pretentious/snooty/emperor without clothes/whatever."
Instead of presenting carefully constructed logical arguements as to
why your subjective impression is mistaken (truly a fool's task
anywhere, but especially on Usenet), I'll try another tact.
Of all the people making the "I don't understand Zarf so he's not any
good" arguement, there seems to be a constant: none are IF writers. I
am wagering that this observation applies to you as well.
And the reason none of them is an IF writer is that it's obvious none
realized just how hard the effects Zarf achieves are to carry off, and
just how effortlessly he does so.
However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor experience
in playing IF (this being my first post here), let's take a look at a
short list of far more luminous individuals who think Zarf is a genius:
Adam Cadre
Emily Short
Paul O'Brian
Lucian P. Smith
Adam Thornton
Richard Develyn
Yogi Bear
Gene Wirchenko
Radical Al
David Whyld
Greg Boettcher
Dan Shiovitz
Roberto Grassi
Matthew Russotto
Magnus Olsson
Graham Nelson
Stephen Grenade
(the guy with the cheerios)
Deafult User
Mike Rozak
Now, that's a pretty impressive and diverse list, united only in their
fame in the field, and their belief in Zarf's absolute brilliance. And
that's just a quick scan through Internet and Google's Usenet archive;
if you did a comprehensive survey, it would no doubt be easy to compile
a list 100 (if not 500) times as long. Are we to believe that Zarf has
pulled the wool over ALL their eyes? Or that all of the above are his
brown-nosing buddies?
It's as if you said that Proust was "boring," and Steinbeck, Capote,
Kerouac, Rushdie, Ondaatje, Roth, Foster-Wallace, Pynchon, McEwan,
Updike, Franzen, Morrison, Stoddard, Faulkner, and Hemingway all said
you were wrong. We can believe you, or we can believe the dozen experts
in the field who say you're wrong.
Urbatain
And you can allways push tthe genre with the newest directions to
follow, I think, are: interactive moral, ethics, something like
Tapestry and Slouching...
And you can aim to a fully interactive game, not only about the
scenario but the repecussions in the PJ mind and the possibility to
real affect the plot and story of the game world.
See you.
Urbatain.
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> However, I'd like to compile a list of plot hooks that have
> been overdone. For example--amnesia (which is really just a
> cop-out for lazy writers who don't want to invest time in a
> well-written setting.) So what else should I avoid?
I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but what the hey.
;-)
There aren't any plot-hooks that you can't use if you're resolved
to use it with freshness and style.
There's no overused plot device, there's only tired prose and
dull presentation of those devices.
--
Neil Cerutti
It will work out, somehow. That's a hell of a duo right there,
Marbury, Crawford and Houston. --Carmelo Anthony
Paul E Collins
> I'd like to compile a list of plot hooks that have
> been overdone.
Not sure whether this is narrow enough to be a "plot hook", but I'm
rather tired of the storyline wherein some artefact (amulet, statue,
etc. - preferably ancient and priceless), has been lost (stolen,
broken into pieces, etc.) and the player is charged with regaining it.
P.
rgrassi
> However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor experience
> in playing IF (this being my first post here), let's take a look at a
> short list of far more luminous individuals who think Zarf is a genius:
[CUT]
> Roberto Grassi
I thank you about the "luminous" individuality but for the sake of
honesty I've just played (and never finished) "Spider and Web". That
said i cannot say if Andrew is a genius or not.
I find that game "impressive" for some aspects and "difficult" for
others.
You know, a "non english" player has a lot of difficulties in playing
that game of Andrew in which prose is 'difficult' to be understood (and
in that game this aspect is particularly stressed). In that sense I
much more prefer Emily Short games, which i found more "easy" to be
read, but that's a personal opinion.
That said, I'm always astonished about how many discussions start about
Andrew Plotkin. My opinion is that he is, for sure, a very brilliant
author (you don't win IFComps and Xyzzy Awards if you're not), a very
competent coder and his knowledge about IF about many aspects is great
(game mechanics, history, etc...). Furthermore, he does something very
interesting. He PLAYS fiction games and reviews it publicly. One always
learn by others.
Rob
Andrew Plotkin
> For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're
> not a troll.
Ditto.
> You are, however, part of a long line of posters to R*IF (get thee to
> Google for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error
> about Andrew Plotkin: "I don't understand his work, therefore his work
> isn't capable of being understood, therefore he's a
> fraud/pretentious/snooty/emperor without clothes/whatever."
That statement is false. There is no such line of posters. There is
one poster, who uses a lot of names. He has also been known to say
that I'm a genius.
Wait, I've just stopped pretending.
(This post paid for by the RAIF fund for analyzing troll techniques.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
"Bush has kept America safe from terrorism since 9/11." Too bad his
job was to keep America safe *on* 9/11.
Severian
> For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're
> not a troll.
It's ironic you should say so, considering Plotkin's reply to your post.
> You are, however, part of a long line of posters to R*IF (get thee to
> Google for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error
> about Andrew Plotkin: "I don't understand his work, therefore his work
> isn't capable of being understood, therefore he's a
> fraud/pretentious/snooty/emperor without clothes/whatever."
I never said that I didn't understand his work. In fact, I understand it all
too well. He's a naked emperor, and he's growing increasingly desperate.
There's a reason why Plotkin's games are willfully obtuse; because they have
nothing to convey. No emotions, no NPC interaction, no plot, no background
story, no dialogue, no characterisation, no humour, no insight. In other
words, no meaning. Just sterile symbols pointing to sterile symbols pointing
to sterile symbols, ad infinitum. Everything is vague and obfuscated so that
the fans can have endless discussions trying to connect the dots. The
problem is that no matter how you connect the dots, nothing interesting
emerges. Look for Peter Jasper's "[REVIEW/ANALYSIS] of The Dreamhold,
potential SPOILERS included". The original post has been removed, possibly
at the author's request (too embarrassing?), by the responses should give
you a clue of what I'm talking about.
> Instead of presenting carefully constructed logical arguements as to
> why your subjective impression is mistaken (truly a fool's task
> anywhere, but especially on Usenet), I'll try another tact.
>
>
> Of all the people making the "I don't understand Zarf so he's not any
> good" arguement, there seems to be a constant: none are IF writers. I
> am wagering that this observation applies to you as well.
That's like saying that you have to be a film director to review movies.
> And the reason none of them is an IF writer is that it's obvious none
> realized just how hard the effects Zarf achieves are to carry off, and
> just how effortlessly he does so.
What effects?
[snip]
Jim Aikin
> tired of the storyline wherein some artefact (amulet, statue, etc. -
> preferably ancient and priceless), has been lost (stolen, broken into
> pieces, etc.) and the player is charged with regaining it.
Hitchcock (who knew a bit about plot) called this object the macguffin (or
possibly McGuffin or maguffin). It doesn't matter what the macguffin
actually IS, what matters is that within the context of the story the
characters BELIEVE it's vitally important, and care about getting their
hands on it. It could be stolen jewels, a stolen super-weapon, or that
repulsive portrait of your Aunt Wilma, into the frame of which her last will
and testament has been tucked.
The point is, there has to be *something* to get the lead character in a
story going. Personally, I'd much rather be searching for pieces of a broken
statue than wandering around wondering what the heck the author wants me to
accomplish or care about.
--JA
*****************************************
"Those instances of it which lack the quality referred to
as 'swing' are meaningless." --Duke Ellington
*****************************************
Brian Wh.
I haven't played any of his games to completion, but....
... the apple in the cage in Dreamhold was _MAGICAL_!
If Andrew Plotkin never wrote another word of IF, that scene alone,
that one effect, is enough to prove his brilliance.
Good luck to you, Andrew!
Jim Aikin
> to use it with freshness and style.
>
> There's no overused plot device, there's only tired prose and
> dull presentation of those devices.
Absolutely right.
To a considerable extent, the problem with interactive fiction is that
because (a) it's more difficult to write than conventional fiction and (b)
there's no money in it, it doesn't attract many talented writers.
I suppose I'm stepping into a morass here, but what the heck. If you're
serious about creating a well-written game and would like some feedback on
prose style, characterization, and all that boring but essential stuff, feel
free to email me at [editor at-sign musicwords dot net]. Not to toot my own
horn, but I've had conventional fiction published by real publishers, I make
my living writing and editing nonfiction, and a few years ago I released one
large and well-received (though not especially serious) IF game.
My time is limited, and my experience in fiction critique workshops has been
that most amateur authors resolutely ignore good advice, but hey, maybe
you're different.
--Jim Aikin
thres...@hotmail.com
Nathan wrote:
>
> The IF Wiki has a lot of information on this and related subjects:
>
> http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Category:Tropes
Thanks for the info, Nathan. I've checked it out. It's a great list and
is exactly what I was looking for.
Now, if you'll pardon me I'm going to step outside the thread before
the flame war (which I did not intend to start) gets too heated..
Adam Thornton
Severian <se...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I never said that I didn't understand his work. In fact, I understand it all
>too well. He's a naked emperor, and he's growing increasingly desperate.
Actually, I think you'll find that the Increasingly Desperate Naked
Emperor is an NPC in _Mentula Macanus: Apocolocyntosis_.
Adam
BM
> However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor experience
> in playing IF (this being my first post here), let's take a look at a
> short list of far more luminous individuals who think Zarf is a genius:
[snip of list of names]
Without speaking more about the merits of Severian's case, I just have
to say this is a very silly argument by authority. It's even sillier
when that authority is also based on ficticious characters and
individuals whose only claim to fame is that they played a certain game
(not to completion, mind you).
> It's as if you said that Proust was "boring," and Steinbeck, Capote,
> Kerouac, Rushdie, Ondaatje, Roth, Foster-Wallace, Pynchon, McEwan,
> Updike, Franzen, Morrison, Stoddard, Faulkner, and Hemingway all said
> you were wrong. We can believe you, or we can believe the dozen experts
> in the field who say you're wrong.
I hate to reiterate a made point, but analysis is always superior to
deduction from authority. By "analysis" I mean the kind of criticism
that students are taught in lit seminars. What is the main theme of the
work? How does the setting and the symbolic vocabulary relate to the
theme? How is characterization accomplished? Is there any character
development? What I've seen so far are people saying that _So Far_ is a
great game because it's "made up of beautiful objects" (Dan Shiovitz)
or because the symbols it employs are "polyvalent and connotative"
(Emily Short), which, translated to English, means that they can mean
whatever you like them to mean.
-- B
The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent"
Voltaire
John the Player
> Here, John the Player <johnth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're
> > not a troll.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > You are, however, part of a long line of posters to R*IF (get thee to
> > Google for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error
> > about Andrew Plotkin: "I don't understand his work, therefore his work
> > isn't capable of being understood, therefore he's a
> > fraud/pretentious/snooty/emperor without clothes/whatever."
>
> That statement is false. There is no such line of posters. There is
> one poster, who uses a lot of names. He has also been known to say
> that I'm a genius.
Hello, Andrew.
December 3 1996 (rec.games.int-fiction) Paul O'Brian finds "the lack of
a coherent plot" in _So Far_ "frustrating".
April 19 1997 (rec.arts.int-fiction): Paul Avery says he found _So Far_
"totally incomprehensible"
March 12 1998: (rec.arts.int-fiction) "ravipind" calls _So Far_
"willfully obtuse"
November 21 2000 (rec.games.int-fiction) Emily Short on _Shade_
"Sidenote: does a game written by a known-to-be-cryptic author, because
people search it more deeply, actually bear more meaning than others?
Take that well-known Borges story and reframe it like this: Pierre
Menard writes a book, and it's dreck, but then, weirdly, there turns up
an authenticated manuscript by Cervantes, and it's the exact same damn
thing word for word; and because it says By Cervantes, it's studied
until it yields fruit..."
November 4 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interactive_fiction)
Alan De Smet: "_So Far_ is famous, but I'm at a loss to note why it's
noteworthy."
February 24 2005 (rec.games.int-fiction) Emiliano G. Padilha on _The
Dreamhold_
"It has a vague static backstory that is left intentionally
unexaplained [sic] so that players (the fans) can have endless
speculations as to the secret "symbolisms" and "meanings" behind it.
Which the author probably never bothered to come up with, or in any
case is likely to be wildly divergent and simpler than the discussion
it generates."
Are you saying that all these people are one and the same person?
Ziv Wities
> Hitchcock (who knew a bit about plot) called this object the macguffin (or
> possibly McGuffin or maguffin). It doesn't matter what the macguffin
> actually IS, <snip>
> The point is, there has to be *something* to get the lead character in a
> story going. Personally, I'd much rather be searching for pieces of a broken
> statue than wandering around wondering what the heck the author wants me to
> accomplish or care about.
>
> --JA
This is absolutely true, but the problem is when the McGuffin is too
obviously a McGuffin - when the author fails to convince us that the
McGuffin is truly important to anything other than furthering the plot.
When a reader, viewer, player, etc. can *feel* that he's being led
about, forced, railroaded - he sees through the seams in the story to
the author on the other side. If the construction of the McGuffin (or
pretty much anything else) is done poorly, then the reader may not be
able to help realizing that the author is deliberately and forcefully
maneuvering the story - and such a realization, being aware of the
author and the artificiality of the story, is anathema to suspension of
disbelief.
When a story starts out with "You must find the seven pieces of the
Mystical Armor of DOOM, scattered across the seven continents" - it
feels contrived, and you've no choice but to be aware that there's
somebody doing the contriving.
Jim Aikin
> Mystical Armor of DOOM, scattered across the seven continents" - it feels
> contrived, and you've no choice but to be aware that there's somebody
> doing the contriving.
If the story attempts a serious tone, such a challenge to the player would
of course be disastrous. If it has a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek tone,
exactly the same challenge could be a barrel of fun.
One of the most memorable pieces of IF ever created, Myst, has a thoroughly
contrived McGuffin -- "Bring the blue pages, only the BLUE pages!" It was
silly, everybody could see it was silly, but the tone of the game was so
striking that I, for one, was willing to forgive the designers for having
used such a thin setup.
--JA
Uli Kusterer
It is. It even has its own name: Hunt the McGuffin.
Samwyse
> One of the most memorable pieces of IF ever created, Myst, has a thoroughly
> contrived McGuffin -- "Bring the blue pages, only the BLUE pages!" It was
> silly, everybody could see it was silly, but the tone of the game was so
> striking that I, for one, was willing to forgive the designers for having
> used such a thin setup.
One of my all-time favoite cinimatic McGuffins is a cassette tape which,
when played, will prevent Russia and China from leaving peace talks with
the US. Apparently the audience is supposed to believe that the tape
hasn't been duplicated and that absolutely no one in the world knows
what's on the tape.
Peter Keating
Emily makes an interesting point. Shade was entered under a pseudonym
and finished tenth place in the 2000 comp. The (over)interpretations
started once the real name of the author became public knowledge. Would
The Dreamhold have gotten a tenth of the attention it got if it were
released under a pseudonym?
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Shade is "dreck", but it certainly
wouldn't have held my interest for as long as it did had it not been
for all the hype around it. Despite Plotkin's technical competence, I
can't think of a single author who is as unwilling/unable to tell a
coherent story. In that respect I fully agree with Paul O'Brian.
> November 4 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interactive_fiction)
> Alan De Smet: "_So Far_ is famous, but I'm at a loss to note why it's
> noteworthy."
>
> February 24 2005 (rec.games.int-fiction) Emiliano G. Padilha on _The
> Dreamhold_
> "It has a vague static backstory that is left intentionally
> unexaplained [sic] so that players (the fans) can have endless
> speculations as to the secret "symbolisms" and "meanings" behind it.
> Which the author probably never bothered to come up with, or in any
> case is likely to be wildly divergent and simpler than the discussion
> it generates."
I'm beginning to think it's a calculated strategy. Release a game that
makes sense and it'll float or sink purely on it's own merits. But
release a game that doesn't make sense, where all the threads are
intentionally left untied and the author is know to be cryptic, and it
will be argued and talked about till the cows come home.
Okay, so we have the first rule: Never Make Sense. The second rule is
Never Enter the Discussion. Let the fans have it out among themselves.
Remember, your main strength is your vagueness. If you say anything
concrete about your game, you'll run the risk of dousing the hype. The
great thing about being vague and non-committal is that anyone's
interpretation of the "secret meanings" of your game is as good as
anyone else's. That way everybody can have a go at "interpreting" your
game and no one can ever be wrong, because there is no right or wrong
here.
Playing Plotkin's games is like having food shot up your rectum; they
require no digestion, no intermediary process of reason.
> Are you saying that all these people are one and the same person?
"Troll" has so far been Plotkin's only response to critics. It's so
much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea.
Zonk the Troll Ghost
* snip *
> Playing Plotkin's games is like having food shot up your rectum; they
> require no digestion, no intermediary process of reason.
>
> > Are you saying that all these people are one and the same person?
>
> "Troll" has so far been Plotkin's only response to critics. It's so
> much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea.
What consistently tips the troll's hand (aside from one-note
obssessiveness about certain individuals) is hyberbolic and often
scatalogical declarations such as "Playing Plotkin's games is like
having food shot up your rectum..." Such phrases bear the mark of
Jacek's preferred style, and try as he may to suppress this signature
style, it always eventually bursts through whatever persona he is
currently inhabiting.
This leads to a Troll Paradox. To not tip his hand, the troll must
avoid hyperbolic didactic extremes (eg "Plotkin is a pure genius" or
"Plotkin is a utter fraud" w/nothing inbetween) and excise his favorite
inflammatory and scatalogical style of declarations. However, if the
troll successfully hid himself by taming his posts so, his posts would
become reasonable enough to contribute to constructive debate, which
would defeat the troll's purpose.
Rubes
Samwyse wrote:
\> One of my all-time favoite cinimatic McGuffins is a cassette tape
which,
> when played, will prevent Russia and China from leaving peace talks with
> the US. Apparently the audience is supposed to believe that the tape
> hasn't been duplicated and that absolutely no one in the world knows
> what's on the tape.
Escape From New York?
Heiko Nock
> Emily makes an interesting point. Shade was entered under a pseudonym
> and finished tenth place in the 2000 comp. The (over)interpretations
> started once the real name of the author became public knowledge. Would
> The Dreamhold have gotten a tenth of the attention it got if it were
> released under a pseudonym?
Attention? Maybe not. But what does attention have to do with a
game's quality?
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that Shade is "dreck", but it certainly
> wouldn't have held my interest for as long as it did had it not been
> for all the hype around it.
Why not? Do you play boring games just for the author's sake?!
> Despite Plotkin's technical competence, I can't think of a single
> author who is as unwilling/unable to tell a coherent story. In that
> respect I fully agree with Paul O'Brian.
That's about as convincing as saying that David Lynch is incapable of
telling a coherent story. And it makes you look just as silly.
> I'm beginning to think it's a calculated strategy. Release a game that
> makes sense and it'll float or sink purely on it's own merits. But
> release a game that doesn't make sense, where all the threads are
> intentionally left untied and the author is know to be cryptic, and it
> will be argued and talked about till the cows come home.
Even if that would be true, it would still be a quality of the game,
since people are not forced to argue about it. They want to argue about
it, because it interests them.
> Playing Plotkin's games is like having food shot up your rectum; they
> require no digestion, no intermediary process of reason.
Kind of like your postings, Jacek.
>> Are you saying that all these people are one and the same person?
> "Troll" has so far been Plotkin's only response to critics. It's so
> much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea.
That must be something you're looking forward to. Growing up, that is.
--
Peter Keating
> Peter Keating wrote:
> * snip *
>
> > Playing Plotkin's games is like having food shot up your rectum; they
> > require no digestion, no intermediary process of reason.
> >
> > > Are you saying that all these people are one and the same person?
> >
> > "Troll" has so far been Plotkin's only response to critics. It's so
> > much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea.
>
> What consistently tips the troll's hand (aside from one-note
> obssessiveness about certain individuals) is hyberbolic and often
> scatalogical declarations such as "Playing Plotkin's games is like
> having food shot up your rectum..." Such phrases bear the mark of
> Jacek's preferred style, and try as he may to suppress this signature
> style, it always eventually bursts through whatever persona he is
> currently inhabiting.
>
> This leads to a Troll Paradox. To not tip his hand, the troll must
> avoid hyperbolic didactic extremes (eg "Plotkin is a pure genius" or
> "Plotkin is a utter fraud" w/nothing inbetween)
You must understand that this isn't a paradox. To write a good game and
have it praised is nothing. Anyone with talent can do that. And after
all, what is talent but a sociogenetic accident? The right brain
circuitry and the right upbringing. That's all it takes. The thing that
makes Plotkin special, makes him transcend mere talent, is his ability
to release nonsensical pointless crap and have it praised to high
heaven. Plotkin is a pure talentless genius. Try matching that, if you
can.
"What's your point, Peter?" I hear you ask. My point, Zonk, is that
when a game about a faceless, dickless, navel-grazing wizard becomes
worthy of diligent study and brow-furrowing analysis, games like All
Roads, Savoir-Faire and Photopia become trivial. The distance
permissable between extremes of perception is limited. The sound
perception of an assworm does not include thunder; it stops at
flatulence.
You should really take a look at Dan Shiovitz's essay "How to Write a
Great Game". It's the best, clearest and most honest declaration of
what I call The Doctrine of Bambification. Shiovitz says that So Far is
a great game because it's "made up of beautiful objects". The advice is
simple: stuff your game with "beautiful objects" (preferably wooden
boxes that make funny sounds when you tap them) and you've achieved
greatness. No need for plot, NPCs or coherence. No need for meaning.
Creative poverty systematized. Mediocrity made virtuous.
By promoting his own mediocrity, Plotkin is trivializing other author's
talent. It's as simple as that.
> and excise his favorite
> inflammatory and scatalogical style of declarations. However, if the
> troll successfully hid himself by taming his posts so, his posts would
> become reasonable enough to contribute to constructive debate, which
> would defeat the troll's purpose.
You're welcome to prove me wrong. Go ahead, convince me that So Far is
a great game. Show me why Dreamhold isn't the work of a nonentity. But
nah, you wouldn't want to do that. It's so much easier to belittle than
to provide convincing counterarguments.
Dan Shiovitz
You know, Jacek, if you're going to argue with yourself, you could
save some time by just waiting a few days and posting a summary of
whatever conclusion you came to.
Or you could, you know, write some IF. Or review some IF. Or play some
IF. Or do anything else more productive and interesting with your time.
--
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
Samwyse
We have a winner!