Defining a new term
Robert Masenten
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> writes:
> Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
> "nonlinear," I'm going to make the following offer. You guys come up with
> a better term to fit the criteria I've developed. We'll argue about
> whether your suggestions are good terms or not. If we all come up with
> something we like, then I'll use that word instead of "nonlinear." Fair
> enough?
[Criteria snipped]
How about "nondirected"?
Robert Masenten
Brandon Van Every
Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
"nonlinear," I'm going to make the following offer. You guys come up with
a better term to fit the criteria I've developed. We'll argue about
whether your suggestions are good terms or not. If we all come up with
something we like, then I'll use that word instead of "nonlinear." Fair
enough?
The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
graph with loops.
2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
game.
Cheers,
--
Brandon J. Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> DEC Commodity Graphics
http://www.blarg.net/~vanevery Windows NT Alpha OpenGL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anvil upon which you hammer another's words is as hard or as soft
as you care to make it. Wherein lies insight?
Gerry Kevin Wilson
In article <01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>
> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
> graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> game.
Well, resisting the urge to suggest 'pipedream', I'll cast my vote for
'goalless', since that seems to be the primary goal. You could also
aim for 'free form', if you have a problem with using a subset of your
criteria to describe the whole.
---
G. Kevin Wilson: Freelance Writer and Game Designer. Resumes on demand.
Jeff Hatch
Adam Cadre wrote:
> The art comes from providing those limits. You seem to be asking for
> an experience only imagination can provide, not a computer. You want
> the option of doing anything you want? Imagine it. You want NPCs to
> respond to your whims? Imagine them doing so. By insisting that a
> computer and an author play a role, all you're doing is whining that
> you don't have a very good imagination.
Art needs limits, but breaking rules is one way to make great art.
Beethoven's symphonies broke lots of classical rules, and five of his
nine are considered to be among the greatest symphonies of all time.
(The five that broke the most rules!) Jazz compositions are fairly
open-ended, since they have improvisational sections.
Of course, IMHO if you break too many rules, you end up with !#@$. (I'm
not a big fan of all 20th-Century classical music, especially not
dodecaphonism. If you don't know what that is, I'll define it:
Dodecaphonism is a system of composition that breaks all the standard
rules of tonality and adds a new set of rules that are equally
restrictive for the composer, but sound like @#$%.)
I don't think Brandon Van Every's ideas are feasible yet, and I doubt
I'd like them much even if they were. But I do think it's possible to
move in the direction of, um, "nonlinearity." Even a game like SimCity
is more open-ended than most interactive fiction! I happen to prefer
story-based games, which can't be quite as open-ended as simulation
games, but I'd love to see the genre expanded.
-Rúmil
Sean K Selvidge
Brandon Van Every wrote in article
<01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>...
>Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
>"nonlinear," I'm going to make the following offer. You guys come up with
>a better term to fit the criteria I've developed. We'll argue about
>whether your suggestions are good terms or not. If we all come up with
>something we like, then I'll use that word instead of "nonlinear." Fair
>enough?
>
>The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>
>1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
>graph with loops.
>2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
>goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
>3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
>4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
>traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
>player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
>can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
>game.
Aside from the fact that you didn't list multi-user as a criteria I would
say that
your description almost exactly covers a few of the more customized MUDs
out there. There is no overt goal, other than improving your character by
rising
in level and improving yourself by rounding out skills, (the muds I am
referring to
are not like the majority of "stock" libs out there where the goal is to
reach
wizard or creator status) and while you can't jump from perspective to
perspective, I think the fresh input from other players would make up for
this.
The game is coded by several different people, lending their own unique
perspective and feel to each new area you encounter. While I agree an open
ended game would be quite unique in IF, it would require great amounts of
time to write and would probably have to be released in installments which
(for me) is frustrating at best.
-S
[SNIP]
Francis Irving
On 10 Sep 1997 21:45:49 GMT, "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net>
wrote:
>4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
>traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
>player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
>can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
>game.
Simulationist IF
World-Modelling IF
Storyless IF
Freeform IF
Roleplaying IF
Francis.
Home: fra...@pobox.co.uk Work: fra...@ncgraphics.co.uk
Katy Mulvey
>"nonlinear," I'm going to make the following offer. You guys come up with
>a better term to fit the criteria I've developed.
Open-ended.
Katy
--
Katy Mulvey
mul...@frontiernet.net
Adam Cadre
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a
> general graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue
> at all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that
> players can move freely between the different perspectives at any
> point in the game.
So, no endpoints, no goals, no coherence. The game is essentially a
contrivance to respond to the whims of the player.
So what do you need the game for?
Art is about limits. One can complain that as soon as a musician plays
a single note, she's limiting herself only to songs that begin with
that note, and denying the audience songs that don't begin with that
note; with each note she plays, she denies more and more possibilities
to the audience, as the song takes on a more and more specific form.
Sorry, but that's where the art lies. It lies in the limits. Unheard
melodies may be sweeter than heard ones, but there's no art in silence.
You seem to be spending most of your time carping about limits. Games
are constantly limiting what you can do, they're not equipped to deal
with you wanting to swim to Argentina or have sex with a toaster, they
give you messages saying you can't do that, or it doesn't understand
what you mean. Your options as a player are limited by the fact that
the game expects you to maintain a coherent personality; your options
are limited by the fact that NPCs maintain coherent personalities
instead of acting as you wish them to act. The game limits your
potential actions by providing you with a goal to pursue. And so on,
and so on, and on and on and on.
That's the art.
The art comes from providing those limits. You seem to be asking for
an experience only imagination can provide, not a computer. You want
the option of doing anything you want? Imagine it. You want NPCs to
respond to your whims? Imagine them doing so. By insisting that a
computer and an author play a role, all you're doing is whining that
you don't have a very good imagination.
-----
Adam Cadre, Durham, NC
http://www.duke.edu/~adamc
http://www.retina.net/~grignr
Martin Julian DeMello
Brandon Van Every (vane...@blarg.net) wrote:
: Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
: "nonlinear," I'm going to make the following offer. You guys come up with
: a better term to fit the criteria I've developed. We'll argue about
: whether your suggestions are good terms or not. If we all come up with
: something we like, then I'll use that word instead of "nonlinear." Fair
: enough?
: The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
: 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
: graph with loops.
: 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
: goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
: 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
: 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
: traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
: player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
: can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
: game.
Just come in, so sorry if this has come up before, but what you're
describing sounds just like a MUD (and nothing like any IF game I've ever
seen, but that's irrelevant). IMHO the reason that it would at present
work only in the MUD format is that your provisos impose far too large a
set of requirements on the designer. In a MUD OTOH, a large part of the
game consists of interaction with the other players, and the designer can
then feel free to provide a mere framework of locations, objects, NPCs
and puzzles, without worrying about things like goals (or quests or
objectives), score, endings, script etc.
Basically, since an IF game is finite, there will come a time when every
location has been visited, every puzzle solved, and every object
subjected to every conceivable very in every possibl location. At which
point, there really isn't much point in the designer being
freeform-oriented enough to omit the 'ending' requirement, since there is
simply nothing else left to do. In a MUD however, there is constant
time-evolution, so that the game is never quite the same twice; also,
since MUDs are played largely online, there is plenty of scope for
*program* evolution, so that objects, locations or whatever can be
modified by the author whenever desired. (I believe there are even MUDs
in which sufficiently advanced players can add objects to the code - yet
another way of interaction with the environment).
--
Martin DeMello
Remove the sep_field from my address to reply
Andrew Plotkin
Brandon Van Every (vane...@blarg.net) wrote:
> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
> graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> game.
I cheerfully sidestep the question of labels, and consider...
These are slightly different properties.
1 and 2 are the same thing. Is it too tightly stated? Maybe...
psychological goals and motivations are important in art, but they're not
the only important thing. Sometimes you just want to see Inigo beat the
crap out of the six-fingered man, and cheer when he's done. Or you want
to get filthy rich. If that's a psychological goal, then anything is,
including the greed of the adventurer in Zork. So strike the word
"psychological", I think.
So, in 1 and 2, you're considering a work where all the motivation is
brought by the player, and none is supplied by the author. In fact I think
that's what you mean by "it does not require a singular mindset of the
player," in 4. Yes?
If this is the case, what *is* the author supplying?
The obvious answers are "the characters" and "the setting."
Hm. How is it possible to define a character without defining motivation
and goals? That's pretty much what a character is. (Well, that and a
wallet full of tag lines. Ay caramba!) I don't think you're talking about
games where the player can take the character down several different
paths, implying several different personalities; that's still a fixed set
of possible goals, supplied by the author. Do you want a completely
undefined set of possibilities for character? Then, again, what is the
author supplying in this regard?
The setting: there are many extant works where the author supplies a
setting but no characters or plot. I'm thinking of role-playing game
manuals. (The world-defining ones, not adventure modules.) They make
incredibly dull reading. Nothing happens until a GM and some players sit
down and start co-creating.
Hm again. Is this an accurate depiction of what you want? I can't make
anything else out of your desires, unless it's a word-processing program.
(It gives you a window and a keyboard; everything else comes from *your*
motivations...)
(Heh -- maybe that's your answer. The game you want is called Inform.
Lots of people are playing it these days, and they're all obviously
completely unconstrained, because they're all coming up with completely
different stories. How's that?)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Brandon Van Every
Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote in article
<01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>...
>
> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>
> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a
general
> graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at
all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> game.
It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum. The
technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted as:
a GOALLESS game
Even though players themselves can have goals, the game itself does not
have any goals, and the term focuses attention upon that fact. I now offer
the following chain of deductions:
HYPOTHESIS: any terminus in the game graph either implicitly or explicity
defines a goal.
REASONING: if the player "wins" upon reaching the terminus, then a goal has
been explicitly defined. If the player "loses" upon reaching the terminus,
then avoiding the terminus is equivalent to "winning," and thus a goal has
been implicitly defined. If a player neither "wins" nor "loses" upon
reaching a terminus, then the player has either saved their game, quit the
game permanently, or crashed the program. A saved game implies that it can
be later restored - thus, no terminus. Quitting the game permanently is an
action of the player, it is not a terminus within the game graph itself.
Crashing the program is an action of the buggy code, it is not a terminus
within the game graph itself.
CONCLUSION: all GOALLESS games are NONLINEAR.
LFrench106
erky...@netcom.com (Hey, those angry villagers with pitchforks arrived
yet, Andrew?) wrote:
>The setting: there are many extant works where the author supplies a
>setting but no characters or plot. I'm thinking of role-playing game
>manuals. (The world-defining ones, not adventure modules.) They make
>incredibly dull reading. Nothing happens until a GM and some players sit
>down and start co-creating.
Hey! I LIKE reading RPG rule books. But then again, I have a hard time
being bored. I also like to imagine situations on my own.
(Me, I'd like to see a good RPG based on Donaldson, rather then Tolkien.
(But, on my seventy third hand, to quote Simon the Sorcerer in a similar
situation, "I hope this isn't copywrite infringement."))
Luc French
Member of Narnwatch
Den of Iniquity
Brandon Van Every wrote (I present a very brief summary):
: Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
: "nonlinear," ... you guys come up with a better term to fit the criteria
: 1) the game has no endpoint...
: 2) the game itself is goalless...
: 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
: 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention...
Hmm. I'd go with simulation. Open-ended, goal-less microcosmos simulation.
I'd come up with a cute acronym but I haven't the time :). Simulation i-f.
Martin Julian DeMello wrote:
>... since an IF game is finite, there will come a time when every
>location has been visited, every puzzle solved, and every object
>subjected to every conceivable verb in every possible location. At which
>point ... there is simply nothing else left to do.
Ah, but there you are thinking too literally along the lines of Zork-ish
i-f. If one were to program a more complex version of, say, Braben and
Bell's 'Elite' as a text game, in your favoured language (and I have seen
such trading-space-sims played on VAX machines), then verbs and objects
and locations are of little relevance. Instead, market prices change with
time, in different systems, piracy waxes and wanes, wars may break out and
peace prevail over and over in this propsed flight-of-fancy. It would be
quite open-ended and there would never be any 'completion'. One would stop
when one achieves one's goals or grows tired of the monotony of space. :)
This is just one little example and there could be hundreds of other
ideas. If Tetris can keep people occupied for hours on end, month after
month, so could a well-thought out i-f strategy or simulation game. If
Brandon ever puts ideas into practice, or can convince someone else to
(and I'm standing by to lend my encouragement), I'd be eager to see the
result.
--
Den
Rajiv Mote
> > graph with loops.
> > 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> > goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
> > traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> > player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> > can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> > game.
> If this is the case, what *is* the author supplying?
>
> The obvious answers are "the characters" and "the setting."
Hm. There are games like this, but the element that they add is a
support of multiple players. A single player can be motivated by the
sheer love of exploration of the environment, but the interesting "plot
developments" come about through the interaction of many players who
launch campaigns against one another, strive to build strongholds while
competing for resources, etc.
The author supplies an environment rich and sophisticated enough to
react in logical ways to the actions of the players. Essentially, the
game author builds the arena in which the players have a game of
Calvinball. And Calvinball is essentially whatever you want it to be,
limited only by the constraints of the environment and players.
-- Rajiv
Dan Knapp
> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>
> graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> game.
"SUD"?
Adam Cadre
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum.
> The technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted
> as:
>
> a GOALLESS game
Are you sure it didn't hit you like one of Whizzard's posts? He
suggested the term yesterday.
(Hey, I just had a burst of inspiration: how about a game in which a
US soldier is transported back to medieval times? His name could be...
oh... Frank Leandro! Wow, I sure solved that conundrum! I'm such a
creative guy!)
Brandon Van Every
Adam Cadre <ad...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<34182B...@acpub.duke.edu>...
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum.
> > The technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted
> > as:
> >
> > a GOALLESS game
>
> Are you sure it didn't hit you like one of Whizzard's posts? He
> suggested the term yesterday.
Quite. You think Usenet has instantaneous delivery to all points on the
planet?
I've yet to see this post. At least if he came up with it in parallel, it
shows that other people are thinking about the subject, and that there's
common ground for a positive discussion.
cody sandifer
In article <01bcbee5$4b96e620$819f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, "Brandon Van
Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
> Adam Cadre <ad...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> <34182B...@acpub.duke.edu>...
> > Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > > It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum.
> > > The technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted
> > > as:
> > >
> > > a GOALLESS game
> >
> > Are you sure it didn't hit you like one of Whizzard's posts? He
> > suggested the term yesterday.
>
> Quite. You think Usenet has instantaneous delivery to all points on the
> planet?
> I've yet to see this post. At least if he came up with it in parallel, it
> shows that other people are thinking about the subject, and that there's
> common ground for a positive discussion.
You guys are both nuts.
cody
Brandon Van Every
Den of Iniquity <dms...@york.ac.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.SGI.3.95L.97091...@ebor.york.ac.uk>...
> Brandon Van Every wrote (I present a very brief summary):
>
> : Ok ok ok. Since so many people have a problem with my use of the term
> : "nonlinear," ... you guys come up with a better term to fit the
criteria
> : 1) the game has no endpoint...
> : 2) the game itself is goalless...
> : 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> : 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention...
>
> Hmm. I'd go with simulation. Open-ended, goal-less microcosmos
simulation.
> I'd come up with a cute acronym but I haven't the time :). Simulation
i-f.
I do not wish to employ the word "Simulation" because simulation as you're
describing it only one possible approach to the criteria. All game states
could be manually defined by the author. There doesn't have to be any
mathematical set of "simulation variables," such as the 2D or 3D game map,
hit points, treasure accumulated, and all the other traditional scrolling
map RPG variables. Quake, the Ultimas, and Meridian 59 are archetypical
examples of the "Simulationist" adventures you describe, and they're just
not it. The goals of these games are firmly embedded in their mathematical
simulation systems, and I'm trying to develop a goalless game. At a
minimum, the term "simulation" does not itself capture the essence of this
idea, I would feel a need to say "Goalless Simulation" to distinguish what
I'm after from all the "Accumulate Treasure Simulations" out there. It is
possible to make a mathematical system that has no embedded goals, such as
a nice walkthrough of a fractal landscape, where appreciation of the
emergent phenomena is the primary activity. But this is only one approach
to authoring a goalless game, it is not a requirement. It is entirely
possible to have narratives in a goalless environment, without any
mathematical systems. A real-world approximation of such a narrative would
be a documentary or a travelogue, which is a traversal of places and events
that unfold their own stories. The author often has an agenda, i.e. a
goal, in how he tells such a story, but one could conceivably go out and
"start filming" with little regard for where the travelogue will lead. You
might look at the average home video of the family vacation as a "goalless
narrative," although one would probably want to edit it for interesting
footage!
Also, the very use of the word "simulation" begs a question: simulation of
what? The original Adventure was a simulation of the Mammoth Cavern in
Kentucky, USA, with objects, puzzles, and magic thrown in to boot. You
could rightly say that it simulates an adventurer wandering around looking
for treasure. Same with Zork I, II, III. So, is any "easter egg hunt"
game by necessity a Simulationist adventure? Also, this once again has
nothing to say about Goallessness, which is the primary thing I'm after.
>
> Martin Julian DeMello wrote:
>
> >... since an IF game is finite, there will come a time when every
> >location has been visited, every puzzle solved, and every object
> >subjected to every conceivable verb in every possible location. At which
> >point ... there is simply nothing else left to do.
>
> Ah, but there you are thinking too literally along the lines of Zork-ish
> i-f. If one were to program a more complex version of, say, Braben and
> Bell's 'Elite' as a text game, in your favoured language (and I have seen
> such trading-space-sims played on VAX machines), then verbs and objects
> and locations are of little relevance. Instead, market prices change with
> time, in different systems, piracy waxes and wanes, wars may break out
and
> peace prevail over and over in this propsed flight-of-fancy. It would be
> quite open-ended and there would never be any 'completion'. One would
stop
> when one achieves one's goals or grows tired of the monotony of space. :)
Or the monotony of accumulating wealth. That's why I don't see the goals
of such games as desireable. Still, you've hit upon an important point:
the system must have the power to refresh the user's level of engagement.
Tourism can't simply be a matter of seeing everything and then saying "Yep!
I've seen everything!" The landscape has to change, either via
environmental forces (Simulation), the presence of other players (Chatting,
Sports, Politics), or extensions to the narrative by the author and/or
players (Building).
These are all common notions in the MUD universe. The problem is that MUDs
typically have a code base with embedded assumptions about how the universe
is supposed to work, i.e. there are hit points so you can kill each other.
Also, MUDs are not typically authored with any semblance of story, which is
where I think the label "Simulationist" arises from. But these are
limitations of the programmers and authors of MUDs, not of the concept of
MUDding itself. And some RPG MUDders would probably object to their worlds
being labelled "Simulationist," as the author and players are attempting to
create a narrative, and are always intervening to extend the narrative.
> This is just one little example and there could be hundreds of other
> ideas. If Tetris can keep people occupied for hours on end, month after
> month, so could a well-thought out i-f strategy or simulation game.
I think a crucial thing to observe about Tetris, is that people really
enjoy the "flow" of the game, moreso than whether they're winning or not.
That's a "Goalless" gaming concept. Do you enjoy dribbling a basketball?
Goalless, once again.
> If Brandon ever puts ideas into practice, or can convince someone else to
> (and I'm standing by to lend my encouragement), I'd be eager to see the
> result.
Well cool. Thanks for your support. :-)
Steven Howard
In <01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, on 09/10/97
>The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a
>general graph with loops.
>2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
>goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at
>all.
For criteria 1 and 2, "XXXXXXX" = "non". These criteria describe a
"non-game". See, for example, the designer's notes on SimCity, wherein
Will Wright states that SimCity is a "toy" and not a "game" for precisely
these reasons.
>3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
For criterion 3, "XXXXXXX" = "any." This statement is true of almost any
class of games. Board games, for example, can have multiple beginnings,
but they don't have to.
>4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
>traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
>player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
>can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
>game.
For criterion 4, "XXXXXXX" = "imaginary and idealized." All games have
rules which by virtue of being rules necessarily place some strictures on
what a player is and is not allowed to do as part of the game.
Therefore, what you are describing is "any sort of imaginary and idealized
non-game."
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Steven Howard
In <01bcbe8b$3bc921e0$909f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, on 09/11/97
>HYPOTHESIS: any terminus in the game graph either implicitly or explicity
>defines a goal.
>REASONING: if the player "wins" upon reaching the terminus, then a goal
>has been explicitly defined. If the player "loses" upon reaching the
>terminus, then avoiding the terminus is equivalent to "winning," and thus
>a goal has been implicitly defined. If a player neither "wins" nor
>"loses" upon reaching a terminus, then the player has either saved their
>game, quit the game permanently, or crashed the program. A saved game
>implies that it can be later restored - thus, no terminus. Quitting the
>game permanently is an action of the player, it is not a terminus within
>the game graph itself. Crashing the program is an action of the buggy
>code, it is not a terminus within the game graph itself.
>CONCLUSION: all GOALLESS games are NONLINEAR.
Your conclusion may or may not be correct, but your reasoning is a bit
suspect. Stripped of specific context, it boils down to this.
HYPOTHESIS: All A is B.
REASONING: Define 'A' such that all A is B.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, all A is B. QED.
You're saying that in a "game" which can be "lost" but not "won" (SimCity,
again, for example), "not losing" is the same as "winning."
Ben Parrish
Francis Irving <fra...@pobox.co.uk> wrote:
> >4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> >traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> >player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> >can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> >game.
> Simulationist IF
> World-Modelling IF
> Storyless IF
> Freeform IF
> Roleplaying IF
> Francis.
I vote for "Francis".
--
[ pin...@emi.net : Ben Parrish : http://www.emi.net/~pinback ]
FemaleDeer
Can't resist.
WHAT would be the point of playing a goaless game?
Why would I as a player (not a game writer) even WANT to play a goaless game?
To me the joy of IF IS the limits. When you read a book you get caught up
in one person's view of the world (or another world, as in
science-fiction). It can become totally absorbing. You often suspend
disbelief as the characters and plot become real to you and you get
involved in the development of the story.
To me IF is not necessarily better, but even more so. You REALLY get
caught up in someone's world veiw, so caught up you actually interact with
it. It's fun. It's escapism, the addition of puzzles also makes it a
challenge. It is like reading a book, except you are active instead of
totally passive.
But it is still someone's world view, someone's art. Because someone wrote it.
I, personally, HATE bad science-fiction, science that is so vague you have
a stinking feeling that the author knows little about science. A GOOD
sci-fi story has well-defined parameters, well-defined (to a point,
science) - it does not substitue ambiquity and vagueness for good writing.
I don't know if that explains what I mean. But for me IF is the same --
vaguenss and ambiquity do not substitue for good writing and an involving
story (with challenging -- and limited -- because I have to be able to
solve them eventually and I need some limits to do that) puzzles.
I don't want it "all over the place".
My two cents, again.
FD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Femal...@aol.com The Tame Computer
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or
freed a human soul." Mark Twain (or won a game)
John Baker
FemaleDeer wrote:
> Can't resist.
>
> WHAT would be the point of playing a goaless game?
> My two cents, again.
Your last line *is* the point, IMHO. We all play and write these
games for different reasons. I personally happen to most enjoy
playing and writing Zorky/Adamsy type games, even though most people
here now consider them to be primitive and without plot.
Then you've got the middle of the bell-curve who talk of better NPC's
and better plots and such. And have written some *damn* fine games
and advanced the genre more with a single work than I will in a lifetime
writing games (assuming I actually publish again).
At the far end of the spectrum (away from me that is :) ) are the
theorists.
In my opinion, the thread 'Can't we all just get along' should have been
named 'Can't we all just have fun?'.
--
John Baker
** I boycott all businesses that send unsolicited email advertising **
"It ain't an easy life being a self-parody." - John Baker
Brandon Van Every
Steven Howard <bl...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<3418d...@news2.ibm.net>...
> REASONING: Define 'A' such that all A is B.
> CONCLUSION: Therefore, all A is B. QED.
>
> You're saying that in a "game" which can be "lost" but not "won"
(SimCity,
> again, for example), "not losing" is the same as "winning."
Ok you're right, I wanted to see if anyone was paying attention. Now that
you've broken my logical chain, how would you go about fixing it?
Brandon Van Every
FemaleDeer <femal...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970912011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Can't resist.
>
> WHAT would be the point of playing a goaless game?
The only goal of playing a goalless game, is to enjoy it. Ever played
"Earth Ball?"
> Why would I as a player (not a game writer) even WANT to play a goaless
game?
There are satisfying activities that can't be "won" or "lost." Going to an
art museum, for example. I don't think you can "win" at reading a book,
either. Unless you were cramming for an exam. :-)
> To me IF is not necessarily better, but even more so. You REALLY get
> caught up in someone's world veiw, so caught up you actually interact
with
> it. It's fun. It's escapism, the addition of puzzles also makes it a
> challenge. It is like reading a book, except you are active instead of
> totally passive.
Notice you said the *addition* of puzzles? They aren't necessary for
enjoyment. Also, there's such a thing as a goalless puzzle: the only goal
is to understand the nature of the puzzle, there's no "outcome" as a result
of the understanding. This is probably equivalent to "a puzzle you're not
required to solve," or even feel particularly compelled to solve.
> But it is still someone's world view, someone's art. Because someone
wrote it.
I'm one of those who says "the audience completes the artwork, and expands
it." And also that the best artwork is forever incomplete, leaving you
wondering.
> I, personally, HATE bad science-fiction, science that is so vague you
have
> a stinking feeling that the author knows little about science. A GOOD
> sci-fi story has well-defined parameters, well-defined (to a point,
> science) - it does not substitue ambiquity and vagueness for good
writing.
This is a matter of your own tastes, not a requirement for fiction in
general. Some people like things well-defined, others like them completely
open to their own speculation, and there are all manner of shades of grey
in between.
Den of Iniquity
On 11 Sep 1997, Brandon Van Every wrote:
>Den of Iniquity <dms...@york.ac.uk> wrote
>> Hmm. I'd go with simulation. Open-ended, goal-less microcosmos
>> simulation. Simulation i-f.
>
>I do not wish to employ the word "Simulation" because simulation as you're
>describing it only one possible approach to the criteria. All game states
>could be manually defined by the author. There doesn't have to be any
>mathematical set of "simulation variables," such as the 2D or 3D game map,
>hit points, treasure accumulated, [etc...]
Hmmm. I chose 'simulation i-f' simply for its brevity; of course such a
term cannot encompass all of what you mean. I think of 'simulation' as
some representation of a microcosmos (necessarily simplistic) with a set
of defined rules for its behaviour (again, simplistic but not necessarily
transparent to the player) which are defined by the limitations of the
parser and the number of degrees of freedom offered by the code. Within
that synthesised environment, then, the 'actor' is not constrained to
perform any particular action, whether that be move, manipulate or wait
(which on the surface seems like normal i-f, but virtually all normal i-f
contains scenes where the actor's behaviour is controlled to some extent,
actively or passively {"You don't want to do that just now..."}).
>It is entirely possible to have narratives in a goalless environment,
>without any mathematical systems.
I don't doubt it, but to program anything of any reasonable complexity (ie
beyond a simple example which would be tiring to continue playing for
long) without some sort of underlying logical base would seem to me to be
a mammoth undertaking - you're talking about representing an environment
through the use of language alone, which, it has already been pointed out,
would require a very advanced AI system if you must decline to use a
mathematical system (along with a more basic representation of the world
than a fully descriptive one). It seems to me that it would require
megabytes of data for a 'playable' game. Or have you thought of a clever
workaround?
>Also, the very use of the word "simulation" begs a question: simulation of
>what? The original Adventure was a simulation of the Mammoth Cavern in
>Kentucky, USA, with objects, puzzles, and magic thrown in to boot.
I wouldn't say so, but then I suppose I have a particular interpretation
of the word. I'm thinking of full-environment simulation, for want of a
better term. The rooms in the game are representations with descriptions -
for the most part, just pictures of rooms with discrete object entities
within them that can be manipulated in limited ways which relate to the
specific roles they have to play... But then that's probably another
debate altogether. Any simulation must have limits. The trick is to make
them seem natural, reasonable.
>I think a crucial thing to observe about Tetris, is that people really
>enjoy the "flow" of the game, moreso than whether they're winning or not.
Definitely. Without well defined goals, the 'doing' must give pleasure,
however this end is achieved. After all, for the 'Elite' example I gave
- if there was no piracy, no chance of meeting other vessels in space,
then the need for the 'flying time' part of the game would be redundant.
It would detract from the game to include it, even though it would make
the simulation 'more realistic'. You never have to wait while your ship is
refueled. Including such a feature would also detract, even if it made the
game more realistic. Realism must always fall prey to playability -
otherwise we'd not be sitting in front of our computers when we could be
outdoing.
--
Den
Den of Iniquity
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Den of Iniquity wrote:
>Realism must always fall prey to playability - otherwise we'd not be
>sitting in front of our computers when we could be outdoing.
^^^^^^^^
Whoops! Should be a space in there somewhere.
I forgot to mention that there is at least one 'game' out there which
could be considered 'goal-less'; although it suggests goals you don't have
to follow them, and I, for one, found myself exploring away from the
suggested exercises...
Andrew Plotkin's Lists and Lists.
Not a game in the technical sense but, with its underlying mathematical
base means that you can set your own goals and attempt to accomplish them.
It's about as open-ended as they come.
--
Den
(typical of Andrew to have got there long before anyone else :)
Neil Brown
In article <19970912011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, FemaleDeer
>
>in one person's view of the world (or another world, as in
>science-fiction). It can become totally absorbing. You often suspend
>disbelief as the characters and plot become real to you and you get
>involved in the development of the story.
>
>caught up in someone's world veiw, so caught up you actually interact with
>it. It's fun. It's escapism, the addition of puzzles also makes it a
>challenge. It is like reading a book, except you are active instead of
>totally passive.
Even a goalless game would have its limits. It is, after all, impossible
to develop a recreation of more than a fraction of the universe and a
fraction of the time line. For that matter, you could only code a
fraction of a fictional universe.
It would also be a representation of one person's view of the world (or
of several people if it is being coded by a team of programmers).
I think a goalless game would be fun to play for a while, as the player
explored the area and interacted with the characters. Boredom would
eventually set in, but that happens with the best of games.
- NJB
Erik Hermansen
On 11 Sep 1997 08:24:05 GMT, "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net>
wrote:
>Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote in article
><01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>...
>>
>> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>>
>> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a
>general
>> graph with loops.
>> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
>> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at
>all.
>> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
>> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
>> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
>> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
>> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
>> game.
>
>It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum. The
>technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted as:
>
> a GOALLESS game
Heh. I will begin using the term immediately.
>Even though players themselves can have goals, the game itself does not
>have any goals, and the term focuses attention upon that fact. I now offer
>the following chain of deductions:
>
>HYPOTHESIS: any terminus in the game graph either implicitly or explicity
>defines a goal.
>
>REASONING: if the player "wins" upon reaching the terminus, then a goal has
>been explicitly defined. If the player "loses" upon reaching the terminus,
>then avoiding the terminus is equivalent to "winning," and thus a goal has
>been implicitly defined. If a player neither "wins" nor "loses" upon
>reaching a terminus, then the player has either saved their game, quit the
>game permanently, or crashed the program. A saved game implies that it can
>be later restored - thus, no terminus. Quitting the game permanently is an
>action of the player, it is not a terminus within the game graph itself.
>Crashing the program is an action of the buggy code, it is not a terminus
>within the game graph itself.
>
>CONCLUSION: all GOALLESS games are NONLINEAR.
...
I find your conclusion to be semi-rigorous. :> A game could be
without a terminus and still not allow "freedom of action". Here is
my linear, goalless game. It is called "Feisty Chihuahuas".
---
You are standing on a road that stretches north as far as the eye can
see.
Feisty chihuahuas are here.
>SOUTH
Yes, it also goes south, but feisty chihuahuas block your path.
>WEST
You can only go north because of the feisty chihuahuas blocking your
path.
>EAST
I don't mean to imply that you should go north, but that is the only
available direction of travel due to the feisty chihuahuas condition.
>NORTH
You are standing on a road that stretches north as far as the eye can
see.
The feisty chihuahuas have followed you,
>HELP
You can only go NORTH, you will never reach the road's end, and all
points along the road are identical to this one. I'm not suggesting
that you should follow the road; that's totally up to you.
---
The game is linear because only one course of action is allowed to the
player. The game is goalless by your definition because there is no
terminus.
/* Deadly Rooms of Death - puzzling game of dungeon */
/* exploration for Windows. Easy to play, damned */
/* hard to win. Download from: */
/* http://webfootgames.com/catalog/drod.htm */
Brandon Van Every
>
> but virtually all normal i-f
> contains scenes where the actor's behaviour is controlled to some extent,
> actively or passively {"You don't want to do that just now..."}).
How about "Uncontrolled" or "Unbounded" game? The problem with the term
"simulation" is that both traditional IF and what I'm describing are
simulations. They differ principally in the degree of boundedness.
> >It is entirely possible to have narratives in a goalless environment,
> >without any mathematical systems.
>
> I don't doubt it, but to program anything of any reasonable complexity
(ie
> beyond a simple example which would be tiring to continue playing for
> long) without some sort of underlying logical base would seem to me to be
> a mammoth undertaking - you're talking about representing an environment
> through the use of language alone, which, it has already been pointed
out,
> would require a very advanced AI system if you must decline to use a
> mathematical system (along with a more basic representation of the world
> than a fully descriptive one). It seems to me that it would require
> megabytes of data for a 'playable' game. Or have you thought of a clever
> workaround?
How about multiple human authors to provide raw manual labor, and an
evolutionary programming system to extend/amplify the power of that labor?
Finally, if the system can be dynamically modified at runtime, then
additions ot the universe can be ongoing and cumulative. Pretty much it's
an "IF meets MUD" model. I agree that it is a mammoth undertaking, and
there are certainly MUDding pitfalls to be avoided.
As for "evolutionary programming," consider the following algorithm. Any
part of the algorithm could be produced either by a human or by a computer:
create(elements);
create(recombination_rules);
while (user wishes it) {
recombine(elements, recombination_rule);
select(elements);
select(recombination_rule);
}
> >Also, the very use of the word "simulation" begs a question: simulation
of
> >what? The original Adventure was a simulation of the Mammoth Cavern in
> >Kentucky, USA, with objects, puzzles, and magic thrown in to boot.
>
> I wouldn't say so, but then I suppose I have a particular interpretation
> of the word.
Well therein lies a problem. People originally wanted me to abandon the
use of the term "nonlinear" because I had a particular interpretation of
the word. Just as I think your definition of "simulation" is relevant, I
thought (still think) my definition of "nonlinear" was (is) relevant. The
counter-argument is that as a word assumes more and more meanings, it
becomes noise. Personally I don' t exactly hold with that precept, but I
understand the argument, and I thought I'd entertain the experiment of
coming up with something else. But I couldn't very well pick the word
"Simulation," since it exhibits the same basic problem that I was asked to
fix. :-)
Brandon Van Every
Erik Hermansen <car...@halcyon.com> wrote in article
<3419b271....@news.halcyon.com>...
>
> >NORTH
>
> You are standing on a road that stretches north as far as the eye can
> see.
>
> The feisty chihuahuas have followed you,
>
> >HELP
>
> You can only go NORTH, you will never reach the road's end, and all
> points along the road are identical to this one. I'm not suggesting
> that you should follow the road; that's totally up to you.
> ---
>
> The game is linear because only one course of action is allowed to the
> player. The game is goalless by your definition because there is no
> terminus.
Hmm. Good proof. You have demonstrated the concept of "Purgatory."
Although... it is linear as far as landscape, but isn't it circular as far
as plot? One is required to keep returning to the same event, in a loop.
So it is possible to have linear and nonlinear elements that are orthogonal
to one another, that combine to make the entire game. Like a wheel turning
upon a roadway. In a showdown between linear and nonlinear elements, do
the nonlinear elements "win?" Or is this just a matter of where one wants
to focus one's attention? If I prioritize landscapes, then your game is
linear. If I prioritize sequences of events, then your game is circular
(i.e. nonlinear).
Ivan Cockrum
In article <01bcbf74$835db7c0$879f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, "Brandon Van
Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
> I'm one of those who says "the audience completes the artwork, and expands
> it." And also that the best artwork is forever incomplete, leaving you
> wondering.
The more I read of your ideas of "goalless, non-linear games," the more it
seems to me that what you are actually describing is real life role
playing. Have you ever engaged any of the White Wolf games? I personally
have not, but have had several friends tell me of them extensively. What
you really need for the "endless story" you describe is an entire
community of artists all continuously contributing to the same canvas.
Perhaps no AI in the world can handle the kind of complex, real world
modeling you seek, but any given group of interested human beings can.
-- Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Cockrum http://home.texoma.net/~ivan/ iv...@nospam.texoma.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit historic downtown CockrumVille, home of Hellacious Eats!
Rhodri James
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
> If I prioritize sequences of events, then your game is circular (i.e.
> nonlinear).
Either I am missing something in your definitions, or surely the
circularity of a game has no bearing on its linearity, as I understand you
to be using the terms. You can have many paths leading you back to where
you started, or just one.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses
If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them
... Now that the deadline's past, can I have the spec please?
Graham Nelson
In article <01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, Brandon Van Every
<URL:mailto:vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>
> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a general
> graph with loops.
> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at all.
> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
> game.
"Tedious"?
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Edan Harel
Oh goodie...
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> writes:
>Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote in article
><01bcbe32$151b8aa0$8f9f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>...
>> The criteria for an "XXXXXXX" game is:
>> 1) the game has no endpoint. In mathematical terms, the game is a
>general
>> graph with loops.
>> 2) the game itself is goalless. We rely upon the psychological
>> goals/motivations of the player, as to why the game should continue at
>all.
>> 3) the game could have multiple beginnings, but it doesn't have to.
>> 4) the game allows freedom of action and intention. In order to
>> traverse/enjoy the game, it does not require a singular mindset of the
>> player. The game is written from multiple perspectives, so that players
>> can move freely between the different perspectives at any point in the
>> game.
>It hit me like a burst of inspiration. I have solved the connundrum. The
>technical term for the above criteria shall be henceforth denoted as:
> a GOALLESS game
You're implying (or just out saying) that a "GOALLESS" Game must follow
rules 1, 2, 4?
Surely it need only rule 2 to be a Goalless game? (A goalless game must not
have a goal, and some other stuff?)
Of course, 4 may come about if you've made it so completely goalless that
it's merely a "simulation". I think that a game should allow for "many"
mindsets (ie things you can do), but it should not eliminate them
entirely, as without a "mindset" of what sort of thing you can do to motivate
the plot to move, your IF will be boring. You should be able to interact
with characters and "do" complicated things which objects, to a higher level
(perhaps I mean over a period of time).
As for rule 1.... Well, at our current level of technology, we certainly
have lots of games which, if you took away their endings, would be
"nonlinear" (or even are with the endings). After all, I could say:
"Pick up spade and bucket. Dig sand with spade. Put sand in bucket."
Or
"Wait. Pick up spade and bucket. Dig sand with spade. Put sand in bucket."
Or
"Pick up spade and bucket. Wait. Dig sand with spade. Put sand in bucket."
Or even:
"Pick up spade and bucket. Dig sand with spade. Put sand in bucket. Dig
sand with spade. Put sand in hole. Dig sand with spade. Put sand in bucket.
etc"
Or whatever combination you want. And you can change your words to
synonyms and throw in words ignored by the parser, like:
"pick up a sand with a spoon"
to mean the eact same thing. And of course, you can do things out of order;
Do you pick up the spade first, or the bucket? Do you build a sandcastle
or do you go swimming?
But I think it's pretty much agreed that while this affords us a little
"nonlinearity", it's too slight to be of any significance, unless the game
becomes so huge it's overwhelming.
Or else, if you merely have a simulation (ie, I can play in the sand
whenever I want to, or go home, but I don't have any puzzles or anything
complicate to interact with) it becomes quickly boring and you wonder, why
am I doing this? Unless your objects are comple, you'll either see everthing
the author wrote fairly quickly, or it'll become a "Things to do when your
done with the game" type scavanger hunt, which is a puzzle in itself, so the
game would really only give you unlinearity when you first play the game.
Thus, unless you can have truely complicated objects interacting with each
other in an unpredictable but *controlled* way (if it's not controlled it
becomes a mess and usually isn't any good as fiction), you wont have
*truely* goalless games or any higher level of IF than what we have now (in
this direction anyway).
Mind you, I think it's very possible to make controlled unpredictability, even
with the languages we have today (Well, Inform, I don't know about TADS).
Edan Harel
--
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated." -Poul Anderson
"For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
Edan Harel
Den of Iniquity <dms...@york.ac.uk> writes:
>I forgot to mention that there is at least one 'game' out there which
>could be considered 'goal-less'; although it suggests goals you don't have
>to follow them, and I, for one, found myself exploring away from the
>suggested exercises...
>Andrew Plotkin's Lists and Lists.
>Not a game in the technical sense but, with its underlying mathematical
>base means that you can set your own goals and attempt to accomplish them.
>It's about as open-ended as they come.
I agree in a sense. I think that IF could be a powerful medium for learning
subjects. Imagine trying to make poif which revolve around historical
events? Remove the puzzles and don't let the player "affect" history (or
who knows, allow him, but that would take a lot more code), thus enabling
the person to move around and watch events happening with a different
viewpoint. If a character misses some main event, it could be
told to him via a narrator, or through other characters, or maybe
not. (The last would allow more realism and the ability to find new
things more and more, but may give some confusion.)
Also, this sort of teaching IF need not be limited to history. Certainly,
Andrew's already shown that it can be used to teach programming (although
I don't think it really took full advantage of it's medium). Or how about
doing an equivalent to physics labs in IF? Or create a museum in IF format,
as has been done, to limited extents, before. Mind you, these tend to lose
much of the fiction part of IF...
Adam Cadre
Edan Harel wrote:
> Or how about doing an equivalent to physics labs in IF?
I had a program called 'Chem Lab' when I was a kid. The problem was,
it was designed assuming that the player would attempt to perform the
experiments correctly, while I was more interested in making stuff
blow up. When it turned out that there were no cool graphics for
making stuff blow up, I lost interest immediately.
The point here is that perhaps the best thing about interactive media
is the aspect of choice and consequence -- trying different stuff and
seeing what happens. If you were to write a piece of history IF, for
instance, it'd be much more interesting and educational were it to deal
with the consquences of history happening differently depending on the
choices the player makes. It'd also advance a model of history as an
accumulation of choices rather than an accumulation of impersonal
forces. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you.
David J Wildstrom
In article <5vplnc$6...@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
Edan Harel <edh...@romulus.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>I agree in a sense. I think that IF could be a powerful medium for learning
>subjects. Imagine trying to make poif which revolve around historical
>events? Remove the puzzles and don't let the player "affect" history (or
>who knows, allow him, but that would take a lot more code), thus enabling
>the person to move around and watch events happening with a different
>viewpoint. If a character misses some main event, it could be
>told to him via a narrator, or through other characters, or maybe
>not. (The last would allow more realism and the ability to find new
>things more and more, but may give some confusion.)
Ever played Graham Nelson's "Jigsaw"? I learned a few things from it. Great
characterization and puzzles too.
I'm thinking of giving a copy to the history dept. :-)
Papa Monzano
A.K.A. TheWiz
>I had a program called 'Chem Lab' when I was a kid. The problem was,
>it was designed assuming that the player would attempt to perform the
>experiments correctly, while I was more interested in making stuff
>blow up. When it turned out that there were no cool graphics for
>making stuff blow up, I lost interest immediately.
I had the same program, and was disappointed that I couldn't *do*
anything with the compounds I made.
____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron| Beep |dan...@bergen.org * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------| Blip |-------------------------------------------------|
| Dan Knapp | Bonk | This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Mote
Edan Harel wrote:
> I agree in a sense. I think that IF could be a powerful medium for learning
> subjects.
I wrote a mock proposal for a foreign language tutorial in an
Interactive Fiction format, a few years back. When learning to converse
in another language, one starts out by combining verbal fragments with a
lot of body language, pointing and the use of visual cues. I envision a
"wandering about town" simulation where the character is placed in a lot
of everyday situations (restaurant, shop, train station, etc.) and has
to make himself understood. The character would get helpful feedback
(like the word for an object being pointed to) much as in real life
interaction.
Ideally, such a game would be multimedia, but a text-based game would
have the advantage of an option in which more advanced students could
see the descriptions in the language being learned.
Nizam U Ahmed
I am currently starting up a project in this area, and intend to
experiment with using IF as a tool to interest comprehensive school
kids in Eng. Lit., through the use of IF as a computerized form
of the "role-play" activity, often done in Eng Lit classes.
Incidentally, if anyone has any thoughts at all on learning through
Interactive Fiction, please e-mail me, it would be v. helpful!
--
****** NIZAM U AHMED <cs4...@surrey.ac.uk> ******
*** University of Surrey at Guildford , UK ***
****** Web : http://www.surrey.ac.uk/~cs41na/ ******