by Guest » Tue May 27, 2008 8:35 pm
The problem is still the same, that of trying to direct the player through a world created by another. The menu choice allows the author to describe their world from the logic they have applied to it. These previous posts touched upon another idea of IF that both the player and the creator are human and are both capable of creating and thinking through these worlds.
As said before, the author has the ability to discern the logic inherit in the world they have created, as they are the only one who knows what is important and where and how things should flow. How they can flow and the result of each action. The menu choice makes this easier in telling a story in the same way a book tells ones, guiding the one involved and given them a direct line to follow.
The issue is, that the Player and the Creator both think and are both human and thus imaginative and able to see what is presented and come to their own conclusions. With most IF and Robb's stories explictly, the approach is to immerse the player at the expense of their own ability to confront the issues in their own way, in effect creating a story (a set of certain instances that lead to another). The perfect game would perhaps be an enviroment where the author is merely a guide who has created a world that isn't set, just objects thrown into a certain perception of reality.
Which may be the difficulty in creating a story, that the story itself is the perception of the one telling it. As has been already used as an example, the choice Robb made to allow his own writing to be the actions the player takes (creating an enviroment and a specific narrow path for a story to unfold at the expense of freedom and the ability of the player to act how they would within that world), allows him to directly control the perception and of the player and gives him a more direct medium for his writing to come through. It is creating an enviroment and emersing those playing in the logic and perception of the creator, but as been said already, at the expense of the players own ability to interact and foster their own way in that world.
Has has been said before...
Guest wrote:The ultimate game would be a platform to evolve and change a problem around the actions and input of the player, which is something narration can't do, and the player can't accomplish, without both the author and the player forming a mutual basis of creation and evolution around eachother.
I mean, having the perception of the player impact the perception of the author, and from that, having a third result that neither could anticipate. Its an interesting idea, and would invariably solve the problem that has already been discussed, of how to present the authors perception to the player. Which is invariably the style of writing and what not, wherein were just bitching aimlessly about things we don't understand nor are willing to do.
The problem is still the same, that of trying to direct the player through a world created by another. The menu choice allows the author to describe their world from the logic they have applied to it. These previous posts touched upon another idea of IF that both the player and the creator are human and are both capable of creating and thinking through these worlds.
As said before, the author has the ability to discern the logic inherit in the world they have created, as they are the only one who knows what is important and where and how things should flow. How they can flow and the result of each action. The menu choice makes this easier in telling a story in the same way a book tells ones, guiding the one involved and given them a direct line to follow.
The issue is, that the Player and the Creator both think and are both human and thus imaginative and able to see what is presented and come to their own conclusions. With most IF and Robb's stories explictly, the approach is to immerse the player at the expense of their own ability to confront the issues in their own way, in effect creating a story (a set of certain instances that lead to another). The perfect game would perhaps be an enviroment where the author is merely a guide who has created a world that isn't set, just objects thrown into a certain perception of reality.
Which may be the difficulty in creating a story, that the story itself is the perception of the one telling it. As has been already used as an example, the choice Robb made to allow his own writing to be the actions the player takes (creating an enviroment and a specific narrow path for a story to unfold at the expense of freedom and the ability of the player to act how they would within that world), allows him to directly control the perception and of the player and gives him a more direct medium for his writing to come through. It is creating an enviroment and emersing those playing in the logic and perception of the creator, but as been said already, at the expense of the players own ability to interact and foster their own way in that world.
Has has been said before...
[quote="Guest"]The ultimate game would be a platform to evolve and change a problem around the actions and input of the player, which is something narration can't do, and the player can't accomplish, without both the author and the player forming a mutual basis of creation and evolution around eachother.[/quote]
I mean, having the perception of the player impact the perception of the author, and from that, having a third result that neither could anticipate. Its an interesting idea, and would invariably solve the problem that has already been discussed, of how to present the authors perception to the player. Which is invariably the style of writing and what not, wherein were just bitching aimlessly about things we don't understand nor are willing to do.