[MUD-Dev] Self-Sufficient Worlds

[Zak Jarvis]

> From: Lee Sheldon [linearno at gte.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 7:47 AM

>> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
>> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
>> Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:13 PM

--<Snipped a lot of stuff I agreed with>--

>> I know that the analogy is a bit of a stretch, but it seems
>> to me that this is akin to saying that the perfect book is
>> the one that the reader writes.  But many people purchase
>> books that are written by others because they know that
>> they are not very good authors themselves.  The $64,000
>> question remains.  Can there really be such a thing as
>> interactive story-telling, or is the term an oxymoron.  If
>> we ever do end up with a truely interactive story, will it be
>> something that people really want?

> This seems like such a basic truth, that for so many to continue
> to deny it (and several thousand years in the evolution of human
> beings as storytelling mammals) can only be because of the
> blindness mentioned in point 3, and the fear and suspicion
> in the first paragraph.

I'm going to be bold here and say this is flat out wrong.

As a species we have anywhere from millions of years of evolution with narrative
and 60-150 thousand years living with it in what we'd consider a modern state.
We build narrative. Creating narrative is a basic function of our brains. If
interactive storytelling were an oxymoron, autobiographies wouldn't exist.

If you think of interactive storytelling in terms of a branching construct, you
*do* reasonably arrive at the conclusion that it's not a desirable goal
(usually, it can be used effectively if the branches are transparent enough).
However, if you try to build an interactive story based around the way we tell
ourselves the ongoing story of our lives, things become much easier.

A good example of this and how it can be done (albeit in a less dramatic, much
more domestic sense) is Maxis' The Sims. For those of you who aren't familiar
with the game (a single-player, retail product), here's a very brief synopsis:

Domestic simulator detailing human interpersonal, object and environment
interaction. The user has very limited control of the 'Sims', consisting of
commands such as 'Go there' 'use that' or a slightly larger character dependant
constellation of options for interaction between the sim you're controlling and
a target sim. Example interactions include: talk, hug, slap, backrub, joke,
scare, kiss, boast and a handful of others. Plus the special options Propose and
Ask to move in. Using this pretty simple framework, you effectively direct the
lives of the simulated people. If you can accept the level of abstraction it
works with, it's really rather effective.

The key -- indeed the key to all game design -- is acceptable abstraction.
Unfortunately, what's acceptable is highly dependant on individual taste.

-Zak Jarvis
 http://www.voidmonster.com





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev