[MUD-Dev] Continuity of experience in movies

[Matt Mihaly]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, eric wrote:
> From: "Matt Mihaly" <the_logos at achaea.com>

>> There isn't a game either made or theorized, by anyone, that does
>> not restrict your audience. Further, saying that restriction is a
>> bad business model is a bit off. Movies restrict how you interact
>> with them. They do quite well. Books restrict how you interact
>> with them. Amusement parks restrict how you interact with them.
 
> Well naturally, any "thing" is restricted in some sense. But if I
> wrote a book in Klingon I would be restricting my audience even
> more than books already restrict. The original topic I think was
> that DVD that didn't have chapter headings, which still seems to
> me to be just a UI flaw. Did it prevent fastforward? So I could
> just skip parts of the movie and the original goal of the director
> was subverted.

I posted that bit about the DVD chapter headings, in David Lynch's
"The Straight Story." Yeah, you can still fastforward and yeah, I
agree that it was mainly a gimmick. I appreciate his sentiment
though and don't object to it. Lynch is not a commerical director
insofar as he doesn't spend his time trying to figure out how to
suck money from the mass of brainless movie-goers who just want
bigger explosions, more T&A, and more fart jokes. I see any problem
with the artist deciding to limit how people view his work, even if
this instance of it was pretty gimmicky.
 
> However, I've theorized games that didn't restrict their
> audience. With only one exception, cost, cost of the product would
> be the only restriction.  Can't see how to get around that in any
> sense, that is as long as the bulk of our living world exists in
> the real world.

You've theorized games that don't restrict the audience? That's
clever. I assume they don't use language, since language is
inherently restricting. I assume they don't use any sort of
platform, since any platform you choose, from pen & paper to
computer to console restricts your audience. I assume it doesn't
require any body movement (wouldn't want to restrict those afflicted
with total paralysis) either. Take it a step further and I bet
you're restricting it to being played by awake human beings too.

I'll maintain my position that I don't think it's possible, but if
you want to post an example that provides an exception to my
statement, I'll happily change my opinion.
 
>>> been reading, and then she went on to say I was wrong and that
>>> it meant X. It was humorous to me then, and still humorous to me
>>> now.
 
>> What does a good busines model have to do with art?
 
> Hmmm, art isn't a good buisness model.

Depends on your definition of art and what art you're selling. The
Beatles sure made out well, and they're even good. Thomas Kincaide,
the richest living painter (quite rich too I might add), may have
all the ability of a drunken slug, but I would still be forced to
classify his work as art, even if I'd throw in some nasty adjectives
before calling it art.

Art isn't dependent on a business model, but they aren't mutually
exclusive.

--matt

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