Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!ieunet!tcdcs!rwallace
From: rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Subject: Re: Simulations (was Re: Choosing your IF setting / genre)
Message-ID: <1994May26.211217.26417@cs.tcd.ie>
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
References: <)> <)> <2ro6ttINNfkn@life.ai.mit.edu> <JAMIE.94May26130944@akeake.its.vuw.ac.nz>) <2s2htmINNkrc@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:12:17 GMT
Lines: 79

dmb@min.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett) writes:

>In article <JAMIE.94May26130944@akeake.its.vuw.ac.nz>,
>Jamieson Norrish <jamie@akeake.its.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:

>>I for one get a great enjoyment out of discovering what such things I as a
>>player can do in a game - I spent a long time in Zork II trying to discover
>>if exploding the brick in any other places would have an interesting
>>effect.

>You seem to agree that, while amusing, such things provide little in the
>way of artistic merit.  Is it worth spending enormous amounts of time
>adding something silly to the work, even when this has no effect on the
>overall quality?  In a perfect world, we'd be able to put an infinite
>amount of work into our games.  But since we have only a finite number of
>hours to work on these games, we have to prioritize things.  I'd assign
>"burn X with flamethrower" and other "deep simulation" things very low
>priorities.  Sure, they're cute.  But at best they give the player a
>chuckle.  Shakespeare didn't spend 90% of his time on Romeo and Juliet
>writing the little jokes the soldiers tell each other in the beginning --
>they're were other "higher priority" aspects of the work.

>>Does this make it less interactive fiction, and more a simulation?
>>I don't think so.

>I still claim that pointless details *detract* from the work.  Supporting
>actions that can radically alter the game world (like burn X with
>flamethrower) undermines the author's need to impose a plot on the player.
>Without a plot, you (the player) just wander around aimlessly.  As I
>mentioned before, I don't think this kind of "art" is accessible to most
>people.

>I'll work this example out a little further, since it seems to be confusing
>people.  If you allow "burn X with flamethrower", it's going to be hard to
>guarantee that you (the author) have anticipated all the possible ways the
>player could overcome an obstacle.  Overcoming obstacles is the basic way
>we advance the plot in these games.  The obstacles provide plot checkpoints
>that the author needs.  (Example author's dialogue: "OK, I want this to be
>a dramatic moment, so I don't want the player to get into the dragon's
>chamber until the lamp's burned out; that way, the player will be surprised
>when the dragon's fire lights up the room.")

>In a completely realistic system, the author can plan no such thing.  The
>lamp won't necessarily be out, because the player could have gone to the
>hardware store and bought kerosene with money he's earned by mowing lawns.
>Or a zillion other sensible things.

>We need to limit what things "work" so that the author has a tractable list
>of player actions to consider.  Even now, we miss some good ones, as the
>fine playtesters in TABU will tell you.  With Legend, which has the
>standard amount of "realism/simulation", I had a heck of a time
>guaranteeing plot points.  It is by no means easy, even within a system
>where almost nothing "works," to force the player to follow a particular
>path through the game.  (I don't mean move-for-move, I mean something along
>the lines of "I want the player to meet Doctor Trolovich before going in
>the inn, because I want the people in the inn to give the player
>information about Trolovich".)

This I think is going too far.  Remember it's supposed to be
*interactive* fiction, i.e. the player is supposed to have meaningful
choices to make.  If you, the author, have predetermined every plot
point in advance, then the player might as well just read a transcript
of someone else solving the game instead of going through the motions of
playing it (other than the intellectual challenge of solving each
puzzle; but that's a form of entertainment akin to a crossword rather
than literature).  Or read a good book, which as literature will be far
better than any adventure game will.

The whole point of having interactive fiction instead of just having
non-interactive fiction is if the plot can vary depending on the
player's actions.  And the best way to do that is to allow things in the
game to interact in ways that the author may not have foreseen, so that
the author is not faced with the impossibly large task of creating by
hand all the alternative plots.

-- 
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie
