Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!goetz
From: goetz@cs.buffalo.edu (Phil Goetz)
Subject: Re: Gratuitous objects
Message-ID: <Cx0yAs.Ksx@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.cs.buffalo.edu
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Computer Science
References: <36ids8$gk0@dewey.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 02:44:52 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <36ids8$gk0@dewey.cc.utexas.edu>,
 <nickm@dewey.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>My question is this: why are gratuitous elements in a film or novel seen as
>bad (the term is derogatory when used in reviews) but as essential in
>interactive fictions? I am not without a cherub of an idea on this topic but
>would be curious to hear some other ideas.

I think you're talking about 2 kinds of gratuitousness.
By "gratuitous elements" in IF you mean objects and rooms not needed
to finish.  If you applied this usage to film, it would mean that in
all the views of all the locations of the film, there were no
walk-ons in the background, no radios or pencils on desks -- in fact
no desks -- no traffic lights, no other cars, etc.

Phil goetz@cs.buffalo.edu
