Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!colt.net!deine.net!newsfeed.online.be!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!not-for-mail
From: buzzard@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Quick Poll: Aisle endings
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <GtFzCx.AtC@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:55:44 GMT
References: <fa8b4a52.0203221217.51d51e8c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Lines: 20
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:102057

Sam Barlow <mrsambarlow@hotmail.com> wrote:
>and some of [the endings] are contradictory. e.g. in one Hamlet loves
>Ophelia, in another he doesn't. Personally, I love this kind of thing.

I generally don't like it, because it violates some tenets
of interactivity. The best example of this off the top of my
head is found in Bureaucracy; there's a plane that's going to
crash that you're trying to get off of, and if you don't get
off in time, it crashes and you die; if you do get off in
time, it doesn't crash. Ha ha, very funny, kill author.

In other words, it tends to kill immersion by making it clear
that cause-and-effect is violated--the player's actions have
"nonsensical" effects.

In a work like Aisle, I didn't mind this at all, because it
was already non-immersive, being a one-turn game. But in a
larger game it tends to annoy me.

SeanB
