Re: Let's take another stab at it

[Bob <mantic@brightok.net>]

Chris Crawford wroote:
 
> When I pedantically insist that a story can't be interactive, but storytelling is, my concern is to emphasize the role of process in interaction. I like to posit a grand polarity between process and data, with manifestations all over the place (services versus goods in economics, verbs versus nouns in linguistics, particles versus waves in physics, cycles versus bits in computing). Now, you can only interact with process; you can't interact with data. Data (numbers, images, sounds, words, plots) is all reducible to a bunch of bits, and you just can't interact with dead bits. Process, however, is the very life and breath of interactivity. You most certainly do interact with a process (simulation, game, conversation, storytelling).


	Is there a reason that this distinction is necessary?

	What I mean is: are you proposing that implementation of IF should use
a database of static material with the 'game' concentrated in the
interface with that database? If so, that seems awfully limiting.

							--Bob