Re:

[Dan Lyke <danlyke@flutterby.com>]

Jason Joel Thompson writes:
> I've been a part of real-time experiences like this and it doesn't
> really make sense to me to not call them "story," although I would
> be open to other terms if I felt they had discretionary purpose.

Maybe I've been tainted by my time in the movie biz, but in the usage
in my circles "story" implies a heck of a lot about structure, about
the nature of the conflict, and about the eventual resolution.

I'd suggest that "drama" is closer to what you mean (Merriam-Webster:
"... a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or
intense conflict of forces ...").

My thinking recently suggests that even if we could get compelling
drama with simulation (and given some of the stuff I've seen I'm
inclined to think it is possible, the dying gasp of Pixar's
interactive group was a fantastic little "bugs playing soccer"
simulation that had wonderful drama that I really wish I could show
around), that the best we can get is "soap opera" type story;
illustrations of characters without any real lasting meaning.


When I speak in absolutes I'm also being a little full of myself. I've
been playing a little Half-Life and Homeworld recently, and I think
both of them have story. I believe that in each case the story
actually makes the game less playable, but I was turned on to these by
13 year olds who swear by them, so obviously someone appreciates that
structure.

Dan