Re: [Fwd: Gamasutra article]

[Bob <mantic@mbo.net>]

Really good point. The best works of fiction really put the hero through
Hell, and sometimes without reward (poor Hamlet).

The best argument that comes to mind is that Interactive Fiction seems
to aspire more to the direction of Poe than Shakespear; more on the side
of visceral experience and voyeurism. But of course, we all seem to have
somewhat different goals. I must admit that a presentation of Hamlet in
a game with good production quality would attract my attention, if only
out of curiosity.



WFreitag@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Will anyone be upset if I mention the elephant in the room?
> 
> Which is this: what we call drama is, by nature if not by definition,
> extremely unpleasant to participate in. The "better" the drama, the more this
> is the case. If we do manage to make that drama interactive, then the
> "better" the interactivity, the more this becomes a problem.
> 
> To watch a performance of Hamlet might be uplifting. To portray Hamlet in a
> damatic performance may be deeply enlightening. To _be_ Hamlet just sucks. I
> choose "not to be," and I think the vast majority of audiences will always
> agree with me. What I want more of in my interactive worlds is solidity,
> responsiveness, richness, accessibilty, beauty, and depth. Drama? Give that
> to somebody else, and I'll watch.
> 
> Computer games are fun because their interactivity is comedic, not dramatic.
> I doubt Gamasutra would accept an article arguing that in order to attract
> new or more sophisticated audiences computer games should be "less fun." But
> if you phrase it as "more dramatic" instead, people think you're saying
> something profound. I say, horsefeathers.
> 
> - Walt