Brandon J. Van Every wrote : Joe Andrieu wrote:So the player can do anything they want, and as long as they aren't acting schizophrenically or intentionally acting inconsistently, the result goes through a good story: introduction, complication, climax and resolution driving by their own interests and motivations. They get the emotional power and engagement of a good story while being the interactive lead protagonist.You really expect them to achieve this by doing "anything they want?" Even with your sanity constraints, the range of their acting is vast. And hence their bad acting. --> First of all, it is not granted at all that playing Interactive Drama is acting... If I understand well the point of Brandon: leaving much freedom to the user would simply provides bad stories. But the idea of Interactive Drama is precisely to build a system able to integrate any user's action in a plotline generated in real-time...One might or mght not believe it is possible, but this is the challenge. The "anything they want" still calls some comment, because such _expression_ is often used to described Interactive Drama, and it is misleading: I is clearly not feasible to build a system able to meaningfully respond to any user's action: it would require a perfect AI (Science Fiction). I prefer a definition/goal of Interactive Drama saying that the user would be able to do "anything other characters can do". This clearly constraints the story, because it restricts the range of actions of all characters into a limited set of actions (this set can be huge, thanks to combinatorial factors). But I believe it saves Interactive Drama from pure utopia. Nicolas www.idtension.com -- Dr Nicolas Szilas Department of Computing Macquarie University Sydney NSW 2109 Australia ph: +61 2 9850 9113 fax: +61 2 9850 9551 |
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005