[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interactive storytelling and me; and a challenge
Benja Fallenstein wrote:
On 6/1/05, Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com> wrote:
Yes, but you're smart, and trained in the navigational methods of such
storyworlds. Can you get a *general audience* to make those choices and
stick with it?
Hm. I think what we need here is "audience engineering" -- Chris and
others have thought about this; Chris has made the point that
conventions in movies have evolved a lot, teaching the audience new
things to understand (e.g., the sound cutting to a different scene
before the image does is usual now, but would have been nonsensical a
couple of decades ago).
I don't know about 'nonsensical'. The first attempts had to make sense
for people to keep doing them, after all. Rather, when you break the
rules about expected navigational cues, you have a lot of extra
responsibility for leading the audience. If you're unaware of this
extra layer of responsibility, your work will likely fail to keep the
audience's attention. If you are aware, you can pull very different
things off. For instance, look at Pulp Fiction.
I also don't find it worthwhile for myself to think too deeply about
approaches to audience engineering before I'm close to having
something an audience may want to appreciate. For the moment, I'll
work on a storyworld rather than on how to sell it.
That's a strange attitude compared to traditional media. A traditional
author would never say, "Gee, I'll worry about the audience later."
Well, at least not one that intends to publish and make money. An
author might intend only a rough draft, but even that has its audience
targets.
So for the moment, I'm following the approach of creating something I
want to play myself. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in that
approach; I think it's fundamentally the right thing to do: The best
stories, in mass-market or in minority markets, are written by people
who love that kind of story. If it turns out that as a result, readers
find it hard to approach the resulting piece of interactive
storytelling, I'll have to think about audience engineering, but not
yet.
I think it is very dangerous to regard "audience engineering" as
something separate from the writing process. It runs the risk of being
nothing more than a self-indulgent personal conversation.
You seriously don't understand the issue that money tracks talent?
I understand that a lot of great art gets made without artists being
paid for it.
What about great engineering, or great production companies? I see a
helluva lot less of that!
I don't think you've defined who's in charge of the "main character."
No, but I was assuming the style where the reader "plays" the main
character, i.e. makes choices for them.
I should have spoken more precisely. Who will *take authorial
responsibility* for the main character? The author, or the player? Or
even, a technology? There's a spectrum of possibilities here. They
result in very different stories and technologies. Your job as an
author becomes very different. That's why I said "dunno," because it's
all within the realm of your authorial intent. It's not a good guiding
principle for how to construct choice points.
Whereas "make sure the player knows what's going on" (Perceivability)
and "make sure it's interesting enough to bother to write" (High
Concept) are good guiding principles.
Most people seem to feel that the main character shouldn't have a
character other than what the player gives them;
Most people are self-centered morons with no writing skills. Obeying
the above principle to the limit, you give the kiddies a pot, a spoon,
and a cardboard box to bang upon. They will entertain themselves for
hours. Their 'story' will be of no interest to anyone else, however.
It was a valid story for them though.
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.