Re: iDrama or...??

["Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>]

Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:24:44PM -0500 in <ae991f873fcdd6c945f4d6c7dd1fc63a@indiana.edu>,
TG <thom@indiana.edu> spake:
>On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:44 PM, WFreitag@aol.com wrote:
>>And please be more specific about Harry Gottlieb. What was Gottlieb's
>>business model and how do we apply it to supporting the creation of 
>>interactive drama
>>in the present day? What aspects of "i" does Gottlieb's work illuminate
>>particularly well, and how? What makes you think he's "THE guy who has 
>>always
>>understood..." (emphasis added), as opposed to, say, Shakespeare or 
>>Reiner Knizia
>>or Miles Davis.
>I'm certain that Shakespeare, Reiner Knizia and Miles Davis understand 
>interactivity.

  Maybe they understood it, but Shakespeare certainly didn't practice it
in any form, and Miles Davis only practiced it in the very limited form
of jamming with other professional musicians; he didn't interact with
the audience at all.

  You seem to lack an understanding of what interactivity is.

   From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  interactive
       adj 1: used especially of drugs or muscles that work together so
              the total effect is greater than the sum of the two
              (or more) [syn: synergistic] [ant: antagonistic]
       2: capable of acting on or influencing each other [syn: interactional]

  #2 is the relevant meaning.  The audience in a play has no ability to
affect the storyline.  Even if the audience boos and leave the theatre,
Romeo and Juliet are still the same moronic children, and they both die
(sorry for the spoilers!).  There have been some interactive plays done
as experiments, but A) they're incredibly rare, B) they're incredibly
unpopular, and C) Shakespeare never wrote any.

  The audience to music has no ability to influence how it goes.  They
can't, it's far too specialized a skill to let random untalented people
play along.  You can maybe trust them to sing a chorus, if you don't
care about pitch and can stretch the bridge long enough for their lack
of timing.

  Or using Chris Crawford's definition from TAoCGD:
    Nature of Interaction

    Interactiveness is not a binary quantity; it is a continuous
    quantity with a range of values. Puzzles have little or no
    interactiveness, while games have more interactiveness. This
    suggests that interactiveness is an index of "gaminess". Some games,
    such as blackjack, tag, or PONG provide very little interaction
    between the players. Although the players may wish to interact, the
    games provide very limited modes of interaction (binary decision to
    stand or hit, running, and twisting paddle). The games do not allow
    players to invest much of themselves into the play, or to react in a
    rich way to their opponents. Other games, such as bridge, football,
    and LEGIONNAIRE (trademark of Avalon Hill Game Co.) allow a far
    richer interaction between players. Players can grapple with each
    other at a variety of levels. The first group of games is generally
    acknowledged to be dull, while the second group of games is
    generally regarded as more interesting. What is important about the
    modes of interaction is not their mechanical quality but their
    emotional significance. PONG is insipid because I can't express much
    of my personality through the medium of a bouncing ball. Bridge is
    better because it includes within its interaction elements of
    teamwork, deception, and cooperation. I can better imprint my
    personality traits onto a game of bridge. Thus, degree of
    interaction provides a useful index of "gaminess". 

> Harry has just been doing the work of iDrama before the 
>list existed. He's worth a look but you all would have to be prepared 
>to go slumbing a bit in the iGhetto of human interactivity.

  You Don't Know Jack is a dumb quiz game with limited options at every
step, nothing more.  Courseware similar to that existed in the '60s (and
yes, with rapid interaction, for instance on the PLATO system).

  Chris Crawford, to pick just one rather notable list member, was
writing far more interactive games long before Harry was.  Your
idol-worship is cute, but totally irrelevant.

  Saying "This guy's great!  You're not!" means nothing, and does not
make you look big and scary.  You need to study what interactivity is,
how to create games using it, and then try to post something explaining
what you've learned, okay?

-- 
 <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/";> Mark Hughes </a>
"I think [Robert Heinlein] would take it kindly if we were all to refrain from
 abandoning civilization as a failed experiment that requires too much hard
 work." -_Rah, Rah, RAH!_, by Spider Robinson