steve.breslin
12/19/2008 6:59:00 PM
Conrad wrote:
> I don't think choice-points should
> be designed as points, but as webs.
Yes indeed. The "false problem" that Victor identifies ("the lawnmower
problem does not exist") is only a problem if the story design is
simplistic and disengaging -- in other words, if the designer handles
the concept of player choice clumsily.
In order for the choice to be significant, the writer needs to do so
much set-up (and implement both consequences sufficiently) that I
would recommend extremely few choices per game. Indeed, if you're
thematizing or featuring choice, rather than faking it, then you might
be best served by implementing one significant choice per game. The
design has to start with that, and select and develop the story, and
select and develop the interface, based on the effect that you want to
produce by that central choice.
> Usually, in reality, we do not
> face an on-rails experience until we get to a certain point, at which
> moment we can toggle ourselves onto one of a number of paths; and so
> virtual experiences predicated on that model seem unnatural to us.
Right, but it's not only unnatural, but oversimplified and trivial,
aesthetically lacking.
> In other words, the desire to lawnmower reflects that the player,
> having made the choice, has a greater residual emotional investment in
> the choices unmade, and an insufficient investment in learning the
> outcome of the choice made. The solution to that is not in the
> interface, but in building investment[.]
Precisely, or to put it differently, the solution is good writing and
design. The perceived problem is a problem in the writing/design, not
the presentation model.
I wrote upthread that the perceived liabilities of the ask/tell model
are actually productive resources in the hands of a capable writer/
designer. Indeed, I'm not sure why one would want to approach this as
a good/bad discussion (which leads to entrenchment and overstatement:
"as a player, I personally do not like X model," etc.), rather than a
comparison of the strengths of the different models.
A little background on why the old garde is resistant to this
seemingly obvious idea. (Apart from the obvious problem that standard
practice tends to petrify.)
Emily Short's recent efforts to document writing process are one of
the most important efforts in contemporary IF study. She is leading
away from tools-oriented development, towards concept-oriented
development. Emily Short makes a rigid and simple distinction between
choice-points and exposition not because she is unaware of the
potential complexity of the presentation (false choice-points designed
for exposition, degrees of agency/choice, etc.).
But going back to process, perhaps this is rooted in a thinking in
terms of implementation rather than design and presentation (so, a
choice-point makes changes to game state, whereas an exposition-point
does not). I would advocate putting the design/presentation first (so,
figure out what effect you want to produce), then figure out how to
carry this off procedurally; filling out a procedure with witty
dialogue is going to lead to an improvised effect which runs several
risks which have to be carefully avoided -- hence, stilted opinions on
what works.
Andrew Plotkin has long ago developed an interesting theory on the
aesthetic significance of the IF interface (compared with CYOA/menu
systems). In a nutshell, the open interface is misleading, because at
any given point there are only a limited number of successful commands
possible (and in most cases, one could menu-ize them). The critical
point is that this misleading-ness of the interface is aesthetically
productive: the "tell me anything"-style command interface engenders a
sense of freedom while at the same time quietly limits things, keeping
things manageable for the writer/designer. Without implying any
favoritism, this is a good account of the aesthetic effect of the
interface. It's a good *descriptive* theory.
Whether (and how) this applies to menu-based conversation, it's a
subtly but significantly different discussion. In such cases it's
probably going to be a less-than-brilliant effort if one begins by
trying to apply an old theory to a new discussion, rather than
consider the matter itself and develop a new theory as appropriate. An
interesting descriptive theory misapplied can quickly turn into a
misleading *prescriptive* theory.