Strict Standards: Non-static method installk2::installer() should not be called statically in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/themes/3k2w-b2r344/functions.php on line 23

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/themes/3k2w-b2r344/functions.php:23) in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-commentsrss2.php on line 15
Comments on: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/ a blog and podcast dedicated to discussing text arts forms Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:38:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en Writer Response Theory 2004-2005 wrt@writerresponsetheory.org (Writer Response Theory) wrt@writerresponsetheory.org Talk Radio Comment-cast: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 Comment-cast: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 Writer Response Theory Writer Response Theory wrt@writerresponsetheory.org http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/iTWRT.JPG WRT: Writer Response Theory http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress 144 144 by: cheap jerseys http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-274032 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:30:21 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-274032 hey,you have posted such a effectful article that it will certainly help me Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

hey,you have posted such a effectful article that it will certainly help me

]]>
cheap jerseys hey,you have posted such a effectful article that it will certainly help me hey,you have posted such a effectful article that it will certainly help me
by: andrew stern http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-298 Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:43:53 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-298 good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended input would be naive to think that players will tend to cooperate or play within what one might call the "proper" or "intended" way to play. More often than not, players will want to experiment, act out of bounds, etc. It's usually more fun; authors should support and reward that player behavior. That said, it's also nice if the system rewards you for playing along. Perhaps after trying to break the f***er a few times, players will try to play in-bounds, to see what becomes possible. Facade falls short too often on not handling in-domain input well enough, so players too often end up resorting to screwing around to make something more interesting happen. I'd suggest that's a shortcoming of the particular implementation, not of the form (or this form) of interactive drama itself. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

good discussion! A few thoughts: I’d suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended input would be naive to think that players will tend to cooperate or play within what one might call the “proper” or “intended” way to play. More often than not, players will want to experiment, act out of bounds, etc. It’s usually more fun; authors should support and reward that player behavior.

That said, it’s also nice if the system rewards you for playing along. Perhaps after trying to break the f***er a few times, players will try to play in-bounds, to see what becomes possible. Facade falls short too often on not handling in-domain input well enough, so players too often end up resorting to screwing around to make something more interesting happen. I’d suggest that’s a shortcoming of the particular implementation, not of the form (or this form) of interactive drama itself.

]]>
andrew stern good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended ... good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended ...
by: Mark Marino http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-297 Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:50:34 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-297 Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

> Enter Devil’s Advocate

I agree with your main point:

we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions.???

Or of course, maybe I’m just testing out the limits of conversational interface. Perhaps those folks on the internet who misquote are taking the same attitude as the player who attempts to break the interface, they are ignoring the interface. (I’m fairly certain I’m not even misquoting you the way you directed.)

>Exit

Actually, I tend to play Faade the same way you do, Brad. But I did offer to Beta test.

This exchange has made me think that one form of the debate between narratologists and ludologists can be more precisely read as the difference between “directed-poetics” and “systematic exploration.”

The “Directed-Poetics” approach takes Aristotle as its basis and assumes users will also follow directions, accepting the material affordances, the context of the game and how it structures interaction.

The “System Exploration” approach, or maybe “Explorative Systems,” holds that the work is a cybernetic system (or cybertext) that the user will approach by exploring or testing its limits and reactions in order to achieve some kind of mastery, or, knowledge of its workings (Jeremy has a term for this).

]]>
Mark Marino > Enter Devil's Advocate I agree with your main point: we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience ... > Enter Devil's Advocate I agree with your main point: we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience ...
by: Brad O'Donnell http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-295 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:39:49 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-295 The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play first time through?" "I'm gonna break this f***er," I replied. At first this might seem a bit ungrateful, like the child flinging legos. Narratologists might very well be justified to roll their eyes at such a disregard for the intent of a work. But my initial strategy for "breaking" it was simply to take the interface's claims at face value. So I typed what I wanted to say and looked to see if Trip and Grace could tell what I was getting at. And you know what? It took quite a few plays before I gave up on full sentences entirely. That's very impressive -- my desire to interact richly with Grace and Trip atrophied out of a increasing awareness of how few nuances the system actually registered, rather than some discrete realization that the system "needed" curt input (as is the case with traditional text adventures). But either way, the eyes roll at me for not playing along, for ruining the mimesis of the generated transcript. Once I realized that I fundamentally despised Grace and (especially) Trip as people, the desire to play War with them reared its head. I tried to get them to fight physically, for my amusement. I reasoned that it's okay if this makes the story end "unsatisfactorily," because I could always try again. But alas, I could not incite them to great vengance and furious anger. This is partially because Facade is not a God Game, and as such the user is merely another player. Again, the eyes roll from my immature attempts to use of the toy I'm given in inappropriate ways. "Oh surely," cry the hopeful, "we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover'd, pristine and cultur'd audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions." (This is an exaggeration on my part, and as such I expect the above quote to be taken out of context and treated as if it's my main point of argument. Gotta love the Internet.) The promise of influencing the story is the hardest one to keep; the more radically I perturb the storyline, the harder it is for the simulation to keep up. Small perturbations should theoretically butterfly-effect the story to pieces. Discarding deviant input just doesn't seem like the right solution to me, at least insofar as the work's replayability (rather than its integrity) is concerned. For instance, even playing Facade totally straight, one player started suggesting to Grace and Trip that they get divorced, out of pure frustration, 'cause it just seemed like they weren't listening, and maybe divorce is their best option. This doesn't mean that I think Interactive Drama is impossible -- I just think that if the player wants to get bitched-at, outcast, or otherwise punished (while ostensibly doing something meant to entertain themselves) for "breaking character/the rules" or "exploiting the system", they can get all the eyes they want rolled at them by joining a local tabletop RPG group that takes itself too seriously. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, “So, how are you going to play first time through?”

“I’m gonna break this f***er,” I replied.

At first this might seem a bit ungrateful, like the child flinging legos. Narratologists might very well be justified to roll their eyes at such a disregard for the intent of a work.

But my initial strategy for “breaking” it was simply to take the interface’s claims at face value. So I typed what I wanted to say and looked to see if Trip and Grace could tell what I was getting at. And you know what? It took quite a few plays before I gave up on full sentences entirely. That’s very impressive — my desire to interact richly with Grace and Trip atrophied out of a increasing awareness of how few nuances the system actually registered, rather than some discrete realization that the system “needed” curt input (as is the case with traditional text adventures).

But either way, the eyes roll at me for not playing along, for ruining the mimesis of the generated transcript.

Once I realized that I fundamentally despised Grace and (especially) Trip as people, the desire to play War with them reared its head. I tried to get them to fight physically, for my amusement. I reasoned that it’s okay if this makes the story end “unsatisfactorily,” because I could always try again. But alas, I could not incite them to great vengance and furious anger. This is partially because Facade is not a God Game, and as such the user is merely another player.

Again, the eyes roll from my immature attempts to use of the toy I’m given in inappropriate ways. “Oh surely,” cry the hopeful, “we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover’d, pristine and cultur’d audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions.” (This is an exaggeration on my part, and as such I expect the above quote to be taken out of context and treated as if it’s my main point of argument. Gotta love the Internet.)

The promise of influencing the story is the hardest one to keep; the more radically I perturb the storyline, the harder it is for the simulation to keep up. Small perturbations should theoretically butterfly-effect the story to pieces. Discarding deviant input just doesn’t seem like the right solution to me, at least insofar as the work’s replayability (rather than its integrity) is concerned.

For instance, even playing Facade totally straight, one player started suggesting to Grace and Trip that they get divorced, out of pure frustration, ’cause it just seemed like they weren’t listening, and maybe divorce is their best option.

This doesn’t mean that I think Interactive Drama is impossible — I just think that if the player wants to get bitched-at, outcast, or otherwise punished (while ostensibly doing something meant to entertain themselves) for “breaking character/the rules” or “exploiting the system”, they can get all the eyes they want rolled at them by joining a local tabletop RPG group that takes itself too seriously.

]]>
Brad O'Donnell The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play ... The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play ...
by: Christy Dena http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-294 Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:54:18 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-294 LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. I've found that at the last few user-testing talks I've been to, the research has been into capturing 'unintended use'. Although straddling the oxymoronic, the desire to forsee and plan for uses that a device is not intended for is a interesting goal. This is also what botmasters try and do: script conversations that are outside of the storyworld, that were not intended. I find I try and think of the ways that people can joke around with a bot and plan a response. But this can never be achieved. Perhaps this is a influence on why there isn't much botfiction -- bots are treated as a 'system' to be beaten and played with. But onwards with the scripts. I look forward to reading more. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

LOL Mark. Playing with the ’system’ is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever ’synchs’ your world.

I’ve found that at the last few user-testing talks I’ve been to, the research has been into capturing ‘unintended use’. Although straddling the oxymoronic, the desire to forsee and plan for uses that a device is not intended for is a interesting goal. This is also what botmasters try and do: script conversations that are outside of the storyworld, that were not intended. I find I try and think of the ways that people can joke around with a bot and plan a response. But this can never be achieved. Perhaps this is a influence on why there isn’t much botfiction — bots are treated as a ’system’ to be beaten and played with.

But onwards with the scripts. I look forward to reading more.

]]>
Christy Dena LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. ... LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. ...

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/cache.php on line 215