:)

Something I thought you folks might be interested in.

Facade, the interactive one-act play that Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern built, is available at www.interactivestory.net. Sadly, it is not yet available for Mac. However, I've seen a version of it up and running, and, while the idea holds promise, the reality falls far short of what I think he's trying to do.

It seems to do exactly what he warns against. The interface is awkward, due to the constraints of the keyboard and mouse. The story-arcs, upon replay, become repetitive. The whole thing feels very forced, and the AI engine simply can't keep up with the ambiguity of everyday language. I know that he addresses the difficulty in the text, but that doesn't change the fact that his program suffers from the very problems that he outlines.

Also, I'm unable to get the Myth/Structure thread that ran through last week's readings out of my head. I'm not so sure I follow Mateas' argument. These structures that he complains about seem to be the very thing that we like about games. If we really wanted open-ended ambiguity, if we preferred that over structures, then why play games? Or read books, or watch films?

Insofar as agency is concerned, do we really want to be in total control? I don't think so. I think we like to trick ourselves into thinking we're all-powerful psuedo-gods, but we do so knowing that, ultimately, we're not really responsible for our actions. Our ability to act is really already pre-determined by the programmers, and I believe that this back-of-our-mind knowledge of a lack of true agency may be part of a game's appeal.

Also, I think something very similar happens in the cinema, but that's just me. It's been a long while since I visited Aristotle, so if I'm misreading anything, please let me know.

posted by Sue @ 10:04 PM