Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!feed1.newsreader.com!feed2.newsreader.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: AI in IF
Message-ID: <GJ99ED.MzG@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 19:13:23 GMT
References: <7d26d66b.0109030448.59339a1a@posting.google.com> <9n2u5a$qvq$1@news.fsf.net> <GJ6HKx.JK1@world.std.com> <9n5e90$k6c$1@news.fsf.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 53
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:92257

In article <9n5e90$k6c$1@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <adam@fsf.net> wrote:
>Sean T Barrett <buzzard@world.std.com> wrote:
>>But a non-canned story can't be done
>>with canned characters... so I suspect we need to advance on
>>a number of fronts at once.
>
>Perhaps.  My basic objection is that I don't see anything wrong with
>canned stories.

There isn't anything wrong with them. And they are the basis of
a number of art forms/media: plays, movies, TV, books, comics,
etc. But maybe if you want a canned story you should look to
those media?

None of those forms involve the magic ingredient "interactivity",
and I think we do a disservice to the potential of interactivity
as a medium if we brush it off with "canned stories are good enough".
(Of course, personal tastes are personal tastes. But I'm talking
sort of manifesto-speak here, not just "what I personally want".)

>Fundamentally, I prefer narration to simulation.  If I want a simulated
>world, I'll probably go play an RPG, rather than an adventure.

Well, you'll note that the post you're replying to made
reference to "commercial games". The point is that commercial
RPGs, commercial FPS, commercial everythig, all subscribe
to simulation at the lower-level interactions, and a canned
top-level story.

But on another level, I agree. Because IF is fundamentally
a text medium, I think we primarily want to read human-authored
text. I see IF in this regards as more of a space for prototyping
technologies for non-text games.

But on the third hand, I'll give the same rebuttal to that that
I always do: one reason people complain about the idea of simulationism
is because of the repetitive, lousy-authored text it produces, but
people don't complain (much) about contents lists, which are
purely generated text and which people seem to accept because
(I imagine) it transparently exposes the simulation and makes
it easier to *interact* (and there's that word again). Compare
the shenanigans people go to to avoid saying "exits are north,
east, and west" while accepting that (once the player has
interacted) objects will be listed in an equally dull fashion.

>But to get that, you
>need a good GM, and that set of skills is something which generally
>takes bright, motivated humans a few years of steady play to acquire.

Yes, GMing is hard, and I think good GMing AI will be hard--but
I don't think it's AI-Hard (e.g. Turing-Test-requiring).

SeanB
