Comments on: West of House http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nat http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2757 Nat Wed, 10 May 2006 00:05:37 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2757 Richard, I think you're failing to see that there's more to implementing a simulation of a system than just being able to understand how that system works. Sure, it's "just engineering" once you understand the actual system, but that can be rather a lot like saying it's "just rocket science". Simulations can be very difficult to build, and they can take up a lot of time, effort, memory, and CPU power. Those are not free and infinite resources. Also, I think that if you dig into what game developers are actually doing, you'll find that your belief that they aren't "employing known facts and models" for the things you're talking about is quite incorrect. In many cases, those things *have* been tried, and they turned out not to result in particularly enjoyable games. Also also, enough with the "you're just defensive / you just love the current state of things" accusations. People can disagree with you without necessarily being shills for the game industry. Richard, I think you’re failing to see that there’s more to implementing a simulation of a system than just being able to understand how that system works.

Sure, it’s “just engineering” once you understand the actual system, but that can be rather a lot like saying it’s “just rocket science”.

Simulations can be very difficult to build, and they can take up a lot of time, effort, memory, and CPU power. Those are not free and infinite resources.

Also, I think that if you dig into what game developers are actually doing, you’ll find that your belief that they aren’t “employing known facts and models” for the things you’re talking about is quite incorrect. In many cases, those things *have* been tried, and they turned out not to result in particularly enjoyable games.

Also also, enough with the “you’re just defensive / you just love the current state of things” accusations. People can disagree with you without necessarily being shills for the game industry.

]]> By: Richard http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2756 Richard Tue, 09 May 2006 22:57:04 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2756 We'll get back to the notion that there is a single, universal and predictable concept of "boring" and that a game can successfully avoid "all the boring bits" for all of its users.... I'm rather puzzled by the number of people who can't seem to differentiate between artificial intelligence which models something we don't understand (intelligent consciousness) versus modeling physionomy & anatomy which we <b>fully understand at present</b>. And why be so defensive that the game industry has patently failed to apply known facts and models? Oh right, because these people are quite satisfied with the games industry whereas I'm not. Well, we can be glad that Will Wright understands this difference, and also the difference between what you <b>have to</b> understand versus what you don't, to make a game, otherwise he would never have attempted to make Spore. Happily for my argument, Spore exists as an existence proof that those who poo-pooh automatic generation (which WW calls "procedural methods") are full of shit. Happy for me too since there might finally be a game I like. Getting back to the notion that games are "reality minus the boring bits" which is actually an intelligent comment and a fact that's too often ignored by simulation makers.... the problem with it is that there's no universal criterion of "boring". Something is boring if it provides a person with less than their comfort zone of novelty. If situations are too novel, they're stressful. If they're not novel enough, they're boring. The problem there is that everyone's comfort zone is in a different place and also that everyone has a different threshold for novelty. What seems novel to some may seem derivative and self-evident to others, what seems unthinkable to the former (eg, that we CAN abandon manually authored content by programming at the metalevel) may seem mildly intriguing to the latter. As it happens, I find "collecting" (the primary activity in most computer games) to be deadly boring. Actually, I find most games to be too boring once I've learned to play them. You see, I need a very high rate of novelty and I also need a very high *quality* of novelty. Most games just don't cut it for me. The point here is that I'm arguing for *more* novelty and that the notion that I would advocate less novelty, more boredom, is quite frankly absurd. I don't want, I can't stand, scripted experiences. This doesn't mean that I don't want experiences at all. If you really think about it, "no" experiences is the same as atomic experiences which are really the ultimate in scripted experience. What I want is vastly complex experiences *unique to me*. This can't be done with manually authored content for simple and obvious economic reasons. But it can be done with automatic generation. We’ll get back to the notion that there is a single, universal and predictable concept of “boring” and that a game can successfully avoid “all the boring bits” for all of its users….

I’m rather puzzled by the number of people who can’t seem to differentiate between artificial intelligence which models something we don’t understand (intelligent consciousness) versus modeling physionomy & anatomy which we fully understand at present. And why be so defensive that the game industry has patently failed to apply known facts and models? Oh right, because these people are quite satisfied with the games industry whereas I’m not.

Well, we can be glad that Will Wright understands this difference, and also the difference between what you have to understand versus what you don’t, to make a game, otherwise he would never have attempted to make Spore. Happily for my argument, Spore exists as an existence proof that those who poo-pooh automatic generation (which WW calls “procedural methods”) are full of shit. Happy for me too since there might finally be a game I like.

Getting back to the notion that games are “reality minus the boring bits” which is actually an intelligent comment and a fact that’s too often ignored by simulation makers…. the problem with it is that there’s no universal criterion of “boring”.

Something is boring if it provides a person with less than their comfort zone of novelty. If situations are too novel, they’re stressful. If they’re not novel enough, they’re boring. The problem there is that everyone’s comfort zone is in a different place and also that everyone has a different threshold for novelty. What seems novel to some may seem derivative and self-evident to others, what seems unthinkable to the former (eg, that we CAN abandon manually authored content by programming at the metalevel) may seem mildly intriguing to the latter.

As it happens, I find “collecting” (the primary activity in most computer games) to be deadly boring. Actually, I find most games to be too boring once I’ve learned to play them. You see, I need a very high rate of novelty and I also need a very high *quality* of novelty. Most games just don’t cut it for me. The point here is that I’m arguing for *more* novelty and that the notion that I would advocate less novelty, more boredom, is quite frankly absurd.

I don’t want, I can’t stand, scripted experiences. This doesn’t mean that I don’t want experiences at all. If you really think about it, “no” experiences is the same as atomic experiences which are really the ultimate in scripted experience. What I want is vastly complex experiences *unique to me*. This can’t be done with manually authored content for simple and obvious economic reasons. But it can be done with automatic generation.

]]> By: Steve http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2755 Steve Tue, 09 May 2006 15:05:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2755 In the end it comes down to whether you want someone to tell you a story (BG, Torment, NWN (Neverwinter Nights), et al) or whether you want to make your own story (Morrowind, Oblivion...). Currently I'm playing Oblivion and enjoying adding mods to make my own story for my character, but when I run out of imagination I'll probably go download a new NWN module (maybe even buy one) and let someone else make up a stroy for me. Or I'll go back to playing Galatic Civilizations 2 (www.galciv2.com)...;) In the end it comes down to whether you want someone to tell you a story (BG, Torment, NWN (Neverwinter Nights), et al) or whether you want to make your own story (Morrowind, Oblivion…). Currently I’m playing Oblivion and enjoying adding mods to make my own story for my character, but when I run out of imagination I’ll probably go download a new NWN module (maybe even buy one) and let someone else make up a stroy for me. Or I’ll go back to playing Galatic Civilizations 2 (www.galciv2.com)…;)

]]> By: John Prevost http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2754 John Prevost Mon, 08 May 2006 20:11:30 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2754 Another thing to note here is that there is a big difference between the goals of different games. A game like World of Warcraft absolutely cannot provide a compelling narrative, because there are too many actual people playing the game and interacting with you. Oblivion is a classic example of the traditional "western" RPG--a fully developed world, in which you can go off and do whatever you want to do. And, oh, by the way, there's this plot, but you can ignore that, too. KOTOR (and friends) are sort of a middle ground between the traditional western and eastern RPGs. The plot is strongly significant, but some effort is made so that even when you are on rails and stuck with the plot, you feel somewhat free to do what you wish. (The best example of this is when there are "side-quests", which you feel like interacting with whether you're light side or dark side in the games. Sure, you're on rails--these quests are things you're expected to do: but it feels *right* to be doing the things. As opposed to some of the side quests in BG, where you needed to go find some sod's lost dog to get XP, because you needed XP to fight the boss who was going to destroy the world. What hero in his right mind is going to help someone find their dog when the end of the world is nigh?) On the far side, are the totally-on-rails eastern RPGs, in which you really never have a choice about what order to do things in. Maybe you can choose to clear the whole level out or proceed to the next level, (in which case you should always clear the level out), but that's not really a choice. Still, learning what plot has been laid out for the character can be fun. Kind of like a book in which you get to play video game combat whenever the hero is in trouble. I'm a big fan of KOTOR and the sequels, along with BG and BG2, and their friends as well. These have all tried to tell a story, and done a pretty damned good job. By the time of Jade Empire, it's gotten somewhat formulaic, and we'll have to see how they do in the next generation. But, they're still fun. There's enough flexibility that you feel like you're in control at times--but you're never left wondering where you left the plot. Oblivion, on the other hand, and Morrowind, the plot is easy to lose track of completely. You're left wondering why you care about the plot. There are all sorts of things to do, and if you're the kind of person who likes to do that, it's great. Unfortunately, I'm the kind of person who likes to follow the plot. And that's why I like the oriental RPGs, as well. I'm a story addict. They're like cheap cotton candy, but they can be entertaining for a little while. Now--on the subject of World of Warcraft: It's worth noting that while I despise the sort of open plotlessness of the Elder Scrolls games, I love World of Warcraft. I think that this is because the bases of the two games are very different. In Morrowind, there was this core plot, and you had to do lots of crap to become tough in order to face that plot. But by the time you became tough, you didn't care any more. The designers put so much time into the "making a world" part that they lost the story. And a single player game with no plot is... not my thing. Also, the various quests in the game were never very compelling to me--perhaps because they were trying to be too realistic? But World of Warcraft isn't a single player game. And, it's not trying to be realistic. In World of Warcraft, you try to get bigger and tougher so you can see more of the world, and get together with your friends and take on bigger and tougher evils. There's no over-arching plot, but you accept that because you know that with hundreds of thousands of players, having an over-arching plot would be ludicrous. And yet, the game somehow remains fun. For the people who liked Morrowind, I suspect it would be fun for different reasons than it was for me. For me, it's fun because of the other players, and *also* because the developers somehow managed to make the repetitious zombie-like NPC quests fun. I think, probably, because they opted for more over-the-top characterization, rather than subtlety. Anyway, my point of view on the different things at play here. Also: Torment is fabulous, but definitely feels a little aged these days. And, yes, it is sad that I doubt any "major" game will be able to get away without voice acting any time soon. Maybe more will follow the path of KOTOR and friends in having "foreign languages" for most of the characters so that they can manage to only really have voice actors for the important parts. That irritated me at first, but I've come to approve. Another thing to note here is that there is a big difference between the goals of different games. A game like World of Warcraft absolutely cannot provide a compelling narrative, because there are too many actual people playing the game and interacting with you.

Oblivion is a classic example of the traditional “western” RPG–a fully developed world, in which you can go off and do whatever you want to do. And, oh, by the way, there’s this plot, but you can ignore that, too.

KOTOR (and friends) are sort of a middle ground between the traditional western and eastern RPGs. The plot is strongly significant, but some effort is made so that even when you are on rails and stuck with the plot, you feel somewhat free to do what you wish. (The best example of this is when there are “side-quests”, which you feel like interacting with whether you’re light side or dark side in the games. Sure, you’re on rails–these quests are things you’re expected to do: but it feels *right* to be doing the things. As opposed to some of the side quests in BG, where you needed to go find some sod’s lost dog to get XP, because you needed XP to fight the boss who was going to destroy the world. What hero in his right mind is going to help someone find their dog when the end of the world is nigh?)

On the far side, are the totally-on-rails eastern RPGs, in which you really never have a choice about what order to do things in. Maybe you can choose to clear the whole level out or proceed to the next level, (in which case you should always clear the level out), but that’s not really a choice. Still, learning what plot has been laid out for the character can be fun. Kind of like a book in which you get to play video game combat whenever the hero is in trouble.

I’m a big fan of KOTOR and the sequels, along with BG and BG2, and their friends as well. These have all tried to tell a story, and done a pretty damned good job. By the time of Jade Empire, it’s gotten somewhat formulaic, and we’ll have to see how they do in the next generation. But, they’re still fun. There’s enough flexibility that you feel like you’re in control at times–but you’re never left wondering where you left the plot.

Oblivion, on the other hand, and Morrowind, the plot is easy to lose track of completely. You’re left wondering why you care about the plot. There are all sorts of things to do, and if you’re the kind of person who likes to do that, it’s great. Unfortunately, I’m the kind of person who likes to follow the plot.

And that’s why I like the oriental RPGs, as well. I’m a story addict. They’re like cheap cotton candy, but they can be entertaining for a little while.

Now–on the subject of World of Warcraft: It’s worth noting that while I despise the sort of open plotlessness of the Elder Scrolls games, I love World of Warcraft. I think that this is because the bases of the two games are very different.

In Morrowind, there was this core plot, and you had to do lots of crap to become tough in order to face that plot. But by the time you became tough, you didn’t care any more. The designers put so much time into the “making a world” part that they lost the story. And a single player game with no plot is… not my thing. Also, the various quests in the game were never very compelling to me–perhaps because they were trying to be too realistic?

But World of Warcraft isn’t a single player game. And, it’s not trying to be realistic. In World of Warcraft, you try to get bigger and tougher so you can see more of the world, and get together with your friends and take on bigger and tougher evils. There’s no over-arching plot, but you accept that because you know that with hundreds of thousands of players, having an over-arching plot would be ludicrous. And yet, the game somehow remains fun. For the people who liked Morrowind, I suspect it would be fun for different reasons than it was for me. For me, it’s fun because of the other players, and *also* because the developers somehow managed to make the repetitious zombie-like NPC quests fun. I think, probably, because they opted for more over-the-top characterization, rather than subtlety.

Anyway, my point of view on the different things at play here.

Also: Torment is fabulous, but definitely feels a little aged these days. And, yes, it is sad that I doubt any “major” game will be able to get away without voice acting any time soon. Maybe more will follow the path of KOTOR and friends in having “foreign languages” for most of the characters so that they can manage to only really have voice actors for the important parts. That irritated me at first, but I’ve come to approve.

]]> By: Sean McGuire http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2753 Sean McGuire Mon, 08 May 2006 19:52:14 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2753 The Mentifxe Meme of AI and Robotics, that non-derivative, uniquely innovative brain-mind theory, can do it all! _______________________________________________________________ | The Environment | | ____________ _____________ | | _____________| The Senses |______________| The Muscles |___ | | | \ \ \ \ \ The Body | | | | | | | | | ________\ \ \ \ \__________________|_|_|_|_|____ | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ | Cerebellum || | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ | (Motor Habituation) || | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ \___________________/ | | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / | | | | Feature Extraction: | | | | | The Brain / / / / / | | | | | |--+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+---| | | | | Oldest |Memories: S| |M| |C| |||||||| |M| |M| |C | | | | | | e| |e| |h| |Concept |o| |e| |h | | | | | | n| |m| |a| |||||||| |t| |m| |a | | | | | | s| |o| |n| |Fibers| |o| |o| |n | | | | | | o| |r| |n| |||||||| |r| |r| |n | | | | | | r| |y| |e| |as the| | | |y| |e | | | | | Newest |Memories: y| | | |l| |||||||| | | | | |l | | | | | | | | | |s| | Core | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |of the| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mind | | | | | | | | | | |(Future |Memories:) | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | | | | |________________________________________________| | | | |___________________________________________________________| | |_______________________________________________________________| The Mentifxe Meme of AI and Robotics, that non-derivative, uniquely innovative brain-mind theory, can do it all!

_______________________________________________________________
| The Environment |
| ____________ _____________ |
| _____________| The Senses |______________| The Muscles |___ |
| | \ \ \ \ \ The Body | | | | | | |
| | ________\ \ \ \ \__________________|_|_|_|_|____ | |
| | | \ \ \ \ \ | Cerebellum || | |
| | | \ \ \ \ \ | (Motor Habituation) || | |
| | | \ \ \ \ \ \___________________/ | | |
| | | \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / | | |
| Feature Extraction: | | | | | The Brain / / / / / | | |
| | |–+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+—| | |
| | Oldest |Memories: S| |M| |C| |||||||| |M| |M| |C | | |
| | | e| |e| |h| |Concept |o| |e| |h | | |
| | | n| |m| |a| |||||||| |t| |m| |a | | |
| | | s| |o| |n| |Fibers| |o| |o| |n | | |
| | | o| |r| |n| |||||||| |r| |r| |n | | |
| | | r| |y| |e| |as the| | | |y| |e | | |
| | Newest |Memories: y| | | |l| |||||||| | | | | |l | | |
| | | | | | |s| | Core | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |of the| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Mind | | | | | | | | |
| |(Future |Memories:) | | | | | |||||||| | | | | | | | |
| | |________________________________________________| | |
| |___________________________________________________________| |
|_______________________________________________________________|

]]> By: Nat http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2752 Nat Mon, 08 May 2006 19:43:24 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2752 Richard's argument appears to be "if you just solve almost every single hard problem in computer science first, you can trivially auto-generate compelling games". Well, gosh, if only we'd all realized it was *that* easy we'd have done it before. Richard’s argument appears to be “if you just solve almost every single hard problem in computer science first, you can trivially auto-generate compelling games”.

Well, gosh, if only we’d all realized it was *that* easy we’d have done it before.

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2751 psu Mon, 08 May 2006 19:41:36 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2751 Oh yeah. I forgot: >All you need is a model of physionomy. So what you are saying is that all we have to do is learn how to completely simulate people and their personalities, and then the current game structures involving manually built characters will be obsolete. Well gosh, let's get right on that. Strong AI here we come. Oh yeah. I forgot:

>All you need is a model of physionomy.

So what you are saying is that all we have to do is learn how to completely simulate people and their personalities, and then the current game structures involving manually built characters will be obsolete. Well gosh, let’s get right on that. Strong AI here we come.

]]> By: peterb http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2750 peterb Mon, 08 May 2006 19:37:01 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2750 Your point that narrative is obsolete can indeed be said to furious green ideas sleep colourlessly. But I think it's crucial to penguin Windows XP when chamois cloths inkwellishly dwell within the halls of the spirit. Torn now is Beak, but nothing exists. For it is the sky. For it is a stick. àò†Âò•†¥?¥òÜ?†Ü?¥†1...2...3...4... µ¯Æ¥fl†¯É†É¯ÆµÂ¨àflµ†can be ÜÆàÁ?•†Ü¯†¥òɯÆÁ¥†2...3...4... even when †fl¥Â¨†fl¨¥¥?fl†Â܆µà?òà©?܆and your 2...3...4... mother plays gran tursmo 4, bring virtual worlds into virtual light in ?àÆܮ¨†?¥•?¯ÂÆ?ߠin 2...3...4... virtually no time at all. I feel the earth move under my feet. I feel the tumblin' down, the tumblin' down. 5...6....7... Take me to your Mon-El, but I think my point is made more appositely by quoting: "Please; I may take all events into consideration; no, no. And it is no; a boy has never wept...nor dashed a thousand kin... did you hear me? Now leave it or take it. No, I might be in the playing for I know. Come on over here, come on over. Oh, Duckie, see we skipped again." Your point that narrative is obsolete can indeed be said to furious green ideas sleep colourlessly. But I think it’s crucial to penguin Windows XP when chamois cloths inkwellishly dwell within the halls of the spirit. Torn now is Beak, but nothing exists. For it is the sky. For it is a stick.

àò†Âò•†¥?¥òÜ?†Ü?¥†1…2…3…4… µ¯Æ¥fl†¯É†É¯ÆµÂ¨àflµ†can be ÜÆàÁ?•†Ü¯†¥òɯÆÁ¥†2…3…4… even when †fl¥Â¨†fl¨¥¥?fl†Â܆µà?òà©?܆and your 2…3…4… mother plays gran tursmo 4, bring virtual worlds into virtual light in ?àÆܮ¨†?¥•?¯ÂÆ?ߠin 2…3…4… virtually no time at all. I feel the earth move under my feet. I feel the tumblin’ down, the tumblin’ down. 5…6….7… Take me to your Mon-El, but I think my point is made more appositely by quoting:

“Please; I may take all events into consideration; no, no. And it is no; a boy has never wept…nor dashed a thousand kin… did you hear me? Now leave it or take it. No, I might be in the playing for I know. Come on over here, come on over. Oh, Duckie, see we skipped again.”

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2749 psu Mon, 08 May 2006 19:32:46 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2749 Richard should consider that if it is up to gamers to create the narrative, then the narrative, for the most part, will be *boring*. And what fun would that be in a *game*. Remind me to get off the whole industry when games are just simulations of an actual reality. Good games, like good narratives, are abbreviated simulations of reality with the boring parts taken out. That's why, ultimately, I think the idea of the completely open sandbox is not fun. Elder Scrolls manages to make it fun by having each piece of the sandbox be its own self contained linear trip. If they hadn't done that, there would, seriously, be no reason at all to play the game. Richard should consider that if it is up to gamers to create the narrative, then the narrative, for the most part, will be *boring*. And what fun would that be in a *game*.

Remind me to get off the whole industry when games are just simulations of an actual reality. Good games, like good narratives, are abbreviated simulations of reality with the boring parts taken out. That’s why, ultimately, I think the idea of the completely open sandbox is not fun.

Elder Scrolls manages to make it fun by having each piece of the sandbox be its own self contained linear trip. If they hadn’t done that, there would, seriously, be no reason at all to play the game.

]]> By: Richard http://tleaves.com/2006/05/03/west-of-house/comment-page-1/#comment-2748 Richard Mon, 08 May 2006 18:11:25 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=612#comment-2748 You should consider the possibility that narrative is simply obsolete. If it is, it won't matter how much money you can raise to build a narrative-based game. Modern games such as the Elder Scrolls series are expected to be complete virtual worlds as opposed to mediatized experiences. They're supposed to be open-ended instead of having a linear plot like a movie. The reason why is because people vastly prefer having their own experiences over being fed the regurgitated experiences of others. Movies only prospered so long as they were able to provide second hand experiences that movie watchers couldn't get first hand. Think of kings, generals, time travel and being on the Titanic. Consider also that it doesn't matter if a game has a story because people are able to make their own stories for themselves. Narratization is one of the 6 essential components of consciousness. If we assume that game players are conscious, then they can make their own stories. Consider also that everything else you're complaining about is a technological problem pure and simple. That is, our technology hasn't caught up to the expectations of game players. Case 1: lip-syncing could easily be done if you compiled a database of pronounciation from dictionaries and created a mouth movement model based on that pronounciation. You could even do accents this way so long as you specify a model of the accent and let the generator do its work. This is just speech synthesis and you know it's going to get better. Case 1b: if you managed to build a model for intonations and speech patterns, you could generate unique speech patterns for all the characters, cheap. Case 2: millions of models can be put in a game if they're *generated*. All you need is a model of physionomy. Somewhat like what Elder Scrolls does for characters but vastly more sophisticated. Case 3: stories can be generated automatically in cooperation with the player by using a story telling engine like the Erasmatron. The computer game industry hasn't caught on yet but it will eventually. The Erasmatron is to novels what Morrowind is to Diablo. Using the Erasmatron would have avoided the "lack of consequence" that's so disturbing. Case 4: landscape and cities can be generated automatically. Again, all you need is a model of landscape (easy) and cities (doable). If Spore can provide a model for biological life then surely the same can be done for the much more regular cities. And no, Simcity doesn't qualify; real medieval cities aren't square everywhere. You should consider the possibility that narrative is simply obsolete. If it is, it won’t matter how much money you can raise to build a narrative-based game.

Modern games such as the Elder Scrolls series are expected to be complete virtual worlds as opposed to mediatized experiences. They’re supposed to be open-ended instead of having a linear plot like a movie.

The reason why is because people vastly prefer having their own experiences over being fed the regurgitated experiences of others. Movies only prospered so long as they were able to provide second hand experiences that movie watchers couldn’t get first hand. Think of kings, generals, time travel and being on the Titanic.

Consider also that it doesn’t matter if a game has a story because people are able to make their own stories for themselves. Narratization is one of the 6 essential components of consciousness. If we assume that game players are conscious, then they can make their own stories.

Consider also that everything else you’re complaining about is a technological problem pure and simple. That is, our technology hasn’t caught up to the expectations of game players.

Case 1: lip-syncing could easily be done if you compiled a database of pronounciation from dictionaries and created a mouth movement model based on that pronounciation. You could even do accents this way so long as you specify a model of the accent and let the generator do its work. This is just speech synthesis and you know it’s going to get better.

Case 1b: if you managed to build a model for intonations and speech patterns, you could generate unique speech patterns for all the characters, cheap.

Case 2: millions of models can be put in a game if they’re *generated*. All you need is a model of physionomy. Somewhat like what Elder Scrolls does for characters but vastly more sophisticated.

Case 3: stories can be generated automatically in cooperation with the player by using a story telling engine like the Erasmatron. The computer game industry hasn’t caught on yet but it will eventually. The Erasmatron is to novels what Morrowind is to Diablo. Using the Erasmatron would have avoided the “lack of consequence” that’s so disturbing.

Case 4: landscape and cities can be generated automatically. Again, all you need is a model of landscape (easy) and cities (doable). If Spore can provide a model for biological life then surely the same can be done for the much more regular cities. And no, Simcity doesn’t qualify; real medieval cities aren’t square everywhere.

]]>