Viewpoints are story devices.
The application of story devices depend on the driver of a scene
(that is, why is the scene being presented and how does it advance the
plot).
We considered a single viewpoint in IS but it made other
tradeoffs difficult. IOW, you enter the world looking at
the Sun with a narrator (Jeanie) to do the setup.
In the next scene, you have a different narrator who
explains the history of the museum site (how DOES
a small port in Kerry become a launch site for old
Shuttles). In the next scene inside the museum, a
narrator (Mary McCarthy), explains to colonists what
is occurring. In the next scene, you are outside in space
listening to radio conversations. And so on.
Essentially, Jeanie is the central storyteller, but
not all of the time. She is there to provide background
and motivation. In many ways, she is the heroic archetype
in the story though some might think it to be the Captain.
He is really simply driven by events. She on the other hand,
took direct measures to control events. That is part of
the story's moral about the Irish famine.
While IS is not a game, and not non-linear, it demonstrates how
loosely IS is coupled by the viewpoints. It is linear
and whole because the real viewer is in most cases,
passive. Also, it takes several scenes to set up the
story partially because it is a complex story with
complex characters, and partially because I had
all of these dudes building and wanting to get what
they built used (everyone gets a solo, Elvis, so stretch
the chorus a little longer).
If the user is more interactive, then the problems
of viewpoint are much more severe because without the
context of establishing them in the scene, the user won't
acquire intuition about actions to perform. So, I guess
if we had to do it over again and not break the plot, I would
have to invent a character such as Ishmael who is at
every important event logically. However, once done,
then certain time-saving plot advancing tricks are harder
to do. Eg, the scenes where a character is reflecting
mentally on a subject (Jeanie worries about the Captain)
aren't logical (how would Ishmael know what Ahab is
thinking unless he is guessing or being told). If I gave
up the ruminations, then it is much harder to establish
emotional states that continuously draw the viewer
into the story. IMHO, this is critical: a *game* may or
may not involve the user emotionally, but if a *story* doesn't,
it doesn't work. Story devices exist to create emotion
(eg, involve them in Jeanie's imprisonment), or to drive
the pace (don't drop the dancers on their butts at a cadence).
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D. DeCuir [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 10:39 AM
> To: Dennis McKenzie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Some good links
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> >First of all, do we want to
> > go outside of 3d space (into textual space) to handle the interface?
> My own
> > thought is no we don't. Keeping the story immersive is hard enough
> without
> > the interactor's attention constantly being forced to deal with an
> > interface outside of the physical space of the story.
>
> Agreed completely. This is one of the reasons I'm trying to push hard
> for a standardized KeyboardSensor; I do NOT like the "click here" in
> an EAI applet approach that most people are taking.
>
> The other question that this brings up is, well, should our stories be
> 1st person or 3rd person? In other words, should the person behind
> the VRML browser be a passive viewer of the story, or actually be a
> member of the story? I would think the former would be easier to
> implement, but the latter more involving.
>
> At the risk of exposing historical inaccuracies, ancient Indians
> civilizations had a central storyteller, didn't they? Like a
> narrator. They didn't blindfold one member of the audience and make
> him or her live out the story, constantly changing the story on an ad
> hoc basis... however is this just because they didn't have the
> technology to make a compelling alternative reality? If they did,
> would they have?
>
> Just some thoughts.
> -John
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
