> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael St. Hippolyte [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 12:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Some good links
>
> Len wrote:
> >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).
>
> I would agree and add that you could boil down interactive fiction as
> differing from the traditional variety merely in the particular devices
> available. In addition to close ups, establishing shots, flashbacks, etc.
> you have a few other ones corresponding to the navigation options
> presented
> to the audience (free roaming, select a character to follow, controlled
> exploration along specific paths, etc.)
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
Yes... but... you also have some things a movie or book doesn't
have: persistent
memory and object loading because movies and books are essentially
bound media. Dynamic media corresponds closer to live theatre in
the
ability to add and remove props, respond to audience applause, etc.
What vr-lit adds is the *cheap* ability to do this while defying
physics.
> We're nowhere near having a vocabulary for such devices, let alone an
> exhaustive list of them.
>
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
Which is one of the reasons we are here. We are spawning vocabulary
as
we learn to talk about our ideas. Remember when you did the glyphs
for
navigating TerraVista? While that idea didn't go far at the time,
the use
of a set of unified signposts based on glyphs works fine. I noted
in the
IF pages I've read that the genre has spawned symbols for say,
magic.
So it is my hope we will do some of this too.
> Is it possible that traditional cinematic devices
> will turn out to have nonlinear equivalents? Might there be such a thing
> as an interactive closeup as distinct from an interactive establishing
> shot?
>
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)] I think it is the case. What gets lost
in
the discussions of non-linearity is that it is a quality of
presentation,
not an absolute of organization. The distinguishing characteristic
of non-linear systems of any kind is emergence. Events, properties,
etc. can emerge spontaneously or at least, be non-authored. On
the other hand, non-linear organization is not absolute in that some
parts of the sequences are linear (eg, must go through set up).
So within predictable linear sequences in an overall non-linear or
at least complex set of traversals, we still need and can
effectively
use the traditional cinematic devices.
> >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).
>
> This is a good argument for devising a way of mixing different approaches.
>
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)]
Yes. Half the art is being inventive and knowing how to do this
without the boilerplate sticking out all over. I failed miserably
at
that in IS. The saving graces are the accents of the speakers which
distract the user (misdirected attention is the lesser power of
magic),
and the excellent graphics of the team which Paul pulled up to
professional quality. Sometimes pulling a rabbit out of the hat
depends on a blindfolded audience.
> You could for example invent some sort of convincing literary device to
> segue smoothly between interactive and cinematic POV's (then the rest of
> us
> could promptly borrow it from you :)
>
[Bullard, Claude L (Len)] Again, I think the devices are there and
we
aren't noticing. I brought up the store commercials the other day
in which a moving camera sees several groups engaged in conversation
while in motion. The camera switches from one group to the next as
they pass each other in the store. This is an excellent device for
setups and has equivalents in theatre setups where a dance number
features several singers who move on and off the stage during a
dance/song number. It makes an interesting PROTO: camera tracks
motion
of moving group by center, and must switch the group center
based on some parameter (eg, first conversation ends) and turn
onto that new center without apparent motion. That's a challenging
PROTO to write.
If you are referring to POV as Character (iow, first, second, third
person),
then I think they are the same for VR as for any other story. Or is
that
true? Passive vs Active? Subject vs object? Hmm. Food for
thought.
len
