[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A response to Walt
- To: "idrama" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: A response to Walt
- From: "Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DProgrammer.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:13:40 -0700
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
> To Jason's and Brandon's implications that theorizing is useless
> relative to
> practice: judging from the lack of discernable improvement in IS since
> about1980, I could suggest that practice is pretty frapping
> useless too.
Really? Your opinion of the entire rec.arts.int-fiction community is that
low? Is that based on firsthand examination of tons of work? Or is it an
unfounded prejudice, a misconstruction that nobody's been doing anything
since the 80's, when clearly they have?
Mind you I'm not a RAIF apologist, 25% of that crowd hates my guts, and it's
the only newsgroup that will easily get profanity and killfiles out of me.
But I have perused enough of their works to feel that they do advance the
art and craft of IF. In other words, I don't agree with your point about
practice no matter how you arrived at it.
> To Bob's and Laura's warnings about over-analyzing, I can only
> point out: my computer has no heart.
Why should the computer be doing the job of providing "heart?" Even in the
Erasmatron, I see the emotional components as mere hooks into which skilled
authors can reposit good material. Or bad material. It's up to a human
being, not an engine. Much as you can get abstract data types done in C,
but there are useful standard mechanisms for doing it in C++, and you can
fry yourself thinking it's all about turning everything into C++ objects.
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
For plot and pace, writers use words; game designers use numbers.
Anything understood over time has plot and pace.