Hello, all!
Recently I was asked by Indievelopment to give a presentation, which they have (quite rapidly) put online here:
http://vimeo.com/64925083I thought I would post it here for your potential interest as it is about the following;
A ‘clock’ that forms when (often violent) high-consequence interaction is alternated with passive storytelling in the hope of making both part of the same mental space. The specifics of the types of interaction (fuzzy and linear) are discussed with their requirements and suitability for action and storytelling. However, the requirement for this clock is found to be a lie that comes from an audience demanding ‘high consequence’ interaction; we can see consequence is an illusion and acknowledge that games can offer illusions other than consequence. Indeed, we
are stuck with the clock, but only while we do not ask players to treat our games differently; asking a player to treat a game like ‘acting’ or purely with ‘presence’ means we may do many things that the clock cannot.