This is kind of what annoys me, because it shouldn't be that big a damn deal It's ancient knowledge Stories are interesting because they look like anything could happen at first and then at the end you look back and go "Yeah that's how it had to be"
-
Show this thread
-
I know nowadays everyone wants to subvert and problematize this shit but I'm sorry, it's true It is 100x easier to write a satisfying ending by having just one ending you knew from the beginning was the only way the story could end and then building the story around it
3 replies 5 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
Back in the 90s I remember arguing with people about this on interactive fiction forums "Do you think it's possible to do a version of King Lear where you can save Cordelia by yelling at Albany's messenger RUN FASTER! RUN FASTER! from your seat Would that make the show better"
2 replies 5 retweets 65 likesShow this thread -
People getting all partisan here "I want games to be GAMES, not just a movie where you control the characters during the fight scenes" Yeah okay, but the whole "player choice" thing has been obvious sleight of hand for all of history and you people are never satisfied with it
5 replies 3 retweets 62 likesShow this thread -
Like come on Super Mario Bros. is a game, isn't it It doesn't have branching paths Unless getting pissed after Mario dies and never playing it again is an "alternate ending"
3 replies 4 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
It's a story with one ending, Mario saves the Princess Playing the game is just you, as the actor portraying Mario, getting in character and experiencing his painful struggle over time But the struggle only has one possible outcome And people kinda liked that game
1 reply 3 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
It's funny because as a geek into text adventures/"interactive fiction" we had all these debates a full generation before the mainstream gaming world exploded over Gone Home and "walking simulators" and shit
1 reply 4 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
And it's like no, obviously you don't have to be in control of anything or be able to change the outcome of anything for something to be a "real game" or for it to matter that it's a game and not a movie
1 reply 1 retweet 39 likesShow this thread -
It's like saying that if I can't actually touch a sculpture and break pieces off of it that there's no difference between having a physical sculpture or looking at a photo of it on a screen
1 reply 3 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Or, more directly, that it's "not really acting" to play a character by reading a script That there's no emotional experience to be had from embodying this character if I didn't actually write the story and if I know the ending of the play can't change
1 reply 1 retweet 38 likesShow this thread
(As someone who did improv for a long time, I am, in the long run, a fan of scripts Scripts are good and useful and powerful things In the end I have never had emotional experiences quite as powerful doing improv as I have when reciting memorized lines from a script)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Interesting, my learning curve went the opposite direction, discovering that improvised narrative experience could be powerful like scripted (but in their own way.) I think doing both enhances the other. That said, *describing* improvised anything is much, much harder.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.