<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Improving the Form</title>
	<atom:link href="http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/</link>
	<description>A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 01:52:58 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dirk Scheuring</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1560</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk Scheuring</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1560</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>With a chatterbot experience, nothing really moves forward unless the player interacts. With two NPCs, the NPCs can conspire to set up dramatic situations that encourage the player to interact, and give the player something to talk about. </i></p>
<p>Usually, chatbots get their clients into <i>short</i> interaction sequences quite nicely &#8211; most people will try and write <i>something</i> into that interface box. The question is how to keep them coming, how to take whatever it is they throw at me and wrap a story around it so that they get curious enough to ask: &#8220;Why?&#8221;. I don&#8217;t need outside characters to provide drama, because the communicative situation between a human and a bot is inherently dramatic in itself. Man and machine are trying to understand each other &#8211; that&#8217;s drama <i>right there</i>.</p>
<p><i>Also, chatterbot technology doesn’t generally provide means for creating experiences with story structure. Since chatterbots are relatively stateless, there are no computational structures like goals, dramatic beats, behaviors and so forth that give the author hooks for structuring the experience. </i></p>
<p>True, but it&#8217;s relatively easy to extend chatbot technology, using the programming language of one&#8217;s choice, and incorporate all kinds of structural models and devices. The problem is not <i>how</i> to give chatbots structure, but <i>which</i> structure to give them. I just think that a three-actor structure is too hard to implement at this moment, and that concentrating on two actors might be easier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1558</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1558</guid>
		<description>We purposely chose three characters (two NPCs and a player) because we wanted to be able to move the story forward, even for shy first-time players. With a chatterbot experience, nothing really moves forward unless the player interacts. With two NPCs, the NPCs can conspire to set up dramatic situations that encourage the player to interact, and give the player something to talk about. Also, chatterbot technology doesn&#039;t generally provide means for creating experiences with story structure. Since chatterbots are relatively stateless, there are no computational structures like goals, dramatic beats, behaviors and so forth that give the author hooks for structuring the experience.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We purposely chose three characters (two NPCs and a player) because we wanted to be able to move the story forward, even for shy first-time players. With a chatterbot experience, nothing really moves forward unless the player interacts. With two NPCs, the NPCs can conspire to set up dramatic situations that encourage the player to interact, and give the player something to talk about. Also, chatterbot technology doesn&#8217;t generally provide means for creating experiences with story structure. Since chatterbots are relatively stateless, there are no computational structures like goals, dramatic beats, behaviors and so forth that give the author hooks for structuring the experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrew</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1554</link>
		<dc:creator>andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1554</guid>
		<description>Dirk, thanks again for your support and faith in the project.  The project goals we described in the papers are definitely ambitious, and Michael and I are pleased we did manage to set up an architecture with the open-ended-ness required to achieve the goals.  However, the big obstacle to fully achieving the goals became exactly what I described in my post &#8212; we couldn&#039;t handcraft anywhere close to enough content as we hoped, about which we&#039;re less pleased :-).  So the various project goals were achieved to varying degrees.  True generativity is the only viable solution to the fully realize all the goals we laid out.

Once the project is finished and others can play it, I&#039;m sure we&#039;ll be writing up various post mortems about what we believe did and didn&#039;t work, and why.  We&#039;ll be really interested to hear everyone else&#039;s take on it, of course.

And I very much agree that it makes sense to solve the relatively simpler problem of just a few characters on screen, before tackling a massively multiplayer narrative.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dirk, thanks again for your support and faith in the project.  The project goals we described in the papers are definitely ambitious, and Michael and I are pleased we did manage to set up an architecture with the open-ended-ness required to achieve the goals.  However, the big obstacle to fully achieving the goals became exactly what I described in my post &mdash; we couldn&#8217;t handcraft anywhere close to enough content as we hoped, about which we&#8217;re less pleased :-).  So the various project goals were achieved to varying degrees.  True generativity is the only viable solution to the fully realize all the goals we laid out.</p>
<p>Once the project is finished and others can play it, I&#8217;m sure we&#8217;ll be writing up various post mortems about what we believe did and didn&#8217;t work, and why.  We&#8217;ll be really interested to hear everyone else&#8217;s take on it, of course.</p>
<p>And I very much agree that it makes sense to solve the relatively simpler problem of just a few characters on screen, before tackling a massively multiplayer narrative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dirk Scheuring</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1553</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk Scheuring</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1553</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Yes, it’s going to require years (say, 20+) of research and experimentation to get to the level of sophistication we’re talking about here. </i></p>
<p>I may be more of an optimist about that, Andrew. I&#8217;ve be following the <a href="http://www.interactivestory.net/">paper trail</a> of <i>Facade</i> for more than three years now, and I was always awed about how ambitious a project it is. It might just have been too early to try developing a three-actor drama, whilst the dynamics of an interactive two-actor drama have not yet been explored. </p>
<p>I think we need to figure out two-actor drama first, and I think that a good medium to use for this exploration is chatbot technology of <a href="http://www.aiml.info/">some sort</a>. I think that we need to develop systems that can generate narrative for just one PC and one NPC character before more PCs/NPCs can get involved, like you tried to do it in <i>Facade</i>. You were just a bit early and a bit brave :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrew</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1552</link>
		<dc:creator>andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1552</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You’re describing what I would essentially regard as the only viable way to go as well, save for one problem: I don’t think it’s technically feasible yet.</i></p>
<p>Yes, it&#8217;s going to require years (say, 20+) of <a href="http://grandtextauto.org/2004/04/05/whither-game-research/">research</a> and experimentation to get to the level of sophistication we&#8217;re talking about here.  (Note that video games have already been around for about 30 years, so another 20 sort of seems reasonable!)  I&#8217;d guess that several people, including myself, are willing to predict it will actually be possible to achieve these kind of results we&#8217;re talking about here, with enough effort.  Hopefully there will be interesting milestones along the way.</p>
<p><i>but at the cost of making narratives that has the linearity that I think narrative (or many other art forms) require</i></p>
<p>The descriptor I like to use for what you&#8217;re talking about is &#8220;cohesiveness&#8221;, or perhaps &#8220;cause and effect&#8221;; &#8220;linearity&#8221; I think implies inflexibility.</p>
<p><i>Facade may be the breakthrough</i></p>
<p>No, no, far from it&#8230;  We&#8217;re hoping <i>Facade</i> makes varying degress of progress in several directions, but in terms of actual generativity, which is what I&#8217;m advocating here, <i>Facade</i> is only marginally generative.  Like I mentioned earlier, such a system needs to be writing the sentences themselves, not just sequencing them.</p>
<p>But, if you shoot for the stars, you might just hit the moon.  With <i>Facade</i>, maybe we&#8217;ve made it into orbit.</p>
<p>Thanks for the kind words though.</p>
<p><i>So with a certain skepticism, I guess I think that a narrative-centered, world-centered virtual environment is going to take huge amounts of handcrafting for the forseeable future.</i></p>
<p>I guess what I&#8217;m trying to say is, the kind of results you&#8217;re hoping for are not going to be feasible with handcrafting.  It&#8217;ll just be too labor intensive and cumbersome and messy to brute-force / hand-author a solution; it&#8217;s too huge of a problem.  I thought and hoped differently in the past, but now I am sure about that (as is Michael, who says he pretty much always knew :-).  </p>
<p>There is currently no solution to deeply interactive cohesive narrative.  The community need to invent new technology (-gies) to solve it.  We&#8217;ll be experimenting and writing about it for the forseeable future.  Kind of like the genome project or something, it&#8217;s a problem we could spend our lives on if we choose, it&#8217;s that much work.  But I think crackable within our lifetimes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Burke</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1550</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Burke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1550</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re describing what I would essentially regard as the only viable way to go as well, save for one problem: I don&#039;t think it&#039;s technically feasible yet. So far generative architectures used with most artistic or narrative work, ones calling upon emergence, complex-systems designs or autonomous agents, solve the problem of creating sufficient content on the fly for readers or consumers of texts, but at the cost of making narratives that has the linearity that I think narrative (or many other art forms) require. The best &quot;emergent&quot; improvisational jazz or music I&#039;ve heard, for example, seems to me to be good enough if one was trying to create a Phillip Glass simulator, but otherwise is missing some elusive quality. Most experiments in narrative are even farther from that--we can create the building blocks of narrative generatively, but so far we can&#039;t get close to the kinds of editing and compression functions that good narrative requires, the kind of selectivity needed. (&lt;i&gt;Facade&lt;/i&gt; may be the breakthrough, I agree--I&#039;ve long thought that you were one of the few people out there who has some sense of what&#039;s needed both technically and aesthetically...I am looking forward to it with some anticipation.)

So with a certain skepticism, I guess I think that a narrative-centered, world-centered virtual environment is going to take huge amounts of handcrafting for the forseeable future. I will be delighted--ecstatic--to be proved wrong, because what you&#039;re working on is really the only realistic, viable possibility of something like this happening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re describing what I would essentially regard as the only viable way to go as well, save for one problem: I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s technically feasible yet. So far generative architectures used with most artistic or narrative work, ones calling upon emergence, complex-systems designs or autonomous agents, solve the problem of creating sufficient content on the fly for readers or consumers of texts, but at the cost of making narratives that has the linearity that I think narrative (or many other art forms) require. The best &#8220;emergent&#8221; improvisational jazz or music I&#8217;ve heard, for example, seems to me to be good enough if one was trying to create a Phillip Glass simulator, but otherwise is missing some elusive quality. Most experiments in narrative are even farther from that&#8211;we can create the building blocks of narrative generatively, but so far we can&#8217;t get close to the kinds of editing and compression functions that good narrative requires, the kind of selectivity needed. (<i>Facade</i> may be the breakthrough, I agree&#8211;I&#8217;ve long thought that you were one of the few people out there who has some sense of what&#8217;s needed both technically and aesthetically&#8230;I am looking forward to it with some anticipation.)</p>
<p>So with a certain skepticism, I guess I think that a narrative-centered, world-centered virtual environment is going to take huge amounts of handcrafting for the forseeable future. I will be delighted&#8211;ecstatic&#8211;to be proved wrong, because what you&#8217;re working on is really the only realistic, viable possibility of something like this happening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terra Nova</title>
		<link>http://grandtextauto.org/2004/07/30/on-improving-the-form/comment-page-1/#comment-1548</link>
		<dc:creator>Terra Nova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=397#comment-1548</guid>
		<description>&lt;trackback /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rubicite Breastplates &lt;/strong&gt;
Timothy Burke, who teaches at idyllic Swarthmore College, comments here from time to time, and had some interesting criticisms of Star Wars Galaxies a while back, has just posted a pair of papers on his weblog about design directions for</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<trackback /><strong>Rubicite Breastplates </strong><br />
Timothy Burke, who teaches at idyllic Swarthmore College, comments here from time to time, and had some interesting criticisms of Star Wars Galaxies a while back, has just posted a pair of papers on his weblog about design directions for</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
