I dove back into my research notes and reread a few chapters from Chris Crawford’s book Interactive Stories.<\/p>\n
Here’s a quick excerpt from chapter one in regards to games:<\/p>\n
Games concern themselves with things: things you acquire, things you use, things you destroy and so. That’s why they’re so emotionally crippled–dramatic power comes from people and their problems, NOT THINGS! Games aren’t antisocial; they’re asocial. They just don’t bother with people other than as walking dolls that perform mechanical functions.<\/em><\/p>\n So games are really all about things which makes sense of Farmville, Castleville and other games that follow the same paradigm.<\/p>\n In regards to stories:<\/p>\n Stories are about conflict, most commonly social conflict<\/strong><\/span>. Violent conflict is for simple stories.<\/em><\/p>\n With that in mind let me go back to my previous post earlier today and point out that the random conflict is a start and to continue the conversation between the player and the outside user would be beneficial so that the player can challenge or let the outside user know that they beat their challenge. How would this work? Well I figure that when the outside user initiates a random event for the player that they would leave their Facebook or Twitter handle so that the player can respond later after they finish the event. However the inclusion of their handle is not required but they will be limited to “trolling” the players to three times a week instead of multiple times a day. It seems like this would enable and continue the interactive stories between the players and outside users.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I dove back into my research notes and reread a few chapters from Chris Crawford’s book Interactive Stories. Here’s a quick excerpt from chapter one in regards to games: Games concern themselves with things: things you acquire, things you use,…<\/p>\n