Chaining interaction (channelling)
Author
Its reasonable to say that when you move your hand you are interacting with it. This is because interaction all stems from the mind. When your mind wants to alter something this i believe is the definition of interaction.
From here we get a channel or chain of interactive links. Your mind moves your hand which moves a shovel which moves dirt. So dirt is what your mind is interacting with. So the dirt is the last object in the link of interaction.
In terms of games the last object (or game element) is what i think should be understood as "The Interactive Element". Would it make sence to call everything else an interactive link? I definity think there needs to be clarification here to make the job of reading game design/s easier. Any thoughts?
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
I''m not sure I understand where the distinction is necessary. Let''s say I click the shovel icon, then click the dirt. My character starts diggin.
In the doc, I say this pretty plainly, without jargon. I say
"
SECTION 6: GAMEPLAY
6.1 DIGGING
To dig trenches the player selects the Shovel Icon, located on the Icon Panel. The cursor changes to a Shovel Cursor. The player may dig a hole whenever he clicks on dirt...."
No need to invent "interaction links" at all, that I can see.
Let''s say, further, that you''re trying to analyze what made Microsoft Ditch Digger 2.0 such an awesome game.
You talk abou the multiplayer ditch digging components. You talk about the ease of the UI. You talk about art, and layout, and technology, responsiveness, player control.
But unless you''re doing some very esoteric dissertation (in which, the more jargon you invent, the more likely you probably are to pass) I don''t see the need for specialized terminology.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
In the doc, I say this pretty plainly, without jargon. I say
"
SECTION 6: GAMEPLAY
6.1 DIGGING
To dig trenches the player selects the Shovel Icon, located on the Icon Panel. The cursor changes to a Shovel Cursor. The player may dig a hole whenever he clicks on dirt...."
No need to invent "interaction links" at all, that I can see.
Let''s say, further, that you''re trying to analyze what made Microsoft Ditch Digger 2.0 such an awesome game.
You talk abou the multiplayer ditch digging components. You talk about the ease of the UI. You talk about art, and layout, and technology, responsiveness, player control.
But unless you''re doing some very esoteric dissertation (in which, the more jargon you invent, the more likely you probably are to pass) I don''t see the need for specialized terminology.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
Aha, i see the confusion. Ok, what this is aimed at achieving is to give us a language to help communicate. This is definitly not aimed at a design doc or any ordinary folks who know little to nothing of game design.
Look at this way, if where talking about this shovel-dirt example for a game then all we have to say whilst being completely explainatory is "We''ve now got a finished link of interaction from the mouse to the dirt so that''s finished thank god"
or something along those lines. Then we can say "How many links are there?" etc. This way what we say (to me) sounds a lot more concise. Maybe concise wouldn''t be the correct word? Its more an attempt to allow Game Designers to look at their work from an external view point. Or a technical veiw point might be the better way to put it?! It would also help us to realize a formula type design - a gift to formula haters
Anyhow for me this gives me a much clearer view in my mind. I guess a lot of it comes down to how you want to go about understanding (not making) your game designs (unless you''re a formula person, erk!).
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
Look at this way, if where talking about this shovel-dirt example for a game then all we have to say whilst being completely explainatory is "We''ve now got a finished link of interaction from the mouse to the dirt so that''s finished thank god"
or something along those lines. Then we can say "How many links are there?" etc. This way what we say (to me) sounds a lot more concise. Maybe concise wouldn''t be the correct word? Its more an attempt to allow Game Designers to look at their work from an external view point. Or a technical veiw point might be the better way to put it?! It would also help us to realize a formula type design - a gift to formula haters Anyhow for me this gives me a much clearer view in my mind. I guess a lot of it comes down to how you want to go about understanding (not making) your game designs (unless you''re a formula person, erk!).
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
At the same time it sounds like you're over-generalizing the way Real Life works. If you think in terms of everything as a class, the base class would be something like CAtom, then you would move up from there to CMolecule, etc... then you describe how each element reacts with all other elements, and finally, decide what, in the Real World, is made up of, and uses, what.
1) Player (parent class CSentientBeing) applies thought processes to his hands
2) Hands (parent classes CBone, CFlesh) apply gripping force to shovel (parent classes CWood, CPlastic, and CMetal)
3) Shovel applies X-number of Newtons in a downward motion, into the dirt (parent class CMineral)
Do you agree with me that this is overkill? You can't easily define perfect physics on one large hard-drive in text code-files, so it's open to debate on what you and others perceive as "the important parts of physics" in order for your game to work in such an event driven model.
MatrixCubed
http://www.MatrixCubed.org
Edited by - MatrixCubed on November 23, 2000 11:56:24 PM
1) Player (parent class CSentientBeing) applies thought processes to his hands
2) Hands (parent classes CBone, CFlesh) apply gripping force to shovel (parent classes CWood, CPlastic, and CMetal)
3) Shovel applies X-number of Newtons in a downward motion, into the dirt (parent class CMineral)
Do you agree with me that this is overkill? You can't easily define perfect physics on one large hard-drive in text code-files, so it's open to debate on what you and others perceive as "the important parts of physics" in order for your game to work in such an event driven model.
MatrixCubed
http://www.MatrixCubed.org
Edited by - MatrixCubed on November 23, 2000 11:56:24 PM
Any reason not to use an existing standard for terminology?
Aren''t you just describing a use case?
Aren''t you just describing a use case?
Author
I''ll have to think about this some more. Off the top of my head i really can''t add that much weight to my argument yet. That''s an interesting interpretation Matrixcubed. The general idea of this is to be concise, to say a lot with as little words of as possible.
I''ll come back with this again other day once i''ve given it further thought and use. Cheers for the comments people.
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
I''ll come back with this again other day once i''ve given it further thought and use. Cheers for the comments people.
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
Author
Ok, with further thought he''s a question. When someone says "Interactive Element" what are they talking about?
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
Interactive element - Applied to either 1) Players intercommunicating and acting together, with possible use of game objects, to change each other (not just killing though)... 2) Changing the game world where another player can be affected by this change. Modifying the world in a way that can affect another player. 3) The act of modifying the game in such a way as to affect the outcome of the story, and the experience of the game.
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
I think it kind of comes under ''dynamic world'' as well
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
Honestly, when I think of ''interactive element'' I think of something that is
a) dynamic, and
b) provides some input or output to the user
but then my idea of interactive has been corrupted by the overuse of the term ''interactive fiction''.
I think going from the words to the concept is the wrong direction. Start with the idea that you want to use and figure out what the right words are.
a) dynamic, and
b) provides some input or output to the user
but then my idea of interactive has been corrupted by the overuse of the term ''interactive fiction''.
I think going from the words to the concept is the wrong direction. Start with the idea that you want to use and figure out what the right words are.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
