[PC] Balance of Power: 21st Century

[Molloy]

[Note: This thread was originally posted in the "theory" forum, and was titled "Interactive Fiction". Hence the silly bickering. --icy]


This isn't strictly gaming, but sort of interesting none the less. Chris Crawford quit designing games back in 1992 and ever since he's been working on a Storytron engine for interactive storytelling. After all these years he's finally actually released something: Balance of Power 21st Century (sequel to his 1985 strategy game).

You can play it here for free:

http://www.swatbugs.com/play-bop2k-launch.php

I'm not quite sure how to describe this. It's sort of like Civilisation without the graphics. It's pretty baffling.

[icycalm]

Interactive fiction isn't strictly gaming, but this game is sort of like Civilization.

Great.

Here's a forum where these sorts of comments would fit right in:

http://forums.selectbutton.net/

Just sayin', in case you ever take pity on me and my clearly failing attempts to maintain a half-decent gaming site.

[Molloy]

Alright, I wasn't quite sure how to put this in context, and I failed miserably. It's quite difficult to sum up in a catchy soundbite, but I think this titles release is significant (and extremely under-reported considering how much I've heard talk about it over the years) if only because this engine has been in development for 17 years. The designer has an established reputation in video gaming and walked away from it because he felt the existing approach was a dead end.

Chris Crawford is very emphatic that this is a 'story world' rather than a game. I find the term a bit ridiculous though so I'm not entirely sold on the idea.

I'm too young to have lived through the MUD text RPG's and adventure games from the 80's so I don't really know if this is just a tweak of ideas we've seen already, or an entirely new thing separate from established gaming. From what I gather the key is that the 'player' has the ability to manipulate the other AI's in the world and create 'emergent' situations that aren't prescribed by the designer. That seems to me to have been the same objective of MUDs (from what I've read of them, I've never played them) so I'm not quite sure how Crawfords title distinguishes itself from a game.

[Bradford]

If someone would be so kind, what I would like to know is, does the following, or does the following not tell me everything I need to know about Chris Crawford and his fabulous new... non-game 'story-world' thing?

The Dragon Speech
At the 1992 CGDC, Chris Crawford gave "The Dragon Speech", which he considers "the finest speech of [his] life". Throughout the speech, he used a dragon as a metaphor for video games as a medium of artistic expression. He declared that he and the video game industry were working "at cross purposes", with the industry focusing heavily on "depth", when Crawford wanted more "breadth": to explore new horizons rather than merely furthering what has already been explored. He arrived at the conclusion that he must leave the gaming industry in order to pursue this dream. He declared that he knew that this idea was insane, but he compared this "insanity" to that of Don Quixote:

"Insanity is an inability to come to terms with reality. Don Quixote was definitely insane, because he couldn't come to terms. But there was a reason: the reality in which Don Quixote lived was a sordid and ugly reality … Don Quixote didn't want that. He wanted to live in a world where there was truth, and human dignity, and, yes, love.… Instead of giving up on it, he imposed his reality onto the real world. Where other people saw a filthy country hostel, he saw a castle! Where other people saw a flock of sheep, he saw a mighty army! Where other people saw a windmill, he saw a dragon. Yes, Don Quixote was a crazy old fool. But, you know, he was more honest about his dream than most people, and for that, I honor him."

The speech is known for its dramatic ending in which Crawford confronts the dragon:

"I have committed myself, I have dedicated myself, to the pursuit of the dragon. And having made that commitment … all of a sudden, I can see him! There he is, right in front of me, clear as day.… You're so much bigger than I ever imagined, and I'm, I'm not so sure I like this. I mean, yes, you're glorious and beautiful, but you're ugly, too. Your breath reeks of death!… Am I so pitiful that you can sneer in my face like that? Yes, yes, you frighten me! You hurt me! I've felt your claws ripping through my soul! But I'm going to die someday, and before I can do that, I've got to face you, eyeball to eyeball. I've got to look you right in the eye, and see what's inside, but I'm not good enough to do that yet. I'm not experienced enough, so I'm going to have to start learning. Today. Here. Now. Come, dragon, I will fight you. Sancho Panza, my sword! (He picks up a sword from the desk behind him, which he unsheaths from its scabbard.) For truth! For beauty! For art! Charge!"

With these words, he charged down the lecture hall and out the door, symbolizing his exit from the gaming industry. Although he returned to the next year's CGDC, he has never made a conventional computer game since.

I dreamed of the day when computer games would be a viable medium of artistic expression — an art form. I dreamed of computer games expressing the full breadth of human experience and emotion. I dreamed of computer games that were tragedies, games about duty and honor, self-sacrifice and patriotism. I dreamed of satirical games and political games; games about the passionate love between a boy and girl, and the serene and mature love of a husband and wife of decades; games about a boy becoming a man, and a man realizing that he is no longer young. I dreamed of games about a man facing truth on a dusty main street at high noon, and a boy and his dog, and a prostitute with a heart of gold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Craw ... e_designer)

[icycalm]

On what basis did you title this thread "Interactive Fiction"? If I want to start a new thread on an upcoming FPS, I am not going to call the thread "First-person shooting" for fuck's sake -- what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? If this thread is about this fuckin' game, then rename it so that I can move it to the "news" forum -- if it's about interactive fiction in general, then what aspect of it exactly do you want to talk about? What do you have to offer on this subject -- apart from your ignorance?

Can you do me a favor and spend three nanoseconds thinking before you post here? I only get about 10 minutes of internet per day right now, I'd rather be doing something more fun than trying to do your thinking job for you.

[Molloy]

Fair enough. Point noted.

[Worm]

It's sort of like Civilisation without the graphics. It's pretty baffling.

Why not just say it's like the 1985 Balance of Power without the graphics?

I don't really know if this is just a tweak of ideas we've seen already

You answered your own question, really. It's got a front-end that approaches natural language, but that doesn't make it an amazing new thing that we should set apart from all past games, especially when it's identified as a sequel.

In the FAQ, Crawford (I assume) talks about what the engine is aimed at:

In Storytronics, you step into a virtual dramatic setting, and interact with computer-generated Actors.
...
...the Engine allows the computer-controlled Actors to react to your behaviors in an intelligent, emotionally believable, and dramatic manner.
...
Its advantage is that the player can take an active part in the story.
...
The 3D graphics that the gamers love so dearly are really great for communicating 3D spatial relationships—but they are of zero utility in communicating emotional factors...

Ignoring the focus on "emotion" for now, it seems that maybe the engine is well-suited for a game like this hypothetical RPG icycalm described:

Take for example an RPG in which the player controls a patient in a straitjacket locked up in a hospital's psychiatric ward. All the player can do is talk to other people, and the game ends when the doctors proclaim him cured and allow him to leave. The whole game then would be about convincing the doctors that you are sane, solely through dialogue. No battles, no nothing.

But then Crawford says stuff like this:

Storyplay is about people. You laugh with people, you argue with people, you make love with people, you humiliate people, you conciliate people.
...
The other characters pursue their goals and desires competently without your intervention. They are thinking, feeling entities, each with their own goals and desires, which may run counter to your own.
...
As in traditional literature, the player can form a strong emotional bond with the characters, and as with the best stories, perhaps even come away with a new insight.

Crawford seems to be laboring under the delusion that by presenting information with sentences instead of numbers, the game will be something "more" than just scripts and number-crunching in the background. In truth, what he really seems to want is better natural language processing and AI. Aside from the unusual presentation, any "thinking" his so-called actors are doing isn't going to be fundamentally different than what's already been broached in past games. The issue is one of depth, despite his claims.