MEETING NOTES, October 9, 2001
David begins with presentation of research. He'll post his own summary account of his results.
JD: typology of games? what's the vocabulary in which we can locate Ivanhoe? what are the structural elements that make Ivanhoe distinct?
NP: ivanhoe might be know in three ways: new literary-critical method; new pedagogical technique; new technical innovations.
GR: threads of games in evolutionary history: space war games -- single player shoot-em-up; cave adventure games -- multiple player, puzzle-type game, idea of getting lost is key
shoot-em-up: led to arcade games, which were played in different social situations and thus evolved into shorter play periods
game vs. toy vs. simluation:
-game: distinct end and goals involved
-toy: endless play without any defined goal
-simluation: ivanhoe fits here?
Landow's Dickens Web on AUX system. Has disappeared now. Allowed individuals to apply "webs" on top of a text. Could have multiple webs over one text.
JM: None of the things we've seen today incorporate reflexivity and critical engagement.
NP: What are we doing to the surface of this thing, the book? We need to explode the concept of "link" and its representation on the screen.
SR: Problem with games/novels we've seen in that they're product oriented. The Ivanhoe game is process oriented.
NP: Problem with many of these games is the lack of constraints. That's another difference in Ivanhoe.
JD: Gets back to the notion of solipsism vs. community.
NP: Social pressures lay over the rules in the system. The rules of the game--programmed into the system--form the skeleton for the social conventions.
JM: Sense of the game has always been historical. To make connections you must go back into history to discover and make connections. It's pedantic and pedagogical.
GR: Must have engagement to play. We don't have the category of lurker, of the observer.
SR: David should have a look at the Oz group at Carnegie Mellon.
WM: Back to JD's comment that we must create a gamespace that is engaging to others. And return to the notion of product. In Nathan's analogy to film, there is a final product, a film that others can watch. But it's not clear that we have this here. What do we want people to engage with? Maybe people won't want to read the text but rather will want to view the gameplay diagram.
JD: Shift of levels between text and diagram of text seems key. Might navigate and choose texts based on shape of game.
NP: How these things all appear on the screen are central to this discussion.
SR: Ivanhoe depends on irreverance. Element of parody that runs through the whole thing. If you place too many constraints on this, if you try to prevent grafitti, you'll ruin it.
JD: We can set up certain elementary constraints and then let more sophisticated rules evovle in the process of the game. These games we've seen today make apparent that we must structure the game in some manner or else we'll find ourselves in these very boring environments.
BN: That's what the challenge system was meant to do. We can't implement all rules in the system, so challenges are a way for players to patrol the space.
JM: The primary constraint is the text itself. Someone can write "Rowena commits suicide" in the text. Other players can challenge this move, and the first thing to which the player must respond is the rest of the "book." There are all sorts of constraints here--the "original" historical text.
GR: When a players sets up a game, she defines a few rules for that particular instance. These aren't implemented on the level of the system. Other players can later challenge these rules.
New move: vote.
If we have lurkers, can they vote?
JD: Likes idea of lurkers or peanut gallery.
NP: Today's topics are supposed to be points, challenges and computer participation.
JM: What kind of a point system are we going to have? Do you start with some points that you must spend to move?
JD: Let's use Monopoly as an example. You have so much money in your accont, and then there's the bank.
BN: What about two "pots" of points. Your pot that you're building. Your pot that you have to spend by allocating to other players.
GR: What are the possible systems we could implement?
Points granted for: words inserted, links to texts, links to other moves, challenge, defense of challenge, points for each time someone reads your move,
AL: Do we want to have two levels of points?
JM: If you make an imaginative move and your justification is to a known, contemporary reference. If your scholarship is good, you get extra points.
GR: Get points every time your insertion has been read.