Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
more than we understand interactivity. Many designers therefore assume, in
deference to the Aristotelian admonition, that the proper approach is to pro-
ceed from the more knowable (storytelling) to the less knowable (interactiv-
ity). This is a mistake. The admonition to proceed from the more knowable to
the less knowable is intended for application to the search for understanding.
We best learn about the world by basing new discoveries on a firm foundation
of current knowledge. But learning is not at all akin to designing; we have no
reason to believe that successful methodologies for intellectual growth can be
applied to the utilization of knowledge through design.
Another, less noble reason to begin our efforts with storytelling is simple
human laziness: if we start by building what we know well, then we will make
rapid progress and can later turn to the difficult phase of the design, confident
that we are already halfway to success. That is what we tell ourselves - but we
are wrong when we think this way.
In practice, the thoroughness of our understanding of any particular as-
pect of a design permits us more ways to modify the design of that aspect.
For example, a cathedral designer who understands foundations well but fly-
ing buttresses poorly can readily design many workable foundations, but few
workable flying buttresses. This architect would be tempted to begin his task
by designing a clever foundation first, deferring the more difficult task of de-
signing flying buttresses. But such a strategy would surely fail, for requiring
flying buttresses to fit an already-designed foundation imposes an additional
constraint on an already-difficult task. Our cathedral designer would do bet-
ter to begin with the most difficult task first: designing flying buttresses that
work. Once this problem has been solved, it is a simple matter for a talented
foundation-designer to whip up a foundation to fit the flying buttresses. It is
easier to deform the well-known task to fit the constraints of the poorly-known
task than vice versa.
There are many examples of the failure of this strategy. Most offer the user
a conventional story with an iota of interactivity tacked on. Since the result is
99% story and 1% interactivity, it is automatically compared with similar prod-
ucts that are 100% story and 0% interactivity: movies and novels, for example.
The purportedly interactive story comes out badly in any such comparison,
leading many to conclude that interactive storytelling is a futile enterprise. Like
castaways on an island, we will never convince ourselves of the desirability of
swimming to a nearby island if we stride knee-deep into the water and observe
that our situation has not improved.
Thus, the design of interactive storytelling must begin with the interactiv-
ity, applying the knowledge of storytelling to conform to the requirements of
