Charlie

About 5 minutes into the article, I was initially interested in how the author brought a new perspective on the state of interactive storytelling in today's games; most don't seem to have cohesion between the gameplay and the story. However, after his lengthy dismissals about what doesn't work, he proposes a solution that seems to already exist...and also like one of the type of games that he said didn't work. He talks about how games should give the player a number of choices to make to interact; too many choices would be confusing, and too little choices would be boring. There are plenty of games out there that offer that type of versatility, and not quite the grand epiphany this self-proclaimed prophet seems to think. Several games I can think of that offer a huge range of player-choice making in a relatively organic yet controllable environment are Blade Runner (PC), and Morrowind (PC, console), as well as a large wealth of Japanese "Dating Sim" games...which is pretty much exactly how he describes an ideal interactive game to be. There is the player character, as well as other characters with their own motives and conscious', and act accordingly based on the interaction between them and the player.

Probably the worst thing about the article though, is when the author begins to wax poetic about his brand new engine. He starts to go into detail about the intricicacies of programming and how revolutionary it was. In the end it just felt like I was fooled into reading an ad for his engine.