Crawford's Concept Of Interactivity In Artificial Intelligence

763 Words2 Pages

To begin, it is important to look at Crawford’s concept of interactivity. He writes that a “…degree of interaction prove a useful index of ‘gaminess’” (11). The main point of interactivity is that the game responds to the player’s choices and actions in some way or form. Crawford’s example is that of a puzzle vs. a basketball opponent, the former of which does not actively respond to the persons’ actions in the same way as the latter (6). This interactivity also creates a dynamic narrative within the story, as in many cases the game offers a “branching tree of possible sequences” and urges the player to “explore alternate sequences, contrapositives, and inversions” (8). This means that while a story may be read multiple times, its outcome …show more content…

Conflict is central to a game, as it creates an exciting element to achieving one’s goals. The difference between conflict and a challenge, according to Crawford, is the presence of an “intelligent agent” that “actively block’s the player’s attempts to reach his goals” (11). This intelligent agent does not need to be human, as the increasing complexity of artificial intelligence (AI) allows for more exciting forms of conflict. Over the course of the games he designed, Crawford developed several AI that strived to mimic human interaction. The most notable of these being the computer-controlled Russians in Eastern Front, who not only had somewhat of a personality but also had a variety of tactics depending on what was happening in the game (Myer 21). This concept of computer games needing a human-like AI could very well stem from the fact that games were originally non-electronic forms of human interaction, as stated previously. Crawford also discusses the types of conflict present in games but states that violence is the most common because is it the “most obvious and natural expression for conflict” …show more content…

These two features are representation and safety, which will be discussed in tandem as they mold together nicely. First, it is important that a game represents something to the player, whether it be a situation or a phenomenon. These representations are not meant to be entirely accurate depictions, but instead “artistically simplified representation[s]” of the phenomenon (Crawford 5). This is the stark difference between a simulation and game, as simulation strives for in-depth accuracy while games shed technically accurate aspects in favor of a focus on the core of the game (5). The component of focus in games becomes appealing, as it provides the player with a slimmed down version of a real situation. Crawford explains that it is important that games retain their focus as representing “…too large a subset of reality defies player comprehension and becomes almost indistinguishable from life itself…” (6). Games and the representations they present are both “objectively unreal” and “subjectively real,” although the game does not physically allow the player to do something it can still be perceived as subjectively real to the player (Crawford 5). These representations, however, are perceived as safe to the player. Games, at their base, offer a safe way to experience reality without repercussions, For example, one can fight wars and battle enemies without ever having to risk

More about Crawford's Concept Of Interactivity In Artificial Intelligence

Open Document