Re: "Serious" IF (was Re: Gareth's competition comments)


18 Oct 1995 12:44:39 -0400

In article <45u986$h2f@life.ai.mit.edu>, David Baggett <dmb@ai.mit.edu> wrote
(speaking of criticism):
>I have to be honest here: in the five years I've been following this group,
>this is probably the most encouraging sign I've seen that IF may actually
>have a future as a serious medium.

Serious, maybe. Commerically viable these days... well, we know better,
don't we? :)
(Much insightful stuff about criticism clipped...I agree, in general.)

>Elements of this thread smack of the notion that all things are equally
>good when considered in the appropriate context. I admit I don't buy that;
>for example, IMHO, Handel's _Messiah_ is better than Michael Jackson's
>_HIStory_ in an absolute sense.

Not if you want to dance. Same old Baggett, I see...some things never
change, do they? Didn't I squash this argument of yours into the ground
six years ago? :)

>I'd say the same thing of _Detective_ vs. _Trinity_ --- wouldn't you?

Same genre. Not the same argument. "Music in General" <> "IF"

>Saying that all works are equally good benefits neither the readers nor the
>authors. All IF works are not equally good; not even close.

No, but you've got to define your terms. If the author's trying to write
a silly game with a lot of weird spellings (for example, hah hah) then
he's not going to write "Detective."

>dmb@ai.mit.edu ADVENTIONS: Kuul text adventures! Email for a catalog.

(Could you take this line out of your sig sometime?)

-----
Dave Leary
(Nope, my views don't represent UMAB...good thing, huh?)

"If you get more luck, wouldn't there be less luck available for me?"
- Dogbert