That's not really accurate; that's the idea I *started out* with. To
describe the full intent of the game would be to describe the ending,
which I'd rather not do in a public forum; please email me if you want
the spoilers. In fact, even the general description below may count as
SPOILERS in some sense.
But -- in general -- I conceived a story, a character. He starts out
in one mood (he wants to get away from this picnic -- that's described
in the game opening.) He goes around and does some stuff. It starts to
rain; he tries to find himself somewhere dry (I trust that's a
plausible character motivation. :-) He goes to sleep. Other, stranger
things happen. In the midst of a stressful situation he comes to a
realization which relates the physical situation with what's going on
in his head; the situation is, in good literary tradition, a metaphor.
Having had this realization, he walks off into the, er, he walks off;
he has learned something, and therefore the character has grown.
*That's* the 'F' part of IF, straight out of my high school literature
class. The nifty sunset is frosting. (It just so happens that I
usually create stories by thinking of the frosting first.)
> But what about the 'I' part of IF?
A-*ha*! Now my secret plan is revealed. You see, my least favorite
phrase in all prose-dom is "He thought..." Again, this is out of
introductory creating writing: show, don't tell. So here I have a
medium where I don't have to show *or* tell; I can let the reader
discover it himself, through the exploration of the way the universe
works.
Look: The thing you do in _Weather_ is to protect the bridge
from destruction (several people have said that, so the secret is
out.) That's the point of the *story*, and the upper level of the
metaphor. Were I writing static fiction, I'd have to write, "'I have
to protect the bridge!' he thought." Or something less clumsy; as I
think I said, there are many techniques in storytelling to convey the
point of a story. But in IF there's this new one: I don't write
anything at all; it all takes place in *your* head. *That's* the
interactivity.
> Part of what makes
> literature/painting/movies/etc "art" is the fact that the reader/observer is
> passive. The artist presents a point of view, and we are asked to absorb it,
> mull it over, agree/disagree, etc. The fact that our interaction is passive
> is crucial - it allows the artist to develop what he/she wants to say
> without interruption or deviation.
Well, I'm still presenting a point of view. If you don't accept it, I
shut down the game on you. Your input can't change my mind as to how
the story should end.
The point of the interaction is to help *convey* the point to you, in
a way which is more involving (you realizing it, rather than me
telling you.) That's the sort of conveyance I like in other kinds of
art, after all. My favorite books are the ones that leave you to
figure out what's going on. McKillip, as I said.
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."