solid new grounds via negativa

Today I was thinking about how when one writes a linear story, they act as a curator of a rhizome of possible stories.

This continues to be the case when we create interactive stories, except that our goal is constantly to consider which possible stories make sense, not limiting ourselves to just one.

This selection process is the very nature of art, and it is what, in my opinion, sets the bar between good, bad, and excellent.

While in the video game industry we have some intuitions (which are increasing every day), we are still a very new creative area to have found the sensitivity to curate what works.

As I have mentioned a couple of times, I see interactivity as a new element in the narrative system that came to break the “rules” of the previous system and has not yet stabilized.

Most developers are obsessed with finding the formulas of what works.

I come to propose this to you: nobody has a damn clue.

Why don’t we start focusing on what doesn’t work?

That way, instead of all being stuck in a very limited series of proto-formulas, we begin to see the places where it’s not worth walking and open up exploration of other places.

Instead of watching a video about “The 10 things you need to do to make your game successful,” why not read 10 negative reviews marked as helpful on Steam?

Those are the things that are not working.

Let’s stop doing them and look for new ones.