Robert Rothman wrote:
In another sense also, setting is the sine qua non of IF: at least in Inform 7 (I don't know about other languages) the only line of code which is absolutely necessary is a line which defines a room. There can be no action without a place in which it can occur.
Not strictly true, IMO. The only line of code which is absolutely necessary in i7 is a line which defines something that is *internally* referred to at least once as a 'room'. It does not ever have to be referred to externally as a room, nor does it actually have to literally represent an actual room or a literal 'place'. All it necessarily represents is the printing of a starting title (and/or paragraph) after which more events can be printed. The relationship 'in' is not even necessarily implied between the starting paragraph and the events that follow — this relationship can easily be dispensed with in the text. There is no intrinsic reason to confine one's thinking purely to the ideas expressed in the internal names of variables and classes. Those ideas don't actually mean anything — they're just labels on bits of data in memory.
This is why I maintain that 'setting', per se, is irrelevant to a study of the foundational structure of IF. What is undeniably relevant is the presentation of a complex of interrelated concepts to explore, which may include (but are not limited to) representations of an interaccessible group of physical places. The sense of exploration is indispensible, I agree — but not necessarily via a 'setting'.
frotz wrote:
capmikee wrote:
It never occurred to me to make the connection, but this is also why I love the movie Tron. The plot is ridiculous, the characters are instantly forgettable, but the setting is amazing.
Well, that and the soundtrack.
I'm curious what you think of the new Tron movie.
Heh. I was wondering the same. It seems difficult to describe the sequel accurately aftering cornering oneself into hyperbole regarding the failings of the much-superior-all-around original. 87
Paul.