Matt Interconnected Webb has been posting about games recently, including a reference to an earlier piece I wrote on Grand Theft Auto 3. Matt closes by saying:
"At the very least making a move doesn't just alter the physical pieces-on-the-board representation, it adds that move into the history of the game. But more than that a move may change the rules themselves, as a side-effect, without the player intending it."
To respond to a bit of what suggested here, in terms of my earlier post, GTA3, in a very basic way, does appear to have a notion of game history altering the space within it - and in a sense 'what you can do there'. Though these are not really rules as such, as in formal boundaries, but rather altering the space (via the various characters' actions within those spaces) ...
What this boils down to in GTA3, is that I can no longer kerbcrawl through St. Marks (the Mafia district) because of the numerous previous offences I've now committed against the Mafia. I now have to do a mission which involves driving through St. Marks. I was offered the mission earlier in the game. I could've taken it then, but ignored it in favour of pursuing a different (more central) narrative thread. Having followed that thread, I'm now finding it extremely difficult to 'go back' and do the other mission. Because it involves driving through St. Marks (where Mafioso hitmen seem to enjoy standing on street corners waiting for me, with big guns) ... so I have to drive like Schumacher (with Uzis blazing) to avoid them. Which is my own fault, natch ...
But I like the fact that 'the city' has now actually changed - in social topography, if not geographical (though GTA3 also changes geographically, but on a more linear tip). My mental map of the city now features a glowing danger sign hanging over St. Marks ...
Like I said, a very basic development ... but something I think.
