That is Chris(topher) Crawford isn't it? If it is the guy who wrote the following, then unless he has had a change of heart (you never know) since he wrote the book in 1984 I don't think that he would use the patent in a negative way ie. to restrcit artistic development.

Here is a link to the prologue & rest of the book this is quoted from (copy and paste it into your browser address line)

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html#PREFACE


From the Art of Computer Game Design


"I do not deny that technology will improve; it will. The real issue is not whether or not technology will improve, but whether or not technological limitations are the primary constraints on the game designer. I do not deny that technological limitations do impose severe constraints on all computer games, and I readily acknowledge that technological advances will remove many of these constraints. Thus, technological immaturity, the weakness of current 8-bit, 64K, 1 MHz systems---is a crippling limitation. Yet I maintain that artistic immaturity is an even more crippling limitation.

Consider two extreme hypothetical future worlds. The first world has no technological development and the second world has no artistic development. In the first world I am stuck with an Atari 800 as my sole medium for game design. This does not worry me too much; I could explore the possibilities of this machine for five or ten years before beginning to feel trapped. The second world, though, is a bleak place indeed; I am doomed to write ever-fancier variations on STAR RAIDERS and BREAKOUT, with more colorful explosions, snazzier sounds, and 3-D photon torpedoes, but never anything new or different. I would feel trapped immediately.

Neither of these worlds will happen; we will have both technological development and artistic development. Yet, we must remember that the technological development, while entirely desirable, will never be the driving force, the engine of change for computer games. Artistic maturation will be the dynamo that drives the computer games industry."

--------------

That said check out

http://www.erasmatazz.com/free.html

http://www.erasmatazz.com/Strategy.html


Edited by - Ketchaval on September 21, 2000 7:31:46 PM

That patent, if even real (too lazy to look it up), is completely non-defendable.

Just a waste of money on their part.

If they ever went to court with that, you could blow them out of the water.

substories...substories ...substories...substories...
I think this is about substories or something?

But seriously - I don''t think he can do this! Would IBM also have a patent on RPG''s in general, or 3D graphics, or games, or software, or ... whatever?

I''m a better programmer than I am a game writer but I just have to say
Sorry - I think this is total bullshit I would lol - if I only could...

Landfish - I understand this also is your idea (substories). If I were you, I would just go ahead and use it, and add a person named Chris into one of your substories...

I seriously doubt this patent could stand up under legal scrutiny... I don't think any good lawyer would have trouble proving that his implementation is by no stretch of the imagination the first to use the techniques described in that patent. Unless I'm misinformed about patent law, which is entirely possible, what he has seems not to have a terrible amount of weight behind it. Basically just a waste of time on the part of the patent owner.

Under scrutiny this patent seems to be even more insignifican than I originally suspected. It only covers a VERY specific implementation of dynamic story creation, which, honestly, does not seem to be a terribly good one in any case.

Edited by - Shinkage on September 21, 2000 10:49:28 PM

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Every day I gain less and less respect for intellectual property laws and the US patent office in general.

that''s why i live in canada. oh, wait, we''re not much better...