I refer to individual paragraphs by paragraph number
(by my count, the article consists of 20 paragraphs)
and in some cases by the first few words of each
paragraph.
<P>
What this chapter is trying to do:
<P>
The writer must reconfigure the first 2 paragraphs of
his article to articulate more clearly the article's
purpose. As I see it, the article is serving a
two-fold purpose: one, to offer an argument that
greater PC motivation/involvement is important for IF
and leads toward more satisfying/complex IFand thusly
that IF designers should strive for greater PC
motivation. Secondly, the author wants to support his
argument by offering a discussion of some IF
games--both old and new--and how they have and have
not been successful in integrating PC motivation. 
<P>
The framework for the article is all here, but some
clarification on major points is necessary.
First, throughout the article the author refers to
doing a "creditable" job of PC characterization (para
13) or a poor job of it, but nowhere does the author
clearly and specifically outline the criteria for
satisfactory PC characterization? Simply having
puzzles closely linked to plot? Distinguishable goals?
Goals that are character building? Explicit discussion
of what makes a successful implementation of a PC is
very important. The author does not clearly lay out
these points, though they can be inferred by some of
the comments he makes within individual paragraphs.
The article would be stronger if the author identified
xx number of criteria for successful PC development.
He could then more easily devote paragraphs to
discussion of games that did and did not fulfill those
criteria.
<P>
Likewise, later on in the article the author should
make a much clearer argument for what PC
characterization can offer. This version of the
article does make some of these points but they are
scattered throughout the article. To aid the reader in
understanding the points being made, the author needs
to lay out clearly what he is arguing PC
characterization can contribute to playing experience.
<P>
[A minor point:
In paragraph 2, the author writes (confusingly) that
there is a "growing minority" of games utilizing PC
motivation. "Growing minority" is an oxymoron; simply
write "growing number of games". This point is
important and rightly stands at the end of paragraph
2, as a transition into the discussion of the history
of PC development. Up to the point of this sentence,
however, the writing is too unclear about what the
article will be about; I suggest restructuring it as
above.]
<P>
The article implies that there is consensus among IF
designers and theorists that having more PC
characterization is a good thing. The author writes
that the Zork model is "widely viewed as inadequate"
(para 1); that having more PC characterization is a
"refreshing change" (para 6) and later, when writing
about the newer IF games, he writes explicitly as if
designers are designing with this "problem" in mind
("Similarly cognizant of the problem of PC
motivation... [para 10]; "Other recent games have
likewise tackled the problem of motivation..." [para
11]". I wasn't aware that there was any consensus on
the issue of IF design either now or then. This issue
needs to be clarified in the article. 
<P>
In thinking back to some of the early ("classic") IF
writing--"Computer Adventures: The Secret Art" by
Williamson; Chris Crawford's "The Art of Computer Game
Design" [1982]"Whizzard's Guide to Text Adventure
Authorship"; Nelson's "The Craft of the Adventure"--I
don't recall there being much discussion, and
certainly no consensus, about the role of the PC. If,
as Williamson writes, "There are no clear rules for
choosing the attribute of a player character," how can
he write the article and present a perspective that
there is some consensus about what PC's should and
should not be? I don't think he can or should. Rather,
he should discuss the fact that, in many cases, there
has not been a great deal of attention to this issue,
even though it is an important one.
<P>
If the author does believe that there is some
consensus on design issues, then he should make
reference to what he is talking about in light of the
literature on this issue. I understand that these
articles are not meant to be scholarly and I'm not
suggesting that simple reference to these other works
is needed. What I am suggesting, however, is that this
version of the article suggests that there is a
standard response to this issue when in fact I don't
believe that is the case. 
Issues raised by the "Zork model" PC do violate
Nelson's "Bill of Player's Rights  so to that end you
might make a case that the Zork model is inadequate
but I do think this aspect of your article needs some
rethinking in light of the many, many articles and
theory pieces that have been written about IF already.
<P>

In terms of today's IF, why are you assuming that
designers are incorporating more PC motivation into
games in response to a clearly identified "problem"?
Why wouldn't these changes in IF design be the result
of any number of factors--from the influence of MTV to
the Internet--as much or more as they would be a
response to some clearly identified "problem" with PC
characterization? The author needs to rethink this
point.
<P>

Use of Examples from IF:
<P>
Most of the time, the author's use of examples is
helpful however the author should revisit some of the
material to make certain that the examples used
actually demonstrate something to the reader. For
example, in para 3 the author gives an example from
Beyond Zork however this example as written is (a)
confusing to a reader who has not played BZ and (b)
doesn't offer any insight into the author's point. The
paragraph could have been written just as easily
without this example. In para 5, the discussion of
Planetfall is generally useful, though the reader
would benefit from some more explanation of why the
example given is a "striking" one. The author just
needs to take it one step further and tell the reader
that this is a striking example because there was so
much promise and no delivery. The discussion of
Plundered Hearts, para 6, is the best in terms of
explaining the IF, giving the example, and linking
that example to the points being made in the article.
The continued discussion in para 7, however, goes a
bit off track. For someone who has not played PH, this
paragraph will not make a great deal of sense.
<P>
Some discussions could use an example or two. In para
9, an example from Jigsaw would help. Para 18 is a bit
of a tease: you refer to a puzzle in Spider and Web as
a "masterstroke" but then you don't tell the reader
what the puzzle is! There are already spoilers in this
article; why omit an example of something you think is
so good?
<P>
Part II:
<P>
Because the author has not clearly outlined the issues
at stake here, the reader is a bit puzzled when she
readers, at the beginning of para 13: "What are the
implications of all this for the would-be designer?" 
This is completely vague as a referent? What is the
author referring to? Which issues that have been
presented. The article would be much stronger if this
section was reframed as an outline of "XX lessons for
designers in light of thinking about issues raised by
PC characterization." Then the author could make his
points about design issues much more clearly. If the
author has taken my suggestion about laying out
clearly, at the beginning, the criteria for effective
PC treatment, then writing about the
implications/promise will be a lot easier to do.
<P>
The author concludes by stating that  Letting the PC s
motivations, rather than the player s motivation,
determine the course of the story is among the
challenges that IF developers should look to meet. 
More can and should be said here. What would IF look
like what would be the benefits and expansions to the
genre-if this was done?
<P>
A final point: I'd recommend that the author read
Duncan Stevens' "The Player Character's Role in Game
Design." If, as I suspect, the author of this piece is
Duncan Stevens, then I'd suggest to him that he take a
bit more of his earlier work on the subject and put it
in here. What this piece lacks is what the earlier
piece had: more context and analysis. If the author is
NOT Duncan Stevens then please do not plagiarize Mr.
Stevens' work, but do review it anyway.
<P>