Comments on J. Robinson Wheeler's article on scene description:
<P>
     The article has many interesting things to say, and seems to put forth useful ideas about scene description techniques.  I think, however, that it could benefit from some stylistic reworking to more fully elucidate the ideas that are being discussed.  In many places I felt that I got the gist of what was being said, but that the article did not really pin down the components of good scene description, as it seemed to be trying to do.  In short, I think the article has good ideas but needs to work on conveying and explaining them more explicitly, rather than hoping that the reader understands just from reading the real scene descriptions that are quoted.
<P>
     The article's discussion of the opening scene of Zork, with the subsequent comparison of Shrapnel, is a good example of what I mean.  A lot of game text is excerpted, but little is really said about it.  Indeed, what is said is in part: "There simply isn't much there, which becomes clear as we walk all the way around the house, and view equally slim scene descriptions:"  This is followed by more example text.  This is puzzling to me as a reader: the author seems to be saying "well, the example I just gave really can't be analyzed and there isn't much to it, but nevertheless I'm going to show you some more examples like that, and there's nothing to them either".  Now, it becomes more or less apparent in the next paragraph that the point of the Zork examples was to contrast the examples from Shrapnel, which build upon them.  It would be good, though, to restructure this somehow so that the reader can more quickly understand this.  As it is, there is too much example text and not enough connecting explanation to guide the reader in his comprehension of the point that is being made.  Then, when the example from Shrapnel is given, it too seems overly large compared to the discussion of its meaning.  Essentially the only thing mentioned about the Shrapnel text is that it has more detail than the Zork example.
<P>
     Now, I'm not exactly sure what should be added here, and as I mentioned about I did more or less understand what was meant to be illustrated by the examples.  I think, though, that the article should explicitly highlight the important features of the examples in some detail, compare those features, and draw a conclusion about them.  As it is, it seems to be simply putting up a lot of example text and jumping straight to "therefore, you should do this, not this, in your game".  Or, to be more blunt, too much example text is being used in the service of too little real discussion.  (This problem is also particularly evident at the end, where several pieces of example text are simply inserted into the article with almost no discussion of their salient features.)
<P>
     Also, I don't think the "you should do this in your game" form of address is the best choice.  It seems to put the article into the tone of a how-to instruction book, but the actual content of the article -- the analyses of examples from actual games -- is on a more general level than that, which makes for an inconsistent feel.  My feeling is that the "you should do this" style does not work well when interspersed with detached analyses of example games.  The article seems to alternate between these two styles, and I found that somewhat jarring.  (The variation between referring to these advice-receivers as "authors" and "you" was also somewhat disruptive to the flow.)  Just to illustrate what I mean, here's an example:
<P>
     "Cadre has embroidered them with just enough extra detail to evoke an actual setting, a sense of time, place, and character that are missing from the original. Choose your details carefully, because they can tell a whole story."
<P>
     To me, this is uncomfortable to read.  The transition from analysis of an actual example to generalizing a morsel of advice aimed directly at the reader is much too abrupt, and hence off-puttingly didactic.  I think it would be better to weave the points into the analysis, rather than simply tick off features of the example and finish with a sudden "here's the moral of the story" conclusion.
<P>
     "The next sentence starts with [. . .] works in this context. " -- This seems an unnecessary digression; it points out the grammatical oddity (beginning a sentence with "and") only to dismiss it immediately without making any real statement about it.
<P>
     "[. . .] an equivalently nostalgic setting [. . .]" -- This just a matter of taste, I suppose, but it seems like "equally" would fit better here.