I'm not sure that a procedurally generated narrative is possible without human-equivalent AI. And at that point, it's not procedural generation anymore, it's a person writing a game.
That's defining procedurally a bit narrow, I think. Procedural generators follow the code to randomly produce elements, the basic characteristics of which are pre-defined and only their attributes and assembly are controlled by the generator itself (even if the element is only defined as a mathematical algorithm as for example terrain generation, it's still pre-defined).
Everyone that knows his hollywood can see that at least procedural storywriting on the lower level of the guild of scriptwriters should be possible without an AI, simply by pre-defining enough elements and giving them attributes with a sensible range that influence each other (codifying a thousand entries from TV_tropes should suffice for basic hollywood diversity if you stick to one genre, I think).
Now, actual
narration would be a bit more difficult. Genuinly good narration I would consider practicaly impossible to pull off, but functional narration should still be possible with a large enough set of pre-defined elements (read: parts of sentences, logically connected to the above set of story elements).
It's pretty much enough sad stories around me IRL to use computer games for getting the same experience. I'd rather blow up few sectoids instead
Well, there's certainly enough sad stories to go around where I live, but an
inconsequential sad story can still be enjoyable at times. I do agree on prefering to blow up sectoids, though. The trouble is, everytime I do that my squad gets eaten by crysalids sooner or later, which is even more depressing than playing dear esther, because it's actually less inconsequential... :shifty:
(same nickname everywhere for me)
