Those few of you (if any) who read Dutch might be interested in the online publication of my article “Keuzevrijheid en autoriteit. Literaire experimenten met interactieve fictie”, a title that would translate to “Freedom of choice, and authority. Literary experiments with interactive fiction”. It was originally published in the Flemish literary journal nY, and they have now put it up on their website.
Those of us who can’t understand Dutch that well can read it with the aid of Google: The article translated.
If you have a sufficiently broad concept of “read”, of course. 
Different kind of interactivity?
Cool, now I can choose between a rock and a hard place: I can read proper Dutch just as well as that mangled English. But proper Dutch is much more fun 
(I am German, I do have a slim chance of understanding any Dutch phrase. Sometimes, I read ingredient lists for fun.)
Joking aside, I am surpised by the Google translator. The translated text is actually quite readable.
Pretty interesting article. It’s nice to see a non-introductory article about IF published in a more mainstream source, outside of our hobbyist circles, too.
Yeah, it used to be pretty terrible, and I think it’s still not as good as Babelfish sentence by sentence, but Google Translate has gotten much better in recent years.
This is not completely true. The modelling part of IF makes that only the constituent parts and their behaviours need to be modelled, and the player may well succeed in doing things that the author hadn’t thought of. One kind of bug in IF is when the author thought he had forced a certain outcome, but the player can find a combination of actions to thwart the author’s intention.
For instance, the author may believe he made sure the weapon will be destroyed before the PC is apprehended, but the player finds a way to remove the weapon from the car before the latter is compressed to a cube of scrap iron, and later uses it to kill the guards and simply walk out of the police station. Given a modelling that allows a gun to kill NPCs, such a thing can easily happen.
(Or am I reading “mogelijkheden” too narrowly, and did you mean “behaviours”?)
While the author doesn’t need to anticipate every possibility, I don’t see how this invalidates my example (because at the very least the location, objects, NPCs and action mentioned must be implemented by the author to make the sequence possible), or how it would invalidate my basic point (that not everything is possible when playing IF).
Certainly! Though I’m not sure small journals focussing on experimental literature, poetry and translation really count as “mainstream”, or even “more mainstream”. I’m quite sure the editors of nY would be surprised to be called “mainstream”. 
It doesn’t. I was just pointing out a minor - well - point, which in itself wasn’t even false. Just, as I wrote, “not completely true”, unless under another understanding of the word “mogelijkheden” than the one that seemed natural to me in the context. Your argument stands unchallenged.
The author must still describe the possibility to kill NPCs in general with a gun, but he may be convinced the game doesn’t allow thus killing policemen, because the PC cannot get out of the car with the gun in his possession. Simply because he forgot to check whether any container held by the PC held the gun, possibly indirectly, opens up a whole field of behavioural freedom that never occurred in his head, much less was described by him as such.
I can imagine a piece of IF in which virtually all action is modeled - none merely suggested by prose. In such a world having the objects, locations and actions would mean being able to mix these ad lib, way beyond what the author may have imagined. But the author still needs to describe those objects, locations and actions, which suffices for your argument.
Oh, I don’t know. Despite the existence of billionaires, $100 is still greater than $10, isn’t it?