|
 I’ll explain my argument in a second. First, try out these links.
Try out the The Big Red Button
Then play a little 1D Tetris
And if you have the time (and a PC), enjoy a little Progress Quest
Now, tell me why interactivity matters.
My point is pretty clear here. Each of these games/interactive exercises involves little or no meaningful interaction. You just click at a button or key. If anything makes you keep clicking, it’s this vague sense that a story is unfolding.
So is this some form of proto interactive narrative? Probably not, plenty of theorists have worked to show that interactive literature requires more than a trivial amount of interaction on the part of the reader. Otherwise, all books are interactive because you turn the pages to “make them go.”
Or, maybe we can say that these little tidbits are not interactive.
But that’s unsatisfying. They feel interactive. Tetris 1D doesn’t even require interaction and still seems like a game. The Big Red Button isn’t much more interact than the light in that comes on when you open the fridge door. But we keep on clicking.
The only satisfactory explanation I have come to so far is that interaction does not matter nearly as much as people like to say. Or, at least, simple interaction is as powerful as more sophisticated interaction. The very fact of interacting holds all the magic of interaction. Making games, for example, “more interactive” is like adding sugar to syrup. Whatever makes World of Warcraft seem like more than of game than Progress Quest must have to do with other things other than interactivity.
| 
But hold on a moment! Personally, I think that the first two Star Wars movies were some of the greatest movies ever made. But imagine for a moment how great they would have been without good special effects. The fact is that without good (well, actually great) special effects, Star Wars wouldn't have had the visual punch necessary to suspend our disbelief to the degree that they did. The special effects were a huge part of why they were such great movies. (The first two in any case - episodes 4 and 5)
Now that isn't to say that special effects alone made Star Wars. Clearly that isn't the case. George Lucas is a genius when it comes to imaginative settings and use of "the hero's journey" to create a modern day myth. Without these elements too, Star Wars wouldn't have been good movies at all. They certainly would have endured the test of time.
So let's go back to your point that "interactivity doesn't matter." If you were to modify that statement to be "interactivity alone is not enough" you would have hit the nail on the head. Interactivity is just a tool. It's one element amongst many that can be used to draw a "player" into a story and make it their own. Still, all the interactivity in the world is not enough by itself.
The reason people emphasis interactivity for computer games is frankly because it's the only element that computer games can do better than other artistic mediums. It's the one area computer games have the advantage. In terms of "graphics" movies still have us beat hands down. In terms of ability to "characterize" or "space to tell the story" books have us beat. I could go on. But when it comes to interactivity, computer games can have a lot more then books or movies. (As you pointed out, it's not really true that those mediums have *no* interactivity. They are just very limited.)
So let's take away the important point here. Interactivity alone does not a great story or game make. There are many other elements that must be used. But if you want to compete with other existing mediums, you have to play to your strengths. For computer games, that's "interactivity."