Interactivity: Where do we go from here?

The difference between video games and other forms of media, particularly film (which is also extremely visual), has been interactivity. In a video game, the player is part of the experience from the beginning to the end. A movie in which the viewer could choose different paths for the main character would not be the same, because the interactivity which video games offer is a constant one. The player's ability to choose if they'll maneuver down the left side of the hall or the right side of the hall seems insignificant, but it is important in that it makes the player a constant agent, not some otherworldly force that occasionally reaches down from on high to change the course of events.

There are limits, however, to what can be done, and also to what should be done. Ten years ago, the dream of many video game players had something to do with massive worlds, constructed realities where players could go to escape from normal life and instead be a hero in an entirely different realm of existence. If the difference between video games and all other media was its interactivity, than it made sense that massive, highly interact game worlds (now created, and given the title MMORPGs) would be the holy grail of gaming. Creating a world in which the player could do anything would mean a mastery of the craft of game creation, and it would lead to games (we assumed) that were deeper, more realistic, and more emotionally engaging than any before. Hell, it wouldn't just be the ultimate form of gaming – it'd be the ultimate form of art. If a work of art is something that can create emotion and activity just by having a person view it or read it, then a massive game world, in which players could both view and create at he same time, would make players masters of their escapism. Fun. Creation. Emotion. It would have it all.

It seems that things haven't gone quite as planned. MMORPGs are here, and a few of them are wildly successful. But far from offering an ultimate form of escapism, their popularity seems to stem from the ways in which the bind the player into an alternate reality. Fun, emotion, intellectual stimulation; these are not always high points of an MMORPG, although they do often exist, and in rare cases they can all exist at once. This existence, however, seems to be more an exception than a rule. The lesson that has been learned from the creation of MMORPGs is that offering players the world may not be the best idea. It was often assumed that the only thing keeping game developers from creating games in which players could do anything was technology. Now, it seems that may not be the case. Some of the constructed worlds offered are surprisingly small, and more telling, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the technological requirements and the interactivity available in the game world.

I never expected this result. When I first started becoming interested in 'art' – films, literature, and games being my main areas of interest – the first of these worlds were beginning to form, and I was excited to see what they had to offer. I played many of them. Everquest, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online; just to name a few. What I found, however, was that they were some of the most boring, most un-engaging, least artistically stimulating gaming experiences I had ever been a part of. What was stranger, however, was that I often had a hard time keeping away from them. What I began to conclude was that the interactivity available in these games is to intense. They provide to much to do, and they blur certain useful video-game conventions to achieve their gameplay. By becoming too interactive, the games began to run into the same problems that we have to overcome in 'real' life. Money. Travel. Promotion. Meaning. Anything that I would call art, or which I would call fun, would need to provide me a reflection on these sorts of problems, not heap more difficulties onto the pile. I'm not talking about idealogical difficulties, but rather real, physical difficulties, such as “How do I get from here to where my friend is?” and “How do I accomplish this, given that I don't have the skills I really need?” and “How do I gain the acceptance of my peers?” The highly interactive worlds of MMORPGS do not comment or reflect on these problems. They merely provide more of them.

The root of the problem, I believe, is that these constructed worlds try to emulate the real world. But in any case, its clear the MMORPGs are not the end-all that some gamers might have thought. Very linear games exist to this day, and some of them are wildly successful. Whereever we're going from here, complete interactivity is not the destination.

But if not interactivity, where? Isn't the interactive nature of a video game the thing that sets it apart from any other form of entertainment and any other form of art? Well, the answer to that is still yes; however, games so far seem to have assumed that adding more things for the player to be interactive with means a better game. There are many games that give at least some nod of this which are not MMORPGs, including older ones like Deus Ex, by providing players with a game world in which they can interact with a number of trivial items. JC Denton, the nano-augmented hero from Deus Ex, can not only fight terrorists and conspiracies; he can also pick up pots and throw them on the floor. Another example would be the Elder Scrolls series, which tends to throw in countless objects that are useless to the player's main goal of adventuring and saving the world, like vases, random bones, worthless hides, and other junk that has no use either than to be throw on the ground in piles. Both of these games are very good, but the addition of this 'interactivity' adds little to them (except the comedic value of throwing pots and pans on the heads of civilians), particularly in the case of the Elder Scrolls games, which are loaded with enough swords, armors, and potions that throwing in random objects does not help the player connect to the constructed world at all.

As a counter-point, the Half-Life series has never presented itself as particularly interested in providing a world that is 'real' via the use of excessive amounts of mundane and useless items. Despite the fact that Half-Life 2 games make heavy use of a 'gravity gun' that can be used to manipulate the world, the developers do not seem to believe that making the player interact with pots and pans increases the realism, the fun, or the impact of the game. Most of what you'll find are boxes of various sorts (a long-time gaming standboys) or drawer units, or desks. The intro sequence to Half-Life two is particularly notable in this aspect. Though the player is taken through an apartment complex full of people, the only items of note are televisions. The kitchens are barren, the cup-boards bare; surely they must eat something, cook something, have at least a bowl somewhere, but the player doesn't see them and doesn't interact with them. Thats because the developers wisely know that this sort of interactivity is irrelevant. What they show you should be there for a reason, just like the words in a novel, or the scenes of a movie.

The question developers and players need to ask is what it means for a game to be interactive, and if being interactive is what games should hold as their unique trait. Is interactivity merely the act of physical acting on or being acted on by an object? Does it mean the act of interfacing with controls you use to move your character? Or is interactivity instead a state of mental engagement between the player and the game?

I believe that the later is the more useful definition. It is entirely possible to physically interact with an object and not 'interact' with it a meaningful way. We can type on keyboards without consciously acknowledging the each letter typed, we can stop at stop at red lights without staring at them, and so on. If I move a cup from one end of a table to another, is that a meaningful or interesting interaction? I would say no; the cup has only moved a short distance, and because the agent did not undertake any significant mental process, very little has changed. Certainly, the agent in the interaction will not remember the interaction for more than few seconds. However, if that person picked up a well-written article and read it, moving nothing but their eyes in the patterns necessary to pick up the words, then a memorable interaction may take place.

Essentially, I believe games should view their interactivity on a more abstract level. That they should find ways to play with the idea of interactivity itself. That they should make their first goal the stimulation of the mind, through action, through intellect; in either case, through making players use their brain to figure out a problem.

The player picking up a pan is not a useful interaction; the player saving a character they've come to care about is.