"Interactive Experience" is a term that, to me, smacks of an attempt at seperating yourself from gameness, in the same way that the "Graphic Novel" attempted to seperate itself from comic bookness.

The fact of the matter is, nobody really discussed the definition of a game in this thread. Video games and classic games have grown apart, but still maintain a bond by relying on gameplay. No gameplay = no game, at best an "interactive movie," which has never really satisfied anyone. Even the most linear of adventure games have some choice in interaction.

I think the question Dauntless wishes to pose is, how LITTLE interaction one can get away with to produce a satisfying experience. Total interaction is not really an achievable goal, after all - it would imply a sort of quantum game where by looking at it you change its state. And there most certainly is a minimum threshold at which the player can begin to make a non-trivial investment of her mental abilities towards the act of playing. The important word there is "non-trivial." Here are two games with one decision to make:

1. The player is presented with the message: "Do you want a cookie?" and given the choice of "yes" or "no."

The choice does nothing; the program immediately exits.

2. The player is presented with the message: "Do you want a cookie?" and given the choice of "yes" or "no."

Choosing "yes" gives the player another message: "Wow! This is a great cookie!"

Choosing "no" gives the player a different message: "Too bad, you missed out on a great cookie."

In the results from this one decision, not the decision itself, lie the key difference; a rich and potentially response-inducing conveyance of information versus chaos and meaninglessness.

What computer technology adds to games are the means of processing detailed gameplay calculations quickly, and the capability to borrow from other media to apply additional meaning to player actions. Strong gameplay allows a simple, subtle message to be carried over and repeated time and time again. Weaker gameplay relies predominantly on the message.

The whole "realism" discussion is a dead-end IMHO. Realism is an end in itself for certain applications, and not for other. Like any other gameplay element, it''s one of many factors. It allows the designer to weigh some elements more heavily than others, and is often a useful shortcut to conveying a message without using more content. Plausibility is much the same; it is in fact the opposite of realism, allowing the designer to lighten up certain areas so that they aren''t overly important to the experience.

As essential criterion for any sort of gameplay, they don''t measure up. Games are always based on our pattern-recognition. Drawing from the real world is just a way to guide things along.

An interactive experience is simply that....a program in which the player is somehow able to receive some kind of experience, whether it be emotional, entertaining, enlightening, or educational. As I pointed in an example, even movies can be interactive in the sense that the viewer has to immerse himself by putting himself in the shoes of the protagonists and internally interacting with the issues and challenges presented. The interaction isn''t an active one in which the viewer gets to control (since interaction seems to imply control) actions and outcomes, but rather that the interaction is involving the active, conscious and deliberate mental awareness of the viewer and assimilating what he his shown with his his own life experience.

It''s difficult to define, but an interactive experience is not merely the control of an avatar or the manipulations of armies, teams, etc. I find interaction that is defined thusly to be rather limiting. Take for example the idea of looking at an object in front of you and now imagining it in different colors or even mentally rotating it or scaling it. We are not physically interacting with the object, but we are beginning to interact with it in our minds. When we watch a story or play a game, we have the ability to interact with the game world in a similar manner. Either we can use said avatars, armies, teams and whatnot to directly influence desired outcomes within the external virtual world, or we can mentally interact with ideas and notions and even to some degree tangible objects (say a puzzle for example).

The important difference between an experience and a game is that games connote the ideas of competition (someone winning, and someone losing) and the vague concept of "having fun". Competition unfortunately implies having fixed rules, and rigidly defined balance in order to insure fairness. Having fun is of course highly subjective from person to person. I personally found the movie The Last Samurai to be a better movie than the The Lord of the Rings trilogy (and that''s saying something because I loved the 3 movies). An experience however does not connote either competition or "having fun", though both can be an experience. So to me an interactive experience is simply something in which the player takes something to heart so to speak, by taking what he has seen and internally "digesting" it so as to make it apart of himself.

Take for example movies like the Matrix trilogy. One one hand, you can look at it as simply a very entertaining visceral experience. It''s got cool special effects, and lots of action. On those merits alone, the movies were quite enjoyable. But if all one looks at is the action scenes and the special effects, then nothing is internalized, and there is nothing to be experienced beyond a simple visceral gratification which quickly wears off. OTOH, if one looks at the the more philosophical elements about determinism and epistemlogy that are raised, and then after the movie is over reflects on these questions, then I believe it has become an experience.

I believe that "games" can and should branch out and evolve into other forms of "entertainment". How one defines "game" though is I think a subjective one, but as long as it is something that makes a peson feel better about himself (whether short term or long term) is a goal to shoot for when designing your program.

AP

You''re sort of on the right track on what I was trying to say. But it''s more than just a matter of degree of control, but also what kind of control and interaction the game concentrates on.

I think the Wachowski brothers must have read something Morihei Ueshiba (the founder of Aikido) said when the little buddhist boy told Neo not to try to bend the spoon but to bend his mind, for Ueshiba said almost the same thing; "I''m not teaching you how to move your body! I''m teaching you how to move your mind." And I think many games focus on bending the spoon or moving the body rather than moving the mind.

The thing is, when we are entertained by certain mediums, whether they be a passive form of entertainment such as books, TV or movies, or an active form of entertainment like computer and videogames, we forget that subconsciously we are interacting with many elements that are not tangible. Indeed, having the ability to click on things and manipulate them could potentially only account for a small amount of the game play itself.

What makes computer games interesting is that their interactive nature can allow for some very interesting issues about choice. In a linear passive storyline, we can somewhat distance ourselves from the protagonist because we might think that we would have chosen a different path. In PC games though, we must come to grips that I the player have made my avatar''s choice. And this is where realism can come into play. The trick though is that to make a game seem more "interactive" or engaging, these choices and mental interactions must be conscious and deliberate, and not merely an afterthought or subconscious.

In realistic settings with harsh consequences these choices become very important. In dramatic games, I''ve noticed that the focus is less on consequence and more on the actual act itself. Take for example having to make a choice of having to sacrifice a loved one in order to save many innocents. Maybe you believe love is more important, or maybe you believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one....sorry Spock). But because the choice is yours, you have to deal with knowing it was your choice, rather than the designer/author''s.

So interaction is a tricky subject. Dealing with computers, we often have to think in very concrete and tangible ways. As a consequence, our focus on interaction comes from an interface perspective....how well we can manipulate events via our user interface and our interface agents (avatars, armed forces, teams, etc.). I don''t think though that much thought has gone on to the internal interaction that gameplay has. Black and White did to a degree by allowing the player''s choices to be reflected in how the avatar behaved, and also in the early Dark Forces where succumbing to the dark or light side was dependant on which powers you used. To be honest, I''ve yet to really play a game that has made me question things, or truly made me wonder what I would do in the agent''s shoes.

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
To be honest, I''ve yet to really play a game that has made me question things, or truly made me wonder what I would do in the agent''s shoes.

---

I''ve done this plenty of times, but it''s usually due to glitches, control problems, or AI gaffes ("Damn it! Jump OVER the pit!").

In all honesty, I think this sort of thing is a matter more of writing than of any degree of interaction. Interaction should involve some degree of power over the events taking place. Movies arent interactive. Watching a movie is not necessarily a wholly passive experience, but don''t confuse immersion with interaction. That movie might get into your head, but you can''t enter the movie. You see through eyes that the director controls.

Games allow a degree of action and exploration that you''ll never get from any movie. Some games, like Contra, don''t give you much decision-making power beyond when to jump and shoot, but you are still in control of the course of the game.

Yeah, I''ve wondered about the little things in Myst, or the bizarre and useless item I just got from the lizardman or the strange behavior of certain townsfolk. Often as not it''s poor AI or level design, but sometimes it''s a mystery to solve.

And as for being in the player''s shoes, I get right into every FPS I play. Not a terribly emotional character, but it''s structured to serve wholly as an avatar for the player (usually). I become that guy, and I fight as him until I''m done. That''s good gaming.

If you just want an "interactive experience", I guess you could make a program that lets you walk around in a garden, with nothing particular to do and maybe some multiplayer so that you can chat virtually. But you know what? I can take my cell phone to the park and do that any time I want, and graphics will never be that good. Maybe you could go to the moon in an interactive environment, and learn something, but it had better either be a holodeck or else have aliens to shoot. I hate learning from a screen, and would rather read a book than traipse about in a VR world.

Sure, it would be cool, but after a while you just want something to do. And by God if you suggest doing something other than killing monsters, then you''ve lost track of the discussion, because anything with a goal and choices to make in a controlled environment intended for that purpose is automatically a game. The only way to escape gameness is to eliminate anything that might be fun.

So you have a choice, with your "interactive environment": Either you can make it a video game, and decide what genre and style it will have, or you can just make it an environment, which is a stone drag unless you put a volleyball net in it, at which point it becomes a volleyball video game.

While I agree that there''s a difference between immersion and interaction, I think there''s something to be said for the difference of interaction on an internal level.

As an example, after I watched the movie, The Last Samurai, I was thinking about what was said in that movies for days. Literally, for the first few hours after I saw that movie, I was practically in a daze because I was in my own little world digesting all the issues that were exposed in the movie. I was not physically interacting with anything...just the concepts, principles and ideas exposed by the movie. To me, that was more entertaining and more enjoyable than any game I''ve ever played hands down.

I do agree that writing has a huge import with this type of interaction. Developing the game background and the issues that a player has to grapple with are of the utmost importance in a game which tries to internally engage a player. For example, one can make a FPS which is fun to play from a pure tactical and visceral experience. It may have a deep selection of weapons, it may have many tactical concerns such as wounding or terrain cover, and it may be graphically and aurally extremely stimulating. It may even have some very innovative gameplay modes beyond deathmatch or capture the flag. But if this is all it has, it will never fully engage a player internally unless a player has a zen-like focus and can use it as a sort of meditation.

Instead, a game should have something in it''s background that pulls us in as players rather than as characters, something that we can relate to in our own experience. I think the broad appeal of WWII games is that it''s something we can relate to, and getting back to the point of this thread...is something realistic.

Getting back on this point, it is one of the reasons (though not the biggest) why I preferred The Last Samurai to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I found it more captivating because it could have really happened (while Algren''s character wasn''t based on anyone real, Katsumoto''s character was based off a real samurai named Saigo Takemori). While there were a few historical quibbles, basically TLS could have happened, and men really did have to face the same exact dillema as did Algren and Katsumoto. While the Lord of the Rings was an engaging story (and I''ve read the books), just knowing that it was fantasy and having non-human races distanced me somewhat from many of the characters. Afterall, I don''t know what it''s like to be immortal like an elf, or so innocent to not be greatly tempted by the Ring like a hobbit, nor even live 200+ years like Aragorn. While Middle Earth is very consistent and makes sense, it is harder for me to relate to and immerse myself in.

But it was still an enjoyable story, and I wouldn''t discourage anyone from making game worlds set in fantastic or futuristic elements. However, I see more anti-reality posts than I see anti-fantasy posts which disturbs me.

As for what I want in an interactive experience? As I mentioned in the example about a FPS, I want something more than just good graphics and nice gameplay modes. I want the game set in a background and pits the me the player in a situation in which I have to think about what I''m doing. It can be quite action-packed, but I should have to think about the ramifications and consequences of my actions. Don''t get me wrong, this doesn''t mean I want my character to cry everytime he kills someone, but there should be an underlying purpose and raison d''etre for the war itself. There should be personal situations in which I come to grapple with why I do what I do. Does this all sound like story elements? You bet. But does this mean that such a game has to be a linear storyline progression? Not necessarily. A truly creative designer can come up with a game world rich in issues which a character has to grapple with, and yet let the player roam and explore as he pleases (barring the ramifications of his actions which may close off or restrict certain freedom of action).

So in a nutshell, there are two kinds of interaction. The most immediately obvious is the interface to the game via the user interface, and the capabilities of the interface agents. The second kind of interaction is a mental interaction which engages the player on a conscious level. Now, some games don''t really require the second level. For example, a sports sim doesn''t need the internal interaction. But I think basicallyt all games to date have focused almost totally on the first means of interaction. Basically everyone has been making games like Starship Trooper....I want a game like Saving Private Ryan.

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
So in a nutshell, there are two kinds of interaction. The most immediately obvious is the interface to the game via the user interface, and the capabilities of the interface agents. The second kind of interaction is a mental interaction which engages the player on a conscious level. Now, some games don''t really require the second level. For example, a sports sim doesn''t need the internal interaction. But I think basicallyt all games to date have focused almost totally on the first means of interaction. Basically everyone has been making games like Starship Trooper....I want a game like Saving Private Ryan.

---

I don''t understand. There have been hundreds of first person and otherwise games set during world war two where you control a private in the army all the way up to the general and then you go blow shit up. I haven''t seen one video game that tries to emulate *any* of the ethical/moral events in Starship Troopers, or in fact comes any where close. Perhaps you have them confused?

The last game that made me think about it was Grand Theft Auto 3 where a mission asked me to take a car with a dead body in the boot to a car-crusher. My first reaction was that this is vile, my second thought was -- yeah, but in game terms it is only taking a car from a to b. But, I thought the concept was repugnant since this happens in real life too. I put this mission off for as long as I could until it was necessary to complete it to progress further.

quote:

---

Original post by Kars
So you would be simulating the chess world. It just so happens that the "graphics" only need to be cutting edge enough to represent the pieces. That said, if all else was equal (AI, interface, etc), I would choose the chess game with the pretty 3d graphics over a crappy crayon like 2d graphics.

I must say that I am not hard-core chess player but, I did try a chess game quite a few years ago where the graphics sucked. While the processing time for the computer to make a move was the real reason I stopped playing the game, I would have been more willing to over look this if the graphics has been better or (dare I say it) more like Battle Chess.

---

In my oppinion, if you really want to play a good chess game in your computer, you''ll turn the chessboard into a 2d field, for a better view, because 3d views tend to "hide" obvious moves.

So, a "better game" doesn''t always mean "better graphics" at least the 2d -> 3d migration.
Look at what happened with lots and lots of 5 stars games that went 3D because "was cool" and now are crap (adventures for example)

Just MHO

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
[...]In my oppinion, if you really want to play a good chess game in your computer, you''ll turn the chessboard into a 2d field, for a better view, because 3d views tend to "hide" obvious moves.

So, a "better game" doesn''t always mean "better graphics" at least the 2d -> 3d migration.
Look at what happened with lots and lots of 5 stars games that went 3D because "was cool" and now are crap (adventures for example)[...]

---

Consider a realistic chess game though - it would be 3D AND it would let you move the camera to get whatever view you want, so you can either stare at the pretty pieces or look overhead and see the moves available clearly.

Dauntless: The problem with interaction on a mental level is that many people wouldn''t ''get it'', so any effort on creating it would be wasted on the majority of people. Also, even if it was something most people could understand, it would only feel deep to a small part of them because different life experiences change perception. It would be very difficult to design a mental level of a game that would feel the same to everybody or incite different thought/emotions to the same degree.

I personally haven''t played any games that allow you to progress from private to general, which although that would be cool, wasn''t what I was getting at.

What I meant by the Starship Troopers comment was that most games focus on the nitty gritty of combat without really delving too much into moral/ethical issues. Oh, it dealt with other soldier-like issues such as wanting to frag your NCO, but not so much other humanistic issues like Saving Private Ryan did. I really wish Call of Duty allowed the player to try to save AI teammates as that would have created not only interesting gameplay, but some interesting choices to be made.

Although I never played the game because it was too expensive, I really wanted to play the Xbox game, Steel Battalion. This was the $250 Mecha simulator. What made it interesting beyond the cool controller was a simple gameplay addition....if you didn''t hit the eject button quick enough, you lost all your save games. That one gameplay addition makes for some very tough choices...which if a level designer is savvy enough can provide for interesting internal choices. Here''s an example where an external gameplay interaction (pressing the eject button) has huge ramifications on internal choice. Should the player abandon his mission out of fear? It''s an interesting concept.

And this segues well into the topic of the post. Reality can be very interesting to gameplay choice. Afterall, how can you make a player truly feel fear if he knows he can always hit the Load button? Sure, many will say being able to Load over and over is fun, but I think it would be interesting to be able to play a game in which the consequences of one''s actions truly did have an impacting ramification on the player.