But we are talking about something DEEPER than interaction here... I believe anyway. Stories can''t just be ''switched'', yet that is what kind of interaction is needed

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

Such a word as "interactive" most certainly exists. And it is fundamental to game design. The glaring weaknesses of Final Fantasy illustrate this perfectly. As a buzzword, it is near-meaningless, but a deep understanding of the concept is as essential to a game designer as the understanding of bricks is to an architect. That is- once it is fully understood, we have little use for its discussion, but until that point, our ignorance will hinder every undertaking we pursue.

The reason I bring up the light bulb example is that the contrast here is the same as the contrast between "dependance" and "interdependance". If we do not directly comprehend the effects of an action, it is not truly interactive. Interaction is a two way street. The object must respond in some tangible way. Just because you have caused something to happen, does not mean that interaction has taken place. A light switch is not interactive, anyway. It is almost entirely reactive.

A related issue: Is a word processor "interactive"? What about if the output is a random string of letters, with no discernable relation to your input, other than the fact that a new letter appears w. every keystroke? What if the monitor isn''t on? I''m still pushing buttons, and these buttons are causing things to happen. . . see what I''m getting at?

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal