Great to hear from you. Not pointless at all to comment! I’m excited to hear that you’re doing an investigation of Ico, and in a game studies program! There are so many aspects of Ico worth investigation, and its peculiar narrative style is one of them, I agree wholeheartedly. You are absolutely right that the ‘is-Ico-art?’ question is the wrong question, and focus should have shifted towards its narrative/aesthetic style which is unique to that game (and perhaps Shadow of the Colossus).

My theoretical definitions of “interactivity” are quite loose, for the definitions are there only to show that ‘personal engagement’ is the primary form of experience that allows a player-game interaction to proceed. The “personal” part of it is the most important, for it implies that there is no game without a player. This is something we lose sight of when we turn to either debates about game mechanics, or turn the game into an objet d’art. The player makes a personal contribution that cannot be reduced to the game mechanics (or narrative), nor the player’s psychology alone.

Like you, I am writing a thesis whose deadline is closing fast, and I will be returning to these kinds of issues. I am so glad to hear that someone else is battling with the same ideas in game studies, as I come at it from a psychological perspective. I hope some day you will consider publishing your examina in english, or perhaps a summary of your paper – it sounds fascinating. I think Ico is one of the most important games in 20 years. It often receives praise, but it rarely is given much intellectual thought.

Thanks again for your contribution Oskar. I look forward to hearing from you again some time!

Your writing on the subject made me think about one or two more points that I can add to my paper, backed up with references of course (damn academics). I especially find it interesting that you point out two different types of interactivity, as well as reaing your personal definition on it. (I think I’ve read as many definitions as I’ve read texts about interactivity by now…)

Now the deadline is closing in and I will probably not be able to read the eventual response from you, which also means that it is in fact pointless for me to comment on this article or to post any of my thoughts for you to comment further than I have already done. Ah, well.

Much appreciated anyways,
Oskar Nordström.
Currently studying Game Development at the University of Skövde, Sweden.

I think the main concern should be “reaching to a state of equilibrium” while putting a few more grams of weight on interactivity because that’s what distinguishes a game from a novel, a picture or a video. I love interactivity and i’m not quite sure which draws me to that world; my desires or the story. But probably i wouldn’t even enjoy the story if i didn’t find something to relate to, just like i wouldn’t when i’m reading a novel, unless it is a masterpiece like a painting of Raphael.

We engage in a game with our body and soul. We don’t just lean back and get intoxicated, but we participate and the most importantly we play! And computer is the best tool yet invented because of that =)

Two examples that I used in particular were Wing Commander and Morrowind, which are good examples of strong authorial control and player generated narrative, respectively. In the end, it’s hard to find games where interactivity and narrative are balanced well, and I believe a game which does so well is Indigo Prophecy.

I would be happy to get your feedback on that post of mine, and if you have time you can read it here…

http://mentisworks.blogspot.com/2008/08/game-narrative-internal-struggle.html

In fact, my entire “interaction” with games tends to be on such a phenomenological level. And I love it that you brought this up, because I think I might have given up on the whole thing. That is, the whole nudging people in that direction idea, not on the approach itself though.

So while it remains important to differentiate between interaction, a rather minimal and basic concept, and engagement, I agree with you that the latter is of greater importance in designing a game. Nevertheless, the aspects of interactivity and the basis on which that interactivity is formed serve as a unique attribute to games which present this as a fascinating new medium of creative expression for me.

Riding the coat-tails of your previous post, I must say that Morrowind provided me with the right combination of variables to generate that type of engagement. Though I understand your criticisms of the TES series, Morrowind had me so hooked that I played the game for about two years. Other adventure games have had a similar effect on me, but that’s another tangent.

The point is, that over the years I have noticed a trend in myself to try and experience media such as games and movies without letting myself get in the way. As a result, I have been known to think much more positively of certain works than most of my friends and acquaintances. That’s fine though, because I think I get a lot more out of watching/playing these things, while they just sit there complaining and not having as much fun with it. I think that going about experiencing media this way presents a great deal for us to gain, and nothing to loose.

So thank you for writing this post. Oh and just to clarify, phenomenology remains at the forefront of contemporary philosophy, along side philosophy of technology and environmental philosophy. For one of the most notably philosopher of our time in this vein look up Albert Borgmann (a student of Martin Heidegger’s and the teacher of my philosophy professor ^_^).

@Lewisham – I think you’re bang on with the idea that we need realized ‘games’ not simply ‘worlds’. The only reason I used ‘world’ to describe the experience of engagement is because the word ‘game’ is so encompassing and vague that it’s difficult to be very specific with it. I’m obscenely envious that you’ll be working with Michael Mateas – his ideas are wonderfully creative.

@Michael – I absolutely agree that these aren’t either/or distinctions … I hope that I didn’t argue my point in that way. In fact, my thesis in this article is more that thinking about games as being ‘author-controlled’ and ‘player-controlled’ leads us away from much more crucial questions about games/art in general. If it were really about author control, then reading a book would be considered the ultimate form of authorial power – we can’t change the words on the page. But we know that’s not the case – some authors create worlds (books, novels, games, films, plays, etc) that evoke the audience’s imagination in such a way that the audience feels as if they’re participating in the story. That’s the thesis I’m after here.

I get your comparison with Brecht, I think.. and I suspect that process happens in all of the arts, including games. Ico is a great example of how narrative and dramatic style was interpreted from Eric Chahi’s ‘Another World’ (Out of this World), but in a completely unique way. I just wish I knew more about Brecht – but I’ll have to leave it to you guys to explain him to me!

@Denis – While I can’t comment on Brecht or Handke (but I will read about them while I get a chance!), I find that some of my most enjoyable experiences have been with games, often developed by boutique studios or small teams, that have ‘failed’ because their vision was too grand. I enjoy playing something that takes a radically different vision and runs with it, even if it stumbles along the way due to poor execution. While I can’t think of any perfect example, The Faery Tale Adventure series had something going for it – the game tells the adventure in the past tense while you play it, as if each of your actions are being recorded in a book. Neither are great games to be sure, but they were on to something, I think…

@Justin – I wish I could cut and paste the first paragraph of your comment into my article. I couldn’t agree more with you – “The ability to act and experience the response to that action is incredibly powerful IF we really learn how to use it in a more experiential manner.” That ‘if’ is the crux – if the story told is one that doesn’t engage the player in an ‘experiential’ manner, then all is lost. Rashomon and Citizen Kane aren’t just interesting editing/storytelling exercises – they’re also great stories. Part of that story is the way the narrative is executed.. as a series of flashbacks, changes of perspective .. but the entire thing hinges on telling the kind of story that people can dig their fingers into. And within that, the narrative style transforms the way the story is told and makes it more interesting. And if we take the family idea, which is great (reminds me of American Beauty), telling that story through perspectival switches would be a wonderful way of doing it – but only if the family’s story was worth role-playing at all. If it isn’t, if the family’s characters don’t grab the player, it just becomes an academic exercise or fruitless plot.

Wow! Took me almost an hour to respond. Like I said, I’m not proposing that I’m more knowledgeable than anyone else in the thread – I just wanted to propose my own theory of interactivity and see what it gets us. And from the quality of responses we’ve put together, it’s looking great!

Recently I played (Which seems like an entirely inaccurate word) Masq (http://www.alteraction.com/) on the surface it’s a fairly straightforward branching story made up of discrete scenes; a choose-your-own-adventure. It’s possible to be entertained by a single play through from introduction to conclusions, but as each choice you make leads to a different range of choices in the future, and as each character responds in a consistent manner to your actions, it is much more meaningful to play multiple times. Gradually uncovering more about each character and how they react under different circumstances, there is no single defining truth but a range of potential truths.

I think maybe we should be looking at games to provide narratives that hinge on this multiplicity of truth, through direct interactivity. Where your understanding of the world develops as you experience the consequences of your choices; see how people’s motivations and actions change based on what you do.

It’s not about remaking a choose-your-own-adventure game, but about making a game about exploring the range of potential outcomes from any single decision. Television series spend hours building up webs of character interaction, layers of subtext and hidden motivation but games have a much better format for that, one where we can explore it at our own pace, where we can witness out actions affecting the world around like ripples in a pond. Such games could help us learn more about our place in the world, the consequences of our actions, and our responsibility to others.

Imagine a family gathering handled in such a game, we could take on the role of a family member and through our actions and their consequences we would learn much about the family itself and our place in it. Do we reveal our brother’s homosexuality or our mother’s affair, or do we keep their secrets and if so what does that do to the family dynamics? How does our father react to each of these revelations and what do we learn about his character from those reactions?

These wouldn’t be stories in the traditional sense, though it would still be a narrative of a sort, it would be closer to Rashomon than Citizen Kane, but no less powerful for it.Maybe that’s where we go astray, assuming that established rules still hold for a new medium.

I think what I’m looking for in this games narrative debate is common ground, or at least a few areas where these theories may converge. It’s seems unlikely to me that anyone has a monopoly on good ideas. It’s not so much “why can’t we all get along,” but more “let’s try these ideas and see how they work and what we can learn.” Player-focused constructed narrative is a relatively new idea that will surely have something to offer, even if we ultimately decide author-controlled narrative works better.

What’s intriguing about this example is that Brecht himself probably saw the flaws in his theories of the verfremdungseffekt and Epic theatre–it took someone else who became enamored with his idea to really push the envelope.

I imagine in the gaming world it would take the exact same parallel approach. A larger game would never be able to pull all these ideas off and still function, but a smaller, more boutique game may at least attempt more.

If anything, the attempt would at least show us how it succeeds and fails.