In a way, those of us creating interactive narratives are neophiles.
We see interactivity as something positive, as a step in the evolution of storytelling.
But I also believe that, like with any technology, we have to spend some time thinking about the negative consequences.
I have the following uncertainty:
Adding interactivity and choices to traditional narratives, does it take away emotional involvement in some way?
What I know is that "gamey" systems erode deepness in some emotions, but help others.
My question mainly comes from whether in the player's mind, knowing that they can "go back" and change their decisions removes the permanence of the protagonist's decisions in a story, thereby taking away [part of] the player's emotional involvement.
I don't know if this is true or not, and I think only time will tell.
But, assuming this is true, it would mean that interactive stories are inferior to linear stories in terms of generating emotions.
What do you think about that? Is there anything that makes you think this is the case? Or something that makes you think the opposite?
Top comments (1)
Personally I have some fond memories of some of my gaming experiences as a child. Games, of course are not meant to be interactive narratives. They are designed to give the player choice, but some have fantastic story elements nonetheless.
If a game allows multiple endings, some players will opt to 'complete' the game to see if they can get all the endings. The author might not have intended the experience to be that way, the Stanley Parable for instance is a good example of that. But does it really matter? Isn't art supposed to invoke thought and feeling, without being told what to think or feel?