Is More Interactivity Better?

Now I turn to a more difficult question: If interactivity is accorded primacy in entertainment software design, then is not more interactivity better than less interactivity? Put more baldly, is a more interactive product better than a less interactive product? I think so.

My first argument in favor of greater interactivity relies on the primacy of interactivity. Since interactivity is the basis of competitive advantage of the computer, it is only fit and proper that we should emphasize it. The more we emphasize interactivity in our designs, the more fully we utilize the true strength of the computer as an artistic medium.

Consider the cinema by way of example. Very roughly speaking, and all other factors being equal, the more cinematic a movie is, the better the movie. We can argue long and hard over the precise definition of "cinematic," but surely we can agree that it involves the special capabilities of the camera to capture motion, to pan, zoom, and move, to cut between scenes, and so forth. Surely a movie that fails to use these techniques will be inferior to a movie that does, other factors being equal. Thus, we can say that a more cinematic movie is superior to a less cinematic movie. Of course, there are many exceptions to the general rule: a poorly executed more cinematic movie is not superior, and a movie whose artistic intent requires a less cinematic style could still be a superior work. There are other exceptions as well, but I think that the general rule holds true.

An additional argument arises from the fact that the interactive arts are still in their infancy. We have just scratched the surface of this medium; we do not fully understand interactivity. Our ignorance is reflected in the body of work we have created. In the vast universe of potential computer games, the set of actual games that we have created lies crowded down in a small corner, huddled together in common low interactivity. Taking all of our computer games and entertainments as a group, the amount of interactivity that we offer is a faint and clumsy whisper of what should be possible.

Perhaps a mathematical approach might better illuminate my point. Imagine a scale of interactivity, running from 0 to 100 units of interactivity, with 100 representing interactivity so intense that it lies beyond human comprehension. Imagine all the games in the universe placed on this scale. Now, in an ideal world, these games would yield a bell curve, with a few high-interactivity games, a few low-interactivity games, and a great many games in the middle of the bell curve. But we have not attained this ideal bell curve. Our ignorance denies us the middle and upper portions of the bell curve, constraining us to the lower end of the curve. All of our work lies crowded down there.

This is my second reason why more interactivity is better than less interactivity. We need to move up that bell curve, to explore areas of interactivity that previously have been inaccessible. The low end of the scale is already heavily populated with designs; the middle and upper reaches of the scale are empty. This is why I hold a more interactive game in higher esteem than a less interactive one. This is why I honor a designer who goes where no designer has gone before more than one who hews to more familiar territory.

Of course, when we have populated the bell curve more fully, the day will come when some genius creates a game that is too interactive. But that day is far distant.