ewo

ewo gameing

  • she/her

mountain hare
prolific lurker


thecatamites
@thecatamites

interactivity thoughts


i guess my feeling abt interactivity in videogames is that it's "greedy".. there are lots of formats which bounce two separate modes against each other to see what happens, music and speech, image and text. and sometimes one of those modes can be greedy in the sense of seeming to lay claim too immediately to the generated meaning - like the way we can resent the little texts that accompany paintings for how they can seem to harbour a secret desire to stand in for the art object itself. but even then there's a sense that the claim on our attention helps to emphasise what's silent or resistant in the form accompanying it. and language is a moving thing anyway, needs to start somewhere and go somewhere, is always throwing in nouns, names, places, little scraps of experience or idea... which can make it very productive to bounce things off, since you're never sure where they might end up.

interactivity on the other hand can feel both greedy - hoovering up sound, text, image into mere attributes of itself, second-order signals - and oddly inert: it doesn't seem to want to do anything with these things, to play to their qualities or go anywhere else. interactivity seems to just want to keep on being itself - always varying and permuting, but in some way always speaking to the same form of attention. we get drawn in, keep up with it for a while, fall off or lose pace, and find ourselves exactly where we were when we came in: the game doesn't seem to notice that we're gone.
we don't need to moralise this necessarily since i think this emptiness itself can be useful, for the forms that it picks clean - i preferred videogame sprites and areas as a kid to those in eg saturday morning cartoons specifically because the former were comparatively so bare and less immediate. disembodied blocks and animal critters live on in the imagination as toylike construction tools once they've had their autonomy as images stripped off by the game machine. it does interesting things to text, to space. but i do think that past a certain point of sophistication vgames always seem to get stuck on a sense of their own emptiness, driven to ward it off thru convoluted metafictional conceit or to "solve" it by chasing some chimera of meaningful play. sometimes i feel it's best to just keep your own distance in return: to treat it like standing at the edge of deep cave, where it's OK that it doesn't lead anywhere important, because you're just listening for the echo.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @thecatamites's post:

I'm curious what you think of Kentucky Route Zero (if you've played it).
As far as I'm concerned, the actual interactivity in Kentucky is as shallow as turning the page in a book. You have to move characters from place to place, but aside from a few sections where you navigate the Zero, you're really just choosing what paragraph to read next, and what environment to read it in.

(From that perspective, maybe it's closer to a "visual novel" than current VNs where you have to find all the Endings and make all the Choices and fill out the Graph.)

i still haven't played KR0 (i know..) but i think there's always been a lineage of this stuff - for me it was playing the rhizome re-releases of the Theresa Duncan cd-roms that made me think deliberately shallow interactivity can be one of the more elegant solutions to some of the self-created formal problems vgames tend to get stuck on, like progression, difficulty, mechanical meaning etc