Darmik posted...Malfunction posted...
don't think that disproves the point being made in the OP though. yes, they involve a greater degree of viewer interaction but much of their value otherwise is derived from the aping of the most obvious elements of other mediums.
I completely disagree. The value is from giving the power to the player.
I'll go into Detroit again since that's used as your negative example.
One of the stories in that game is escaping America with a little girl. There are several tense scenes in the game and you are told that you can die. And indeed you can throughout several parts of the game. You don't restart (unless you save scum) the story continues on without those characters. I got a happy ending with those characters. The final scenes were incredibly difficult and intense thanks to the decisions I made. When I saw where I landed on the final branches I saw how many different ways it could have progressed. Even in those final moments I could have made the wrong decision and got a sad ending. It felt like a massive relief when I managed to avoid that.
My wife didn't manage to get a happy ending. Her climactic scenes for those characters were significantly different but she failed. If she succeeded there she could have got a happy ending in a completely different location because of how she guided their story.
You cannot get that experience from TV or watching a stream.
fwiw I don't necessarily agree entirely with the premise of the OP and I don't really have anything against those sort of games.
that said, I do think that people have a tendency to herald games like that as being more inherently cinematic or 'artistic' when, as is pointed out in the OP, games which actually fully immerse themselves in the traditional framework of a 'video game' have just as much if not more going for them in the same department and aren't reliant on for the most part elements of other mediums to do so.
... Copied to Clipboard!