I have learned some interesting lesson about interactivity while playing Metroid Prime. I come from the e-learning world, in which most programs are painful page-turners that offer limited opportunities for interactivity. In most cases, there may be one or a few items on the screen to click or rollover, and then the near-ubiquitous Next button you must click to continue.
When I started playing Metroid Prime, I was amazed (and intimidated) by the number of options available. I could walk, jump and shoot where I wanted. I wasn’t constrained to follow Next-Next-Next. Or so I imagined, as a video game ingénue. I was well into the game before I realized that the program hints are more than suggestions; they are meant to be followed if you want to succeed (i.e., beat the game). When you act on these suggestions- go to a certain location, for example- you will most likely see filmed sequences that confirm you are on the right track: Flagraah disintegrating at the end of the battle, or Ridley flying over the hills of Tallon IV.
In The Art of Interactive Design, Chris Crawford describes a series of “almost” interactive designs. For example, in a typical Obstructionist Story, the program offers interactivity in terms of obstacles to be overcome and puzzles to be solved at each step of the story, but the player is still required to move from one decision point to the next in linear order. In Crawford’s view, this is not a true interactive design because the player can choose strategies and actions, but not his/her path through the program (if the goal is to complete the program successfully).
Metroid Prime is a more sophisticated version of an Obstructionist Story, since players (especially highly skilled ones) have some freedom to complete steps in an alternative order, but there remains an overall logic to the storyline, progressing from one step naturally to the next. For example, in the
Wikipedia entry on Metroid Prime, the bosses are listed in order of appearance.
A true interactive experience might be better represented by an interface that changes state depending on player actions and resulting interactions with game characters as well as elements of the environment. No strategy, action or path would be promoted over others, and the player would have complete freedom over his/her movement through the game.
What does this mean for the design of serious games? What degree of interactivity is possible- and more importantly, is desirable?
1. Page-turners are low on the evolutionary scale of interactivity. Books are better media for this approach.
2. Metroid Prime is an engaging game that provides flexibility in terms of a player’s choice of strategies and actions, but does lead the player to complete steps in a particular order to succeed.
3. True interactivity would allow complete freedom in terms of strategies, actions and paths.
I think one of the challenges for the design of serious games is to manage the tension between “interactivity” (having the freedom to choose one’s path) and “progress” (choosing the path that leads to success). As implicit as a designer may try to make it, a serious game will usually have a specific goal, and success in the game will be defined in terms of achieving this goal. The game will lead the player, however subtly, with guidance appropriate to the content and the context. It is the responsibility of serious game designers to be explicit about how they will design to this delicate balance.
Contact Sarah directly at Silverspaces to discuss:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.silverspaces.com 
Sectors .gif)
