Bernard Perron, "From Gamers to Players and Gameplayers: The Example of Interactive Movies"

(In The Video Game Theory Reader)

- Interactive movies almost bridged the gap between games and movies, but failed
- Myst (a "movie game") as distinct from interactive movies
- Narrative and style in interactive movies is B-grade, game elements are more interesting
- Narrative interruptions for player decisions
- Interactivity in these games is perceived to be illusory
- There is always a player, and thus a mind/consciousness that accepts the rules
- Interactive movie players act as if/pretends that options are not limited, "creating belief"
- Shot-reverse-shot is rare in games but fairly common in interactive movies/movie games
- Menu-based adventure gameplay in movie games (click on objects, etc)
- Not about competition or action
- Repetition as punishment for bad choices
- What kind of player position do interactive movies create? Different from other kinds of games?
- Movie games: adventure/puzzles with live-action sequences
- Interactive movies: choices made at key points alter the story
- More about play than games
- Reactions, not actions (minimally interactive)
- Players might be disappointed, but do not "lose" in the conventional sense
- Play occurs within the rules of the game (same attitude as free-form play?), can undercut narrative coherence
- Determining a goal in the game shifts paidia to ludus, regardless of the type of game
- Games/texts that assume an ideal reader/player vs more open games
- Some players take an active role by developing in-game tricks, metagaming (expansive gameplay)
- Perron argues that we need to distinguish between players (paidia, exploring, proceeding through) gamers (ludus, competing, playing to win/succeed) and gameplayers (ludus, metagaming, exploring and creating rules)
- As Perron notes, these terms are easily confused and are generally seen to be interchangeable. Questionable utility?