The concept of "videogame" has changed several times throughout the years. What a game should be, what it should do for the player, what it makes the player do, who plays them, what role it plays in the players' lives, that's all changed more than once in videogame history. But that's not the point, what I'm saying is that I only want to focus on what videogames are now, the latest "form". So, with that in mind, I've been wondering,

How is a videogame different from an `interactive movie` ?

I thought Heavy Rain was a fantastic game, but I've seen a lot of people critizicing it because it was too much like a movie. Games like Bioshock, on top of being a lot of fun, also bother to tell a great story. So I think "Bioshock is different from a movie because you shoot stuff". But isn't that the "interactive" part of interactive movie? Graphic Adventures blurred that line even more a long time ago. If collecting coins, shooting stuff, jumping on platforms is the interaction, then is there anything else that makes videogames something different?

There's also this idea that, as opposed to movies, games must necessarily be "fun". Because that's a game, right? The creators of Pathologic say that we expect all games to be fun and apply to our most basic emotions because it's a very young, undeveloped form of art; we do not ask for all movies to be fun to be brilliant. While Pathologic certainly wasn't fun, it was one of the most haunting gaming experiences I've ever had, and I know they're not the only ones that have posed this question.

I'm not trying to prove any point, I'm just thinking out loud (which is why this all read like a jumbled mess ). So, what are your thoughts on this? Is "interactive movie" just a meaningless description, like calling a comic a "book with pictures"?



----------------
BTW totally unrelated, but... what are these llama badges? They were here when I returned from my trip. Do they serve a purpose other than putting a llama icon on your page?