Monday, 2 May 2011


The concept of the word interactivity is often being questioned. Aarseth (1997) rejects its use and utilises - ergodicity, a term derived from the Greek words ergon and hodos, meaning work and path respectively. Ergodic texts are categorised as texts where ‘nontrivial effort is required to allow the reader to traverse the text’. Aarseth thinks that the term interactivity carries with it ideological implications of an equality between the user and interactive text, while at the same time, remaining rather vaguely defined. The word interactivity, when broken down into two parts means, inter: between and active: participating, doing something. It does suggest participation in action, in contrast to being passively involved. Traditional storytelling/films will usually necessitate passive observation, but interactive content requires more than passive observation - it will require interaction from an audience/user and also provide an element of choice and control. This is where problems can begin to occur as the more choice and control that is given by interactivity, the more the narrative structure can begin to fragment and the framework can become enormous and confusing.

I have been researching narrative structures and will go into more detail regarding these in my next entry; but I have decided that it will be best to use some kind of branching narrative for the overall structure. Currently I am thinking of using a branching narrative that has parallel paths where the story reconnects at specific key storyline points. This should stop the narrative becoming too huge and ultimately fragmenting any specific structure and aims within the storyline.

Branching narrative with parallel paths

No comments:

Post a Comment