Definition of Interaction.

Pre-Premise: This is not material of a graduation thesis (that was years ago) or scientific research, it's passionate analysis from a videogamer into videogaming criticism, a subject as exciting as it must have been centuries ago concerning literature, by people aware of the potential of that means of cultural expression and exploration of mankind, exactly as videogame is bound to become today.. moving the first steps into its new successor(interactive story-telling) after cinema is a historical opportunity nobody can pass on. We who have been protagonists and spectators of its rise and evolution are privileged pioneers and are building the foundations of what will be an instrument to explore worlds in ways We can't yet imagine.

Premise: interaction is the most important part of a videogame, not the only one. Yet it's the element that can ultimately decree whether a game is good or not... the rest of the elements can either add in to the beauty of the interaction or be pitied as a waste. Interaction is not meant in its common and generic meaning, it's not abstract! it's a terribly small but concrete-solid element that can be located and singled out whenever the gamer is actually playing. Yet its size doesn't diminish its importance, it embiggens it. So interaction is defined as:

A connection between the player's mind and the characters, items and the environment of a videogame appearing on the screen at least once during its extent. You can visualize it as a line of electricity between the player and his game that, unfortunately, in most games today it's not always active and even when it is, it's FALTERING and weak

The goal of the entry is first to single out this element inside a videogame and thento find a scale to separate real interaction from pseudo-interaction. In the course of the analysis I'll use a simple example of a character in a First Person Shooter or a Role-Playing Game. 

Degrees of interactivity:
--From zero to mediocrity--
-When a foe has spotted you and you simply point the cursor at him and shoot him interaction is just not there or way too poor to be seen as a true one, you're not the real protagonist of the action, and you don't have a say in the matter, you simply trigger the action pushing a button. It's false interactivity.The designer was "interacting" with the players while He was planning his game, but you're not, you're the game's victim.

-If you aim at different parts of the foe's body for generic increased effectiveness, independently to the foe itself you're interacting a bit less poorly but it's pretty much like fighting a dummy or shooting a paper target, interaction is almost wholly missing. BUT in this case you have to at least REALIZE what you're fighting and "interact" with it to know where the head, or the leg is.

-If you interact with your own character using his/her skills to engage foes or friends in different ways but independantly to their actions, skills, movement or even alignment, you're like an executioner choosing which pain-inflicting tool you're gonna employ to have the most fun. It's very poor interaction and it's useless, because usually it ends with the simple enemy's annihilation, so you don't interact with it even a little bit, you interact with yourself and your sadism (ie. see Crysis?)

-If you're using your character's peculiar skills and weapons depending on the foe's resistance to one of them,(I.E. because of his armor withstanding a certain type of bullet), and his position, interaction exists and the electricity is there but is still low.

--From tolerable to superb interactivity--
-Finally, if, as above, you aim at different parts of the foe's body according not only to his physical condition (including position) and yours, but also psychological (you just heard him say something, or you're facing a lunatic) you're interacting in a complex and definitely more acceptable way, but the interaction ultimately revolves around the foe and his demise. This is the step of the scale that ends the isolated exclusive relation with your character and your enemy which is now COMPLETE and I thought it fair to have it reach the grade of sufficiency.

-If, when you shoot an enemy down in a specific way, the game reacts accordingly, materially judging your actions like with a score based on your stealthood or your finesse, the interaction has moved OUTSIDE of the hero/enemy circle; It is a better one as you're interacting with (taking in consideration) the whole game to receive the outcome you wish. You may not want the enemy dead to have a different score.

-If the same type of interaction as the last one happens not just between characters and the "game" but for example using specific objects found in the "room" you're in, you're also interacting with the peculiar characteristics of the objects, the final advantage consisting in the mental processes you go through to realize that an object in the room has certain attributes which can be combined with the character to obtain the desired result. This is the point into interaction that abandons the boundaries of "a game", for one reason: because "objects" with realistic feats make the world more plausible than just killing critters to get a better score.


-If a certain action is directly related to the setting, or gives consequences to this, you're manipulating (hence a real contact with) the environment, considering or even changing for example society living in it, or how people see you, or the story events; even a heavily story-driven game can afford to do it, and the story may show your intervention in it or simply make you more aware of it. It is worth noting that every previous step can be combined with this one. You may want to use an object with(or kill, as in our shooting instance) a character because the story, or the world, or even the characters' psychology are suggesting that at this point you should do that action, and the ONLY way to know how to do it is interacting with the story and the whole setting. The interactable elements are now all around you, they're bigger. You are the artifex of your world

---

The previous are just few examples limited by the case of an ordinary modern game. They're just an attempt to give a clear idea of interaction, its nature and its importance, the necessity to provide a way for users to personally manipulate what They're seeing on the screen, not just been acted upon. Hundreds more could be the examples, many examples can be found in between those i described. Many games don't even have characters and environments but they must still provide a closer contact with the game objects, to proove of some significance and worth playing. Tetris for instance gives a good degree interaction as it allows manipulation of different shapes and consideration in using such shapes to fit into static shapes.

One may disagree with the steps of the scale, and more likely with the mark that divides bad from good interaction. But it's not important.What's important is that you may locate interaction as a stand-alone element. It can be a good exercise to single it out of any game. It will certainly put things in a different perspective... and that's never bad..

Reviewing a game: A problem of trust and clarity.

During a review a critic describes a videogame and then judges it. He has to give the reader a clear figure of the game and then tell him whether the game is good or not. 

Regarding the second purpose, I'd like to briefly inveigh against today's readers, because it's ultimately up to the them to be influenced or not by the reviewer's analysis, they're the receivers of the message. I believe reviews are mostly about seeking unbiased "truth" so I've always been affected by them. I never complied with those immature players instead who reject impartiality, and affirm that a title that's been judged poor by means of logical and effective reasoning, and more importantly by the standards of a modern gameplay depth, I say, They persist on thinking otherwise, claiming the defects described, albeit true, do not keep the game from being "good and fun". I reckon these persons simply have very low standards. They should humbly state that notwithstanding the game's low quality, They are contented with low quality games, because of their own low opinion of videogames. The vast majority of the readers plainly doesn't care about others' opinions,  even as unbiased as they strive to be. To me it's self-centredness and basking in adoration of chaos in a society that's savagely individualistic.

Regarding a description of a game you must act like in a tribunal and expose only the facts. The goal is to avoid telling the way you(reviewer) saw and "lived" the game in your mind but how this presents itself empirically.

A reviewer of good sense finds a connection, a bridge twixt himself and the reader, that is, a concept where an obscure personal idea is shaped into substance that is intelligible to both.. I believe this criterion is the degree of interaction, and to be sure the player understands it, the reviewer can choose to throw in a comparison with a previous game of given genre, working as quick reference. Lastly He will consider aesthetic content.

In the end, the rating is already written, because when the reviewer was describing interaction the reader already knows the METRE into which every game is scanned and has its own place ready for it in the scale.

To summarize, the reviewer goes over these processes. He:

-Describes an empirically played segment of the game AS IS;
-Measures the level of interaction according to a universal metre of interaction or UMI, as I baptized it, by analyzing the parts He described (which o'course represent a typical gameplay momentum)
-Compares the game to an older, similar one;
-Considers decorative and purely artistic elements such as atmosphere or any other factor that increases the beauty of the examined title, but the games in which atmosphere makes up for the poorness of interaction are an extreme rarity: I.E. Broken Sword, which atmosphere is unique, though with its plain puzzle adventure type of interaction it had, would have been a discreet game, yet the game's general atmosphere is what takes it to the level of absolute masterpiece.
-Decrees a rating and final judgement.

The novelty of this method is that this way the reader IS AWARE of the writer's creed, while in the average magazines you don't know anything about the reviewer, you have no other choice but to concentrate on your own ideas, you're lost among his empty jabbering pseudo-journalistic rhetorics. As i said, this method is meant to establish a connection.

Introducing.

I believe any videogame today must be judged by the quality of its 'interaction'. 

In the following entries I'll be defining the meaning of interaction, establish a model structure for a review centred around this main element, and finally analyze any product in the intention of breaking it down for everyone to see it in its inmost essence.

The goal of this discriminating method of criticism is to finally realize the deficiencies of many products and decree the imperative of depth in videogames, simply highliting interaction as a solid stand-alone element, isolated from the other, less important, parts of videogames, give interaction the place it's due to it.

*Beside the attempt to describe and evaluate any videogame by this criteria, collateral considerations will come along, and may most likely be interspersed among the core of the topics, such as videogaming history to mark down its evolution, theories about criticism, ideas for game designing and any other philosophical rambling.