Bridging the Gap: Interactive Cinema

Researching But That Was [Yesterday] for my essay I came across a forum discussing whether or not But That Was [Yesterday] can be considered a game. Some people say it is not a game as you do not make choices i.e. there is no apparent agency or feedback loop between action and consequence. They mention But That Was [Yesterday] as being an interactive experience or interactive comic to be read as a narrative rather than played as a game. The is-a-game side states its case based on Zimmerman’s definition: “A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.” If we are to explore this issue more by assuming the side of its-not-a-game camp, how exactly do we categorise But That Was [Yesterday]? Reading But That Was [Yesterday] as a narrative like a television show or a novel, we should consider Juul’s (reading 7a) observation that “you cannot have interactivity and narration at the same time.” While But That Was [Yesterday] may not achieve agency or have consequence for the actions played, it is interactive. This brings us back to the question of how to categorise But That Was [Yesterday]. This is a big grey area which can potentially be filled with the concept of interactive cinema. I call interactive cinema a concept, when it is in fact a medium which has been created, because it is not developed enough or even close to reaching its potential. I also think it is difficult to define, e.g. interactive comic as mentioned in the forum may be more accurate description (although it would seem the word cinema in interactive cinema is used rather loosely, as such it does cover video games). Researching the term interactive cinema online brings up many different definitions, some which would fit But That Was [Yesterday] more than others. As such, my question will remain unanswered. As for interactive cinema, I can only conclude it is a developing medium with tremendous potential.