Chris Crawford's interactive storytelling career is still unfinished (2022), and there isn't even a single work that meets its standards. The reason, I think, is that the idea of interactive narrative represented by Chris Crawford is too "orthodox". Such orthodoxy can only be classic, and it is difficult to accommodate works that do not meet this standard. Once achieved, the cumulative qualitative change of related technologies has been proved, and it has entered a new stage of interactive narrative.
After the rise of the metaverse concept, interactive narratives seem to have a glimmer of hope, I am not saying that the metaverse is an interactive narrative, but the underlying logic of the metaverse: the construction of a worldview, socialized interpersonal interaction will lay a solid foundation for interactive narrative. At that time, the "creative will" that has always been controlled by the author will be broken and transferred to the player, who will realize the narrative. The author retreated behind the scenes and took on the construction and design of this interactive narrative system, so that the contradiction between the author and the player that could not be reconciled with the "creative will" was liberated. We have always been obsessed with the fact that the author must control the structural design of the story in order to achieve the emotion or theme that the author expects to convey, resulting in a conflict with the player's free action, and the resulting work is always crappy.
Detroit Change claims to be the best interactive narrative work out there, but it's just an "interactive" narrative work, not an "interactive" narrative work. Interactive narrative interaction is the story, is the story to "each other" the story, and finally create a unique story for the player. Detroit Transfiguration only adds endless, predetermined interactions that interact with "behaviors" but are difficult to abandon narratives, so they are not left or right in "behavior" and "narrative". The player continues to repeat between "leaving the keyboard with both hands to watch the animation" and "putting both hands back in the keyboard operation action", which neither achieves the sense of immersion that is like watching a movie, and does not achieve the sense of immersion freedom of delivering all the stories to the player. Switching, depriving both senses of immersion, is like some insomnia night, repeatedly suffering from shallow sleep, but you have to sleep. The whole gameplay of Detroit Changeman is not smooth, not so much that the player is manipulating the characters (Carla, Marcus), but rather that the characters are manipulating the player, the player follows the set action, "by" the doll-like operation, in order to achieve the author's story emotional ups and downs (at least this it is successful), such as Carla is enslaved to the housework, but the player completely loses his freedom. "Detroit Change" snatches each other between "wanting to narrate" and "wanting to act", fighting each other left and right.
In the overall story structure of "Detroit Change", there are too few "choice" branches with real meaning, and the core focuses on the parade conflict scene of the mutant robot. "Action", "escape", "sacrifice"... The decision of Marcus through a few number keys is too hasty and frivolous, and it is difficult for the player to realize the seriousness of the choice and make a reasonable choice. It may be handled that step by step, through multiple conflict events, gradually lead to confrontation, in the layers of confrontation, the benefits and losses generated cause great pressure on the player, and then let the player weigh the decision, it is more meaningful. Whether it is "Detroit Change" or "Florence", the root of the problem is that it only briefly shows the "behavior" itself, not the "story" itself, and only adds countless operational "behaviors", which cannot enter the player's heart, and it cannot arouse the player's unique emotions. (Even if there is emotion, it is also the author's story design emotion, so what is the difference between that and watching a movie?) ）
Looking at all kinds of games, if you really want to find a work close to the definition of interactive narrative, I am afraid it is Chen Xinghan's "Light Encounter". It has two important factors: the structure of the world and social interaction. "Light Encounter" can be said to give us a blueprint for thinking about interactive narrative, that is, how the author should define his position, the position of the player, and how to stimulate the player's emotions in the work. "Light Encounter" does not design a solidified story structure, but spends a lot of time to construct the lost world, and the fragments of the ancestors' past, this information creates a deep time and space atmosphere and memory emotions, forms a background foundation, and then combines the rich expression system and prop system to establish a complete social language, so that "interaction" behavior can occur. The author does not jump out to control the story, but shifts to the aesthetic construction of the worldview, and tries to assemble and assemble the fragmentary ancestral memory and the scene-like area. As the "Child of Light," nature has produced a certain motivation for exploring the ancestors, and the reincarnated rebirth meaning of willing sacrifice. Therefore, the authors of "Light Encounter" strive to build the world, interactive language and value meaning, which has driven players to move freely in it and create their own stories. So in "Light Encounter", we will see players sitting around the fire playing various instruments, trying to create an atmosphere and consciously form a small concert; or three or two to play the dragon in the graveyard; or team up to compete in the sand road or windwalk; or help each other to go to the eye of the storm to sacrifice. Shuttle from one scene to another, born in the morning bell, happy in the Kasumi Valley, sacrificed to the eye of the storm. This process, consisting of a consensus light encounter world and social interaction of real people, forms the player's own story. It seems that it is beginning to take shape, of course, this is not enough, in terms of interactive narrative standards, "Light Encounter" is still slightly scattered, slightly light, it lacks a set of rules-driven mechanism, players are difficult to form their own story structure, in which it is easy to become an orphan.
Once the interactive narrative has a classic work, it will inevitably cause a new genre trend, look at the popular werewolf killing, script killing game can be seen, the player in a closed rule system, launch thinking, immersion, interpret one story after another, and enjoy it, the storyline twists and turns, enough to attract people. The same is true of interactive storytelling, it does not exclude the current monster upgrades, nor does it exclude the exploration and collection of sandboxes, but it must have a complete set of rules-driven, coupled with social interaction, so that players are willing to immerse themselves and enjoy it. Of course, this is difficult, the requirements for the design of the mechanism are too high, and if you are not careful, you will fall into pure freedom, no player narrative to speak of, and it is no longer an interactive narrative work.