interactivecinema.org

The interactive tradition that spawned interactive cinema was progressing towards the goal of an immersive playground--a playground in which the focus was not on fulfilling established conditions for victory, but on complete immersion of the player in a created world. Even today the technological limitations have only permitted the partial success of Interactive Cinema towards that goal, but since the playground is based on the montage of the interactive process and the cinematic language, even a partial success represents a level of involvement not previously possible in other media. Since cinema is part of the Interactive Cinematic montage, many seem to believe it should be analyzed according to traditional media theories such as those applied to cinema. However, as I have already discussed, a montage structure is composed of its component parts but it exists far beyond them. When dealing with the trans-media montage of Interactive Cinema, this means that the media theories developed to read traditional visual media no longer apply. Instead, the path to understanding Interactive Cinema exists in the establishment of an Interactive Cinematic media theory.

Interactive Cinema is a montage and must be analyzed as one. This montage is composed of both the interactive and the cinematic. If these sequences existed apart from one another, analysis would be simple: the cinematic sequences could be completely analyzed by existing cinematic theories without any problems, and the interactive sequences could similarly be analyzed if proper media theories existed, but at the very least Crawford's definition of interactivity could provide the proper foundation with which to discuss them. However, since these sequences are spatially adjacent, it is impossible to properly analyze them as existing apart from one another. Yet, this is exactly what many theorists have attempted to do.

One of the primary reasons for the theoretical confusion regarding the application of traditional ideas to Interactive Cinema is that Interactive Cinema appears so visually similar to preceding media such as cinema itself. The cinematic sequences are especially problematic in this regard as they use the same visual language as cinema.

The interactive and the cinematic are (re)produced worlds that exist for the player via an outside party. At first glance, particularly in earlier examples of Interactive Cinema, this outside party remains slightly obscure. However, as is evident in more recent examples, that outside party is a virtual camera.

In Interactive Cinema, the virtual camera is a creation of the designers that mimics an actual camera. Its purpose is to provide a point of view for the user. If there was no camera, there would be no way to visually perceive the world. Even though the earliest examples of interactivity, such as Spacewar!, probably never thought in terms of a virtual camera, the fact that the playground is visually represented means that on some level the world has been mediated and that mediation was due to a virtual camera.

The reflex reaction to the presence of a virtual camera in Interactive Cinema is to call upon theories of the cinematic such as Baudry's exploration of the apparatus (Mast, 302-312). This is flawed logic. The presence of the cinematic apparatus does not indicate equivalence between how cinema is perceived and how Interactive Cinema is perceived. This is because of the versatility of the Interactive Cinematic apparatus to perform a multitude of tasks, a versatility that the cinematic apparatus does not have. Before that versatility can be understood, one must first determine what precisely is the Interactive Cinematic apparatus.

For the nebulous field of new media, the apparatus and the hardware are incorrectly viewed as one and the same. For new media theorists such as Lev Manovich, the apparatus of new media is primarily a collection of devices that are centralized on the screen or screens. Furthermore, the evolution of the screen is marked by the level of freedom the user has in regards to that screen. Accordingly, the apparatus itself, offering such diverse input devices as keyboards and mice as well as extremely powerful Central Processing Units, come to be regarded as extensions of the screen. The result is an emerging concept that there exists a unified "apparatus." (Manovich, 97-99). This view of the hardware as a single unit labeled "the apparatus" is a perfect example of the false analogy that relates the apparatus of traditional media to the apparatus of newer media. This is made quite clear in Manovich's comparison of the cyclical nature of the camera and the hard drive; the two may share a similar motion, but the similarities in motion are the result of technological boundaries. In other words, the rotational motion, or "loop," is visible because the technology was insufficient to conceal it. As is evident with each new iteration of artificial intelligence, when the loop is used ideally in an interactive environment, it is invisible. That means instead of focusing on the primary device that "speaks" to the user and makes these artificial loops evident, an examination should focus instead on why it is these loops are perceived to begin with; otherwise stated, one should understand that the apparatus is not simply "the screen."

The physical interactive apparatus is not a binary entity. As Crawford's redefinition of interactivity reveals interactivity to be a multi-stepped process, so too is the physical apparatus composed of multiple steps. There is no single piece of the apparatus that is "interactive." A mouse by itself is as equally non-interactive as a CPU on its own. On their own, the components of the physical apparatus are quite useless because their existence as isolated elements prevents these pieces from exchanging information, and that information exchange forms the foundation of the interactive process. Without the interactive process, there is no interactive apparatus. The influence of theories dealing with the cinematic apparatus become quite evident because they would have the theoretical foundation of the media based on the "speech" towards the viewer (the "screen"), which is to say, devoid of Crawford's interactive process. With non-interactive media, such theories function because the projection of a film makes the viewer (the "I") part of the camera (the "eye"). In other words, the positioning of the "eye" dictates the role of the viewer. In Interactive Cinema, though the virtual camera is still the "eye," it is not necessarily the "I" because the interactive "I" exists within a larger framework.

The physical apparatus of Interactive Cinema is not the entire Interactive Cinematic apparatus. The physical hardware exists as a way for the user to exchange information with the internal hardware. The mouse is a type of listening faculty for the CPU, which speaks through such devices as Cathode Ray Tube monitors. Within the interactive process, the two actors do not need to speak the same language. In the specific case of Interactive Cinema, the two actors (user and computer) do not speak the same language. As such, there is a neutral area in which the languages meet in a common arena. While the interface is the location of this trans-lingual communication, the interface is not created by the hardware, but by the software.

The hardware exists as a channel of communication that facilitates the interactive process. This is an important aspect of the medium to discuss, but it is not as important as that of how those channels of communication are perceived by the user. Though the "perception" aspect of a media is often united with the apparatus of that media, the division of hardware and software complicates matters. Though the CRT monitor is how the information is physically perceived by the player, that is not how it is mentally perceived. Instead, the physical apparatus becomes a vehicle for the virtual apparatus.

Interactive Cinema makes extensive use of a virtual apparatus that is capable of perfectly simulating the cinematic camera. This virtual apparatus has the potential to be a technically flawless version of the cinematic apparatus. From artificial lens flare to scientifically accurate depth of field, as long as the creators put sufficient effort into it, one would not be able to discern the difference between a product of the cinematic apparatus and that of the virtual cinematic apparatus. Despite this superficial level of equality, the two are vastly different.

Let's return to Pac-Man. Imagine two people are each experiencing the game. The first person watches the interactive segment of the game while playing; that is to say, the person sees the product of his or her participation in the interactive process. The second person is watching the same game while the other person plays. For the second person, the display is identical to that produced by traditional cinematic apparatus. Despite the fact that the visual displays are technically identical, the first person is a player and the second is a viewer. While Crawford's definition of interactivity does away with the traditional binary definition, it does not properly emphasize the ancillary effects of the process. As this example shows, it says little about the way the act of perception is drastically revolutionized when the perceived is a product of interaction. The contrast between player and viewer reveals that the presence of interactivity changes the standard reactive relationship, but that example only deals with an interactive sequence.

Imagine now that the player has completed a "level" of Pac-Man and a cinematic sequence has started. The player is watching the screen as Pac-Man and a ghost chase one another, but so is the viewer. It would seem that because the virtual cinematic apparatus no longer presents a world that intertwines the player in the interactive process, then the player is no longer a player, but a viewer again. Additionally, it would appear that Film Theory could be used to adequately analyze how this sequence is perceived. However, the cinematic sequence does not exist by itself. Instead it is part of the Interactive Cinematic montage. This means that even though the player is not currently interacting with the computer, the player is perceiving the cinematic as a sequence juxtaposed with the interactive. The result is that the player and the viewer are not the same, even when watching a sequence that, for both, is technically equivalent.

The montage structure of the interactive and the cinematic creates something based on the two components, but exists apart from them. The reason the viewer and the player are not both viewers in the previous example is because while the viewer is seeing a montage of two non-interactive (reactive) sequences, the player is experiencing a non-interactive sequence juxtaposed with an interactive sequence. While each participant involved in an Interactive Cinematic experience seemingly alternates between viewer and player, the participant is always a combination of the two. In a cinematic montage, the juxtaposition of sequences influences how the sequences are perceived, but the viewer does not divide because, as with the viewer in the above example, the fact that the medium remains cinema means that the viewer does not change either. The fact that the medium does change in Interactive Cinema means that the user experiences a player oriented sequence and a viewer oriented sequence. Just as the components of the montage affect how the total is perceived in cinema, so too do the cinematic and interactive affect one another. However, because of the differing media, the effect is not limited to perception, but is reflected back onto the sequences themselves. As such, the influence of the interactive sequence is felt in the cinematic sequence. This means that despite the fact that the viewer and the player would see a technically identical Pac-Man in the cinematic sequence, the viewer perceives it in a cinematic montage, while the player perceives it in an Interactive Cinematic montage. It is the presence of the interactive that revolutionizes relationship between the audience and the experience.

The Interactive Cinematic montage is composed of seemingly opposing elements: the interactive seems to force the user to actively participate in the interactive process while the cinematic seems to ask that the user observe. However, as indicated by the presence of the virtual cinematic apparatus in the interactive sequences, there is considerable overlap between the interactive and the cinematic in Interactive Cinema. The result is a relocation of the spectator of film. Before the new location can be discussed, the old location must be understood.

In cinema the viewer exists outside of the viewed. On the physical level, this is largely representative of the inability of the viewer to breach the physical barrier of the screen for any real immersion in an interactive sense. However, the cinematic apparatus is quite versatile and, when properly used, the cinema is capable of creating the illusion of immersion.

Suture is the "moment when the subject inserts itself into the symbolic register in the guise of a signifier, and in so doing gains meaning at the expense of being." (Silverman, 200). The value of this Lacanian term when applied to cinema was shortly realized. Since the camera is the substitute for the eye of the viewer, the world projected on a screen is viewed subjectively. Though there are some opposing views regarding the exact expression of this subjectivity, the bottom line in every argument is that the camera facilitates the identification of the spectator with the captured, or reproduced, world. More importantly, it facilitates an identification between the viewer and the viewed.

Jean-Pierre Oudart argues that this is carried out through the cinematic language itself, which is to say through shot composition and montage editing. This is most evident in the shot-reverse shot construction in which the position of the subject is reinforced (Herzogenrath). The key concept here is that the spectator is under the illusion of doing more than viewing. Whether this effect is achieved through a specific cinematic convention is not important, what is important is that suture immerses the audience despite the lack of any immediate connection between the viewer and the viewed. A film itself is an illusion in that no matter how realistic it may appear, there is never a possibility that the viewer may cross the barrier of the screen and actually have agency within the world.

Suture represents the mental journey across the barrier of the screen. Though the player is able to transcend the boundary of the screen, it is not an actual physical transcendence; that is to say, the player does not physically cross into the screen. This journey may allow the viewer complete independence of thought, but restricts the viewer to complete dependence of action: the viewer "does" what the subject does. Since the subjectivity of the viewer approaches that of the subject, it often follows that thoughts of the viewer are influenced by the viewed subject as well. In essence, the viewer is immersed, but it is an immersion without an exchange. In a traditional cinematic scene, the viewer can be mentally immersed in a film, but that immersion does not allow any agency on the part of the viewer. This quality of cinema perpetually reinforces the fact that no matter how adept a filmmaker is, the viewed and the viewer are separate. The presence of interactivity within this montage structure changes this.

The juxtaposition of interactivity with the cinematic fractures the viewed. Instead of a homogenous viewed, the viewed is composed of cinematic and interactive aspects. The multiple facets of the viewed, however, exist simultaneously. In the Interactive Cinema montage, the alternation between interactive sequences and cinematic sequences is not a binary structure. In that structure, when a cinematic sequence is playing, it is not perceived in the same way as a stand-alone cinematic sequence. Similarly, when participating in an interactive sequence, the information exchange is not independent as it exists within the context of the juxtaposed cinematic. The result is a merging of player and viewer that is best illustrated in a more modern example of Interactive Cinema.

In 2000, SEGA released their ambitious title Shenmu. Shenmu has the player trying to solve the murder of the character's father. Due to a sprawling and elaborate story, the only way to possibly integrate all the elements necessary to keep the player involved was to utilize the Interactive Cinematic montage--that is, unlike Pac-Man, the cinematic sequences of Shenmue make full use of cinematic language. From establishing shots to medium shots to close ups, the cinematic sequences are executed with great precision. Furthermore, the cinematic sequences are created by way of cinematic montage editing (a montage using only cinematic shots). The interactive sequences parallel the depth of the cinematic sequences by offering a large area to explore and a number of characters with which to interact. Existing in both the cinematic and interactive sequences, the main character, Ryu, is a multifaceted entity because he is composed of traits from both the cinematic and interactive.

As the player perceives the character in an Interactive Cinematic construction, the character is composed of an interactive component and a cinematic component, neither of which is dominant, but both of which are essential. The introductory cinematic sequence in Shenmue establishes the character and situation: Ryu returns home just as his father is murdered. If this sequence were to exist on its own, the numerous cinematic conventions used by the virtual camera would make it easily analyzable by traditional Film Theory. Furthermore, Ryu would also be easily discussed as a character since, at most, he exists as a stand-in for the viewer in terms of suture theory. Similarly, the subsequent interactive sequence by itself would exist primarily as a hollow example the interactive process since there would be no context for the interaction. Since Ryu, controlled by the player, would be defined only by the actions the player chooses to perform; Ryu is the player. In either case, the perception of the character Ryu would be best described using theories from the respective media of each instance (cinema and interactivity). My contribution is to call attention to the trans-media montage, which preserves the objective qualities of each media but alters how the audience perceives each.

In an Interactive Cinema, the audience exists both as player and viewer. In other words, the experience is from the perspective of both the viewer and the viewed. The divergence from traditional media is enormous as the barrier that had always existed--the barrier that disallowed true immersion--is removed. In terms of film theory, "suture is successful at the moment that the viewing subject says, 'Yes, that's me,' or 'That's what I see.'" (Silverman, 205). However, that only alludes to an identification with the subject. In interactive cinema, not only is there an identification, but there is an actual assumption of the character as well.

Montage is a process that combines synthesis and interpolation. That means that the viewer sees one half of the montage juxtaposed with the other half and from that collision the mind derives meaning. When the montage is composed of multiple media, aspects of each medium are interpolated into that final product. With Interactive Cinema, this means that qualities of interactivity and cinema, though physically separated in the context of the experience, are mentally united in perception. For example, the introductory cinematic sequence of Shenmue is not an example of cinema; it may be technically identical to cinema, but it is not perceived as such. With the viewer existing outside of the text and the player existing as a part of the text, Interactive Cinema creates a player that is both inside and outside. As I said before, the player is the corresponding avatar, for the avatar is lifeless unless the player is present. If the player does not control Pac-Man, Pac-Man will never live. Conversely, the act of watching is all that it takes to give life to Pac-Man in the cinematic sequence as he flees from a ghost and then returns to chase that ghost. Watching is necessary, but it is also all that the viewer is capable of. Since the character in an Interactive Cinematic experience exists as an interpolation of a cinematic character and an interactive character, that character is perceived at multiple locations simultaneously.

In repositioning the audience in relation to the work, Interactive Cinema has created a hyper-suture. By way of the interactive process, the will of the viewer is transformed into speech that is heard by the interface via the physical hardware. This means that not only does the viewer become the viewed, but as the viewed, the viewer now has agency.

What the alternations between interactivity and cinema represent is the flow of information in a closed cycle. In a cinematic sequence, information is presented to the player by way of the viewer. The purpose of this information is to establish the context with which one can begin to perceive how to read the otherwise blank interactive avatar. The effects of this information are realized at the conclusion of the cinematic sequence when the viewer is given agency and becomes the player. The interactive sequence begins and the avatar is the player. Within the confines of the avatar's range of action, the player has complete control and is free to express their will. The avatar represents the agency of the player, the "I". This is diametrically opposed to the cinematic sequences, but just as the cinematic information feeds the interactive, so too does the interactive feed the cinematic. The experiences of the interactive sequence provide a unique context that adds personalized depth to the cinematic. In traditional media, the viewer could identify with a character's past action, but Interactive Cinema allows the player to be that past action.

The opening sequence of Shenmue uses cinematic techniques to create standard suture. If the cinematic were viewed by itself, the viewer would be identifying with Ryu upon its conclusion. Even though this cinematic sequence begins the interactive cinematic experience, the audience is not solely a viewer at this point because her or she is anticipating the alternating sequences of Interactive Cinema. Since the avatar is lifeless without the player, the player must have a frame of reference within which to operate: the information presented to the viewer in the cinematic sequences provides the context for the subsequent interactive sequence. Thus, the cinematic sequence in fact begins the process of interpolation that is especially animated at the conclusion of the cinematic sequence. Therefore, even before interactivity appears in the experience, the effects of the hyper-suture are felt.

It is important to note that the cinematic Ryu leaves a number of things undefined--for instance, all that is specifically established is that Ryu is haunted by his father's death and must solve it--so that the remaining character traits are supplied by the player in the interactive sequences (rather than the cinematic sequences); i.e. Ryu's actions are chosen based on the "thought step" in the interactive process. This interactive Ryu develops until the next cinematic sequence begins. At the next transition point, Ryu exists as a complete amalgamation of the cinematic and the interactive. In the early years of Interactive Cinema, the cinematic and interactive were usually equivalent to the viewed and the viewer, but developments in technology have changed this by increasing the power and versatility of the virtual camera.

The virtual camera can have many locations in both the interactive and cinematic sequences, but those locations fall into two categories: first-person perspective and third-person perspective. The perspectives are significant because they represent where the "eye" and the "I" are. Third person perspective has been the traditional perspective used by Interactive Cinema. In a third-person experience, the "eye" of the player is equated to a third-person camera that allows the player to see the "I," represented by an avatar. Third-person experiences still account for a huge portion of the Interactive Cinematic market, but it is the first-person perspective experiences that seem to attract the most players. First-person perspective is a unification of the cinematic "eye" with the interactive "I." In essence, the duality of the viewer and the viewed is collapsed, as the player, the avatar, and the virtual camera become one. In cinema, a first-person perspective is a technique used to give the viewer an immediate identification with the viewed. However, that identification is limited to identification on a mental level since the cinema maintains control of the "eye." The interactive first-person perspective cedes that control to the player. Furthermore, in an interactive sequence, it is important to note that in both first-person perspective and third-person perspective, the player is united with both the "eye" and the "I."

In a comprehensive analysis of post-modern science fiction, Scott Bukatman has theorized the development of what he calls "Terminal Identity." Terminal identity is "an unmistakably doubled articulation in which we find both the end of the subject and a new subjectivity constructed at the computer station or television screen." (Bukatman, 9). One of Bukatman's main arguments is the existence of a "cyborg" being, composed of both cybernetic and organic material. The Interactive Cinematic montage represents a great step towards this identity.

As I have already discussed, vision, an organic process, becomes mediated through the cybernetic counterpart of the virtual camera, while the actual movement and control of the player character is made possible through a melding of organic "tools" (hands) and cybernetic tools (mouse, keyboard, etc.). Yet this interactivity is only part of the montage. I have also shown that the player is integrated into the interactive by the juxtaposition of the cinematic. During the cinematic sequences, the camera is removed from the player's control, and the apparatus controls the player. The result is a cyborg cycle in which the organic qualities and the cybernetic qualities are constantly exchanging information. This information exchange exists neither in the mind of the player nor in the memory of the computer. Instead it exists at the level of the interface where cybernetic and organic come together.

The interactive process for Interactive Cinema is highly dependent on both the player and the computer (the two actors). If there is only one actor performing all three steps (listening, thinking, speaking) in the interactive process, there is no interaction. Pac-Man would be a lifeless game without both the computer and the player. Without the cinematic sequences of the computer the player would be controlling a yellow partial circle that represented nothing, and without the player, the Pac-Man character would be defined but would not move. Only when there is an exchange of information can the player and computer properly synthesize the information. That exchange is in the Interactive Cinematic montage itself.

Returning to my original definition of Interactive Cinema, this alternation is clearly central to the proper functioning of the interactive cinematic montage. However, the effects of a unified player/apparatus entity go far beyond my original definition. My definition is concerned with the structure of the experience alone. This is important because it does not exclude any degrees of this cyborg entity, but at the same time, it does not explicitly state that the existence of that entity changes the way in which the media must be perceived. Even so, the Interactive Cinematic montage does not create a true cybernetic organism. The key element of a cyborg is the fusion of the cybernetic and organic. As it currently exists, Interactive Cinema only represents a partial realization of this entity because the interactive process is mediated through input devices that are far too limiting. A mouse can adequately receive information, but compared to the entire spectrum of human information, it is exceedingly narrow. This is made evident even in regards to the focus Bukatman places on the libidinal nature of much of the cyborg. This libidinal nature frequently manifests itself as an emotional expression through a cybernetic forum. While the player can certainly feel emotions, there are not adequate means with which to communicate such organic emotions to the cybernetic actor. This is better understood if we examine the entrance of the technological into the body. If the player is able to mentally enter into the computer via the interface, it is logical to assume that in a true cyborg entity, the computer is entering into the player as well.

What this reveals is that the cyborg of Interactive Cinema exists almost entirely in the virtual interface of the computer software. The user partially melds with the interface, which represents the entrance of the organic into the technological, but to take a true step towards something truly cyborg in nature, there would also need to be an entrance of the technological into the organic. While the computer does enter somewhat into the organic through visual stimuli, that hardly compares to the mind of the user existing in the virtual world of the interface. The entrance of the organic into the technological raises a very interesting question that must be explored: if there is a virtual world that is given shape by the presence of a real person who constitutes a large part of that world, does that virtual world cease to be virtual? In other words, if there is a defined playground in which the player is given agency with which to realize their real self virtually, when the playground is intricately designed and the agency is incredibly complex, how does the virtual differ from the real?

As I have already shown, the actual physical manipulation of the hardware means nothing compared to the effects it causes in the software interface. Similarly, it is not the player but the player-character who feels the effects of the game world completely. Though the difference may seem to be only technical, it certainly is not. To better explain this, the notion of simulation proposed by Baudrillard must be called upon.

Baudrillard's hyperreal is a "real without origin." It is a "signifier of the real," but is not based on any actual real. The simulation that Baudrillard postulates exists before that which it simulates. In this way, the signifier of the real precedes the real (Baudrillard, 1).

The electronic world has a long history of vehicle simulations. These simulations are not always simulations in the sense that Baudrillard describes. While they do excellent jobs at recreating virtual vehicles that navigate an environment, they are largely composed of simulations that are based on existing models. Though a player may never have a chance to fly a jet-fighter, the simulation is based on very accurate information about the real jet-fighter. However, as Spacewar! clearly shows, even in the early years of entertainment interactivity, simulations in the sense Baudrillard indicates are present.

Interactive Cinema is becoming increasingly successful at creating simulations that extend beyond the vehicular realm because the technological boundaries are being pushed back. Worlds that seemed plausible only when viewed from the distant cockpit of a jet have been replaced by worlds that hold up to intense scrutiny by the player-character. What the player-character perceives, though, is not real, but hyperreal.

Interactive Cinema is the hyperreal. There is no real Pac-Man, but the Interactive Cinematic montage structure presents a hyperreal Pac-Man. There is no brightly-lit maze full of dots and ghosts in reality. Even though there is a Japan and Shenmue is set in Japan of 1985, there is no Japan as Shenmue depicts it. Similarly, there is no real Ryu. Shenmue is a playground composed of signs of the real, but nothing real. However, within the Interactive Cinematic montage, the perception of the hyperreal changes.

Hyper-suture does not just allow the player to identify with the player-character, but it allows the player and the player-character to become one another. As technology permits an increasingly cybernetic organism, that fusion of the player and the player-character will deepen. The player is real, but the player-character is hyperreal. In melding together, aspects of each will transfer to the other. Specifically, the real will begin to perceive the hyperreal from within the hyperreal. From this vantage point, the signs of the real are the real.

Ryu sees his father die in the opening cinematic. Although the sequence is situated within the Interactive Cinematic montage, it is positioned at the beginning of the experience, which is to say initially not juxtaposed. Accordingly, the player and player-character have not been brought together via the montage yet. This means that when Ryu sees his father get killed, it is Ryu's father. However, as the alternating sequences of the montage begin and the interactive and cinematic sequences are juxtaposed, the player and the player-character are brought together. The murder ceases to be hyperreal for the player and becomes real for the player/player-character. The experience begins as the mystery of the death of Ryu's father, but shortly becomes an investigation into the death of the player/player-character's father. Essentially, the player comes to be investigating the death of his or her own father because the player has become hyperreal. This of course is all dependent on how successfully the player is able to "speak" to the computer and how efficiently the computer can then "think" about that speech.

Interactive Cinema is a waypoint on the path to complete hyperreality. It presents convincing simulations, but because the cinematic sequences are scripted, the player lacks true agency within the playground. The player may want to perform a specific action, but the narrative structure of the experience might forbid it; for instance, it is never an option for Ryu to commit suicide after failing to save his father. Massively Multiplayer On-Line Games (MMOG) have attempted to circumvent this problem by replacing the cinematic sequences with other players.

One of the major functions of the Interactive Cinematic montage is to provide a foundation for a character while permitting that character to grow via user input. The player-character in an MMOG is initially only defined by how they fit into the overall playground, usually through the interactive abilities they possess. For instance, in fantasy MMOGs, wizards are quite different from warriors because wizards cast spells, while warriors fight. With minimal definitions, the actual player/play-character exists less as a fusion of the two than an expression of the first. A wizard has certain abilities, but the character is only defined by how the player uses them since there is no cinematic to establish the character. In essence, a character begins as a tabula rasa.

A MMOG is a persistent playground in which thousands of players interact via avatars in a simulated world. Lacking the character definition of Interactive Cinema, one of the primary complaints regarding MMOGs is that the presence of agency in the world is countered by the lack of anything meaningful to do. In other words, the world itself lacks a narrative structure that the players interact with.

Even now Interactive Cinematic techniques are being incorporated into MMOGs to create more complete simulations. Apart from creating deeper mini-narratives such as more textured quests for objects, overarching narrative structures are now being introduced. By using embedded cinematic sequences (cinematic sequences which occur within the interactive environment), the computer is able to present the cinematic to the population rather than an individual. What is interesting to note is that even though this is an Interactive Cinematic technique in principle, in practice it represents the implosion of Interactive Cinema. Instead of juxtaposition of the interactive and the cinematic, there is a simultaneous coexistence.

Interactive Cinema is at a precarious position. It has long been regarded as videogames and now it is being used to create yet another level of interactive simulations. Regardless, the actual media continues to be described solely in terms of other media with theories that do not adequately describe it. While cinema provides a strong foundation with which the montage structure can be understood, it cannot describe what the presence of interactivity does to that structure nor can it describe how that modified structure affects the viewer. With technology always advancing, Interactive Cinema is getting closer to being obsolete every day as it is already spawning more refined experiences. Understanding Interactive Cinema does not just mean understanding where videogames have brought us, but it means understanding where interaction is going. If the ultimate destination is indeed a perfectly simulated reality, indistinguishable from actual reality, then understanding Interactive Cinema represents a step towards understanding much more than electronic signals on a screen.