The question of what games are and how they should be understood has been a recurring central tension in Games Studies. That tension was most prevalent in the early 2000s, often framed as a ‘war’ between narratologists (who understand games as a narrative form) and ludologists (who view games as a series of interactions that drive choices). This debate (to the extent it ever actually existed) has ebbs and flows in academic literature, but remains at the core of much informal discourse around games: Is a game better with less story? This provocation aims to stir the pot again by making a statement: interactivity is overrated. A fetishism towards a more and more mechanical view of gameplay has drastically reduced what games (as a form) are both currently doing and actively capable of. Game designers should think about ways to make their games less interactive instead of more.
