Gaming and interaction is a combination that many non-gamers did not find a correlation with. It has only been within the past 5 or so years that the word “interactive” and “gaming” have been taken seriously by the main stream populace as having relevance.

It took the unforeseen growth of World of Warcraft to place gaming as a successful medium for social interaction on the world stage. In the eyes of globalization, online-games turned into multi-billion dollar reservoirs to be tapped into.

Jonathan Betonio, a contributor at Bitmob, is not alone with his belief that games do express useful interactions. I don’t think Sony would be pouring millions of dollars into the HOME application if his statement didn’t have a degree of accuracy. 

MMORPG’s and On-line shooters are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “uniting” global markets. Interactive games today will do what supermarkets and fast food chains did to the food industry and society in the 1950’s; it will change the way we behave.

In a nutshell, fast food and supermarkets did two key things:

They changed the way we perceived food.

They changed the way we interacted with food.

With the use of the Internet, video gaming is starting to show that same profound affect. The most important one is that it is changing the way we perceive and pursue social interaction.

Video games have always been about interaction.

1970's to 80's: All man, this game is mega awesome!

Before the Internet, gaming was an interaction between the player and the software. The avatar that he or she controlled had to navigate through obstacles to achieve its goal.

1990's - present: All man, this game is mega awesome!

As processing power advance, the interaction evolved to include A.I. Obstacles were no longer boundaries, but moving entities. Eventually, interaction led from player vs. computer to two players vs. Computer or two players vs. each other. Now it’s grown to be 256 players Vs. each other!

In regards to World of Warcraft, what that game did was take the word “interaction”, inject it with steroids and shoot it into outer space.

It came back uber massive and I believe currently has over 10 million subscribers. That’s more than the whole population of Denmark and Finland combined!

World of Warcraft could be it’s own Nation with that figure. More importantly, W.o.W. has its on rules and codes established by the gamers themselves. But interaction isn’t just about who plays games and how we play.

It’s about what we do in the games.

This is where so much debate and discussion have emerged. Topics such as Davneet Minhas’ “Sexual Maturing of the Videogame Industry” and Andrew Fitch’s “The Dating Persona” explore types of interaction and ask whether they truly reflect our world and whether it is right to do so?

In regards to Davneet’s article, including sexual content in games as a viable interactive option has divided many readers. The question that many need to ask (developers and gamers alike) is how do we use sexual content appropriately in both a social and gaming context?

Ultimately, violence in gaming is acceptable because as children, we imitate violence in our natural state of play. 

We pretend to be cowboys and Indians, we pretend to be soldiers and nurses – violence has been used as a narrative arc.

Kids are exposed to death quite early on and even mimic death in their physical game play. 

Give a stick to a male child aged between 4 to 10 and they’ll most likely wield it as an imaginary weapon (gun or knife).

Sex, on the other hand, is not something children take as a topic to play out. Kids play “dead”, they don’t play “rape victims” or “sexual predators”. Violence such as “shooting” and “murder” in video games is less disturbing for children than experiencing sexual acts or other adult themes simply because they have already learnt the concept in their early development.

When we interact with characters in a video game world, it is often to advance the story or acquire side missions. Mass Effect’s use of sex was to advance character development. Completely valid but did they succeed in making the characters in Mass Effect more rounded?

Andrew Fitch’s article pushed the idea in another direction, “For example, if you want to date (and eventually have sex with) martial-arts chick Chie Satonaka in Persona 4, all you have to do -- for all intents and purposes -- is stalk her. 

It doesn't really matter what dialogue options you select when you hang out with her -- just keep heading up to her favorite hangout on the roof after school, invite her to get together, and she'll eventually find her way to your bedroom.”

In his perspective, interactions with A.I. characters were oversimplified. We all know it doesn’t work like that.

Many games have tried to develop a rich and dynamic environment that the player can discover useful interactions. Bethesda’s big improvement in Oblivion over Morrowind was the concept that the A.I. was broad enough to give many characters their own personality. They slept and ate and even stole items from each other. 

In Quantic Dreams “Heavy Rain” they propose interaction based on a complex combinations of reflex button responses by the player. Yet in the end, interaction will always be limited by the coding of the software itself.

Interaction in single player campaigns will always be limited by the choices the developers wish to provide us. If we want richer interactions, go to Xbox Live or Playstation Network.

Xbox Live is a beast. Sign in and within seconds you would have heard your mum or yourself mentioned in enough sexist commentary, racial intolerance and homophobic remarks to make you think you’re living in an alternate Nazi universe. 

PSN, on the other hand, is still a tad shy – get your Bluetooth earpieces people – but also (I believe) contains a more mature audience.

What both have in common is the provision of an application that will allow gamers to meet up, join in and quickly interact with one another. A game such as Little Big Planet is a great example of changing the way we expect to interact and “do” interact in a game.

The biggest concern that many critics used against LBP was the “share and play” model. LBP proved it works and showed the world that people love interacting with each other via sharing.

come party with us where the girls are really boys!

What the world has also noticed is mmorpg. The non-gaming world has realised that gaming has become a living and breathing space. Sony’s HOME application is trying to tap into that space between facebook (and other similar apps), share and play (share and play like LBP) and a realized living virtual space (like in mmorpg’s). “Guild” and “Clans” are evidence of a living virtual space filled with real human beings.

In these virtual spaces, people gather on-line to discuss, plan and execute their ideas in the video game world. Video games provide something far greater than facebook, bebo, myspace, twitter and even Bitmob (dare I say) can ever achieve. It’s not only a space where we can meet and chat; in a video game world, our human interactions allow us to achieve goals together.

What’s remarkable is that the video game provides us a space where we problem solve. It is this single process that separates us from all the other species on this planet: got a problem, lets solve it. Not good, lets improve it. Can’t get over it, let us work together to overcome it.

we are one, but we are many

What makes interaction useful in gaming isn’t the trophies or achievements or narrative. It’s the simple fact that when we play a video game, we share the same experiences, frustration and joy. The most important thing that we learn from interaction in video gaming is unity.

I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a pretty useful thing to gain from video game interaction.