Crikey – that last post was a bit long. Sorry about that. All the relevant stuff is at the bottom, so if you’re curious but can’t be bothered to read a massive post like that, scroll down to the last three paragraphs.
It occurred to me after writing it that it really was frightfully inconsiderate of me to mention “interactive movies” without explanation. I am, of course, woefully apologetic. Terribly sorry old chum. o_o;
So… Interactive movies. Scum of the earth. Marketed as video games, they were essentially extended cutscenes with very little ”interacting” involved (read: no gameplay whatsoever). The idea was to create a game with a strong plot, thus combining the characteristics of a film and a game. The result was a tedious film where you occasionally press a button to determine what happens next. Really, they didn’t do anything a Choose Your Own Adventure or Fighting Fantasy book couldn’t do. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t catch on. Sometimes, people just aren’t interested in convergence.
Interactive movies are interesting from a media perspective though, for that very reason - because they’re an example of a “new media” development that failed to be a hit. Most people never even realised they existed.
However, the interactive movie has survived in a way. For example the BBC website features a Doctor Who game called Attack of the Graske (not available with a rubbish bandwidth like mine) which is essentially an interactive movie (apparently, it was originally broadcast as one of those “press the red button” type things). Also, DVDs like Shrek 2 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire featured similar (somewhat rubbish) minigames. The moral of this story? Well, I guess interactive movies are entertaining enough if you’re about 4 years old, but they’re certainly not worth buying in their own right.
You can read more about interactive movies on Wikipedia.