Thanks for writing and sharing the article. It’s indeed well written one.
I’d share my thoughts on this as I’m working on experimenting with narrative heavy games. Last year I did a small social experiment with such a game called ‘Missing’, with my limited abilities and hope to continue to make more games like that.
At the onset of this discussion, let’s put aside the success factor. As long as a game gets user acceptance, anything goes. User is the king. If you can get their vote, whatever product you make will find it’s place on the shelf. It’s the same for everything, from games to politics. If you can win user support, you are the king.
So, yes, why not. Feel free to try your thing. There are games of every kind. There’s nothing you are prevented to do in games or any other media.
But, as a student of this media, it’s your choice to learn game designing or not. And you can’t do that by making non-interactive games. As a subject, game design have nothing to do with non-interactivity and to discover it’s way of doing things you have to cross the borders and immigrate into this territory.
This territory very different. In a nutshell, the difference between games and other non-interactive media is like watching the cricket match and playing the cricket match. While watching a cricket match can be charming, tell that to Tendulkar.
Binding a player to the audience seat is like a torture. By making games like that, you can win support from the audience sector of the society, but not the player sector. Then again the society is not black and white, rather a spectrum. I myself don’t like games without the toppings of stories.
I’m into learning game design in-spite of having a strong urge of doing non-interactive games and large cutscenes. I’m fighting against it. It’s a hard struggle as stories were part of my upbringing rather than games. It’s an uphill trek.
But so far, I’m enjoying this hard trek. The scenery is so rewarding.