That is a good point... Perhaps 'competitive action' is the right word.
I still get a 'hidden in plain sight' sensation out of this. Strangely, it feels like the industry is cheating by using competitive action (which mostly is violent action
) to make their experiences more interesting. I think I think of 'cheating' because in interviews you hear talk of engaging experiences as-if they could do them without the competitive action. Yet if you took away the violence from nearly any title most players would have the art game complaints that it 'has no purpose' or that you 'cannot do anything', so these 'engaging experiences' with characters are partly faux.
Hidden in plain sight? Reminds me of this:
http://ludusnovus.net/2011/08/15/why-so-few-violent-games/Also, would The Love Letter count as competitive action? Maybe it would.
Actually, I've heard several players say that it feels strangely like playing a FPS because of the focus on cover and line-of-sight, so who knows...
On the other hand it uses music, sound and voice acting to create a very defined atmosphere and with great effect.
I've been reading the book
Story by Robert McKee, and I just came across an idea that may have relevance here.
In the chapter on "Scene Design", McKee differentiates between emotion and mood. Mood is that stuff that games are pretty good at - it's atmosphere, it creates the context, shapes the emotional expectations of the viewer (or player), but it is not emotion in itself.
Emotion is the product of a positive or negative change in
value (which in a game context might be collecting a coin, or jumping across a chasm, or killing an enemy, or conversely, getting killed), and
mood. Without the action, the change in value, the mood remains inert, disembodied potential. With the action, the mood focuses the positive or negative twinge into a specific emotion.
Here's a quote from the book:
The arc of the scene, sequence, or act determines the basic emotion. Mood makes it specific. But mood will not substitute for emotion. When we want mood experiences, we go to concerts or museums. When we want meaningful emotional experience, we go to the storyteller. It does the writer no good to write an exposition-filled scene in which nothing changes, then set it in a garden at sundown, thinking that a golden mood will carry the day.
I think this hits at a common failing (or at least, a common criticism) of many "art" games - just like movies or books, mood is not enough to create strong emotional engagement. You need story (or gameplay) to create positive and negative "value" that the audience will care strongly about.
I think we are just beginning to learn how to do that. I'm looking forward to it.