There’s a middle ground to be found between total anarchy and total powerlessness. Just because you don’t have complete control doesn’t mean your control can’t have influence. There are many decisions in life where, even within a certain clearly defined personality, the choice isn’t so clear. Sticking a branching path in those specific places can be just as strong a characterization as not putting any options. It lets you know that the character doesn’t know where he’s going.

So why is interactivity better than non-interactivity?

First off, you get to control the pacing. DREAMING’s a good example. When I got sick of a character, I just stopped talking to him. The game, as a whole, becomes more interesting to me because the parts I find interesting are dragged out and the parts I don’t are not. This principle doesn’t just apply to dialogue- it can be used similarly on plot, where there are many digressions to be taken if and only if the player wants to see them. This control the player has (which can’t be replicated in any other medium!) is sadly undermined in most adventure games by the presence of puzzles which absolutely must be done. The developers tend to want for you to see everything they’ve done, so they herd you around with challenges on a straight path. But if you avoid that mentality, you can get an experience tailor-made for the player: A fast-moving plot, or a big world, or a slow drama with many interactions – whatever the player’s in the mood for.

Secondly, you get to influence the plot in tiny ways all over. I’ll give two examples, and you can imagine many more which still don’t break the character. First, let’s say someone offers the character a cigarette. He’s never smoked before, so you don’t get the option to say yes. (Saying yes so quickly would be out of character for a normal person.) But then the guy offers again, a little later. And now you’ve got only two options in front of you, because the character’s thinking about it: Try it, or stay far away. It doesn’t have any effect until later, when at random points all your options will disappear except the option to go buy a cigarette. So the player has an emotional connection to the decision he made, even though it was something the character himself thought of doing. Here’s another example: The character’s in a bad mood, so the options are more impolite than usual. So when someone comes over saying she has to tell him something important, he can brush her off if the player wishes. But it actually is important. Later on, the player is going to get slowed down by the character not having the information he needs. Also, that character is going to be more hostile and self-righteous to the character in the future. Again, the player has an emotional connection here: guilt. Or pride, in other cases which you can think of yourself.

Third. The character can feel more real to you than a non-interactive character, once you get to know him. A good actor is going to convince you that he’s making decisions and doesn’t know exactly where he’s going, but deep down you know everything he’s doing is following a rigid plot. Having branching paths gives you the sense that the circumstances are real, that this is a person just like you who has to make decisions and deal with them later.

So adventure games aren’t just movies with interactivity. Adding that interactivity means you’re dealing with a whole different language of storytelling, with its own inherent strengths.

On the actual subject, I don’t think I have much to say except that I agree.