In recent years, a growing conversation within the games industry has started to surface around a simple but surprisingly loaded question: are modern video games becoming less about “playing” and more about watching, experiencing, or simply going through a curated narrative?
This discussion has been reignited by recent debates around games like Mixtape, which has found itself at the centre of contrasting opinions despite strong critical reception. As highlighted across commentary pieces from outlets such as VICE Media and PC Gamer, the conversation isn’t really about whether these games are “good” or “bad” - but about what players actually expect video games to be in 2026.
On one side of the discussion, narrative-driven experiences are being praised for their cinematic storytelling, emotional impact, and tightly controlled pacing. On the other, some players feel that interactivity - the thing that traditionally defines games - is being reduced in favour of passive or limited engagement.
But this tension isn’t new. If anything, it has existed in various forms for over a decade.
Games like What Remains of Edith Finch, The Stanley Parable, The Walking Dead, and Life is Strange all pushed the boundaries of how interactive storytelling could be structured. Each of these titles leaned heavily into narrative design, player choice, or guided experiences, often minimising traditional gameplay systems in favour of story progression and emotional engagement.
Source: TellTales The Walking Dead
What’s interesting is that while these games were widely celebrated, they also sparked early versions of the same debate we’re seeing today: are they truly “games” in the traditional sense, or are they something else entirely?
Some industry voices argue that narrative-heavy titles are simply expanding what games can be, not replacing core gameplay. Others suggest that the industry’s growing focus on cinematic presentation, voice acting, and scripted sequences is slowly reshaping player expectations away from mechanical depth and towards experience-driven design.
As noted in long-running discussions across developer forums like GameDev.net and broader community debates on platforms such as Reddit, this tension between interactivity and storytelling is still very much unresolved. It reflects a broader identity question for the medium itself - one that doesn’t have a clear answer.
It’s also worth noting that “less gameplay” doesn’t necessarily mean “less engagement.” Games like The Stanley Parable thrive specifically because of how they play with the idea of player agency, while What Remains of Edith Finch uses minimal mechanics to deliver maximum emotional impact. In these cases, interaction is still present - just expressed differently.
Source: What Remains of Edith Finch
The more interesting shift may not be that games are becoming “less about playing,” but that the definition of playing itself is expanding. Walking through a story, making narrative decisions, or even simply observing a carefully constructed world can still be interactive in meaningful ways - just not always in the traditional sense of challenge, mechanics, or skill.
Ultimately, the debate reflects a healthy tension at the heart of modern game design. As technology improves and storytelling tools become more sophisticated, developers have more ways than ever to shape player experience. The question is not necessarily whether games are losing gameplay - but how far gameplay itself can stretch before it becomes something else entirely.
Are we seeing a shift in what players expect from games, or just more variety in how games are designed?
Keep Calm and waka waka...
