> Let alone in connection with Bandersnatch, which was mediocre at best. Yeah, that one was an odd connection for me. Interactivity does change the experience

> Let alone in connection with Bandersnatch, which was mediocre at best. Yeah, that one was an odd connection for me. Interactivity does change the experience of narrative media, as has been obvious to anyone playing video games for a good long while now, but it's a weird way to work one's way up to where the article takes it. To the extent that one's empathy wanes in Bandersnatch I think it's mostly down to (1) seeing the scaffolding behind the scenes and wanting to explore, at which point the narrative loses its power and it becomes more about poking around the various branching paths, and (2) the limitation of choice itself as meta-level control of the viewer—those "oh god I don't want to do either thing to this person" choices are the part where the episode actually has something to say. Maybe not anything new or profound (done to death in video games, which have mined the meta-territory of player choice in narrative for years) but at least something. To me this is the part—the "wait can I do neither? Oh. I'm under control too." that elevates the episode to Black Mirror level rather than just being an interesting tech experiment. The little "ah ha". The second part is why it's pretty easy to get into the groove of just poking around without feeling anything for the characters. It's the limitation of your choices and the high visibility of the system behind them that kills the empathy. Again, territory video games have played around in for a good long while. It's a hell of a lot harder for me to play the "bad" route(s) in some video games than others, depending on how they're structured and how good the narrative and characters are. Often I can't do it and still enjoy myself. What's interesting here is why Bandersnatch in particular isn't great at maintaining viewer/player empathy—which is likely, at least in part, intentional.