>>96396645
>>96396797
>>96401228

Technically Ark Nova has some interaction, but it shows just how far the mainstream window of design has slid that it could be considered high. Players have a very low ability to speed up or slow down the round since the main time pressure action is an alternative to playing a sponsor. This means players are almost always choosing whether to push based on what sponsor cards they have drawn, rather than the time rhythm relative to others. For the card row, the majority of game turns are played without the ability to interact with the majority of it, since it is double gated by level 2 actions and reputation. Broad strategies are usually based exclusively on the random starting hands, and have almost no dynamic reaction to revealed information about others, since the primary contention point is for conservation slots which are also gated by dependent random draws such that competing players typically fall into different levels in the end. Also the direct negative effect animals usually are played because they fit into the conservation targets and zoo shape of the player, rather than because of their text effect. This is not dynamic interaction.

If Ark Nova is the benchmark of high interactivity, where are Caylus, Power Grid, Le Havre, etc? It is hard to imagine a corresponding description without multiple hyperbolic adjectives. Even games like Concordia which I would label as low-middle interactivity are radically dynamic in comparison to Ark Nova.

An objective description of Ark Nova is that it is very low interactivity, but not multi-player solitaire. I would probably say it is the minimum benchmark to avoid the MPS label.

Reading this you might think I hate Ark Nova but I actually like it alright. The action charging system is a somewhat deep and quite engaging puzzle, and it does have that thin slice of interaction to keep you just slightly off balance.