“The future game
player might be an actor in a drama over which he has no control” that’s
what makes a drama dramatic (Poole 2000). To be realistic a game should be more
like life in the respect that you only have a facile amount of control over a
situation. If you’re all powerful in a game and control and change all
outcomes, the game is less immersive less dramatic because you are in a sense
omnipotent. Loss of control is more engaging more realistic more dramatic,
something beyond your control happens and your choices revolve around how you
deal with that. The walking dead game is a good example of this, you steer the
story but can’t predict the future; therefore you have no control over the
outcomes you've orchestrated. It allows
you to feel the illusion of control and then reminds you that some time shit
happens and there’s nothing you can do but pick up the pieces.

Decision making has become a very important process in games
these days but to a degree it destroys storytelling. You can listen to a story
and then decides how it develops on top of that; having your cake and eating
it. You should be at the mercy of the story. In reality you don't construct
the story of your own life, you have control to some degree but that control is
an illusion because anything could happen to us at any moment that could change
the story dramatically in a way we have no control of.
One crucial difference between film and games is that
film actors are chosen but game characters are made (That’s not necessarily true any more a la L.A Noire). So this character is designed to make you feel a
certain way and although speech in games is always limited to a set number of
responses. If you create a large enough number of responses that can create the
illusion of intelligence and the player fills in the blanks because of their
love of characters. Anything more than that would require the computer to able
to think for itself and understand what you’re saying.
It’s an odd phenomenon but I find it harder to watch a
likeable character die, their life has meaning purely because they’re liked. They are constructs but you want them to succeed. This protectiveness creates a kill or be killed
sort of scenario which can lead to horrific violence like in Manhunt, you’d
rather kill and mutilate to progress than let Cash die and be done with it.
However realistic characters are in a way
undesirable because they’re everywhere. In real life you can’t date an alien or
a robot, fight zombies or ninjas... or zombie ninjas, but you can in video games.
So maybe making them real people is taking a step too far, because real people are boring.
Games are a kinetic art form, every frame of movement in a
video game is painstakingly crafted by gifted people working very hard just to
create a particular string of emotions in people all over the world how is that
not art? Really games have to be played to be understood, it’s like when you
see a picture of someone as opposed to actually meeting them. People on the
outside just see it as lights and noise and violence for the sake of it, they
don’t understand because they refuse to suspend their disbelief.
Playing a game is
like religion; deep down you know its nonsense and atheists like me mock the
idea of believing something without evidence, but to people on the inside it
offers a feeling of fellowship and satisfaction that can be likened to playing
a game or taking a drug. That’s because they've chosen to believe it, when you
walk into the cinema or a church you hang up your common sense at the door and
you prepare yourself to believe baseless fantasy because that’s a fun way to
spend a few hours. The only difference is at the end of the film or the game
you put your common sense hat back on. We understand that's it's only an illusion but we want to be taken in by it even if it's just to forget about our daily lives for a few hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment