Breaking the "Fourth Wall" in video games: Transcending the pixelated screen

           In Earthbound I was struck with an odd request midway through the game. The game asked Ness (the main character) for the name of the player. At first I thought the game was asking me if I wanted to alter Ness' name, but then it clarified with "No, YOU! THE ONE STARING AT THE SCREEN". At that point there was no doubt in my mind, either I had been playing for far too long and was developing reality spill over (which does exist, I assure you) or the game was breaking the fourth wall. Now before I get into the significance of the way the fourth wall was broken in the game, I want to give some theory (that I've hastily come up with) to qualify what I'm about to say about the way Earthbound uses the breaking of the fourth wall.

      In video games, especially in RPGs, a developer has a crucial question to answer. What POV do you want the gamer to inhabit during the game? In literature POV ranges from first to third person, with third having two flavors: "close" (a narrative where the thoughts of only one character is known to the reader) or omniscient (a narrative where an all knowing narrator tells the story from his invisible perch).  In video games we see some of that mindset adopted, but it is of my opinion that POV needs to be approached differently in video games in regards to narrative. Yes, a shooter can easily be considered third person according to the camera angle the game it adopts, but when it comes to how the gamer is going to interact with the narrative another question needs to be asked. Does the player feel like he is the character or that he is observing the character? If the player feels like he or she is the character, then while the game might be done through a 3rd person camera it could easily have a first person feel. This is crucial for narrative decisions because it informs the developer whether the player will attribute the actions of the character to the character or to themselves. And this works conversely, with players who play first person games experiencing a more third person narrative. In Halo, nobody actually thinks they are master chief, but when playing multi-player the action of your character (who initially was identical to master chief) is ascribed to you. The reason for this has to do with the kind of characters the developers are creating and why certain characters can be inhabited by players more easily.

     When creating characters the spectrum lies between a character archetype (i.e. the peasant, the warrior) and a polished individual character (i.e. Master Chief, Laura Croft). There are several narrative and in game elements that inform players on what kind of character they are dealing with. For example, when a character in a game is given a bunch of exclusive powers only that character can access, the player will see that character as an individual given his unique abilities. However, if the player later finds out that many in the world have similar abilities, then the character will be contextualized in a more generic light. These in game elements are then combined with narrative elements within the game. Back to the Halo example, it was clear that master chief was given "special abilities" (he constantly was the one driving vehicles, given access to better weapons etc.), but as the game goes on it becomes obvious that others within the universe can access those "special abilities" as well. This is when the narrative elements of Halo make it clear to the player that master chief is a unique character within the universe. Now take into consideration Chrono from Chrono Trigger. there are little to no narrative elements that make Chrono a unique character. He is given special abilities, but his story (boy meets princess, comes over adversity) is that of every person you have ever known. Combine this with the fact that the game gives the player the ability to create insight within Chrono's character (there are points in the game where Chrono's responses and actions can reflect on his morality in the eyes of the player), it becomes clear that Chrono is merely a vessel for the player to inhabit. Chrono's actions become that of the player and make it so that the player feels as if they are Chrono (also the player can name Chrono and the entire team, giving even more ownership to the player.

    Now what does all of this have to do with Ness? Well, the POV the player is inhabiting is important to take into consideration when a developer is planning to break the fourth wall. If the player feels as if they are playing in a "first person mindset" then breaking the fourth wall will destroy that, disconnecting them from the character and possibly threatening any significance felt for the game. However, if the POV of the player is that of a third person nature (as it is in Earthbound), then it becomes clear that breaking the fourth wall will only hurt the overall immersion of the game and not the specific significance placed on the character, since the player knows the character is just a character and not them.

  Ness is an interesting character to take this introspection with because he is very much in the middle of the spectrum between an archetype and a polished individual. While, Ness is given special abilities and specific narrative elements ( divorced child, chosen one, etc.), the game gives the player the ability to customize many of those things (the naming of ness and the team, naming his dog, etc). In fact there is only one element in the game that tips the balance in the favor of unique character. The fact that the game rewards the player according to story progression. Power ups and so on, while certainly integral in the game, are not the end all of the game. In fact these powers are usually given on a need to know basis, endowed before boss battles or difficult portions of the game. Instead what is rewarded is the ability of the player to make the narrative progress. If the game was in fact interested in rewarding the player with armor, then it would have needed an extended universe with more monsters and more drops as opposed to the narrative based progression system where the player usually gains new weapons after every significant push in the narrative.

So now we have established that when the game broke the fourth wall it wasn't a huge intrusion in regards to how the player felt about Ness, it's important to take into consideration the  huge intrusion it did have on overall game immersion. And the game definitely makes up for this at the end. SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT READ ON IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE FINAL BOSS BATTLE RUINED.

In the game, when you make it to the third form of the final boss, Paula must pray to all of the friends and families of the group (the group being Ness, Paula, Jeff and Poo).  Their family members deal huge damage to the boss by praying for the group's safety. After exhausting all of their familial options they turn to prayer again just to find their efforts to be rejected ( I thought this was an indicator that I had to pony up and beat the boss with my team).  After losing all of my PP and wasting all of Jeff's objects I decided to pray one more time. This time the prayer was to all the little boys and girls out there. Then it said they were praying for our safety. Then it showed me something that blew my mind. On the screen it revealed" Ray was praying". And then again it showed "Ray was praying". At that moment I closed my eyes and prayed for the characters who I knew weren't real.

The moment a video game transcends it's ability to affect my life only in the form of button clicking to receiving a tangible reaction from me is a clear indicator that immersion has worked. It broke the fourth wall, destroying a little immersion and then made up for it all, by ensuring that the world of Eartbound will forever be apart of my experiences in life.