I touched upon this topic in an old post concerning the breaking of the fourth wall in the game Earthbound, but I thought it would be helpful to put my thoughts on how one should approach point of view and how it functions within a game. The purpose of this post is not to purport any authority over the subject matter. Instead I hope to create a theory base that can either be challenged or worked from. I encourage anyone reading this to chime in with your own "2 cents" about where my theory goes awry and where it really sheds some light on the function of point of view in video games. I am writing this to spark a conversation that needs to be had before we can critically look at how a narrative is being told through a story.
First, let me begin with some background knowledge as to what "point of view" actually is. The point of view in a text is basically the vantage point from which the narrative is being told. This vantage point doesn't need to be static (for example, there are plenty of novels that switch between 1st and 3rd person), but many of our favorite stories have been told through one point of view. When classifying point of view English uses four categories to organize most tests. These four categories are first person, second person, third person limited, and third person omniscient. First person is when the narrative is told by a character within the story (i.e. the chief in One flew over the Cuckoos nest). Second person is usually marked by the evocation of "you" and is frequently associated with breaking of the fourth wall. Third person limited is when there is a detached narrator, who seems to be telling the story through the eyes of a certain character or characters. Third omniscient is when there is a detached narrator who has full knowledge of the entire universe of the text. Often these point of views ( excluding second) can be mapped out on a spectrum from narrator-character differentiation. On such a spectrum one end would lie a true first person text, where there is no difference between character and narrator, and on the other end there would be a true third person omniscient.
Now what does any of this have to do with video games? A lot really because video games don't utilize a literature based take of point of view. Instead it takes after film, adopting the camera angle as the point of view. While this does have an effect on how the game is perceived, using this mode of classification elicits a lot of false assumptions concerning the nature between the player and the narrative. For example, usually first person camera angles give the player (or viewer) a feeling as if they are the character in the screen. This effect is useful for horror movies and shooters, because it allow the player feel the dread and danger these genres tend to create. But what does it tell us about how the player views the character in the screen? Does the player actually believe the character is an extension of them or do they simply view them as a character they're inhabiting for the time being. A camera angle doesn't answer these questions. However, when using literature's classification system these questions are given some context to work from. In a text, the way a character acts is perceived incredibly different when written in different points of views. The same could be said for video games. The player's relationship with the in game character or proxy is important because then the actions done in the game will be perceived differently according to that relationship.
I'm not advocating for an adoption of the literary take on point of view nor am I asking for the complete abandonment of the camera angle classification system. Instead I want to take a critical look on how point of view functions in games, with some of the intuition from the literary system being kept in mind. Just as the point of views in Literature can be mapped on a spectrum of differentiation, a similar spectrum can be made for video games. However, this spectrum will focus on differentiation between the player and the in-game proxy as opposed to character and narrator. That's because the player in a way is the ultimate narrator of a game. Sure the developer decides a lot of the executive decisions, but the player is the entity that literally drives the plot of the game. It's important to know whether the player considers themselves the a puppet master or a marionette. An easy way to encompass this differentiation is by thinking of in game characters as either templates or developed characters. Templates are easily inhabited by the player, making differentiation very low, while developed characters tend to be much hard to inhabit.
Template<------------------------------------------------------------------> Developed Character
Wii Sports Fable Chrono Trigger EB Master Chief Solid Snake
L of Z
Character<-----------------------------------------------------------------> Narrator
1st person 3rd person- lim 3rd person omniscient
Why is this essential knowledge? Well it's because the developer needs to keep this perspective in mind when deciding how characters function and act within the game. Fable is a game that's very close to being a blank template, so if the game forced you to act in a certain way, the player is more likely to get annoyed because the player feels like those actions are attributed to themselves. Compare this with the actions of Solid Snake, who is inconsiderate, smokes and a bit of a pervert, yet gets the moral dilemma pass, because you don't view him as an extension of you, but simply a character whose story you're experiencing. This perspective also works with archetypes and how archetypal characters can be filled with depth or left blank. Link is the archetypal hero, but we all imagine a certain personality for him. Some moments may have clued you in, but other for his heroic stature, little is actually known concerning who Link is and what his personality might be like. The game assumes you'll fill that part in.
I really hope this starts new conversation concerning how people look at games. Ask yourself what is the developer allowing me to do with my in game proxy and what does it say about me. What does it say about the character? You'll find those questions are ones you've been answering all along inside you're head while playing.
First, let me begin with some background knowledge as to what "point of view" actually is. The point of view in a text is basically the vantage point from which the narrative is being told. This vantage point doesn't need to be static (for example, there are plenty of novels that switch between 1st and 3rd person), but many of our favorite stories have been told through one point of view. When classifying point of view English uses four categories to organize most tests. These four categories are first person, second person, third person limited, and third person omniscient. First person is when the narrative is told by a character within the story (i.e. the chief in One flew over the Cuckoos nest). Second person is usually marked by the evocation of "you" and is frequently associated with breaking of the fourth wall. Third person limited is when there is a detached narrator, who seems to be telling the story through the eyes of a certain character or characters. Third omniscient is when there is a detached narrator who has full knowledge of the entire universe of the text. Often these point of views ( excluding second) can be mapped out on a spectrum from narrator-character differentiation. On such a spectrum one end would lie a true first person text, where there is no difference between character and narrator, and on the other end there would be a true third person omniscient.
Now what does any of this have to do with video games? A lot really because video games don't utilize a literature based take of point of view. Instead it takes after film, adopting the camera angle as the point of view. While this does have an effect on how the game is perceived, using this mode of classification elicits a lot of false assumptions concerning the nature between the player and the narrative. For example, usually first person camera angles give the player (or viewer) a feeling as if they are the character in the screen. This effect is useful for horror movies and shooters, because it allow the player feel the dread and danger these genres tend to create. But what does it tell us about how the player views the character in the screen? Does the player actually believe the character is an extension of them or do they simply view them as a character they're inhabiting for the time being. A camera angle doesn't answer these questions. However, when using literature's classification system these questions are given some context to work from. In a text, the way a character acts is perceived incredibly different when written in different points of views. The same could be said for video games. The player's relationship with the in game character or proxy is important because then the actions done in the game will be perceived differently according to that relationship.
I'm not advocating for an adoption of the literary take on point of view nor am I asking for the complete abandonment of the camera angle classification system. Instead I want to take a critical look on how point of view functions in games, with some of the intuition from the literary system being kept in mind. Just as the point of views in Literature can be mapped on a spectrum of differentiation, a similar spectrum can be made for video games. However, this spectrum will focus on differentiation between the player and the in-game proxy as opposed to character and narrator. That's because the player in a way is the ultimate narrator of a game. Sure the developer decides a lot of the executive decisions, but the player is the entity that literally drives the plot of the game. It's important to know whether the player considers themselves the a puppet master or a marionette. An easy way to encompass this differentiation is by thinking of in game characters as either templates or developed characters. Templates are easily inhabited by the player, making differentiation very low, while developed characters tend to be much hard to inhabit.
Template<------------------------------------------------------------------> Developed Character
Wii Sports Fable Chrono Trigger EB Master Chief Solid Snake
L of Z
Character<-----------------------------------------------------------------> Narrator
1st person 3rd person- lim 3rd person omniscient
Why is this essential knowledge? Well it's because the developer needs to keep this perspective in mind when deciding how characters function and act within the game. Fable is a game that's very close to being a blank template, so if the game forced you to act in a certain way, the player is more likely to get annoyed because the player feels like those actions are attributed to themselves. Compare this with the actions of Solid Snake, who is inconsiderate, smokes and a bit of a pervert, yet gets the moral dilemma pass, because you don't view him as an extension of you, but simply a character whose story you're experiencing. This perspective also works with archetypes and how archetypal characters can be filled with depth or left blank. Link is the archetypal hero, but we all imagine a certain personality for him. Some moments may have clued you in, but other for his heroic stature, little is actually known concerning who Link is and what his personality might be like. The game assumes you'll fill that part in.
I really hope this starts new conversation concerning how people look at games. Ask yourself what is the developer allowing me to do with my in game proxy and what does it say about me. What does it say about the character? You'll find those questions are ones you've been answering all along inside you're head while playing.
No comments:
Post a Comment