If you can cast your mind back to the first week of class,
you might be able to remember Kevin’s succinct example of how games and films
are separated in large part by agency. The classic horror movie-goer experience
of shouting “don’t go in there!” to an idiotic and/or oblivious protagonist was
brought up to highlight how, in movies, all we can do is shout fruitlessly at
the protagonist, while in games, we have the control to go in or not.
But I would argue that the structural, or ludological elements
of games can be so strict that the inherent distinction between games and
films, agency, becomes blurry. Because while in the video game version of that
classic horror film the player supposedly has choices, they kind of don’t. In
the same way that the film viewer consoles themselves over the protagonist’s
decision with “oh well, if they didn’t do that the movie wouldn’t happen”, if
the video game player wants the game to continue, they will eventually have to “go
in there” too. Otherwise, the game
wouldn’t happen. In the end, you arrive at the same result as in the
agency-less film.
But I’m just looking at this one anecdotal example of horror
movies. And in a simplistic way. But it
just happened to be that example that got me thinking about not just whether
games simply "have" agency or "not", but about its complex existence in games. Because sure, that example hints at there
being not much agency in the larger scheme of things, but watching the gameplay
footage of Amnesia: The Dark Descent, the
precise way that the gamer reacted to enemies and obstacles and events was specific
to him, and a result of his agency.
Oh no, this just all comes down to what your definition of
agency is, doesn’t it?
When I think back to early FTVMS papers, largely on the study of film, I do remember agency coming up as something significant. I dont think it's fair to say that watching films, or other visual media is void of agency; rather it depends how you define agency.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about film for instance, we can say that 'active' viewing, where the reader negotiates the messages and values of the text with some critical thought, can be a form of agency. This is opposed to consuming a film in a 'passive' manner, where the messages are decoded in a basic way and accepted on face value.
I do however agree that videogames involve a kind of viewer/player agency that films do not, but this kind of agency has to do with interaction based on intense and frequent inclusion of the player in the chain of cause and effect which actively constructs the narrative of the playing session.
In this sense, and I think you'd agree, this course has been most interesting in how it shows videogame theory to borrow heavily from theoretical tools and concepts of other mediums. However there's usually some kind of alteration in these concepts when applied to videogames. It complicates things but also broadens the range of ways we can interpret and use concepts such as agency.
Yeah I totally agree that's why the course is interesting! I also wonder if, when other mediums were young, they at first had to borrow from other theoretical frameworks. Because I assume video game theory will develop and eventually exist more on its own terms.
DeleteIt's exactly right to say that there is agency in watching film, and that audiences are active. However, I think the mode of engagement is different, not because the people playing games are more active than those who engage with cinema, but because they can make decisions within the text that they are responsible for in a way that is not possible within film.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make sense?
- Kevin