263: Schizophrenic Storytelling

ranger19

New member
Nov 19, 2008
492
0
0
Interesting article, and one that brings up quite a few valid points, but I think the discussion about first person shooters is simply too far fetched.

Robert Buerkle said:
Let's think about that last example for a moment. "First-person shooter?" Yeah, it's the most prominent genre of the medium and the label will last forever, but truth be told, it's a misnomer. Half-Life doesn't say "I'm Gordon Freeman" and Halo doesn't say "I'm the Master Chief." Instead, they say "You're Gordon Freeman" and "You're the Master Chief."
I disagree. The game's box might say "you are Master Chief", but that's no surprise. The game is talking to you, the player. I respond by saying "yes, I am Master Chief." When I move the analog stick left and the camera pans to the left, I am not being told by the game "you see an enemy approach to your left"; I think "I see an enemy approach." And I think everyone would agree with that. Don't you?

I do agree in general with what you say, but this point.. I just don't buy it.
 

Smokescreen

New member
Dec 6, 2007
520
0
0
Wow. What a wonderful take on the way videogames do narrative. In the list of reasons why videogames are art, this perspective is one that should be brought up.
 

Smokescreen

New member
Dec 6, 2007
520
0
0
ranger19 said:
I disagree. The game's box might say "you are Master Chief", but that's no surprise. The game is talking to you, the player. I respond by saying "yes, I am Master Chief." When I move the analog stick left and the camera pans to the left, I am not being told by the game "you see an enemy approach to your left"; I think "I see an enemy approach." And I think everyone would agree with that. Don't you?

I do agree in general with what you say, but this point.. I just don't buy it.
That's an interesting counter but I don't agree-and here's why.

People always invest things into inanimate objects. People don't say 'he hit my car' so much as they say 'he hit me.' (They say both but my point is that people invest in things that are not them.)

The difference is that with an avatar, that object can never really be you, or something you interact with physically. We drive cars. We have special mugs from work we drink from. A videogame never allows us to actually be anything except in our brain--and I think that we are being told "You see an enemy approach" but we shorthand it to; I see that and must destroy it.

However, I don't know that I can properly dispute you-that is, with evidence, only an internal logic that makes sense to me. I say that so you know I'm not trying to start an argument and as an admission that I merely have a point of view that disagrees, not psychological fact that will.
 

ranger19

New member
Nov 19, 2008
492
0
0
Smokescreen said:
That's an interesting counter but I don't agree-and here's why.

People always invest things into inanimate objects. People don't say 'he hit my car' so much as they say 'he hit me.' (They say both but my point is that people invest in things that are not them.)

The difference is that with an avatar, that object can never really be you, or something you interact with physically. We drive cars. We have special mugs from work we drink from. A videogame never allows us to actually be anything except in our brain--and I think that we are being told "You see an enemy approach" but we shorthand it to; I see that and must destroy it.

However, I don't know that I can properly dispute you-that is, with evidence, only an internal logic that makes sense to me. I say that so you know I'm not trying to start an argument and as an admission that I merely have a point of view that disagrees, not psychological fact that will.
Very interesting (and may I say THANK YOU for the intellectual, mature response for what could have been an attempt to start a flame war?).

I suppose in third person games I do refer to "my avatar" or "my character", so that at least would not be first person, but I suppose that's not what's being disputed. And I guess when I'm playing I do think "the enemy is approaching me".

This reminds me of one discussion I read on here about how different people react to normal and inverted controls for first person shooters. I play normal, and (so the discussion goes) that's because I envision myself in the game, and when I want to look up I press up. Others who prefer inverted controls, on the other hand, are more likely to envision themselves standing behind the camera which is the first person view, and when they want to look up, they have to push down on the back of the camera to do so. These players, then, seem to experience more of a disconnect between themselves and the game.

I wonder if this difference might be what's going on between you and I when we play first person games. This might be a long shot, but... you don't happen to use inverted controls, do you?
 

Smokescreen

New member
Dec 6, 2007
520
0
0
ranger19 said:
... you don't happen to use inverted controls, do you?
Actually no, I hate them. Unless I am flying an object in game-then pulling 'down' to go up makes sense.

And I totally get what you mean-I think that's a credit to the immersion level a good game (any game) can put you into. But even when we are in FPS, we don't talk about them with others like it's us unless we're performing the action. In L4D, people constantly refer to each other as the names of the Avatars, not the name we've chosen (for example, people will call me 'Zoey' instead of Dan the Modest) at least until a level of familiarity is reached. But I am not Zoey, I play Zoey. Of course, when a Tank knocks the character across the room, it affects my play and via that, affects me so I say; I've been knocked across the room, or I'm down.

I think it's this separation, albeit a thin one, that keeps this at the 2nd person level.
 

Guyovick

New member
Nov 5, 2009
12
0
0
raynaa said:
Having a family member who is schizophrenic, it really bothers me when people misuse the term schizophrenic when they mean dissociative identity disorder, previously known as multiple personality disorder. Your need to use alliterations just spreads the stigma associated with mental illness.
I was about to point out the same thing. I can appreciate your frustration with the misuse.

While I believe the author was using the term Schizophrenia colloquially (he apologizes for this in a comment) he actually inadvertently does use it in a correct clinical sense. The publicly held perception of Schizophrenia is mainly of the Paranoid type, wherein the individual has a, "Preoccupation with one or more delusions or frequent auditory hallucinations." However there are several forms of Schizophrenia. The one that is most relevant to this discussion is the Disorganized type, wherein the individual exhibits:
* disorganized speech
* disorganized behavior
* flat or inappropriate affect
Doesn't that sound like Max Payne!

The author's mistake is not one of clinical misuse, but of non-differentiation.
 

commasplice

New member
Dec 24, 2009
469
0
0
RaphaelsRedemption said:
Woohoo! Another bipolar person! High-five, brah.
HG131 said:
Use it the way people use it or they get confused.
Well, the problem is that those people use a clinical term incorrectly. We shouldn't change the meaning of a word to something that it's not just because some people have no idea what the word actually means.

Anyway, did anyone else have "Sweating Bullets" playing in their head while reading this article? No? Just me? Oh well. It's still a great song.
 

ImForReal

New member
Sep 7, 2009
23
0
0
Great article! I've never thought about fps games as truly being 2nd-person, but when you think about it, it's true.

OT: Since you are a professor and all, I would have hoped that you would know this... http://begthequestion.info/
 

rddj623

"Breathe Deep, Seek Peace"
Sep 28, 2009
644
0
0
A truly great deconstruction of gaming's second-person nature!
 

Zom-B

New member
Feb 8, 2011
379
0
0
Smokescreen said:
ranger19 said:
I disagree. The game's box might say "you are Master Chief", but that's no surprise. The game is talking to you, the player. I respond by saying "yes, I am Master Chief." When I move the analog stick left and the camera pans to the left, I am not being told by the game "you see an enemy approach to your left"; I think "I see an enemy approach." And I think everyone would agree with that. Don't you?

I do agree in general with what you say, but this point.. I just don't buy it.
That's an interesting counter but I don't agree-and here's why.

People always invest things into inanimate objects. People don't say 'he hit my car' so much as they say 'he hit me.' (They say both but my point is that people invest in things that are not them.)

The difference is that with an avatar, that object can never really be you, or something you interact with physically. We drive cars. We have special mugs from work we drink from. A videogame never allows us to actually be anything except in our brain--and I think that we are being told "You see an enemy approach" but we shorthand it to; I see that and must destroy it.

However, I don't know that I can properly dispute you-that is, with evidence, only an internal logic that makes sense to me. I say that so you know I'm not trying to start an argument and as an admission that I merely have a point of view that disagrees, not psychological fact that will.
I think you just countered your own argument.

Look at your car example. Someone gets in an accident and tells you "that truck just hit me!" That person is "invested", as you say, in their vehicle and see it as an extension of themselves.

The same applies for videogames. Someone is playing Halo and their avatar is "killed" in a match. They say "Darn, that guy killed me!" Again, they are investing in the avatar as an extension of themselves. While the avatar may be entirely digital, they are still sitting in the driver's seat (chair/couch) with their hands on the wheel (controller/mouse/keyboard).

Their may be a real life distinction between digital information and a physical object like a car, but we invest in them the same way. The avatar can never really be you, but nor can the car. We are experiencing the same sorts of physical interaction with our videogames as we do with our vehicles, to stick with your example. Heck, we could even go so far as to sit down in a chair with a force feedback steering wheel and footpedals for controlling a racing game to replicate much of the experience of driving. There have even been arcade cabinets that move and jerk around to simulation real world forces like inertia.

I'd say that as far as inanimate objects go, Master Chief is as investable as a car.
 

Smokescreen

New member
Dec 6, 2007
520
0
0
Zom-B said:
I think you just countered your own argument.

Look at your car example. Someone gets in an accident and tells you "that truck just hit me!" That person is "invested", as you say, in their vehicle and see it as an extension of themselves.

The same applies for videogames. Someone is playing Halo and their avatar is "killed" in a match. They say "Darn, that guy killed me!" Again, they are investing in the avatar as an extension of themselves. While the avatar may be entirely digital, they are still sitting in the driver's seat (chair/couch) with their hands on the wheel (controller/mouse/keyboard).

Their may be a real life distinction between digital information and a physical object like a car, but we invest in them the same way. The avatar can never really be you, but nor can the car. We are experiencing the same sorts of physical interaction with our videogames as we do with our vehicles, to stick with your example. Heck, we could even go so far as to sit down in a chair with a force feedback steering wheel and footpedals for controlling a racing game to replicate much of the experience of driving. There have even been arcade cabinets that move and jerk around to simulation real world forces like inertia.

I'd say that as far as inanimate objects go, Master Chief is as investable as a car.
Kinda wayback machined here but while I see where you're going, I'm sticking to my guns and here's why:

I think there's two possibles here: 1) age difference. Younger people may be more easily able to identify with a digital avatar, since they grew up with them. I didn't. So more people may start to identify with avatars as time moves forward and this all may be moot.

2) Character. Master Chief is a terrible character--likely because he's meant to be an empty space that players are supposed to 'stand in' for. Except he isn't: he may be a terrible character but he still IS a character and as soon as that character does something--anything, but the larger the disparity the worse it will get--that breaks from what I, personally might do, I cease to identify with that avatar. This is fine if there is supposed to be a full fledged character there because then you've got narrative/story/etc going on. But if the character is supposed to be a stand in for the individual and suddenly isn't, then how do you, as a person, invest in that?

The objects you physically own don't have this issue--and people who find themselves sick with cancer, for example, often feel a great sense of betrayal, because what is theirs has failed them, is trying to kill them, no less. Who has that kind of investment in Master Chief?

Edit: that doesn't mean people can't or won't invest in characters; the howl of betrayals from fans of Star Wars when the original films are tinkered with is clearly an example of this. But all those characters weren't meant to be stand-ins. You could be like Han Solo but you can be Master Chief and I think there's a gap there that I think causes a break but I can't actually prove it. Just that I feel it, myself.