"The idea of realism in art plays an important role in the media. Scott McCloud's excellent and deeply profound book Understanding Comics outlines this philosophy. In short, our brains automatically interpret what we experience in its own terms. Seeing faces in clouds is a perfect example of this. We put ourselves into the world we experience, we want to see familiar things everywhere. And we can see a man on the moon because there's just enough information there for our brains to fill in the gaps. Three dots is all it needs, and suddenly we have a full-blown human face.
But if there were an actual carved face on the moon there would be little magic or mystery. If clouds had definite shapes, would we turn our eyes to the sky as often? The philosophical implications of this run very deep, but in terms of video games, the idea is simple: a less life-like game allows for more interpretation. More realism means less creativity on our part, less of our own personality filling in the details missing between a cartoon-ish game and reality. It's no mistake Shigeru Miyamoto wants to keep Mario a cartoon; he wants us to be able to identify with him. Who can identify with a real Italian plumber?"
And the last sentence sums it all up. Mario has been and is still played for many hours of fun, and not because he is a plumber.
But even though I can find myself easily within the statement of 'having less creativity' when a game is more real; I then wondered why this doesn't always account for movies? I believe 'watching a movie' is seen as an (inter)active thing for our brain; we live along with the protagonist and try to figure out clues and plots. So when we see a 'realistic' movie, we do not feel ourselves cut off from our creativity. I enjoy them just as much if not more.
I think more processes are at work when watching a movie or playing a game, which might affect the way we look at realism.
Secondly, he states in the article the principle of identification.
"As video games progress in realism, the rules become increasingly like the ones we live with from day to day. Breaking those rules is still expected, but in a much more believable way. This could change as games more convincingly mirror the outside world. And honestly, who wants a game where you pay the rent?"
Even though the last sentence is a bit simple-minded, I come across this principle quite often, and mostly in a negative way. (Maybe it's me personally, but this is how I experience this). When you have to jump upon Goombas in Mario, you don't necessarily feel that you 'kill' them. They're just obstacles that you have to jump upon before you can move on.
When I play a more realistic game, for instance the latest Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2, you have to shoot people. Not only do you focus on them with your gun, you actually see them get shot in the head, get hurt and fall down dead. Gameplaywise, you can still say: 'They're just obstacles that you have to eliminate before you can move on'. True, but on the moment I focus upon that person and pull the trigger, I don't feel right about it.
Above you can see a screenshot from the Call of Duty game. This is, in fact, a very infamous level in which you shoot civilians. (You get a warning beforehand, that you can skip it if you might find it offensive). This is - deliberately of course - more complex than just shooting 'normal' rebels who are firing at you and will kill you if you do not shoot them first. No, this level is about killing civilians - deliberately - even though your character plays a spy who has to 'play along' with the criminal whom he has gotten involved with. You see people scream, running away, or drag themselves wounded out of harm's way.
I know games are seen as fun, and are played 'because it is possible to do things you couldn't do in real life', I still feel the strange chill as to why people would want to shoot others in the first place... Sigh. Maybe I'm just too soft to play games...
No comments:
Post a Comment