Last week we discussed the topic of Ideal Stories, as presented in Jesper Juul's article Games Telling Stories. This week we are going to discuss another point he brings up: games have similarities with narratives, but aren't narrative themselves.
For example, Juul states that many video games start with the player lacking something, with the objective being to resolve that lack. This is a common theme in traditional narratives. Another example he brings up is the fact that most games follow a quest structure and contain a protagonist. Quest structures are again common in narratives: this is when a character has to go on some kind of journey to resolve something. The idea of a protagonist is a huge similarity as well because almost every story has a main character.
It is also an oft-repeated but problematic point that game sessions are experienced linearly, just like narratives. [1] Juul states that this isn't relevant because we are denying the very experience of playing the game, which involves numerous branching paths, replays caused by deaths, quitting, etc. The experience is so different from reading a traditional narrative that a person will lean forward (active) while playing a game, and lean back (passive) while reading a book. [1] Juul also goes so far as to state that the playing of a game includes the awareness that this playthrough embodies one possible path out of thousands.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ideal Stories
Over the course of this blog we have analyzed concepts and devices used in video games to tell stories. But in his article Games Telling Stories, Jesper Juul introduces the question, "Do video games tell stories?" [1] This is a much debated question because video games are vastly different from films and books, mostly because of interactivity. Jesper presents a handful of arguments for and against games telling stories. One of the arguments he presents for gaming as a narrative medium is the concept of ideal stories.
An ideal story is usually presented to the player by means of the game manual, back of the case, intro, etc. It is an ideal sequence of events that the player has to realize. [1] Jesper uses the classic arcade game Space Invaders as an example. In Space Invaders we as players are presented with the ideal story that the aliens have invaded and broken the positive state we were living in. The ideal story ends with the aliens being defeated and our positive state being restored. We fight them to return to peace. As players we are fighting to realize a sequence of events, but the actual playing is not the sequence. [1] And in the case of Space Invaders, the ideal story can never be fully achieved: after a wave of aliens are killed, a new one appears. It's endless.
The first shots being fired in the endless game of Space Invaders.
Ideal stories are not possible in films and books because there is only one possible sequence of events. There is no interactivity from the audience/reader. The story presented exists in its singular possible form.
Next week we will take a look at another one of the arguments Jesper presents in his article.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
An ideal story is usually presented to the player by means of the game manual, back of the case, intro, etc. It is an ideal sequence of events that the player has to realize. [1] Jesper uses the classic arcade game Space Invaders as an example. In Space Invaders we as players are presented with the ideal story that the aliens have invaded and broken the positive state we were living in. The ideal story ends with the aliens being defeated and our positive state being restored. We fight them to return to peace. As players we are fighting to realize a sequence of events, but the actual playing is not the sequence. [1] And in the case of Space Invaders, the ideal story can never be fully achieved: after a wave of aliens are killed, a new one appears. It's endless.
The first shots being fired in the endless game of Space Invaders.Ideal stories are not possible in films and books because there is only one possible sequence of events. There is no interactivity from the audience/reader. The story presented exists in its singular possible form.
Next week we will take a look at another one of the arguments Jesper presents in his article.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Monday, October 4, 2010
Narrative Interactivity: Game Examples
Last week I went into detail on the four main models used when analyzing video game narrative interactivity. This week I will expand on this by using the models to categorize a popular modern game. Let's get started!
Halo: Reach
Halo: Reach is the fourth (and supposedly last) game created by Bungie in the Halo universe. Its gameplay is primarily shooting and is told from a first person perspective. Modern First Person Shooters are almost always Internal Mode and the Halo series is typically a bit Ontological, but Halo: Reach is a decidedly complex game with multiple modes of play and options, so let's break it down further.
In the game's primary storyline, or Campaign mode, you control a character with the call sign 'Noble Six' (as you are the sixth member of 'Noble Team'). This is a character with weight in the game world's story, and is not entirely a user generation. Although interestingly, the user is asked to assign the visual look of the character -- armor and gender (the developers recorded both a male and female voice for the part dependent on player choice) specifically. This definitely tilts the game towards Ontological slightly because the player's choices here decide how the character looks throughout the game.
Noble Six, armored as the player decided.
Now, there is a lot of gray zone with Ontological vs Exploratory in gaming as fully Ontological games are very rare, and many games now have at least some kind of player influence on the narrative. Many people would classify Halo: Reach as exploratory simply because the overall narrative doesn't really stray from its path. Still, I would argue Halo: Reach's campaign is slightly Ontological, with the sandbox nature of the gunfights and the player customization in mind. Campaign isn't the only component of Halo: Reach though so let's break down a couple more modes: namely Forge mode, and Theater mode.
Forge is a mode entirely based on user content, and it's designed to fully support Reach's robust multiplayer suite. In Forge mode the player is given the tools necessary to create his own worlds: walls, ramps, doorways, archways, pillars, etc. The player simply chooses one of the pre-made environments shipped with the game (called 'maps') for base terrain and he's ready to go. With full control the user is able to create limitless content and distribute it online with the rest of the world.
Here a player has reconstructed the Eiffel Tower in Forge.
A mode like this would almost always be External, but there is a problem: the player still has his created character in this mode. Instead of flying around body-less as an invisible camera, the player controls a character while he is constructing worlds. This keeps it from being External, but Forge definitely has typical External qualities.
Theater mode is the other interesting mode in the game. Remember last week when I said External/Exploratory games are basically non-existent? Well, I do believe Theater in fact falls under that category. Here's how the mode works. Basically whenever you play Halo: Reach the game is recording your gameplay. Be it in multiplayer, Campaign, Forge, anything. When you go into Theater mode in Halo: Reach it will bring up a list of your recently played footage. Let's say you pick the footage of a competitive multiplayer match you just played. When you boot up the match in Theater mode, the game recreates the match exactly as it played, like a movie (with pause/play, rewind, and fast forward options as well). Only, unlike a movie, you control the camera and can fly around in the world while you control the time. This is completely External: you don't have your character like the other modes in Reach. You are simply an external camera source. That being said, it is still Exploratory because you don't affect the events at all; they already happened. You're simply viewing them at better angles, taking pictures, saving clips, etc. Hence the name 'Theater' mode.
Theater mode enables the player to view any previously played match from
any angle, at any speed, at any time.
I hoped you like this analysis of the concepts in Marie-Laure Ryan's article, Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, as this is the last week I will spend on it. See you next week!
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Halo: Reach
Halo: Reach is the fourth (and supposedly last) game created by Bungie in the Halo universe. Its gameplay is primarily shooting and is told from a first person perspective. Modern First Person Shooters are almost always Internal Mode and the Halo series is typically a bit Ontological, but Halo: Reach is a decidedly complex game with multiple modes of play and options, so let's break it down further.
In the game's primary storyline, or Campaign mode, you control a character with the call sign 'Noble Six' (as you are the sixth member of 'Noble Team'). This is a character with weight in the game world's story, and is not entirely a user generation. Although interestingly, the user is asked to assign the visual look of the character -- armor and gender (the developers recorded both a male and female voice for the part dependent on player choice) specifically. This definitely tilts the game towards Ontological slightly because the player's choices here decide how the character looks throughout the game.
Noble Six, armored as the player decided.Now, there is a lot of gray zone with Ontological vs Exploratory in gaming as fully Ontological games are very rare, and many games now have at least some kind of player influence on the narrative. Many people would classify Halo: Reach as exploratory simply because the overall narrative doesn't really stray from its path. Still, I would argue Halo: Reach's campaign is slightly Ontological, with the sandbox nature of the gunfights and the player customization in mind. Campaign isn't the only component of Halo: Reach though so let's break down a couple more modes: namely Forge mode, and Theater mode.
Forge is a mode entirely based on user content, and it's designed to fully support Reach's robust multiplayer suite. In Forge mode the player is given the tools necessary to create his own worlds: walls, ramps, doorways, archways, pillars, etc. The player simply chooses one of the pre-made environments shipped with the game (called 'maps') for base terrain and he's ready to go. With full control the user is able to create limitless content and distribute it online with the rest of the world.
Here a player has reconstructed the Eiffel Tower in Forge.A mode like this would almost always be External, but there is a problem: the player still has his created character in this mode. Instead of flying around body-less as an invisible camera, the player controls a character while he is constructing worlds. This keeps it from being External, but Forge definitely has typical External qualities.
Theater mode is the other interesting mode in the game. Remember last week when I said External/Exploratory games are basically non-existent? Well, I do believe Theater in fact falls under that category. Here's how the mode works. Basically whenever you play Halo: Reach the game is recording your gameplay. Be it in multiplayer, Campaign, Forge, anything. When you go into Theater mode in Halo: Reach it will bring up a list of your recently played footage. Let's say you pick the footage of a competitive multiplayer match you just played. When you boot up the match in Theater mode, the game recreates the match exactly as it played, like a movie (with pause/play, rewind, and fast forward options as well). Only, unlike a movie, you control the camera and can fly around in the world while you control the time. This is completely External: you don't have your character like the other modes in Reach. You are simply an external camera source. That being said, it is still Exploratory because you don't affect the events at all; they already happened. You're simply viewing them at better angles, taking pictures, saving clips, etc. Hence the name 'Theater' mode.
Theater mode enables the player to view any previously played match fromany angle, at any speed, at any time.
I hoped you like this analysis of the concepts in Marie-Laure Ryan's article, Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, as this is the last week I will spend on it. See you next week!
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Monday, September 27, 2010
Narrative Interactivity
Last week I introduced the concept of narrative interactivity and discussed its different categories using Marie-Laure Ryan's article, Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media. This week I'll explain the different narrative structures those categories create.
External/exploratory interactivity:
This is when the user is not a member of the created universe, and his actions have no effect on the world/storyline itself. This form of interactivity is a dying breed, as it makes for uninteresting storytelling. It is typically seen in old "play novel" type games, which where bascially visual books. It could be argued that certain old RTS (Real Time Strategy) games used this model as well.
Internal-exploratory interactivity:
This is when the user has a character that is part of the created universe, but his actions still have no effect on the world/storyline itself. The player is basically like a detective: he is there only to discover and reveal, but not to alter or create. Graphic adventure games dominate this model. Games like Myst and Sam and Max where the player is unraveling a huge preset mystery are good examples.
The player chooses from preset dialog in the game Sam and Max.
External-ontological interactivity:
In this model the user is outside of the universe, yet his actions control the narrative and/or affect the world. This mainly includes simulation games like SimCity and SimLife. In these games the player is omnipotent and abstract; he is the faceless creator of the world. He has no 'character' and no weight to him beyond the creation and manipulation of the world. This could also include games like Lemmings or 'choose your own adventure' games like Night Trap (as long as the player wasn't assigned an actual character).
The player maintains his city in SimCity 4.
Internal-ontological interactivity:
This is the big one. This model includes games where the user has a character inside the created universe, and his actions affect the world/storyline. Most of today's games fall into this category; specifically action-adventure games. These games aren't as pre-planned as 'choose your own adventure' games but the players options are usually limited to an extent so his overall fate doesn't differ too much from the master design of the plot (even if its as simple as implementing the possibility of death/failure). The alterations to the world and storyline usually come from the player's gameplay (did the character kill 5 or 12 monsters in the castle?), although recent games like Mass Effect 2 allow the actual script to be altered on the fly through player choice.
The 'dialog wheel' from Mass Effect 2. Choices made have actual consequences in the storyline.
That's it for now. Next week we will use these models and try to categorize some recent games.
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
External/exploratory interactivity:
This is when the user is not a member of the created universe, and his actions have no effect on the world/storyline itself. This form of interactivity is a dying breed, as it makes for uninteresting storytelling. It is typically seen in old "play novel" type games, which where bascially visual books. It could be argued that certain old RTS (Real Time Strategy) games used this model as well.
Internal-exploratory interactivity:
This is when the user has a character that is part of the created universe, but his actions still have no effect on the world/storyline itself. The player is basically like a detective: he is there only to discover and reveal, but not to alter or create. Graphic adventure games dominate this model. Games like Myst and Sam and Max where the player is unraveling a huge preset mystery are good examples.
The player chooses from preset dialog in the game Sam and Max.External-ontological interactivity:
In this model the user is outside of the universe, yet his actions control the narrative and/or affect the world. This mainly includes simulation games like SimCity and SimLife. In these games the player is omnipotent and abstract; he is the faceless creator of the world. He has no 'character' and no weight to him beyond the creation and manipulation of the world. This could also include games like Lemmings or 'choose your own adventure' games like Night Trap (as long as the player wasn't assigned an actual character).
The player maintains his city in SimCity 4.Internal-ontological interactivity:
This is the big one. This model includes games where the user has a character inside the created universe, and his actions affect the world/storyline. Most of today's games fall into this category; specifically action-adventure games. These games aren't as pre-planned as 'choose your own adventure' games but the players options are usually limited to an extent so his overall fate doesn't differ too much from the master design of the plot (even if its as simple as implementing the possibility of death/failure). The alterations to the world and storyline usually come from the player's gameplay (did the character kill 5 or 12 monsters in the castle?), although recent games like Mass Effect 2 allow the actual script to be altered on the fly through player choice.
The 'dialog wheel' from Mass Effect 2. Choices made have actual consequences in the storyline.That's it for now. Next week we will use these models and try to categorize some recent games.
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Monday, September 20, 2010
Narrative Interactivity: An Introduction
When it comes to narrative in films and video games, the main difference between the two is the inclusion of player interactivity in video games. In most games this has no direct effect on the events of the story. Lately though, many games have experimented with how the player could effect the actual narrative. In her article Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, Marie-Laure Ryan talks about the concept of narrative interactivity, which is when the player has an actual effect on how the story unfolds. This concept is one of the central points in video game narratives.
Ryan breaks the concept down into different categories. The first is Internal/External Mode. Internal is when the player is projected as a member of the fictional world. Many games use this mode, as this is the more immersive one. Halo: Reach for example uses this mode. The player has a concrete persona in the world, so he naturally feels like he is part of it. In the External Mode however, the player is an outsider controlling the world -- popular in Real Time Strategy games. A concrete persona is not required here, and is usually not present. Beyond these categories, Ryan discusses two more: Exploratory/Ontological. Exploratory is when the user is free to move around in the world and interact, but his actions ultimately result in no alterations to the plot and create no history in the universe. Most more linear games use this mode. In Ontological mode however, the actions of the user send the plot in different paths; this mode is being experimented with more recent games, like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect 2 to an extent. With Internal and External there is alot of gray zone, as the user can be at various 'distances' from the world; but a game is always either Exploratory or Ontological. You either effect the world or you don't.
We will further explore these categories next week, as I explain the 4 primary groups of narratives they create when they're cross-classified.
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Ryan breaks the concept down into different categories. The first is Internal/External Mode. Internal is when the player is projected as a member of the fictional world. Many games use this mode, as this is the more immersive one. Halo: Reach for example uses this mode. The player has a concrete persona in the world, so he naturally feels like he is part of it. In the External Mode however, the player is an outsider controlling the world -- popular in Real Time Strategy games. A concrete persona is not required here, and is usually not present. Beyond these categories, Ryan discusses two more: Exploratory/Ontological. Exploratory is when the user is free to move around in the world and interact, but his actions ultimately result in no alterations to the plot and create no history in the universe. Most more linear games use this mode. In Ontological mode however, the actions of the user send the plot in different paths; this mode is being experimented with more recent games, like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect 2 to an extent. With Internal and External there is alot of gray zone, as the user can be at various 'distances' from the world; but a game is always either Exploratory or Ontological. You either effect the world or you don't.
We will further explore these categories next week, as I explain the 4 primary groups of narratives they create when they're cross-classified.
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Monday, September 13, 2010
Narrative Structure
Creating an effective narrative structure in video games is quite a challenge, even when compared to film. Movie storytelling is much easier because its lacking video gaming's central feature -- user interaction. I'm going to discuss the techniques used in the gaming industry today to ensure a games storyline is delivered effectively.
User interaction creates numerous challenges for game developers, the foremost being, "How can we tell our story with the user playing?" The short answer for a while was "We don't, we use cutscenes." A 'cutscene' is where the game literally cuts off player control for a moment and you watch a small movie which gets the story up to speed. For a while this concept was basically the only major story delivery method in gaming, and it created a definite separation in the game -- it divided the content and killed immersion. You felt like you where playing a game, then upon beating a level, you where rewarded with a movie. The story only came across during the videos, so you didn't feel immersed in the story/characters until one was playing.
Cutscenes still exist today, but they are integrated into the game content better, and story delivery exists during gameplay as well. Developers have come up with techniques to further emphasize immersion. Uncharted 2 uses a technique called 'Chasing' to deliver character development during the gameplay. Chasing is when the voice actors are given dialog to read pertaining to whatever the player is doing during gameplay , be it climbing over a ledge, shooting an enemy or running for his life.
User interaction creates numerous challenges for game developers, the foremost being, "How can we tell our story with the user playing?" The short answer for a while was "We don't, we use cutscenes." A 'cutscene' is where the game literally cuts off player control for a moment and you watch a small movie which gets the story up to speed. For a while this concept was basically the only major story delivery method in gaming, and it created a definite separation in the game -- it divided the content and killed immersion. You felt like you where playing a game, then upon beating a level, you where rewarded with a movie. The story only came across during the videos, so you didn't feel immersed in the story/characters until one was playing.
Cutscenes still exist today, but they are integrated into the game content better, and story delivery exists during gameplay as well. Developers have come up with techniques to further emphasize immersion. Uncharted 2 uses a technique called 'Chasing' to deliver character development during the gameplay. Chasing is when the voice actors are given dialog to read pertaining to whatever the player is doing during gameplay , be it climbing over a ledge, shooting an enemy or running for his life.
The player runs from an attack helicopter in Uncharted 2 as his character quips.This includes story-based dialog as well. Gears of War included gameplay scenes where you as the player were walking to the next area, and the characters would be having conversational dialog. Gamers are immersed players, as opposed to film watchers/book readers who are external observers (Simons. 2007). We need to remain immersed in the story for it to affect us. Metal Gear Solid 4 used cutscenes a little too extensively, but the fact that many transition directly into gameplay (with no 'cut') greatly emphasized immersion.
References:
Simons, J. (2007). Narrative, games, and theory.
Game Studies: The International Journal Of Computer Game Research, 7 ( Issue 1) .
Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/0701/articles/simmons
Monday, September 6, 2010
Character Engagement
Characters are almost always the central delivery devices for narrative works, so its pretty obvious that most writers try their best to really flesh them out. Characters need to be interesting in order for us to engage with them, so character engagement is a huge focus when writing a script, be it film or video game. Do we relate to the characters?
In Murray Smith's Engaging Characters, Smith speaks about the importance of recognition for character engagement in film. The audience needs to first be able to recognize a character from scene to scene in order to engage with him. Filmmakers need to ask questions like, "Is she wearing the same shirt in this scene?" Or "Was the scar on his left or right cheek?" If they screw up too many of these situations it could lead to a problem with audience recognition. More commonly though its usually the case where a desired actor can't reprise a role for a sequel, and the filmmakers need to get another actor. Usually the script will be altered a bit to really make it obvious to the audience that this is the same character, just a new actor.
Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. Much care was
taken to insure her performance believably matched Katie Holmes' portrayal in the original.
Recognition isn't as big of a problem in video games. The characters are fictional and created, so the crew can simply remake the model for a sequel (although many times a new voice actor is chosen, this rarely affects character recognition). And the confusing "different clothing/makeup" scenario is never really a problem in gaming because the main characters usually have a handful of character models created that are used repeatedly.
Another concept Smith discusses is alignment. This is basically the question of "When are we aligned with the character?" This is an important character development tool for a director because it involves seeing things from certain characters point of view -- it creates an image of a character in our head. This can make or break a character/film. Rob Zombie's Halloween comes to mind. This 'remake' of the 70's masterpiece was very different conceptually from the original. Zombie decided early on he wanted the film to be about how Michael Myers became a killer. The first half of the new version involved Michael's childhood, showing his family life, him getting bullied, etc -- all of this absent from the original.
Young Michael in Zombie's Halloween.
The two movies painted different pictures through character alignment. By showing only the 'killer' side of Michael, the original John Carpenter version created a character who felt unstoppable; there was nothing to relate to. The Zombie remake on the other hand, starts by showing him as a neglected child, to the point where you might feel sorry for him and relate to him. It affects the second half of the film as well. When he begins his killing rampage, you'll have a hard time shaking the image of innocent Young Michael out of your head, and taking the sudden adult monster Michael seriously.
Michael in Carpenter's Halloween. A much more abstract and striking killer.
Alignment is a concept present in gaming storytelling as well. Games like Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption rely heavily on singular character alignment throughout. You as the player control a character through his daily life, and the pacing of action is entirely different from movies. Things that would normally get edited out in a film -- driving home to sleep, working on the farm, etc -- are present in games to keep you aligned with the character, all for the sake of character engagement.
The player herding cattle in Red Dead Redemption.
You really feel attached to the characters because you've literally been them for the past couple hours. It is admittedly easier to engage with video game characters though, simply because we control them. Its psychological: we feel attachment, responsibility for the character we are controlling.
References:
Smith, M. (1995). Engaging characters: Fiction, emotion, and the cinema.
New York: Oxford University Press.
In Murray Smith's Engaging Characters, Smith speaks about the importance of recognition for character engagement in film. The audience needs to first be able to recognize a character from scene to scene in order to engage with him. Filmmakers need to ask questions like, "Is she wearing the same shirt in this scene?" Or "Was the scar on his left or right cheek?" If they screw up too many of these situations it could lead to a problem with audience recognition. More commonly though its usually the case where a desired actor can't reprise a role for a sequel, and the filmmakers need to get another actor. Usually the script will be altered a bit to really make it obvious to the audience that this is the same character, just a new actor.
Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. Much care wastaken to insure her performance believably matched Katie Holmes' portrayal in the original.
Recognition isn't as big of a problem in video games. The characters are fictional and created, so the crew can simply remake the model for a sequel (although many times a new voice actor is chosen, this rarely affects character recognition). And the confusing "different clothing/makeup" scenario is never really a problem in gaming because the main characters usually have a handful of character models created that are used repeatedly.
Young Michael in Zombie's Halloween.The two movies painted different pictures through character alignment. By showing only the 'killer' side of Michael, the original John Carpenter version created a character who felt unstoppable; there was nothing to relate to. The Zombie remake on the other hand, starts by showing him as a neglected child, to the point where you might feel sorry for him and relate to him. It affects the second half of the film as well. When he begins his killing rampage, you'll have a hard time shaking the image of innocent Young Michael out of your head, and taking the sudden adult monster Michael seriously.
Michael in Carpenter's Halloween. A much more abstract and striking killer.
The player herding cattle in Red Dead Redemption.You really feel attached to the characters because you've literally been them for the past couple hours. It is admittedly easier to engage with video game characters though, simply because we control them. Its psychological: we feel attachment, responsibility for the character we are controlling.
References:
Smith, M. (1995). Engaging characters: Fiction, emotion, and the cinema.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)