the characters and setting in literary works compare
(books vs. games) and how do we react to them?
First I'll address the aspect of setting. In a game the
setting or world is a first hand experience for the
player (reader). The player sees the world and
they become part of this interactive world that is
much less removed from reality. On the other hand,
the reader of a novel for example does not have
the same first hand experience. The reader has in
effect become more removed from reality in that the
author of the novel describes a scene. The reader then
constructs the scene in their minds eye and fills in all
the blanks from pieces from their own experiences.
The description in a novel becomes subjected to the
readers interpretation. This is not so with the player
what you see is not subject to interpretation.
Gee's concept of the three identities is valid for both
the novel and the game. Although their are similarities
and differences in relation to taking on character
perspective in a novel and being the character in a game.
First, as for virtual identity you the reader and the gamer
both become the character. In a novel I can become a
character in the story. My mind creates a world by which
I am Gandalf in the novel the Hobbit. Interaction in the
novel becomes limited and it is a second hand experience.
In the game of the same title I can become Gandalf as well.
But it is a first hand experience I have a constructed world
that I as Gandalf can interact with. The experience in the
game becomes an almost first hand experience.
For both the novel and the game the real world identity
stays the same. We as reader and gamer stay the same.
I am who I am and I can be no one else.
A question that could be asked is how does a novel
effect the reader as apposed to how does the game
effect the player of the game. Also how do both the game
and the novel effect each other.
As for the final identity, the projective identity the
reader and the gammer differ. As the reader of a
novel you can't as Gee states, "see... the virtual
character as one's own project in the making...." I
read about the character and try to figure out the
symbolism the author wants to convey. I am Gandalf
only with in the confines of the authors story line.
There is no real part of me in the character. This is
apposed to the character identification in the game. I
am both Gandalf and me in the game. I am a part of
the virtual world that the author has created. I interact
with the world and I can change the story. I have in
effect became a hybrid both Gandalf and myself.
This leads me to the second part of the question.
Do you think the identity play allowed in many games
is beneficial or harmful?
I don't know for sure. I think that we need to research
this aspect of human psyche with great vigor. We have
a great opportunity to further mankind with the use
of an electronic curriculum.
I do agree with Gee when he stated that..."virtual identity
of a child or person who plays 'the character' (you) is
the 'hero' (center) of the story and in that sense the 'good
guy' no matter how bad he or she might be from another
perspective." I don't know if this can be seen as a kind of
second hand sociopathic experience where the player
practices the behavior. Bad in effect becomes good. And
consequences don't matter. Or can it be an avenue for the
release of pent up anger through role play. Can it be a
way for a socially timid child to gain confidence without
risking much a psychosocial moratorium. I do know
that each child/person is different and I do believe
that it could be all of the above and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment