The suspension of disbelief in video games Brown, D (2012)

The suspension of disbelief in video games Brown, D (2012) (Rough Draft 01)

The main thrust of the authors thesis seems to be that the ‘suspension of disbelief’ should be reconfigured when analysing video games because of the distinction between that and other media such as film and tv. Video games engage the viewer in the ludic (playfulness) and immersion. It is these aspects of videogames, the authors proposes, that the 4th wall is not so much broken as expanded and contracted. It is these unique characteristics of videogames that call for the redefining of how the suspension of disbelief is considered in this art form. I have over simplified the argument as I have only drawn from the abstract, conclusions, bibliography and chapter 5 at this time.

I am going to review Chapter 5 to analyse how the author presents an expanding 4th wall concept to support the overall thesis. In this chapter, the author begins by consolidating the argument so far and then introduces the key point which is that the 4th wall in gaming is different than in other media. His rationale (in brief) is that videogames do not break the 4th wall but expand and contract it within a ‘magic circle’. The author proses that in Hollywood films the 4th wall is a screen whereas in videogames the audience is immersed in a game world. The level of immersion depends on whether it is interrupted on screen by information which draws attention to the screen or in the instance of cut scenes breaks the immersion as the player becomes passive and loses a sense of agency and control. The author draws on the concept of the ludic (playfulness) and presents examples from Videogames to support his central idea.

The author produces the following evidence to support this aspect of his argument.

Examples

Tingler. Castle, W. 1959

Warlock of Firetrap Mountain. Jackson and Livingston, 1982.

Burnout Paradise, 2008.

Dragon Age

Team Fortress Classic

Counter Strike

Mantis Battles

Metal Gear Solid

Escape from Mars, Headgames, Genesis, 1994.

Sonic CD Sonic Team, 1993.

Uplink Introversion Software, 2001.

Another code: Two Memories Cong, 2005.

Evidence in the Ritual

Adventure, Atari 1979

Mortal Kombat ii’s Midway 1993

God of War Sony, 2005

Chrono Trigger

Zombies Ate my Neighbours Lucasarts 1993

Super mario 64 Nintendo, 1996

Phantom Hourglass Ninetendo 2007
Hotel Dusk Cing 2007
Eternal darkness
Call of Cthulhu Dark Corners of the Earth, Headfirst Productions 2005
The Clock Tower horror series, Humansoft 1995
Magestic and Evidence: The last Ritual
Super Paper Mario Intelligence systems, 2007
Bioshock
Fable 3 Lionhead 2011
Uplink
Prince of Persia:the sands of time Ubisoft 2003
Eternal Darkness
Metal Gear 1987
Metal Gear Solid Konami 1998
Metal a Gear Solid 2 : Solid Snake Konami 1990
Metal Gear Solid 3 Konami, 2004
Metal Gear Solid 4
Snake
Escape from New York
Escape from LA Carpenter, J 1991
Space Invaders
Lumines
The War of the Worlds
GTA vice City
Heavy Rain

Texts

Brecht Cited in Farman 2010 p.104

Salen and Zimmerman, 2004 – Refers to Huizinga’s ‘Magic Circle’, 1955 and Suits’ ‘lusory attitude’ 1978

Arsenault and Perron, 2009

Conway, S. 2010

Conway, S 2010 p147

Conway, S 2010 p151

Conway, S 2010 p153

Murray, 1998 p108

King and Krzywinska, 2006 p115.

Harvey, 2006 p3

Consalvo 2009

Ferreria and Falcom 2009

Montola et al 2009

Huizinga 1955

Gerrig 1998

King and Borland, 2003.
Campbell 1949
Genette 1972 p245
Altus 2007
Altus 2008
Waern, A 2009
Pinchbeck 2007
Rollings and Adams 2003
Poole 2000
Poole 2000 p122
Galloway 2006
Galloway 2006 p35
Galloway 2006 p36
Gee 2009
Gee 2009 p267-268
Higgin 2010
Ferri 2007 ch7
Ryan 2003 p21
Sicart, M 2009 p197
Sicart 2011 p59
Fine, G A 1983 ch6
Iser 1976 p35
Suits 1978 p38-40
Suits 1978 ibid p144
Suits 1978 p131
Juul 2007 p511
Kris 1952
Coleridge

Illustrations

Fig 12

Fig 13

Fig 14

Fig 15

Fig 16

Fig 17
Fig 18
Fig 19
Fig 20
Fig 21
Fig 22
Fig 23

Thesis chapter references

Chapter 4 p155-156

Chapter 2 p84

Chapter 3 p133
Chapter 4 – Heidegger Concernful Seeing

(in Progress)

Here I will analyse the reasons given to the authors point of view?

Here I discuss how the evidence may be interpreted in other ways?

Qualitative research is produced to support the argument however qualitative research could add weight to the thesis. Also, given that the author is a practitioner in video games it would have been possible to add experimental research drawn from his own practice.

The majority of references are drawn from the field of psychology although the author is not a psychologist. This can be considered problematic and it could be that the author has collaborated on or co-written research papers which support his argument (Need to check this). The author is a leading games theorist and game maker which means that he comes to game theory as both a consumer of games and an insider with unique practitioners knowledge on the making of games.

Here I will analyse whether the author has critically evaluated the other literature in the field

Here I will discuss whether the author had included literature opposing her/his point of view

Here I will analyse the validity of the research data and discuss whether it is based on a reliable method and accurate information.

The argument of the main body of the text is constructed as follows:

The difference between games and other media
Redefining the concept of ‘The suspension of disbelief’ through an examination of its historical context.
The suspension of disbelief in video games versus other media
How this thesis compares to others argument of the suspension of disbelief in video games (The original contribution to knowledge -PhD)
Dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative and how the ‘skilled reader’responds
Defining the term ‘skilled reader’.
Problems of the skilled reader are Textual construction, players mindset, and the the reformulation of the 4th wall.
Proposing that analysing games through the forth wall or suspension of disbelief presents a novel perspective on game theory.

Thesis Conclusion

[The concept of the Willed disavowal of presence, the expanding 4th wall and the Gamer taking the role offered by the game-text in relation to a ludic suspension of disbelief offers a novel perspective in game theory]

Here I will detail the argument structure of Chapter 5

Here I will discuss the strengths and limitations of this study

The scope of the enquiry
Sweep of mainly UK literature and USA Examples

Mainly 2007 – 2012 with some older Key texts references.

Reflection

This text contributes an alternative perspective to my own work which has assumed that the suspension of disbelief in animation can be applied to videogames. This clearly does not hold. Although my perspective on animation expands to projection mapping, installation and sculpture, as I draw from the work of Len Lye, William Kentridge and Stan Vanderbeek; I have not considered the suspension of disbelief through the lens of videogames.

The thesis challenges me consider how ludic behaviour (playfulness) of the
‘viewer/player’, the state of immersion ( how it varies depending on whether the 4th wall is expanded or contracte),, and the notion of how the player willingly enters into the contract of disbelief through a disavowel of presence. By this the author proposes that the player not only suspends their own presence but adopts a role within the game.

Applying this theory to my creative practice reconfigures the way I think about a players experience in my own games. I will necessarily need to think about how I expand or contract the 4th wall as I consider what levels of immersion I would like the player to experience. I will also consider how the player controls the game such as through a controller which not only controls the game but is a diegetic object (connects the object to the narrative) as I intended to use a set of cards to interact

with the game but are also part of the game narrative. This leads me to think about a new term the ‘luddonnarrative’ which considers the potential disjunction between game narrative and game play.

Review Process

I deconstruct the abstract to understand the main thrust of the thesis.
I check the bibliography – date and field of the references.
I would normally read the whole text through by skimming first (first read)
In this instance I decided what I really wanted to know and chose the chapter relevant to this.
I skim read chapter 5 while critiquing the references and concepts discussed.
I checked any terms I didn’t understand in this context.
I read the text a second time – making notations which a) answer my litearture Review Questions b) Answer Questions relating to my own practice and theory (Animation, Games, Interaction and Immersion)
Checked all supporting examples/references.

February 9, 2019 by SarraShepherdAdmin