Revised entry #1: Scholarly Sources on Video Games

Scholarly sources and commentary on those sources after the jump.

Gee, James Paul. “Videogames and Embodiment.” Games and Culture 3.3-4 (2008). 253-263. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

This article explores one way in which players interact with video games; specifically, the interaction between gamers and the characters they play. The article deals with the concept of “embodiment” (meaning “involving the body”) and how players become embodied in the characters they control in video games. Gee argues that games are simulations, and can be seen as similar to simulations that people create in their minds as part of everyday life. These simulations then influence the real world. Gee writes “Our models and the real world are always interacting on each other. The world offers us raw materials for our simulations, and our simulations cause us to act in the real world in ways that change it to better resemble or model simulations” (257).

This idea is useful for an analysis of the influence of video games, and of Deus Ex: Human Revolution in particular. Although in the case of video games, the simulation is constructed by someone other than the player, it is nonetheless a simulation. In the case of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a significant part of the “raw materials” for this simulation is the increasing number of real-world “cyborgs”—i.e., people who have some kind of artificial body part. So since the simulation has real-world significance, it is certainly possible that, as players develop their attitudes toward cybernetic augmentation within the game, it will translate to a change in their attitudes in the real world. As Gee states, players may end up acting in the real world in ways that are in accordance with their experience and attitudes in the simulation.

In this article, Gee also discusses the “projective stance.” This is what happens when a virtual character becomes the surrogate mind and body for a player. The concept of a virtual mind may seem strange at first, but Gee describes it as “As a player, you must . . . attribute certain mental states (beliefs, values, goals, feelings, attitudes, and so forth) to the virtual character. You must take these to be the character’s mental states; you must take them as a basis for explaining the character’s actions in the world” (258). And inhabiting the virtual mind of a virtual character, the player takes on that character’s goals, at least within the context of the game. However, Gee argues that players also have their own goals when playing a game, independent of the character’s goals (for example, the player may want to traverse an area by sneaking past all the guards, while the character only wants to traverse the area), and so these goals will interact with and influence each other. Gee writes “So in playing a game, we players are both imposed on by the character we play (i.e., we must take on the character’s goals) and impose ourselves on that character (i.e., we make the character take on our goals)” (260).

This type of interaction between the virtual and the real world is at the core of any analysis of the real-world influence of video games. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the player controls Adam Jensen, and Adam has the overarching goal of unraveling a conspiracy and finding out the truth behind the attacks on the biotech company he works for. In the course of pursuing that goal, he must make a choice about how he feels about human augmentation (indeed, the game cannot end without that choice being made). If the player imposes his or her initial attitude toward cybernetic augmentation onto Adam, then as the game progresses, the possibility certainly exists that, as Gee states, they will be “imposed upon” by Adam, and thus their attitude toward the issue he is dealing with (cybernetic augmentation) will be influenced by their virtual experience.

Lankoski, Petri and Staffan Björk. “Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters.” Situated Play: Digital Games Research Association Conference, September  2007. Ed. Baba Akira. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

Presented at the 2007 conference of the Digital Games Research Association, this paper goes into what constitutes a believable NPC (non-player character) in a video game. The paper uses five criteria from cinema studies to denote believability:

1. Human body

2. Self-awareness, intention states, and self-impelled actions

3. Expression of emotions

4. Ability to use natural language

5. Persistent traits (417)

The paper then analyzes a character from the game Oblivion to show these criteria in action. The paper argues that creating a fully believable NPC may be impossible, given the limitations of technology and the need to fit the narrative into a game system, but ultimately a high degree of believability may nonetheless be achieved.

This paper is useful for an analysis of the influence of video games because in order for video game characters to be influential, they must first be believable. If characters do not at least have a modicum of believability, then they are likely to be dismissed by the player as having no connection whatsoever to reality. A game without believable characters might still be enjoyable to players, but it would be unlikely to be influential.

Analyzing Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and David Sarif in particular, in terms of Lankoski and Björk’s criteria for believability reveals that Sarif is a fairly believable character, and is thus at least potentially influential. To briefly look at each criterion:

1. Human body—Sarif possesses a human body. It is rendered within the game engine, but it is human in appearance.

2. Self-awareness, intention states, and self-impelled actions—Sarif is self-aware and will respond to the player’s actions and dialogue choices within the game. And he takes self-impelled actions; indeed, as Adam Jensen’s employer, it is his actions that, in large part, drive the game’s narrative.

3. Expression of emotions—Sarif expresses different emotions at several points in the game, including anger when challenged by Adam, and sympathy for both Adam and other characters in the game.

4. Ability to use natural language—Sarif communicates both verbally and non-verbally in the game, and the player can learn a lot about him through observing these forms of communication.

5. Persistent traits—Sarif has persistent traits such as his physical appearance, but his most significant persistent trait is his unfailing belief in the potential of cybernetic augmentation to better humanity. Indeed, this trait has a major impact upon the game’s story and helps the game present an argument about an issue with real-world significance.

Based on these criteria, Sarif is at least somewhat believable, and thus can at least potentially be taken seriously by players within the game. And this means that his words and beliefs may potentially be taken seriously as well.

Ip, Barry. “Narrative Structures in Computer and Video Games: Part 2: Emotions, Structures, and Archetypes.” Games and Culture 6.3 (2011). 203-244. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.

This article analyzes several different video games, looking at a wide variety of story-related factors. The factors examined were the portrayal of emotions in the game’s characters (the number of emotions displayed in the game were quantified, as well as the number of characters who displayed them), narrative structures (each game’s story was analyzed in terms of how many parts of the classic hero’s journey it contains, as well as story classes and overall plot structure), and the presence of archetypical characters (hero, mentor, guardian, herald, shapeshifter, shadow, ally, and trickster). Ten games were analyzed and the results were presented for each game. Overall, more recent games tended to have more complex stories in terms of overall number of story elements.

This article can serve as useful background information in an analysis of the potential influence of video games. Since these story elements (the hero’s journey, for example) have been present in a wide variety of cultures for a long time now, and no one denies that they have been influential on both a personal and a cultural level, showing that they are present in video games allows for the potential for games to be just as influential as other genres of writing. If video games can convey the same narrative structures and archetypical characters as other genres, this is a powerful argument for their literary potential.

In addition, this article is useful for an analysis of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and the character of David Sarif in specific. Sarif fits the “mentor” archetype (at least for much of the game; he transitions out of it somewhat toward the end of the game), and this role arguably has more significance in a video game because the player controls the “hero” character; this is not the case in other genres. According to Ip, the mentor characterizes “the higher-self, which depicts wisdom, nobility, and/or godliness” (226), and “offer[s] added depth to the development of the . . . central characters” (226). Sarif mentors the hero (Adam Jensen) even as he pursues the goal of protecting Sarif industries; by fighting for Sarif Industries, Adam is indirectly fighting for the future of human augmentation. Sarif guides the hero, and by extension, the player, throughout the game, and therefore exercises influence over the player that may extend beyond the game. Sarif’s role as a mentor amplifies his voice when it comes to the issue of human augmentation, and as previously noted, he is the voice for the pro-augmentation side of the argument, so this argument may ultimately carry more weight with players as a result.

This article offers support for the idea of the importance of mentors in video games in general, and David Sarif as a mentor in Deus Ex: Human Revolution in specific.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. 259-422. Print.

In this essay, the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin discusses different type of discourse and how they operate in the novel. Even though he is discussing novelistic discourse specifically, the general ideas he develops could be applied to many different genres of writing (or speaking), including, I would argue, video games. The two types of discourse that Bakhtin discusses in this essay are authoritative discourse, and internally persuasive discourse. According to Bakhtin, these two types of discourse are very different, and although they may occasionally be united in a single word, it is far more often the case that they are not.

According to Bakhtin, authoritative discourse is “religious, political, moral; the word of a father, of adults and of teachers, etc.” (342). This type of discourse brooks no argument and does not attempt to persuade; “The authoritative word demands that we acknowledge it, that we make it our own; it binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally” (342). A person’s options when dealing with authoritative discourse are limited; authoritative discourse may be obeyed, or it may be defied, but it cannot be accepted in part and rejected in part. This type of discourse can usually be characterized as commanding.

By contrast, internally persuasive discourse has a much greater level of engagement with the reader (or listener). According to Bakhtin, “In the everyday rounds of our consciousness, the internally persuasive word is half-ours and half-someone else’s” (345). Bakhtin writes that when we hear or read a new internally persuasive discourse, “it enters into an intense interaction, a struggle with other internally persuasive discourses” (346). Bakhtin states that this struggle is what shapes our ideological development. As opposed to authoritative discourse, internally persuasive discourse can be accepted in part and rejected in part, it can be analyzed, it can be argued with. This type of discourse can usually be characterized as influential.

Although Bakhtin states that authoritative discourse cannot be used in the novel, it can and often is used in other genres of writing. Many video games arguably make use of both authoritative and internally persuasive discourse. In the case of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example, an example of authoritative discourse is arguably the mission goals that come up on the player’s screen. These goals must be completed in order to advance in the game, and although the player often has options as to how to complete those goals, he or she cannot simply choose not to complete them at all.

As for internally persuasive discourse, an example of this is arguably when the game discusses the morality and desirability of human augmentation. David Sarif, for example, presents the player with internally persuasive discourse about how augmentation is a positive thing for humanity. Based on this discourse’s interaction with other internally persuasive discourses already assimilated by the player, he or she may choose to accept or reject this discourse. David Sarif attempts to influence the player on the issue of augmentation, but whether that influence is ultimately successful is dependent both on how it is presented by the game and the players themselves.

To simplify, it can be argued that games often use authoritative discourse for gameplay elements and internally persuasive discourse for story elements.

Simkins, David W. and Constance Steinkuehler. “Critical Ethical Reasoning and Role-Play.” Games and Culture 3.3-4 (2008). 333-355. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

In this article, Simkins and Steinkuehler examine the notion of ethical choices in video games. Specifically, their analysis focuses on role-playing games (RPGs). These games often set goals for their games and give the player both a “good” and a “bad” (or “moral” and “immoral”) way to achieve that goal. Their analysis focused on the way that players approached these choices. They examined several different RPGs in the course of their analysis.

Simkins and Steinkuehler established four criteria for ethical decision making within a game. The first was “effecting change,” meaning that the decisions in question had to change the game world in some way. Not all games offer this functionality; in some games, the player cannot affect the game world at all, or can do so only to a limited degree. Deus Ex: Human Revolution gives the player the chance to affect the game world; for example, as a result of the player’s actions, certain non-player characters (NPCs) may live or die, resulting in an observable impact upon the game world.

The second criterion is “mirroring.” This means that “players must have the emotional valence of their choices mirrored back to them in some way” (349). The responses of NPCs is typically one way that this is accomplished; an NPC may praise the player character (PC) if he or she makes a good decision and criticize him or her for a bad one, for example. This “mirroring” can also be seen in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, as NPCs will often comment upon the choices that the player makes.

The third criterion for ethical decision making is “social context.” This means that the game must offer a broad social framework within which to interpret the player’s choices. The player’s actions must be “significant beyond the individual level alone” (350). This is also the case in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, because the game takes place within the context of a broad societal debate over the morality and desirability of human augmentation. The game gives the player the chance to have a significant impact upon this debate.

The fourth and final criterion proposed by Simkins and Steinkuehler is “significant decisions.” This means that the decisions faced by the player must have at least two choices, and each of those choices must be able to be “reasonably considered.” This means that all actions cannot lead to the same result; there must be some difference that is achieved by the player’s choice. Deus Ex: Human Revolution also meets this criterion, because choices made by the player can and often do lead to different outcomes, both in gameplay and in story, depending on the choice made.

***

To apply all this theoretical data to Deus Ex: Human Revolution, an argument could be made that the ethical choices presented to the player in the game function as a form of internally persuasive discourse. As the player makes ethical choices in the game, he or she is assimilating discourse that is half hers and half someone else’s; the game developers programmed the parameters of the choices into the game, and the player chooses from among those parameters. In order for this internally persuasive discourse to have its maximal effect, the player must be immersed in the game. This can be achieved through Gee’s idea of embodiment; being embodied in a virtual character is an immersive experience, and could potentially allow for the player to be more influenced by the game’s discourse.

In addition, to analyze David Sarif specifically, his discourse will only be effective if he is a believable character. Since he meets Petri and Björk’s criteria for believability, this allows for the possibility for him to influence the player through his discourse. Also, his status as a mentor may assist in this process, depending on how the player perceives him.

This influence can, to some degree, be observed in the forum posts of the players about the game. Additionally, since the forums operate to some extent as an affinity group, it is also possible that players’ discourse about the game could influence the other players. Players could potentially be influenced by their own experience with the game, and then by the other players’ experience with it. This possibility is outside the scope of my analysis (which is primarily concerned with the game’s potential influence), but this type of circular or nested influence within affinity groups is certainly worthy of further study.