Back on track

Like I promised yesterday, I will now try to briefly summarise what my upcoming thesis is about.

My hypothesis is that digital games are lacking the basic grammar of emotion, and this lack is hindering their evolution, their maturing up if you will, as a medium [I am aware of the issues related to games being called a medium, better suggestions are warmly welcomed].

A majority of digital games are first and foremost challenge structures, not least due to goals being seen as one of the defining elements of games. I am going to challenge this view and claim that the most important and defining element of games is player activity and that emotion should be created first and foremost through this. Giving the player the illusion that they are in control and free to do what the game implies possible at all times is crucial for upkeeping the 360° illusion* but also for creating emotion with games’ own means.

‘Hold on a minute!’, you say. ‘Games do create all sorts of emotions already! I became really distressed just a few days ago when I was playing Bioshock 2 and Big Sister attacked my character and almost got it killed!’. And I say you are absolutely right. But here’s a question for you: did it make you feel anxious because you got scared of Big Sister, or because you got scared of your character’s health getting too low? If your choice of answer is the latter, we are, again, talking about games as challenge structures. The first one, however, is the one I feel is often lacking in digital games: diegetic emotions**.

Diegetic emotions are emotions that are connected to characters, events and things only true in the game’s world but not outside of it. Diegesis in general, as well as diegetic emotions, unlike the game’s basic rules and goals, are strongly subjective and dependent on each player’s personality, past experiences etc. The good thing about digital games is that they have all the means of previous mediums, such as literacy, movies and comics, at their disposal for building a shared diegesis for all players, but also their own means for creating diegetic emotions through player activity.

‘Oh come on, why couldn’t games just use the previous medias’ means for creating emotion? Why do it the hard way?’ you ask. This is why: creating games’ basic grammar of emotions is what is required for games to rise to the next level, for until this is done, games are forced to lend the tools of previous mediums, thus being stuck as a mere leeches and not a medium by their own right.

Now, this is all pure hypothesis, so I need something to prove me right – or wrong. Since many of the now mainstream phenomenon were once underground ones, I figured I should go and consult indie game designers on what they make of my hypothesis. I will do this by executing a number of thematic interviews, using IRC and similar real-time chat environments. I believe that of all the people I could interview, the people who design games are the ones who might have the best insight on games’ potential in evoking emotion by their own means. Another reason is the fact that although game players have been studied numerous times from numerous viewpoints, the people who actually design the games being played have mostly been disregarded.

I have already started grounding work for the thesis through two test interviews and looking through previous research, but a lot more needs to be done, both interview wise and hypothesis wise. So, all suggestions and critique concerning my thesis is welcome, as well as suggestions for further reading and useful terms.

[* and ** Thanks for both the term '360° illusion' and the term 'diegetic emotions' goes to Annika Waern. I decided no to put any references into this post since wordpress doesn't have any smart way for doing it.]