Why Do We Have to Die in Games - Essay Example

Why Do We Have to Die in Games The main question examined by this article, as is evident from the is whether it is really necessary to 'die'in video games. Bevan looks at the issue from both sides: Dying is an extreme way to eliminate a player from a game, and wouldn't it be much better for all concerned if he were merely declared as 'out' and enabled to rejoin, subject to some kind of penalty Or, is 'dying' necessary to lend just that bit of excitement to the game, so that players are motivated to play more, to ensure that the game itself doesn't die out as a result of sheer boredom on the part of its players Bevan examines both sides without coming out strongly on any one. She merely (gently) suggests that death in the real world and death in the make believe are different. In the real world, death is final (apart from theological interpretations), and in the world of video-games it could merely be an annoyance, that can be overcome in set ways. We may pay an amount, or accept a game setback to come back from the jaws of death, to resume our place in the game. Likewise, at the end of the article too, she suggests that those who play video games and are attacked by laser-gun carrying space-men, should realize that being riddled with bullets does imply a finality, and not merely that this eventuality could get them teleported to the local Starbucks for a cappuccino. We may draw the inference from this, that what Bevan suggests is that video-games should (perhaps) not use 'death' but some other means for eliminating players. In the course of discussing video games, Bevan also looks at how other media or means of entertainment/ games deal with the issue of eliminating players. For instance, in traditional 'games'. Team games have set rules, and a time frame. According to these rules players are eliminated, so that within the given time a particular team is enabled to be declared 'winner'. This finite time frame copies real life. Though the elimination of players according to the rules of the game in no way resembles death. Also, in a game like tennis, it is possible to lose a set, yet come back to win a match. Bevan also looks at how the theme of death is played out on stage or on the screen. Here, the audience goes through a process of identification with the protagonist. In the case of an action movie, quite often the 'hero' gets pummeled by the bad guys, and is close to death, before he suddenly gets energized enough to come back at them, to win the day. However, Bevan does not explicitly mention a vital difference in the roles of a person watching a play and a person playing a videogame. In a play, the audience and the player are separate entities. The outcome cannot be affected by the audience. (In a reality show like 'Big Boss-as Bevan mentions-the audience can affect outcome, but the connection between the vote of a single member of the audience and this outcome-Bevan doesn't not mention this-is tenuous.) In a videogame, the player is both the audience and co-creator of the outcome. This is an important difference between a videogame and a play/movie, which leads to different levels of psychological involvement in the game and its outcome, on the part of the player. To that extent, a videogame becomes more true-to-life. Bevan mentions the three goals of playing video games-endogenous, exogenous and diegetic. Endogenous goals exist in all games-these are the goals sought to be achieved as per the rules of the game. (For instance, in chess, the endogenous goal of each player is to check-mate her opponent and avoid being checkmated). An exogenous goal comes from without. I may play a game to win money, or to humiliate my opponent and so on. The exogenous motive is not inherent in the game itself. Diegetic goals are those that a player seeks to achieve when he role-plays. When a game has several characters with their own defined personality, the player who assumes a role tries to achieve the goals, as if he were actually the role he were playing. This involves subsuming my personality to take on the one as defined by a role, given in the game. Bevan does not elaborate further on the implications of having endogenous, exogenous or diegetic roles, which I propose to do. When I watch a play or a movie, I play the role of audience, and cannot affect the denouement; I might get involved in a diegetic sense, and empathize with the protagonist or with any other dramatis personae in the story. To the extent of my empathy, I am involved in what happens on screen. In a video-game, I am both audience and participant, and in games where I assume a particular role or identity different from that in real life, I also get diegetically involved. Depending on what sort of psychological make-up I have, and the pleasures and frustrations of my real life, I would also have exogenous goals to play out in my video game. (If I dislike someone intensely in real life, but am powerless to retaliate, I may vent my frustration in a video-game, by killing that person-an exogenous goal which I have created for my game) Note that, in a videogame, with the blurred line between participant and audience, and with exogenous and diegetic goals to be reached, a player could get completely disconnected from the real world. And herein lies the danger in gaming. This is not just speculation. There are several and increasing number of cases of persons having been driven to depression, mental exhaustion, financial ruin, suicide or murder, due to an excessive playing of violent video games, to the exclusion of 'normal' living. This is sufficient reason to tone down games-to make them less violent-not to make 'dying' a necessary part of them. It is time we restored dignity and finality to death, by allowing it to happen only at nature's beckoning-in real life, and not at a mouse-click. Works Cited Bevan, Kate, Why Do We Have to Die in Games The Guardian, 26th July 2007. Read More