The final chapter we decided to cover from Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play is written by one of the other authors of the book, Andrew Burn. Burn spends this chapter discussing the relationship between player and avatar and how it is constructed, using the example of Squaresoft’s classic RPG Final Fantasy VII (FFVII). Burn focuses mainly on one player’s account (Rachel) of a playthrough of FFVII to engage with his arguments.
Burn begins with a short discussion of “social semiotics” from a perspective stemming from Hallidayan linguistic analysis:
“When social semiotics is applied to visual media... it proposes a ‘grammar of images’ which adapts Halliday’s framework of three overarching functions of all language...”
Burn utilizes these “three overarching functions”, (representational, interactive, and organizational) to attempt a social semiotic analysis that would further reconcile the relationship between the ludic and narrative elements of games (as discussed in earlier chapters). To culminate Burn’s basis for his analysis of FFVII and player-avatar relations, he refers to “a further development of social semiotics, multimodality theory”. He contests that this theory also begets ideas of “transitivity” (another aspect of Genette’s theories regarding narrative discourse, that involve “action” being the centre of narrative discourse which, in turn, “produces a semiotic system”).
Burn uses the aforementioned narrative theory to dive into how FFVII deals with the avatar-player relationship. Referring to Rachel’s account of gameplay, Burn argues that Rachael’s use of pronouns when describing Cloud (FFVII’s protagonist) provides a clear depiction of how the player shifts between different “roles” (the idea of “mobility” as earlier presented by Carr in previous chapters).
Burn next further describes Genette’s ideas concerning “mood” within narrative (“traditionally organized under three headings: indicative... interrogative... and imperative.”). For Burn, game narratives also incur “mood” by forcing player-avatar relations through gamic decisions/achievements which progress game narrative.
Having laid the previous ground work, Burn spends the next few sections of the chapter describing the different roles of the “avatar” and “protagonist” and how they function in regard to developing the relationship with the player. Burn once again goes back to Rachel’s account of the “character” Cloud and uses her lexicon as a stepping stone to discuss the formation of Cloud as a “hero” in the traditional sense. Comparing Cloud to classical heroes like Achilles (who Burn qualifies as a “fairy tale” hero rather than a “mythological” one), Burn justifies Cloud’s archetypical nature as congruent to the type found in most heroes of “oral” tradition. Burn then delves into a discussion on heavy heroes of oral tradition, paralleling Cloud with the offered elements of that notion. This alignment allows for a connection to be made between the “emphatic” and “performative” qualities of oral tradition and the gamic-narrative qualities of videogames. Burn further asserts Cloud’s conception as a “heavy hero” by likening him to modern pop-culture superhero archetypes (which Burn asserts are an extension of oral heroes, via Ong’s contentions on “‘secondary-orality’ of high-technological societies”).
In the next portion of the chapter, Burn begins his discussion of Cloud as puppet/”digital dummy”, and how this form of Cloud blends with and helps the player shift between the aspects of Cloud as “heavy hero”. Through descriptions of the various actions and limitations of Cloud as an extension of the player, Burn illustrates how Cloud serves as “a bundle of semiotic resources that facilitate the player’s engagement with the game’s systems.”
Burn then turns to the form of Cloud as “avatar”, which he feels is a comfortable spot for the concept of symbolic “player ambiguity” (which he bases off the different noun descriptors Rachel uses when describing Cloud’s actions in her recount of playing FF7). At this point, Burn delves into Rachel’s experience with the battle sequences within FFVII. Her use of pronouns is again the focus as the main form of representation of Burn’s ideas on player-avatar relations. However, to support his observations of Rachel’s account, Burn returns to a discussion of the multimodal function within FF7. Burn dissects the aesthetics of the battle sequences, terming their qualities as “demand” qualities of the “text” which he connects to “representational” structures within the battle sequences’ gameplay (a clear example of gamic and narrative elements working together to create the ambiguous player-avatar relationship). Finally, Burn delves into the aesthetics of the other aspects of the game (i.e. music, background, exploration) to further the idea of modality confirming the ambiguity of the player-avatar relationship.
Burn concludes the chapter by stating that the experience of player-avatar is in constant “oscillation” between Cloud as protagonist and Cloud as dummy/puppet. However, this relationship is also dependent upon player values and what preconceptions they have before play is initiated.
For the most part, Burn’s theoretical approach for discussing player-avatar relations is well founded. I highly agree with his concepts of “heavy hero” serving as formation for Cloud’s relative “archetypical” nature. In fact, I find that the interactive quality of oral storytelling could have been used to further reinforce Burn’s ideas. Also, game analysis according to semiotic theory seems like a feasible fit and despite readily (and sometimes loosely) jumping between points of discussion, Hallidayan concepts of narrative theory (the “verb” being a central focus of narrative) fits well with gamic theory.
The final note I wish to make about this chapter concerns Burn’s constant use of Rachel’s account of playing FFVII. I find it rather unnerving. Why did Burn not reference other players’ accounts? To reinforce the theoretical connections he makes, Burn should be using statistical analysis to compare gamers from all aspects of the spectrum (casual to hardcore). A hardcore gamer (hardcore, in terms of time/emotional investment) might be consciously aware of the distinction between player and avatar making the use of pronouns within their descriptions much different from Rachel’s account. Rather than harming Burn’s argument, this concept would strengthen it because recognition of the use of different pronouns would further clarify the avatar-player relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment