|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | This page is going to discuss self-reflexivity in video games, that is the process of a medium reflecting on itself as a medium.<ref>Brian Young: Cinematic Reflexivity: Postmodernism and the Contemporary Metafilm.</ref> However since this is a vast topic, only certain aspects of it can be covered with the option to add more in the future. |
| This page is going to discuss three major aspects of self-reflexivity in video games, that is the process of a medium reflecting on itself as a medium.<ref> Brian Young: Cinematic Reflexivity: | |
| Postmodernism and the Contemporary Metafilm.</ref> | |
| | |
| ==Introduction== | | ==Introduction== |
| Self-reflexivity is considered a token trait of postmodern games.<ref>https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=honors_theses</ref> While there are multiple examples of video games employing self-reflexivity and metacommentary as a part of their core narrative (e.g.: ''The Stanley Parable'', 2013) this article will mostly focus on games in which self-reflexivity about different aspects of the medium can be found. | | Self-reflexivity is considered a token trait of postmodern games.<ref>https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=honors_theses</ref> While there are multiple examples of video games employing self-reflexivity and metacommentary as a part of their core narrative (e.g.: ''The Stanley Parable'', 2013) this article will mostly focus on games in which self-reflexivity about different aspects of the medium can be found. |
|
| |
| ==Main Part== | | ==Main Part== |
|
| |
| ===Self-Reflection on Game-Genre=== | | ===Self-Reflection on Game-Genre=== |
| As an Indie-Game [[Undertale]] questioned the entire concept of the Role-Playing Game Genre. While also employing elements of player choices and morality into the game-mechanics and the narrative, Undertale significantly changed the formula of the Role-Playing Game through its combat system. The classic turn-based RPGs that Undertale drew inspiration from usually allowed players to choose between a set of four different actions, traditionally attacking, using magic, using items or running away. Would the player choose not to engage in combat however, progress would be halted as defeating enemies would usually grant the player experience points (EXP) needed to level up in order to pass later passages of the game. Undertale however does not need the player to defeat enemies to allow progressing through the game as it firstly, relies completely on the players skilled use of the game mechanics and - for this article most importantly - in its narrative completely rejects the established formula and tropes.
| |
|
| |
| Let's start with explaining the game system. Instead of the four actions described above, the player is presented with the option to fight, act, use an item, or sparing the enemy by choosing "mercy". This is where the game majorly differs from usual RPGs as it presents the player with an option to spare their enemies, which in turn is a determinant for which ending the player achieves. By choosing to act the player has the option to engage with the enemy in a manner different from attacking it. The options available after choosing to act differ from enemy to enemy and after choosing the right action, or the right order of action, the enemies name will turn yellow signaling it can be now spared using the mercy options. The game's narrative seems to favor this method of action compared to combat as the character Toriel who introduces the player to the combat mechanics at the beginning of the game suggests to "strike up a friendly conversation".
| |
|
| |
| As stated before, the game does not rely on the player gaining EXP through combat to get through the game, however that does not mean that the concept of EXP and Levels (LV as in the game) are completely absent or irrelevant, instead these concept are woven into the narrative of the game, being the deciding factor for which ending the player will get. By choosing not to engage in combat and not killing a single enemy in the entire game, the player will reach the true pacifist ending, by choosing to kill every single enemy in the game the player will reach the genocide ending and going for something in between will trigger the neutral ending, though depending on the player's actions throughout the game, there may be slight variations in all of those endings. The game however chooses to incorporate the concepts of EXP and LV into the narrative, as near the end of either a neutral or a genocide route, the character of Sans reveals to the player that EXP and LV in fact stand for '''ex'''termination '''p'''oints and '''l'''evel of '''v'''iolence. The game in this case plays with player expectations and again twists the formula of what RPGs traditionally are, by wanting to make the player responsible for their actions.
| |
|
| |
| This is done doubly by having every single NPC be considered a "monster", compared to the player who is a human. In the world of Undertale the humans are seen as the true evil, with the monsters often being afraid of the player character. It raises the question of who really is a monster. The monsters in Undertale aren't some copy-and-paste husk, only existent to either stunt or support player progress, with nothing more to define them than their name and a character sprite, each and every one of those monsters has a personality, which becomes apparent every time the player enters combat with one of them. During combat speech bubbles appear next to the monsters often containing hints as to what action will lead to the player to be able to spare a monster. Every monster has a unique story that the player can experience and help developing through his actions, in turn keeping his level of violence at the lowest. The game thus critiques the two-dimensionality of the traditional RPG game and possibly critiques the use of violence as a means to engage the player in a similar manner as Spec Ops: The Line does, for example.<ref>https://the-artifice.com/three-postmodern-games-self-reflexive-metacommentary/</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ===Self-Reflection on Free Will in Games=== | | ===Self-Reflection on Free Will in Games=== |
| <br />
| | Discussions of free will have been a recurring topic in the field of game studies, especially with the emergence and use of AI in games, so it makes sense for games to lead a conversation about free will themselves. |
| | |
| ===Self-Reflection on Games as a medium=== | | ===Self-Reflection on Games as a medium=== |
|
| |
| ==Conclusion== | | ==Conclusion== |
| <br /> | | <br /> |
|
| |
| ==Related Links/Research== | | ==Related Links/Research== |
| <references /> | | <references /><br /> |
| [[Category:Research Approaches]] | | [[Category:Research Approaches]] |
| [[Category:Young, Brian]] | | [[Category:Young, Brian]] |
This page is going to discuss self-reflexivity in video games, that is the process of a medium reflecting on itself as a medium.[1] However since this is a vast topic, only certain aspects of it can be covered with the option to add more in the future.
Introduction
Self-reflexivity is considered a token trait of postmodern games.[2] While there are multiple examples of video games employing self-reflexivity and metacommentary as a part of their core narrative (e.g.: The Stanley Parable, 2013) this article will mostly focus on games in which self-reflexivity about different aspects of the medium can be found.
Main Part
Self-Reflection on Game-Genre
Self-Reflection on Free Will in Games
Discussions of free will have been a recurring topic in the field of game studies, especially with the emergence and use of AI in games, so it makes sense for games to lead a conversation about free will themselves.
Self-Reflection on Games as a medium
Conclusion
Related Links/Research
