As I have earlier proposed an analytical distinction between micro and macro narrative I would like to add some observations on micro level narrative in RPGs. In the first post on narrative in RPGs I have proposed that the macro narrative is one of growing up. Now I would like to argue that the micro narrative is supporting this on another level. To support this hypothesis we will first have to take a closer look at gameplay in RPGs.
If we go from macro to micro, most RPG universums are structured hierarchically. On the top level are worlds – they are the chapters of the game, each consisting of a set of places, missions, foes and allies that the player encounters (there is of course continuity – say an ally might follow the player through more worlds, foes might reappear). Some worlds do not have clearly defined worlds and it is hard to make an empirical distinction between them. Sometimes the very opposite is true and they are clearly delineated in the game (most often the player travels to another area that was not accessible before). As a heurestic method the following criteria might be used to distinguishing between worlds:
- an integrated set of tasks is presented to the player, which culminates in either acquiring a special object or battling an important foe or both;
- new foes appear and reappear throughout the world;
- new helpers appear that follow the player throughout the world;
On a lower level we have what I have called »villages« and »dungeons«, friendly places where the macro narrative is developed and places for battle. If we go still deeper into detail we find again two actions: exploration and battle. »Villages« are places that only exceptionally feature battle (Zelda is one example), whereas in dungeons and transportation routes (most places that are neither »village« nor »dungeon« fall into this category – here the player has to battle foes but they are not as numerous as in dungeons plus these places have no specific importance for the macro narrative as the dungeons do) both exploration and battle take place. The majority of games have different interfaces for battle and for exploration (Final fantasy series, Chrono trigger) but a substantial amount of them does not (Zelda series, Terranigma)
This finally brings us to the core of the problem – the structure of micro narrative. Both exploration and battle serve similar purposes (though with different means): 1) acquisition of special objects that enable the player to advance in the game and 2) improvement of the character's skill. Let us turn to the latter first: each character in a RPG game has a quantified amount of different skills: attack and defence strength, amount of health and magic power. These can be further differentiated, for example attack strength can be acquired for different weapons separately. When a player increases his skills the game becomes easier: higher level of attack skill increases the damage he does to enemies, defence reduces the damage he takes etc. This tendency is countervailed by the introduction of ever more powerful enemies. A player can acquire these skills in two basic ways: either through battle (every victorious battle adds some points that are converted to a higher level of skill when they reach a certain threshold) or by acquisition of specific objects (most commonly potions). It is interesting to note that the amount of points commonly varies according to the strenght of the defeated enemy, therefore the player acquires progressively more points per battle as she progresses through the game. On the other hand thresholds for each successive skill level are progressively higher, therefore the increase in skill gained from battles stays roughly the same throughout the game.
The acquisition of special objects most commonly takes place through defeating a special foe (for example the boss of the dungeon) or by exploration (the player has to venture to a special place to acquire the object). These objects enable the player to progress in the game (they might be a key or a special weapon without which a certain foe can not be defeated). Sometimes these objects also add to skill levels of a character. In some games not only the player but also his equipment has a »skill level« so that for example the amount of damage done to an enemy varies according to the level of attack skill of the character and according to the power of the weapon used.
This quick description allows us to make some generalizations from the structure of micro narrative in RPGs. I have noted that throughout the game the player improves certain quantified skills and also accumulates objects of special value. The micro narrative is one of linear progression with quantum leaps. This supports the macro narrative, which is one of growing up. The two extreme states of this process are child (at the beginning of the game) and grown-up (at the end of the game). The micro narrative shows the gradual nature of this transition as a continuous phenomenon. It also illustrates the work the subject has to go through in order to attain autonomy. But there is also an effect on the recipient. As I have noted in an earlier post, interactive media tend to increase the identification of the viewer with the content. The micro narrative draws the player into the macro narrative, he is made to experience the hardships the character has to go through in the process of growing up, so that the macro narrative becomes more captivating.
At this point we might look into the role the RPG narrative plays in contemporary society, or to be more precise: which experiences of the contemporary “subject” correspond to the RPG narrative. The crucial experience is entry into the labour market. In the 18. century the foundations of individuation were possession of capital and citizenship (both one and the same thing if we believe Marx and Engels and their metaphor of the state as a committee of the international bourgeoisie). Today the first foundation of individuation is no longer capital but possession of qualifications that are in demand on the labour market. In a capitalist economy productivity of the individual is quantified to a substantial amount (of course this amount varies: the border case is the manual labourer, whose productivity can be strictly quantified as number of standardized products per hour, while quantification becomes less pronounced with “products” that are not that highly standardized). This process is at work not only on the labour market but also (of not even more) in the educational system, where the acquired knowledge of students is quantified into grades. The experience of the contemporary “subject” is one of quantification – which Adorno interpreted as the very death of the subject since something that is strictly quantified becomes just a specimen of a genus and as such can not be a subject. Lukacs noted in History and class consciousness that reification is expressed on the subjective side in that individuals think of themselves as a set of quantifiable and objectifiable abilities, not as organic entities. This is a precondition for entry on the labour market – to sell ones productivity one must quantify it and be able to expropriate in some way. In the narrative of the RPG we find a mirror of these experiences. The character is thrown into the world and is faced with the challenge of increasing quantifiable skills. In fact there is nothing to him except these quantifiable skills, in this he is the perfect negation of the subject from an Adornian standpoint. As in real life this quantification has quantum leaps (one gets a promotion, passes an exam etc.), but this leap does not lead to anywhere but to more of the same (acquisition of quantifiable skills on a higher level)
What does this mean for a critical theory of society? A look at Marx’ critique of ideology might be in order here. In the preface to his Introduction to a contribution to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of law, he notes that religion has a functional connection with social praxis – it is because existing social circumstances are so unbearable that man projects a utopia into heaven. A common misunderstanding of Marx here states that ideology is a wrong picture of the world which must be contrasted with the true picture. The first problem with such a view is that it does not tell us exactly what truth is or where it is to be found – not to mention the fact that this can lead to an authoritarian position in which a specific subjective truth is hypostasized as the one and only truth. The other problem is that it tackles the problem undialectically and thereby misses the point altogether. A short quote from Marx might help us to understand the dialectics in his approach: “Religion is a warped consciousness of the world, because the world is warped.” It is not the case that religion is wrong and that a correct picture of the world must be substituted in its place. The case is that religion tells a lie and in so doing reveals the truth. The fact that religion has to tell us a comforting lie shows us the truth that existing social circumstances are unbearable – this is the critical potential of ideology, its truth content, if I borrow a phrase from Benjamin.
RPGs are at once a lie, but a lie that in lying reveals the truth. The lie is the affirmative character of the game. Quantification is presented as the ontological structure of the world; it is hypostasized in the tradition of the finest metaphysicians. This is not to say that it is a conspiracy of the creators or of the bourgeois class to infuse false consciousness to the masses – an idea that would be nauseatingly naïve. It is also not to say that it is something that is forced onto consumers by the culture industry. It is rather something that appeals to consumers because it mirrors their own subjective experience. It is a warped picture of the world, because it is a warped world. We must take its lie seriously and through it come to the realization of what is warped in the world. "Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower." (Marx, Introduction to a contribution to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of law)
No comments:
Post a Comment