In an article published by Jan Simons titled Narrative, Games, and Theory Jan differentiates the difference between External Observers and Immersed Players. Jan describes External Observers as people who apprehend “what has happened” in contrast Involved players care about “what is going to happen”.
I feel that it is important to recognize the difference between external observers and involved players simply because of both types of involvement, in my opinion, generate unique benefits when it comes to experiencing games. As an External Observer, you are able to view and identify the theme of a video game a lot easier by watching as opposed to actually playing.
As an involved player, the perspective switches immensely. This is because as an involved player, you are immersed in the game and are able to face unique challenges and situations we otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to experience therefore strengthening our decision-making skills.
Simons also discusses “Game theory”, which is not the theory of games as you may have guessed, It is the unified mathematical approach to games this theory is used modeling the situations, processes and events game theorists want to explore. I believe this method is useful because of its neutral “all about the numbers” approach. This approach also limits the amount of bias contributed when reviewing games. This leads me to my next article.
Ian Bogost, author of the article Video Games Are Better Without Stories Bogost suggests that we get rid of the traditional narrative approach of video games and replace it with environmental storytelling. You may be wondering, “what is environmental storytelling?” Well, Bogost describes says that this approach will invite players to discover and reconstruct a fixed story from the environment itself making the gaming experience more interactive.
I agree with Bogost on ditching the narrative approach of video games and replacing it with a more interactive approach such as environmental storytelling because this will give players the opportunity to stimulate their imaginations and promote independent thinking through creating a gaming experience that is unique to every player.
Towards the end of the article Bogost shares the following thought:
“If there is a future of games, let alone a future in which they discover their potential as a defining medium of an era, it will be one in which games abandon the dream of becoming narrative media and pursue the one they are already so good at taking the tidy, ordinary world apart and putting it back together again in surprising, ghastly new ways.”
I could not agree more with Bogost’s stance. I believe that by using gaming as a medium for story-telling can unsatisfying for the imagination. These almost movie-like narratives in video games these days leave the game players with little to no room for self-expression or the opportunity to create and think for themselves. This is a problem because of critical thinking, in my opinion, is a very important aspect of video games.
The relationship between critical thinking and video games is not a new one. In an article published by Jordan Shapiro titled Deconstructing Donkey Kong Shapiro shares:
“In video games, players are confronted with complex problems for which they must formulate solutions and take appropriate action. Often, a number of different alternatives are presented to players, forcing them to make quick choices. This process sharpens vital critical thinking skills.”
This claim further supports Bogost’s claim about how narrative-based video games are doing more harm than good.
