Aesthetic Illusion in Digital Games
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aesthetic Illusion in Digital Games Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Magisters der Philosophie an der Karl‐Franzens‐Universität Graz vorgelegt von Andreas SCHUCH am Institut für Anglistik Begutachter: O.Univ.‐Prof. Mag.art. Dr.phil. Werner Wolf Graz, 2016 0 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 2 The Transmedial Nature of Aesthetic Illusion ......................................................... 3 3 Types of Absorption in Digital Games .................................................................... 10 3.1 An Overview of Existing Research on Immersion and Related Terms in the Field of Game Studies ........................................................................................... 12 3.2 Type 1: Ludic Absorption ..................................................................................... 20 3.3 Type 2: Social Absorption .................................................................................... 24 3.4 Type 3: Perceptual Delusion ................................................................................ 26 3.5 Type 4: Aesthetic Illusion .................................................................................... 29 3.6 Comparing and Contrasting Existing Models of Absorption ........................... 30 4 Aesthetic Illusion in Digital Games ......................................................................... 34 4.1 Prerequisites and Characteristics of Aesthetic Illusion in Digital Games ....... 34 4.1.1 Prerequisites of Aesthetic Illusion ............................................................. 34 4.1.2 Characteristics of Aesthetic Illusion in Digital Games ............................ 38 4.2 The Game and Related Technology, the Player, and the Context as Essential Factors of Aesthetic Illusion ................................................................................ 40 4.2.1 The Player and Context as Important Factors of Aesthetic Illusion ....... 40 4.2.2 The Game and Related Technology as Another Factor Affecting Aesthetic Illusion ......................................................................................................... 47 4.3 Interactivity, its Facets and Consequences as Potential Intensifiers of Aesthetic Illusion .................................................................................................................. 59 4.3.1 Agency ......................................................................................................... 59 4.3.2 Uncertainty .................................................................................................. 63 4.3.3 Adaptivity ....................................................................................................68 4.3.4 Interruptions ................................................................................................ 71 4.3.5 Emergence ................................................................................................... 76 5 Conclusion and Further Research Perspectives ................................................................ 78 6 Ludography ............................................................................................................... 80 7 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 82 1 1 Introduction There exists much disagreement in the field of game studies as to how to define the phenomenon of being imaginatively drawn into the represented world of a digital game. This phenomenon was once famously defined by Samuel Coleridge as “the willing suspension of disbelief” (1817/1965, 169)—of course, he did not have digital games in mind then. The majority of existing game studies research prefers to use the term ‘immersion’ to discuss different aspects of mental absorption. But scholars are in disagreement with regard to its definition. Interpretations of the term range from the metaphor of immersion as physical transportation to immersion as mental absorption of any kind to immersion as a purely technology‐driven phenomenon. Other studies instead adapt terms from related fields such as ‘flow’ from the field of positive psychology or ‘presence’ from the field of telerobotics. This state of affairs is frustrating to anybody who wishes to contribute to this field and it unnecessarily interferes with efforts to study this phenomenon. A universally accepted and solid theoretical framework of immersion in games1 is needed to reduce definitional ambiguities and contradictions. In the present thesis, I aim to provide the groundwork of such a theoretical framework. I do this by drawing on Wolf’s transmedial theory of aesthetic illusion (Wolf 2013) and proposing a modified and extended version of his theory to accommodate the unique characteristics of digital games—particularly with regard to the ‘illusory quality’ of interactivity. In addition, existing game studies research on immersion and related terms is incorporated in this model of aesthetic illusion where possible. Furthermore, a general model of fundamental types of absorption in digital games is proposed so as to reduce terminological inconsistencies and ambiguities. While this thesis may introduce yet another term—aesthetic illusion—to an already long list of terms meant to describe different types of mental absorption, the long history of the term itself, which dates back to the 19th century, and the valuable work various scholars have since put into the concept of ‘aesthetic illusion’, cannot simply be ignored2. In fact, I argue that Wolf’s model of aesthetic illusion provides by far the most 1 If not noted otherwise, ‘games’ is used in this thesis as an alternative spelling of ‘digital games’. 2 This thesis proposes other new terms, too, such as ‘perceptual delusion’, but aesthetic illusion is by and large the most important and relevant term in the context of the topic at hand. 2 comprehensive theory of predominantly artefact‐induced imaginative experiences and should, as such, serve as the starting point for further investigation in this regard. The structure of the thesis is as follows: the ensuing chapter will briefly discuss Wolf’s (2013) transmedial theory of aesthetic illusion. Chapter 3 examines different definitions of absorption in digital games as proposed by several game studies scholars. Following this, a general model of absorption consisting of four distinct types of absorption is proposed: ludic absorption, social absorption, perceptual delusion, and aesthetic illusion. Chapter 3 concludes by comparing and contrasting the terms proposed by other scholars with the ones proposed in this thesis. Chapter 4 finally discusses aesthetic illusion in digital games in detail. First, the prerequisites, general characteristics, and illusion‐affecting factors are discussed. Then, interactivity, its facets, and its relation to and potential impact on illusory responses is investigated thoroughly. The discussion on interactivity comprises on the five concepts of agency, uncertainty, adaptivity, interruptions, and emergence. 2 The Transmedial Nature of Aesthetic Illusion While the goal of this text is to investigate aesthetic illusion in digital games specifically, the term must be considered in a larger context first. What is aesthetic illusion? How can it be defined? Wolf (2013) provides a transmedial, transgeneric, and transmodal definition that serves as the basis for this thesis: Aesthetic illusion is a basically pleasurable mental state frequently emerging during the reception of representations (texts, artefacts or performances) which may be fictional or factual, narratives or descriptions, and can be transmitted by various media and genres. It is thus a transgeneric as well as a transmedial phenomenon. Like all reception effects, aesthetic illusion is elicited by the conjunction of factors that are located (a) in the representations themselves, which tend to show certain characteristic features and follow certain illusion‐ generating principles, (b) in the reception process and the recipients, as well as (c) in framing contexts, e.g. cultural‐historical, situational or generic ones. Aesthetic illusion consists predominantly of a feeling, of variable intensity, of being imaginatively and emotionally immersed in a way similar (but not identical) to real life. (Wolf 2013, 51f.) It should be noted that the term ‘aesthetic illusion’ is predominantly, though also not consistently, used in the fields of literature and the visual arts. Academic literature in other fields, such as film studies, game studies, or psychology, tend to use different terms when investigating the same or a similar phenomenon, such as ‘immersion’, 3 ‘participation’, ‘performance’, or just ‘illusion’ (see (Wolf 2013, 19f.) for an extensive list of synonyms and related terms; see also chapter 3.1). This text chooses the term ‘aesthetic illusion’ over the others because, as Wolf convincingly demonstrates and argues, it is arguably the most etymologically and historically accurate term that currently exists (cf. Wolf 2013, 16), and it provides the most comprehensive definition of the phenomenon under discussion (cf. Wolf 2013, 19–23). Before moving on to discussing aesthetic illusion in digital games, Wolf’s transmedial definition of the term requires further exploration and explanation. The term ‘aesthetic illusion’ itself warrants examination as to its meaning and etymological roots. ‘Aesthetic’