A Human life can be seen like a role-playing game, as the
character gains more experience and levels higher in rank usually indicating by
numbers, and this can create two very separate realities for one individual. The
way I would define reality is what the brain constructs the environment in
which we perceive as the laws of the universe. Virtual reality is a man made
reality in which laws and physics are constructed to fit its own universe. Reality
is what shapes us of who we are because we are confined within in its limits of
the perceivable world. But as much as the physical reality shapes us, so too
does the gaming world with its own language and physics because it influences
us to think in that universe’s manner. A role-playing game can form communities
and shooting games can create aggression. These characteristics have as much
influences on us as physical reality can construct social groups, friends, and
social norms. For many people, games aren’t “games”, instead, they are their
own reality where their in some sense free on the physical world.
Why wouldn’t anyone want to live in a game where
you, the player, control the surroundings? We can’t automatically fly with a
thought, but with a game we probably can. This reminds me of the movie “Inception”
where Cobb can create his own world, but later realizes he missed the physical
world. Games or virtual reality can’t offer us the same sensations as we feel
in physical reality, however it can come close. We use all these different cues
(stimuli that gives us an idea of the world) to help guide our mind and these
offer us bodily sensation to which we can feel (anxiety, relaxation, fear,
happiness) to a level that can’t be perceived in virtual reality. We want to
control, but the cost of that would let us loose a lot of our sensations, in
which many ways rewards us of the feeling of being alive.
Lots of thorny issues you raise here, Syed, including the nature of "virtual reality" and whether or not games create effects in the real world (a.k.a. media-effects discourse). Game studies people have had many a debate over whether or not games are truly set apart from the real world in their own "magic circle" (Johan Huizinga's famous term for the boundedness of gameplay). Some argue that the boundary is either not there or more permeable than one thinks; to take your example of an RPG, the vast majority of players are not strictly role-playing 100% of the time, and in fact, it's common for both the player and the avatar to coexist in discussion and action. As for the effects debate, I want to be very careful not to conclude that, say, violent games make for violent players... a great deal of evidence points away from that kind of logic toward more complex explanations based on socioeconomic status, individual player psychology, and so forth.
ReplyDelete