Michelle_1_Perlin

Perlin's article is thought provoking. Why are movies so much more likely to make us cry than a video game? According to Perlin, the answer is agency- in a movie, we relate to a character with free will. In a game, we determine the agency of the character, and the character has no existence without us. Knowing this, it would seem that a video game character would be a more likely extension of ourselves, and so their death or destruction would be more poignant and personal, not less so.

Furthermore, we're more likely to spend longer amounts of time with a video game character as opposed to watching a movie once. I have seen this emotional investment happen in RPG games such as Everquest, only because the characters take so long to create; their destruction isn't heart wrenching because its sad, it's just frustrating to have to go through the process all over again.

I then thought about the possibility, as Perlin mentioned, that the characters just aren't believable. They lack the facial expressions and other means to make them truly interesting to us, which we get with live actors in a film. Why, then, did so many people cry when the animated Bambi died?

Video games can be emotional experiences; they can surprise us, disgust us, make us laugh, or make us cheer. I dont know of any video games that actively try to evoke a very dramatic emotional response from the user. I agree with Perlin that plot takes priority in current games over character development; but just because we don't cry at a video game doesn't mean it's not emotional or immersive.