In the original cut of Star Wars: A New Hope, Han Solo shot Greedo. It wasn't unprovoked. Greedo had a gun on Han and was threatening to turn him in to Jabba the Hutt, which was essentially a death sentence. It was understood that if Han tried to run, Greedo would shoot him. It was understandable that Han shot the bounty hunter before this could come to pass, and it help establish Han's character.
Until everything changed. In the 1997 re-release, Greedo squeezed off a terrible shot and Han was seen to shoot back in retaliation. It was a poorly judged move of George Lucas' part; he said that he did it to make Han appear more heroic, but it left a seriously bad taste in fandom's collective mouth.
The whole thing went over so poorly because of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when the mind tries to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Fans who had watched Star Wars for twenty years were suddenly forced to reevaluate a deeply cherished moment; first Han shot first, then he didn't. Virtually everyone reacted to the change with extreme dislike for the new cut. Of course, you know all that; but it does illustrate what cognitive dissonance is, and how it can really blow up in a creative team's face if not taken into account.
In gaming, however, different rules seem to apply. Gamers are frequently asked to hold conflicting ideas in our heads, and by and large we accept it as part of the hobby. The easiest example is seen in MMOs. Even though one player may kill a specific monster, that same monster will be killed thousands of times more by other gamers. Frequently a player will repeatedly slaughter the same individual over and over. "I just killed the Lich King, and I can't wait to do it again next week." The player must simultaneously keep two conflicting ideas in mind; the Lich King is dead, but he is still around to be killed again.
There are other examples; The FPS player who dies over and over in the course of a multiplayer match, or even two players of the latest Bioware RPG swapping stories. In the world of gaming, where infinite life and diverging narratives are the norm, gamers are frequently confronted with conflicting facts for a given a single situation.
We deal with it by abstracting the problem; by viewing the facts through the lens of game mechanics, the problem becomes easy to circumvent. The Lich King must continue to be around for other players to challenge. The FPS character must return to life for the game to continue. Still there are times when this coping method is insufficient. In Final Fantasy VII, why couldn't the player resurrect Aeris with a Phoenix Down? It worked up until that point and it worked for everyone else after, why was it not an option that one time?
Even when abstraction works in resolving cognitive dissonance, it is not without consequences. Soap MacTavish's amazing exploits in the Modern Warfare series are dulled somewhat by his disconcerting ability to shrug off any number of bullets so long as he is shot only once every ten seconds. We accept it because it is necessary for the form. The player must feel like the character is in danger, or else there is no sense of tension. But imagine accepting that in a movie, or book; a main character that is shot hundreds of times, but is completely unaffected until it is necessary for him to be wounded for dramatic reasons. We accept the dissonance because it's a game, but the story is less impactful for it.
So what do you think? Is there any particular moment of cognitive dissonance from your experience in gaming that you'd like to share? What can be done to minimize cognitive dissonance in future games?
Spencer Williams
