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
I think in Super Meat Boy where you can die thousands of times, but when you respawn you are just a little better than you were the last time you died.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when I was trying to unlock the kid from I Wanna Be the Guy, I knew that if I play these levels over and over again, thousands of times, I might be able to beat them. At the same time, I knew that I had an extremely slim chance of actually beating those levels, so I just give up.
Another good example is In Demons Souls. Normally you have the mind set that you should try your best not to die, and that dying is a bad thing. In Demons Souls, however, you HAVE to die. Dying is the only way to learn and adapt to the game.
I think in certain games, like Demons Souls, cognitive dissonance will play a major part in the feeling of the game. I'm not too sure that there is another example, or if Demons Souls was a good example, but that's what I came up with.
I think cognitive dissonance is required at least a little bit in every kind of game, even one games that try to be as realistic as possible. Most of the time there are doors that open for you, and weapons that appear in your hand in no time at all to make the game flow easier. Things like opening doors, getting out weapons, and using items, while necessary and simple in real life, take just long enough in game to eventually become tedious and boring. We know that it would take a hand turning a doorknob to open a door, but we believe that all unlocked door can simply be pushed open for the sake of game flow.
ReplyDeletei always thought of a game, where you couldnt save, and where you had to start all over again, if you died. but that wouldnt be a game really. this would be frustrating.
ReplyDeleteI don't really mind dissonance at all, no matter which game it is. I've never been so into a game that it's been jarring.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the only game whose backstory actually avoids typical MMO cognitive dissonance is Eve. Every player, and every NPC enemy worth having a name, is immortal and can be reborn in an instant. "Respawning" is written right into the game's science articles.
i remember playing a game that I can't remember the name of. It was an old FPS game and it had a very interesting mechanic. If you got shot in the arm or leg you couldn't use that limb anymore. It was kinda similar to that mechanic of Fallout. If you got shot in the leg you started to move slower, both legs you were forced to crawl, and so on. I liked the mechanic and I played it a lot. I can't really say that cognitive dissonance effects my game experience. It does annoy me, like in FF7, when something happens and I can't do anything about it. I get that it was story driven but they could explain why my Phoenix Down doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably thinking of Deus Ex?
ReplyDeleteThis is where Fallout games come in. In Fallout, every character can die, and when he dies, he's dead. He's gone, and the story is affected by that. Same with Heavy Rain. I belive why these games are seen realistic (even if Fallout is science fiction, it still makes since in what happens to characters) Then you need to look at a game like even tf2 for example. You know you just killed that spy, so it doesnt make sense to see another spy shooting at you that looks the same. Were used to it, yes, but when thinking about it it doesnt make sense.
ReplyDelete[...] NoG BloG: Cognitive Dissonance November 17, 2010 [...]
ReplyDelete