on their choices. This game is meant to strike players emotionally, and to, if appropriate, regret their choices and wonder at what could have been if another path had been chosen. Thompson, while not undermining the value of these games, adds a criticism to the games that fail to do this. In ‘Sorcery!,’ the player may immediately reverse and correct a decision he made so that he may almost effortlessly reach the outcome he desires most. Even if the end-all is consistent despite the choices made, this kind of gaming makes the player’s choices transient and insignificant, and his character may walk through his life in a sort of try and retry state, which allows no remorse or achievement for the player’s journey, and therefore no connection between the life of the character and the player. He goes on to say that the kinds of playable characters make this connection more relevant in a game, and to truly experience the life of another, the player must play as anyone other than themselves; he must see the world through the eyes of a foreign character, a character foreign in gender, race, age, condition, etc. I agree with all of this; to really make an empathetic connection, one would want to remove himself from his current situation, as this would just be a repeat of his real life, and no one plays video games to relive his everyday. Even a game that simulates a situation very similar to his own has value to a player if he can experience it in a different manner, whether through slight differences in choice and freedom or simply by experiencing it through another’s perspective.
on their choices. This game is meant to strike players emotionally, and to, if appropriate, regret their choices and wonder at what could have been if another path had been chosen. Thompson, while not undermining the value of these games, adds a criticism to the games that fail to do this. In ‘Sorcery!,’ the player may immediately reverse and correct a decision he made so that he may almost effortlessly reach the outcome he desires most. Even if the end-all is consistent despite the choices made, this kind of gaming makes the player’s choices transient and insignificant, and his character may walk through his life in a sort of try and retry state, which allows no remorse or achievement for the player’s journey, and therefore no connection between the life of the character and the player. He goes on to say that the kinds of playable characters make this connection more relevant in a game, and to truly experience the life of another, the player must play as anyone other than themselves; he must see the world through the eyes of a foreign character, a character foreign in gender, race, age, condition, etc. I agree with all of this; to really make an empathetic connection, one would want to remove himself from his current situation, as this would just be a repeat of his real life, and no one plays video games to relive his everyday. Even a game that simulates a situation very similar to his own has value to a player if he can experience it in a different manner, whether through slight differences in choice and freedom or simply by experiencing it through another’s perspective.