Reading Response (2-11)

I think that the relationship between textuality and videogames is pretty interesting, but I have to say that I am beginning to become annoyed by the authors who feel that the two can never intersect.  In my opinion, textuality is a very important part of most videogames.  It is a great way to increase the immersion level because then there is some sort of storyline or purpose to the game.  Janet Murray’s piece called “From Game-Story to Cyberdrama” made some thought-provoking remarks, such as the idea that gaming and storytelling have always overlapped.  She says that it is unnecessary to have dichotomies between stories and games, “we can think instead of matters of degree.  A story has greater emphasis on plot; a game has greater emphasis on the actions of the player” (Murray, 9).  I mean, clearly games are not the same as stories, but they combine many of the same elements and can allow the person interacting with each to be equally immersed. 

It is actually interesting because it seems that most of the people who do not think that textuality has a place in videogames seem to favor the idea that stories have higher levels of immersion.  Perhaps the way a story is told, whether it is textual or in a videogame isn’t really the issue, though.  Maybe it is the person who is interacting with each that should be studied because I am sure that every individual will react differently to different types of games and storylines, depending on their own preference.  I think I would have a much higher immersion level with a classic novel when compared to Assassin’s Creed and the storyline it develops.  However, my boyfriend can sit and play the game for hours and hours on end and would never touch a book even if he was being paid.  So maybe all of these critics are focusing on issues that can never really be put to rest because the immersion level may not depend on textuality, but rather the person who is interacting with it, no matter form it appears in. 

---