Multimodal Metaphors and Game Character Design

M U LT I M O D A L M E TA P H O R S A N D G A M E C H A R A C T E R D E S I G N

F E L I X S C H R Ö T E R , U N I V E R S I T Y O F H A M B U R G

MEDIALITY AND MULTIMODALITY ACROSS MEDIA WINTER SCHOOL AT THE GRADUATE ACADEMY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TUEBINGEN, GERMANYJANUARY 29, 2014

[email protected] @felixjs www.felixschroeter.de

multimodality

ling

uist

ics

film studies

gam

e st

udie

sO’HALLORAN 2004

narratology

KRESS/VAN LEUWEN 2001

sem

iotic

s

PAGE 2010

BATEMAN/SCHMIDT 2010

DENA 2010

‣ address players through multiple sensory channels,

‣ rely on players’ input through different multimodal control schemes (Oviatt 2002),

‣ combine ‘narrative’ and ‘game’ modes (Dena 2010).

V I D E O G A M E S …

– C H A R L E S F O R C E V I L L E ( 2 0 0 9 : 2 4 )

„[M]ultimodal metaphors are metaphors whose target and source are each represented exclusively

or predominantly in different modes.“

C L A I M

Audiovisual metaphors are used in game character design to integrate multi-sensory experiences with

higher cognitive meaning and ‘merge’ ludic and narrative dimensions of characters.

M U LT I M O D A L I T Y A N D C O N C E P T U A L M E TA P H O R T H E O R Y

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

• Human beings make sense of (abstract) phenomena by understanding them metaphorically in terms of physical, concrete phenomena (Lakoff/Johnson 1980).

• In conceptual metaphors (e.g. LIFE IS A JOURNEY) elements of a source domain (JOURNEY) are mapped onto elements of a target domain (LIFE).


• pictorial / visual metaphors (e.g. Kennedy 1982)

• audiovisual metaphors (e.g. Forceville 2006, Fahlenbrach 2010)

• multimodal metaphors (e.g. Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009)


LIFE IS A JOURNEY

The Straight Story (USA 1999)

– s e e K AT H R I N FA H L E N B R A C H ( 2 0 1 0 : 9 3 – 9 4 )

audiovisual metaphors = intentionally designed symbolical forms that refer to conceptual metaphors in their specific use of pictures, sounds, and movement


ANGER IS LOSS OF BALANCE

Crank (USA 2006)


MADNESS IS LOSS OF BALANCE

Batman: Arkham Asylum (Rocksteady/Eidos Interactive 2009)

V I D E O G A M E S A N D M E TA P H O R S

• interface as metaphor for the game as an information system (Järvinen 2007, Schrape 2012)

• simulation as metaphor for real-world processes (Aarseth 2001, Juul 2005, or Bogost 2011)

• conceptual metaphors in game rhetoric (Bogost 2005), aesthetics (Rusch 2009, Begy 2010), and story structure (Kromhout 2010, Kromhout/Forceville 2013)


Possible target domains: POWER, HEROISM, VIRTUE


• structural metaphor: source domain provides rich knowledge structure for the target concept (Kövecses 2010)

‣ LIFE IS A JOURNEY

‣ TIME IS MOTION


PURPOSIVE ACTIVITY IS MOVING FORWARD TOWARD A DESTINATION

Batman: Arkham City (Rocksteady/WB Interactive 2011)


POWER IS SELF-PROPELLED MOTION

InFamous (Sucker Punch/Sony 2009)


• orientational metaphor: maps basic mental schemas of spatial orientation on (typically abstract) target concepts (Kövecses 2010)

‣ MORE IS UP | LESS IS DOWN

‣ VIRTUE IS UP | LACK OF VIRTUE IS DOWN

‣ CONTROL IS UP | LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN


VIRTUE IS UP | CONTROL IS UP

InFamousBatman: Arkham City


• ontological metaphor: gives (mostly abstract) target concepts a new ontological status as objects, substances, or containers (Kövecses 2010)

• allows for further structuring through structural metaphors

‣ STATE AS CONTAINER („being in love“)

‣ ACTION AS OBJECT („giving someone a call“)


POWER IS A SUBSTANCE | HUMAN IS A CONTAINER

InFamous


POWER IS A SUBSTANCE | HUMAN IS A CONTAINER

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda 2011)

C O N C L U S I O N

Audiovisual metaphors are used in game character design to integrate multi-sensory experiences with

higher cognitive meaning and ‘merge’ ludic and narrative dimensions of characters.

T H A N K Y O U [email protected]

@felixjs

www.felixschroeter.de

• Aarseth, Espen. 2001. “Allegories of Space. The Question of Spatiality in Computer Games.” In Cybertext Yearbook 2000, edited by Markku Eskelinen and Raine Koskimaa, pp. 152–171. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

• Bateman, John A., and Karl-Heinrich Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal Film Analysis. How Film Mean. New York/London: Routledge.

• Begy, Jason. 2010. “Interpreting Abstract Games: The Metaphorical Potential of Formal Game Elements.“ MA thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Accessed December 12, 2014.

• Bogost, Ian. 2005. “Frame and Metaphor in Political Games.” In Proceedings of the DiGRA 2005 Conference. Vancouver: DiGRA. Accessed December 12, 2014.

• Bogost, Ian. 2011. How to Do Things with Videogames. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

• Dena, Christy. 2010. “Beyond Multimedia, Narrative, and Game: The Contributions of Multimodality and Polymorphic Fictions.” In New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality, edited by Ruth Page, pp. 183–201. New York/London: Routledge.

• Fahlenbrach, Kathrin. 2010. Audiovisuelle Metaphern. Zur Körper- und Affektästhetik in Film und Fernsehen. Marburg: Schüren.

• Fahlenbrach, Kathrin. In prep. “Affective Spaces and Metaphors in Video Games.” In Games, Cognition, and Emotion. Essays in Cognitive Video Game Studies, edited by Bernard Perron and Felix Schröter. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

• Forceville, Charles. 2006. “The Source-Path-Goal Schema in the Autobiographical Journey Documentary: McElwee, Van der Keuken, Cole.” In New Review of Film and Television Studies 4: 241–261.

• Forceville, Charles. 2009. “Non-Verbal and Multimodal Metaphor in a Cognitivist Framework: Agendas for Research.” In Multimodal Metaphor, edited by Charles Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, pp. 19–42. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

• Forceville, Charles, and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi. 2009. “Introduction.” In Multimodal Metaphor, edited by Charles Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, pp. 3–17. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

• Järvinen, Aki. 2008. Games Without Frontiers. Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. PhD thesis, University of Tampere.

• Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half-Real. Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Kennedy, John M. 1982. “Metaphor in Pictures”. In Perception 11: 589–605.

• Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

• Kress, Gunter, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.

• Kromhout, Roelf. 2010. Source-Path-Goal Structure in Multimodal and Interactive Videogames: Half-Life 2, Grim Fandango and Heavy Rain. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.

• Kromhout, Roelf, and Charles Forceville. 2013. “LIFE IS A JOURNEY. The Source-Path-Goal Schema in the Videogames Half-Life, Heavy Rain, and Grim Fandango.” Metaphor and the Social World 3(1): 100–116.

• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

• O’Halloran, Kay L. (ed.). 2004. Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Systemic-Functional Perspectives. London/New York: continuum.

• Oviatt, Sharon. 2002. “Multimodal interfaces.” In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, edited by Julie A. Jacko and Andrew Sears, pp. 286–304. Hilssdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Page, Ruth (ed.). 2010. New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. New York/London: Routledge.

• Rusch, Doris. 2009. “Mechanisms of the Soul. Tackling the Human Condition in Videogames.” In Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice, and Theory. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2009 Conference. Brunel: DiGRA.

• Schrape, Niklas. 2012. Die Rhetorik von Computerspielen. Wie politische Spiele überzeugen. Frankfurt/New York, NY: Campus Verlag.

Multimodal Metaphors and Game Character Design

Education

Transcript of Multimodal Metaphors and Game Character Design