4.3 Article

Thought Experiments in Video Games: Exploring the (Un)Ethics of Motherhood in Frictional Games' Amnesia: Rebirth

期刊

GAMES AND CULTURE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15554120231153715

关键词

Amnesia; Rebirth; philosophy; motherhood; ethics; Deleuze; Cavell; thought experiment; frictional games; narrative; mixed-media storytelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The essay discusses the philosophical potential of Frictional Games' Amnesia: Rebirth (2020), a survival science-fiction horror game that focuses on story elements and explores the concept of motherhood, which is rarely encountered in this medium. By giving players the illusion of control over space and time, the game gradually problematizes the notion of action and choice, revealing a complex nature of game choices. Furthermore, the game functions as a thought experiment by juxtaposing epistemology and ethics through the idea of motherhood, highlighting the ethical implications of individual actions versus the perspective of temporality.
The essay explores the philosophical potential of Frictional Games' Amnesia: Rebirth (2020), a survival science-fiction horror game, which heavily focuses on story elements and deeply explores the idea of motherhood-a subject matter rarely encountered in this medium. By offering the semblance of control over space and time, suturing the player to the first-person perspective of a character only to gradually problematize the very notion of acting and suspending choice via highlighting any option as an ethical impasse-revealing a neither/nor nature of gamic choice-the game transforms itself from a Deleuzian action-image to a time-image, from an image favoring action to the one that problematizes time. What is more, the game functions as a thought experiment, juxtaposing epistemology and ethics via the idea of motherhood, which is shown to be an ethical choice from the perspective of individual action but unethical from the perspective of temporality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据