In this chapter, Galloway discusses camera angles.  He spends a lot of time on the subjective angle, which would be the angle for a first person shooter game. I found that I had some different responses when I actually tried playing Quake. Galloway suggested that seeing from a characters view helps you sympathize with that character. While this may be true, I found I had a different experience.

Firstly, maybe because I am used to the subjective view used in suspenseful movies, but I was constantly worried about what was behind me. The first-person view in Quake gives close to a 180 view if that, and with people shooting at you, you constantly have to be turning completely around to see what is behind you. This is obviously unrealistic as in life, if you are concerned about something behind you, you are able to look over your shoulder, and in which case I think the overhead view of the game may in fact be more realistic. The basic idea here is that, in life we are more aware of our surroundings than in the FPS perspective, and this caused me frustration while playing.

Secondly, because I was new to this game, I spent a lot of time bumbling around trying to figure out how to turn.  The turning angle of the character is on a 360 point so besides the view not seeming as realistic, and the movement not seeming very realistic, I found myself actually more distanced from the character I was playing, and frustrated with it. In that way, the FPS perspective made it very hard to empathize with the character I was controlling.

Despite all of this, I am completely aware that I felt unnatural in the environment because I had not mastered the finesse of the movements of the game, and I definitely see where Galloway is coming from in that in some situations it might be  more stimulating to be the character rather than to see the character.

Galloway spends this entire chapter talking about the importance of the camera angle. He details exactly how powerful the subjective shot can be, because it is capable of conveying so much more than just a visual. He says that these types of shots are perfect for FPS games because of the connection it establishes between the player and the environment. He’s definitely got me convinced, except for one thing– what about those videogames that allow the player to switch between camera angles? There’s typically a far-away angle where the entire character is visible, a behind-the-shoulders angle where the player is thrust up against the character’s shoulder and head, and a first-person angle.

For some games, this first-person angle would only be classified as a POV shot– it merely situates itself in the player’s place, showing things from their height. It has nothing of the intricacies that make it a perspective shot, where it conveys all the nuances of actually seeing. This is usually the case for adventure games, but some seem to enter into perspective shot territory. In some games, the camera shakes around when the character jumps, and becomes fuzzy when the character falls. If the character gets hit, the screen goes red and pulses.

So my question is this– if a perspective shot carries so much thought and meaning, what do they become in games that allow the player to switch between camera angles? The perspective angle is obviously not important to the story in those cases. Personally, I’ve never been fond of the first-person perspective, or even the over-the-shoulder one. I feel like I’m not “getting” everything if I can’t see the character– because the story revolves around this character, not around me. This brings up the question of story-telling in games and its relationship with camera angle, which seems similar to movies– it’s hard to tell a story in first-person POV, and requires a unique aspect of the story to make it work.

It’s interesting that Galloway mentions The Blair Witch Project in this week’s reading, and I was surprised that he didn’t spend more time on it.  This notion of “camcorder subjectivity,”  albeit “not a subjective shot per se,” provides a number of very personal effects for the films in which is used.  Though I have not seen Blair Witch, two other films (which I thoroughly enjoyed and) which come to mind are Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity.

“Camcorder subjectivity” can play multiple roles, all of which are seen between these two films.  It is certainly capable of performing the role of subjective shots, especially when it is clear that the operator is looking through the eyepiece, such as the interviews during the party in Cloverfield or when Mica is annoying his girlfriend in Paranormal Activity (which, interestingly, includes several mirror shots); it can provide more passive shots when put down by the operator; but it maintains a definite distinction from typical cinema cameras, which are not typically supposed to be a part of the film world.  Batman, for example, could not accidentally bump into the camera and disturb its perspective as Mica does in Paranormal Activity (during one of its otherwise terrifying, passive tripod scenes).  The camcorder is clearly on the same plane as the events unfolding in front of it–it is a part of the movie, and is bound by all that this entails.

The story of Cloverfield unfolds almost entirely through a handheld camcorder, held by various characters as they endure the monster’s assault on New York (aside from the camcorder, the opening frames indicate that the footage is being accessed through a government database.  No footage of the world post-camcorder is shown).  Carried by previously-partying twenty-somethings with presumably no background in film-making, the camera’s view is terribly shaky and unreliable.  The danger and urgency of many scenes is greatly accentuated by use of the camera, both because of the disorienting shakiness as well as the limitations it provides.  The camera is often not pointing in the direction of what’s important, whether it be the danger behind them or the way out in front of them.  The audience is alerted to danger via screams and other loud noises, and is left to squirm and sweat, waiting desperately for the operator to turn and reveal what exactly is causing alarm.

Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, creates tension with the opposite approach.  The times at which the camera becomes relatively passive and sits on the tripod are generally the most terrifying.  True, this is partially because the characters are often in more vulnerable states (asleep) during these scenes, but there is more to it.  What makes this movie so terrifying to me is what it doesn’t show, and it doesn’t show us because the camera is not in a position to move.  Events and violence unfold, but the action often moves off screen, leaving the viewer helpless, either waiting for something horrible to appear or watching characters be dragged helplessly out of sight.

A similar effect is seen in the videogame Resident Evil. Zombie games are certainly fun, but I’ve never played one that scared me like that game, and it was because of the perspective.   Though not viewed through a camcorder (or in any way that interacts with the world around it), it is the same fixed view which gives each scene its terror.  As you move from room to room, the camera shifts to some awkward position, such as looking down the hall or from a corner of the ceiling.  The character is controlled from this static view, a) making the controls unintuitive and thus very stressful when quick response is needed and b) allowing things to surprise the character suddenly from off screen, or even disturbingly reveal themselves ahead of time with an approaching shadow from the corner.

Jamie

Throughout the entire first half of this chapter, I found myself thinking of movies I’d seen that had the different “views” in them. It brought up thoughts of the TV show The Office, the movie Cloverfield, and others that Galloway had mentioned throughout the chapter such as the Terminator and the Matrix.

I found the idea of using the “fourth look” as an extremely rare case pretty ironic as it is used quite often in television today. Jim Halpert, of The Office, is famous for looking into the camera when something ridiculous happens or is said and giving his “well what are you gonna do about it” face with his shoulder shrug. Maybe because I’m such a huge fan of The Office, do I even notice this – but after reading Galloway’s article, there really are very few other shows or movies that incorporate a forth look consistently, other than Galloway’s example of the Terminator.

I know there were mixed reviews about Cloverfeild, but I personally thought it was amazing. As soon as Galloway brought up the differences between subjective and POV camera shots, I began to think about my experience with movies done in this style. Cloverfield was one I had trouble with, simply because Galloway didn’t give any insight as to where “documentaries”  or documentary-like films would fall into place within this breakdown of looks. (Paranormal activity would be another movie done in documentary format.) After thinking about it I decided it has to be POV, because it’s not claiming to be through their eyes, just having the same sight lines as the main characters. Also they do film themselves and give themselves face time on the camera which indicates that it isn’t through their eyes as they don’t use mirrors to film themselves.

I just found the breakdown of shot-types to be very interesting as I’ve never taken any film classes before. Unfortunately I hadn’t seen any of the Hitchcock movies referenced or the Lady in the Lake, so I had to draw my own examples from experience, but think that in doing so and critically thinking about placement of pseudo documentary-type films within the “look” spectrum allowed me a better understanding of the Galloway chapter.

While The Baron is not a FPS, I think it would be interesting to see how the subjective shot and other POV shots could be used if the text-based game were in movie or graphic videogame form. In movie form, I think these various shots could more easily be used to give clues that the supposed protagonist is actually the baron – in theory, at least. Whereas games succeed because players have control, in a movie, the viewer would have no control over the change in POV, making it more effective when all of a sudden “you” see the baron’s reflection in the mirror. In my example, the audience would have to feel as if they are the main character, but, as Galloway described, movies of the past have faced many hurdles in attempting to tell a story in this way. While the general narrative would perhaps be successfully told, the audience would never really experience everything the “protagonist” experiences.

Similarly, I think there would still be hurdles if The Baron were translated into graphic videogame form, as I don’t think player control would aid in conveying the narrative in the same way – though it would help the player feel more like the baron since the player is the one actually doing all the actions. The game would have to deny the player the option of switching POVs, and perhaps instead have the POV automatically change during certain times in the game (for example, when you enter certain rooms or look at certain objects) in order to hint that the “bad guy” is actually you, the player. However, unexpected changes in POV (especially when going from room to room) might be too distracting to the player for it to be effective. But, if it were possible for The Baron to have a visual, “typical” videogame form, it would also be interesting to see if the visual form or the textual form would be more effective…

In all, thinking through this idea of translating The Baron to some kind of visual form brought me to Galloway’s main point in regards to subjective and other POV shots – where film fails, games succeed. Also, it is interesting to note that it seems like the visual videogame form might not tell the story as effectively as the movie form, which brings back the discussion about games and narratives…

Galloway’s chapter on first person shooter games isn’t really about first person shooter games, but rather about subjective first person devices used in visual media, beginning with film, and then later explored further in first person shooters. Innovative filmmakers began pushing past the traditional POV shot into a more subjective first person shot as a way of embedding the viewer deeper into the mind, psyche and emotions of the character.
But no matter how elaborate and realistic the subjective shots in films are, they still only manage to show the viewer something. The viewer is still simply watching the film. He or she may begin to understand how the character feels, or what they are thinking with the shot, but they don’t feel it, and they can’t be certain.
These limitations are inherent in any visual medium, including videogames. The gamer does not feel what the character of an fps feels, but there is one important difference. Since the gamer is not merely watching things unfold, but is in direct control, something does change. The entire mental activity, and decision-making action occurs within the mind of the gamer. As a result, even the emotions of the character can occur in the mind of the gamer. Fear, excitement, and anger all flash constantly through the neurons of the gamer as the diegetic action reflects the activity of the gamers mind, channeled through the controller.
The jump that occurs from filmic subjective first person shots to an fps game, is amazing.  The jump from ‘watching’ to ‘doing’ vastly changes the type of mental activity occurring in the viewer/gamer.