Recently I have been starting to dig a bit into Massumi’s theory of affect, and attempting to peel back the many layers which comprise this theory. Here’s a quick breakdown of some of his ideas.
Massumi (1995) discusses that there are two such levels of image reception – a multi-layered reaction that occurs when we experience such phenomena, labelling them as intensity and qualification.
Intensity is manifested in the ‘autonomic’ reactions that occur on a pre-cognitive, anatomical level, beneath the skin and without our awareness or acknowledgement. It remains beneath consciousness, and will never be a conscious process.
Qualification reactions, however, occur as soon as the player becomes aware of these functions. Autonomic functions such as a heartbeat and breathing. As soon as the player realises their heartbeat, the expectation of its implications result in the player aligning themselves with the narrative. Acknowledgement of the already felt state then serves to re-register or amplify the feeling.
For example, when a player is navigating a horror game, and they notice their heart rate increasing, they then correlate that reaction to that of the narrative context – their heartbeat has risen, and therefore they construe it as fear.
There are several ways this can be translated into gameplay:
Firstly, and perhaps quite obviously, it can be seen that the amount of necessary text required for creating emotional reactions is quite minimal. Implicit and ambiguous signposting, and even the context of a situation alone is rather capable of eliciting emotion.
Secondly, letting the player fill the gaps in understanding a situation. This is important to affect, as these ‘autonomic’ reactions impacted emotion on a much more physiological level than purely cognitive exercises. The player does always have to be given an answer.
Massumi nicely sums it up: ‘Matter-of-factness dampens intensity’ (p. 3). In many ways, the cognitive noise that occurs when the viewer would have to interpret words alongside the images hindered the impact of the images themselves. Massumi even describes it as a ‘doubling of the sequence of images’, as voiceover and the images produce separate narratives in the mind of the viewer: images that while aiming for the same goal, can produce very different results.
That’s a quick summation of ideas that I may utilise throughout the thesis – stay tuned for next time!
Hey there!
So this part struck me as odd:
“For example, when a player is navigating a horror game, and they notice their heart rate increasing, they then correlate that reaction to that of the narrative context – their heartbeat has risen, and therefore they construe it as fear.”
This is just personal experience, but I can’t remember ever “feeling afraid” as a result of observing my autonomic functions. I.e., I’ve never been afraid because my heart is beating faster.
Am I misinterpreting that idea?
Anyway, good post! I’m looking forward to reading more!
Hiya Ken, thanks for taking the time to read my article and even post a comment!
That idea probably needs some further clarification now that I’m reading it in hindsight: when you play the game, the heartbeat is not the sole determinant of your fear, but rather one of many autonomic functions that would occur when in such a circumstance.
So while a range of intensities would reach you while you are playing a horror game, that particular combination of them, in conjunction with your own experiences, is what allows you to interpret it as fear.
This ‘narrative context’ that is referred to is the knowledge that you are in a horror game, thus influencing your interpretation of your increased heartbeat.
I hope that cleared things up for you, and thanks again for reading!