A Context for Emotion

The idea that video games are capable of transcending reality without eliminating it from the mind of the player is proof of how powerfully they can affect perception. A gamer is able to become entirely immersed in the reality of what is essentially a ‘non-reality,’ take action and make decisions that have consequences, and feel alive through a character in a seemingly legitimate living space. The emotions that are evoked within the player as a result exist only within context; the Heideggerian “world of concern.” Yet although a player may very well be aware of the fictional context of gameplay, do they believe that their affective experience is real in reality? If it is true to say that a gamer can have a real, personal experience that is only real within its fictional realm, then are the emotions that coincide with the experience only real in the same context? In other words, can a set of emotions exist in one context but not another? Debra Carr says that “spatial factors facilitate a particular affect that is aligned with the game’s generic intent,” but I was wondering if the emotional aspect of the magic circle could extend beyond the game’s limits and intent to influence a gamer in the same way a book, for example, might. When a person reads a book, the information absorbed and the emotions evoked from the content usually influence the reader beyond their immersion in the text. If this is the case with games, the world of concern may connect to an extent with reality. Yet whatever psychological effect the emotions involved with gaming may influence, it seems that games do not really inspire ideas as such; at least not ideas that would have potential outside of the context of the game. Representational violence is an example of this notion, as the gamer may replicate a violent action from a game through playful reenactment as opposed to actual violence, precisely because the action is not morally right in a world where the consequences would affect the person directly.