Thoughts for the Day

I was talking to my other half and my research, and he said something that suddenly made me stop and think. A few people who have helped me with my surveys have said that their favourite characters are NPC's, to whom they appear to relate better. Either that, or people have chosen films characters, both of which are passive - comparably to a character whose role you assume and acts as a 'surrogate while we play' (Dille and Platten, 2007). 

However may it is exactly that, as it was pointed out by Scott, and I quote that he said  'maybe its because they can sit back and reflect rather than to be actively using the character, similar to in a film why people get so attached is because they aren't so physically involved and can be driven down a path through story.'

Perhaps, since you are assuming the role of a character, some people don't relate to them because you aren't seeing them as another persona with whom to relate...because you ARE them. They are your avatar for the adventure you are playing. Instead it may be possible that players are relating to NPC's through the eyes of the character whose role they have indeed assumed. 

Of course this isn't always the case, as great numbers of people obviously relate to and connect strongly with their player character for various reasons, whether that's strictly the character's culture or not. I dunno: too philosophical, maybe? But that's my interesting thought for the day. I wonder if I could find anything that would back this up, or even rebuff it. Whatever the case, it would help me unravel a little bit more.

It actually relates to something I read in the book Quests by Jeff Howard, and in the book The Ultimate Guide to Video Game Writing and Design, which I am reading at the moment, which I'll reflect upon when I'm confident with my findings.