Whereas we have read many authors who argue that video games can serve a narrative function, Frasca refutes this claim, drawing what he finds to be the distinction between narration and simulation. His main argument is that, while a narrative is about what has already happened, a simulation is about what could happen. In his model, narratives are formed from a fixed series of events, actions, and descriptions- video games simply don’t fit follow these rules. Frasca says, “Video games need the active participation of the user not just for interpretational matters, but also for accessing its content”. He continues by noting the importance of sacred books within religious following, demonstrating why simulations are not a good choice as far as religious practice is concerned. For example, moral codes strictly enforced by the church are not meant to be read alternatively. Frasca uses the example of “thou shalt not kill”, and how it would be completely unacceptable for it to be simulated as “thou shalt kill”.
I feel that Frasca’s argument in this respect perfectly explains society’s reaction to films such as “The Last Temptation of Christ”. When Martin Scorsese interacted with the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life, he simulated the narrative to suit the story he was trying to tell. The story of Christ is traditionally a linear narrative, and any play that occurs with it can be considered trivial. This is the same reason we never see video games depicting Jesus Christ. While he followed one particular path that is meant to evoke a certain feeling within society, a video game would give the player the opportunity to make decisions for Christ: this is exactly what Scorsese did with The Last Temptation. He focused on Christ’s humanity, diminishing his sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Can you imagine the outcry of a Jesus video game? While Scorsese had Jesus stray onto one path, what would happen if everyday people were given the ability to have Him stray in multiple directions?
The other interesting argument that Frasca raises is the ability for an online forum for video games, or what he refers to as “Video games of the Oppressed”. Like the classic tradition of Theater of the Oppressed, where the audience has the ability to help chose what will happen to the characters, in video games of the oppressed the players are given the opportunity to start online forums, posting video games and having others comment or take the code and create their own interpretation of the material. Frasca mentions the possibility of Character Exchange sites, where individuals can find characters written by other people and adapt them to suit their own desires. I feel that he is basically arguing for a free flow of ideas across the internet, and this seems odd to me. Isn’t the internet already a forum for discussion on social change and reform, with people borrowing ideas from others all the time? I don’t see why programing code should have to play a role, seeing as how many people (myself very much included), don’t have the skills required to interact with the medium in this way.
