Picture made by my good friend NeffoArt

Intro

There are a lot of things that you can think of when you hear the words "video games", it could be everything from "Lok-thar ogar" to "profit". The last one especially since the video game industry is booming all over the world and making profit like never before, gaining capital to expand and even evolve the technology and industry. Who knows what the industry will look like in the future!

Sic Parvis Magna...don't you agree?

Video games are in other words a financial successful entertainment, bringing joy to both young and old. It has also been acknowledged as a platform for art, as several games have been experimental or carried with them themes taken directly from philosophical schools. More and more artists are using digital games in ways you would've never thought of back in the days when Atari 2600 where hitting the stores.

What I'm going to present with this essay, is another perspective on video games...or rather: the act of PLAYING video games and what it means. I'm not going to talk about experiences or how video gaming affect everyday life directly, since I already covered it on another essay of mine about how art affect our lives. Instead, I'm going to present to you a perspective with the help of one of the biggest philosophers of the 17^th century: René Descartes.

René Descartes – Dualism

You may have heard about the classic phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum", or in english: I think, therefore I am. This is the man that said those thought provoking words. There is much to say about Descartes, like his contribution to rationalism and science, and the way he offered a philosophy that would influence even future philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre.

What we are going to focus on is his famous dualism. Descartes argued that humans are composed of two substances: the mind/spirit and the physical/body. Although these two substances can exist independent without each other (Rozemond, 1998). They also complete each other: Even if the mind can exist on its own, it needs a body to act and extend into the physical world, while the physical body can exist without a mind of its own, however it would only act in an automatic way, like the animals do (Descartes meant that animals were more or less just machines without emotion). This presented a statement of a life after death since when you die, it's only the physical body that dies while the spirit lives on forever. However, it is also important to mention the struggle between the body and the mind. Even if both are needed to make a human, the fact that they are independent makes the symbiosis troublesome, especially for the physical body. Descartes argued that it is in fact from the physical body that, even if giving the mind an extension to the physical world, even limited it's control by having emotions and physical needs like nutriment and sexual desires (Rozemond, 1998). So ironically, even if the body is the reason the mind can execute its plans and ideas..it is also the very same thing that limits its own actions.

Another important thing to mention before I go on and analyze the act of gaming, there is another component that is a part of this dualism: Sensation. According to Descartes, sensation serves as a proof that there is a union between mind and body; since sensation is produced by the body, but the mind helps make something more of it (Rozemond, 1998). Without the mind, the body couldn't make anything of the sensation since it's not made to handle sensations; and without body there wouldn't be any sensation for the mind to process. The sensation itself plays such a big role in Descartes philosophy, that there have even been discussions that there is a Trialism instead of a Dualism, meaning the sensation itself could actually be a substance when in fact it is "just" a modus¹ shared between mind and body.

Now that I have given you a brief presentation of the dualism of Descartes, it is time to present to you how video gaming is in fact a technological form of the dualism.

Two substances co-existing – The act of playing

If I were to ask someone what is needed for gaming, one would usually ONLY talk about the technicalities: a computer, headset, controller, console, tv etc. I find it quite unnecessary to do so, it's like if Descartes had to include every body part of a human being when he spoke of the physical body. Sure, they are all a part of the body, but not needed to include when we talk about an extending substance...we only need to say "this substance is extending" to understand what parts are included and the same goes for the video game console itself: which serves as our extending substance for this essay.

We now have a video game console/our extending substance, but what about the thinking substance? What about the mind? Well, there is another important thing we need to make video gaming possible: we actually need someone to play the game, a player who will serve as the thinking subject. Like the mind/soul of Descartes dualism, the player is the force that commands the body/video game according the their will. They aren't in full control entirely, since the video game/body has its limits depending how the game/body is constructed. For example; we can't raise an army in an action game, but we certainly can in a strategy game. Different games/bodies offer different possibilities for what the mind/player can do.

So if we would illustrate this dualism, it would look like this:

Now that we have identified the two substances of video gaming, we can finally talk about what becomes of this dualism. For you see: both of these "substances" can exist independently, but they make much more of their existence by interacting with each other. Just like the case of Descartés dualism; the two substances together create something one of them couldn't create alone: Sensation.

One could make the argument that the sensations video games present to us exist alone in the body/video game, stating that the mind plays no role here. Others would say that it's the other way around: sensations are simple something created from the mind itself, therefor the body/video game is not needed. I disagree completely, with both arguments. A "sensation" like joy/sorrow/anger/fear doesn't exist on its own, it need a chemistry of two substances to come to life. How could someone tell?

To begin with, showing someone, for example, a video clip of a dog playing with its owner can not only give someone what we call "joy", it can give fear/disgust/sorrow for different people...all depending on what memories (which affect the substance "mind") a clip of a dog would give us. Some may think of happy moments, some think of their dog that passed away, while others think of when they were attacked by a dog when they were a child. While the clip only provides the means of sensation, it is up to the mind to make something of the sensation. If sensation existed in the clip itself, then everyone would feel the same sensation...the individuality of what sensations may come proves that sensation doesn't exist on its own.

And this applies EVEN more to video games. Not only do they offer "satisfaction" in various ways trough genres fitting for different people, a lot of today's games even offer stories that can potentially bring out "sorrow" or "guilt"or "apathy". Of course, it all depends on the mind/player that interacts with the body/video game: it has to be the right mind and the right body for the best sensations to come out.

All you need to do is look up gamer reactions on youtube, and you'll see several examples of sensations games offer us!

Differences and purpose

Now we have presented how playing video games could be interpreted as the modern day equivalent of the dualism of Descartes, since we can see the similarities between the thinking substance - the player, and the similarities between the extending substance – the video game console. But it is also important to talk about the obvious differences, since this essay's purpose is not to revive the philosophies of Descartes...since after 400 years they ARE outdated and irrelevant in today's philosophical discussions. First of, the dualism Descartes presented was a description how the human body and mind worked, and by today's standards rely too much on spirituality as scientists/doctors don't believe in souls in a medical manner. For one thing Descartes didn't believe that animals had souls, and therefore couldn't feel pain or sadness...they are simply machines. Don't think I have to say more to make this point stronger.

"What's the difference this and a regular dog?"

Secondly, the player is the one having emotions and acts upon them when they are playing the game, while according to Descartes there is a battle going on between the mind and body (wants vs needs). The console is not trying to take control over you or acts sometimes according to its own needs, since it is just a simple machine and not a functional biological body (until cyborg-consoles pop up soon).

With that said, I will still say that the practical parts of the dualism of Descartes still feel similar to the act of playing video games, especially when it comes to the player's mind's dependence on the console body to feel sensations they wouldn't feel otherwise in their everyday life. Empowerment, curiosity, excitement and so many more sensations that have been and are being given to us that play video games, and in other words take part in the modern synthetic dualism of Descartes that we have created for ourselves.

Potential further discussion – Cyberpunk and transhumanism

Whether you believe in the dualism of Rene Descartes or not, you can't deny that we humans live life to experience sensations in various ways. We are, after all, emotional creatures that want to do more than just survive physically, but also find enjoyment psychologically. The excitement of exploration, the pride of achieving something bigger than everyday life, the relief of getting rid of something troublesome....all those things are what makes us go trough the days. And as I mentioned before; video games offer sensations that other hobbies/activities can't always give us, even if they are synthetic and can only give us a limited amount of the required sensation. One can't help to ask if technology can take a step further: can it offer us sensations that feel so real that we would even give up the sensations the regular world would give us?

The topic has been brought up before in cyberpunk and transhumanism, which has been featured in popular fiction like anime, movies and literature. A great example would be Neuromancer, a novel written by William Gibson (1984) which would not only be the start of the cyberpunk genre, but would also invent the concept of cyberspace and virtual reality. In the world of Neuromancer exists "The Matrix", which is a virtual reality space which has the function of what internet has to us these days. The main protagonist, Henry Dorsett Case, was once a brilliant computer hacker which used to be hooked up to the Matrix but was caught and had his central nervous system disturbed by mycotoxin, which makes him unable to log on to the virtual reality. Altough Case is spared and allowed to live, he feels dead on the inside and just views his body as "mere meat" that only exists to sustain his consciousness long enough until he can log on into cyberspace once again. He tries to cope with reality by using drugs, but nothing will come close to what he experienced in the virtual reality. He is first truly alive when technology can extend him further, and when he's finally able to log on to the matrix again...he can't help to cry tears of joy.

All of this for the sensations you desire

Without going in for a fully detailed analyze of the book, we can clearly see that Case's longing to experience the matrix comes from his disappointment in the real world: after witnessing the amazing cyberspace, the sensations his regular senses can give him won't simply do anymore. He has become addicted to the extension that technology offers him.

Even if video games have in no way as much effect on us as The Matrix has on Case, I can't help to compare what we have to what Case is trying to get. Even if René Descartes dualism is outdated and in no way describes how the human body works, you might argue that today's technology and the intellectual discussions of cyberpunk/transhumanism, might be a form of a modern interpretation of the dualism: in which we humans are the thinking substance, and the technology we have created will become our extending substance. After all, who knows what sensations awaits us the day after tomorrow?

(1In the philosophy of Descartes, modus would be the equivalent of "attribute" or "quality")

Reference list

Gibson, William. (1984). Neuromancer. London: Voyager.

Rozemond, Marleen. (1998). Descarte's Dualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Coincidence is what made me write this essay. Becuase earlier this autumn I finished decorating and packing up all the stuff in my new apartment, which includes some of my older consoles like the Playstation 3 and my Nintendo Wii. I also found some of my older games, one of them being considered a classic game on the Gamecube: Legend of Zelda – Twilight Princess. Feeling nostalgic, I began to start a new playtrough of this gem. After playing for awhile, I started to think about the older days when the sixth generation game consoles played a big part in my life. Suddenly I realised something: soon it's been 10 years since Nintendo released Twilight Princess!

Considering I finally got the time and I would love to get on with some writing again, I couldn't help to feel that it would be fitting to write about this very particular gem. But then I started thinking...what can be discussed about this game? I googled it and looked up what fans have been saying about this game. What I found most particular is that alot of forums seem to bring up one subject: how dark the game is. 

I can't help to agree that Twilight Princess is indeed right up with Majoras Mask to two darkest Legend of Zelda games. Then I started thinking...could this game be considered to be dark fantasy?

Before we discuss wheterver this is true or not, let's first clarify what exactly dark fantasy is.

Dark fantasy

The genre is in reality kinda hard to define. After researching some, I only found broad definitions of what Dark Fantasy is: It's literary, artistic and cinematic works that incorporates darker and more frightening themes of fantasy. There is no real decided tropes that can connect the works. But they do present some examples that seem common in movies/books/games considered dark fantasy: anti heroic or morally ambigious protagonists, incorporate elements of horror fiction, stories told from a monsters perspective, lovecraftian creatures (cosmic horror of the unkown), psychological themes and apocalyptic storylines. Of course, a dark fantasy doesn't have to incorporate all of these examples, they serve more as guide lines of what a dark fantasy usually have as themes. And now come an important part: presenting examples.

Why it's important? As already mentioned, Dark Fantasy is a troublesome genre to define on it's own so we need examples from popular media that is generally defined by the public as dark fantasy to make it easier to analyze Twilight Princess. First we need to bring up what just makes these examples dark fantasy and then look for similar traits in the Zelda-game. I'm going to use two works of fiction that I enjoy that is considered dark fantasy: Berserk and Dragon Age.

Berserk, a manga written by Kentaro Miura (yes we're focusing on the manga here), serves as a great example since it incorporates alot of the presented examples above. Let's start with presenting some of the artwork of the series:







As you can see, just with one picture we are presented with some examples: mainly lovecraftion creatures and horror elements. These are not simple orcs or uruk-hai, plain evil creatures that are two dimensional but not feared by man....these creatures goes beyond even the human understanding of this world. They aren't simply scared of these creatures: they are petrified, clueless what they even are and some are not even able to handle them psychologically. And then there is Guts, the protagonist. He isn't a hero like Superman, Nathan Drake or Super Mario: he is mostly in the series driven by survival instinct, vengence and won't shy away from stepping on/kill people if needed. Berserk presents us a corrupt and dark world, filled with warfare/rape/torture with only a few redeeming factors like compassionate people and Gut's struggle actually helps people in the long run. And beyond that dark world, in another dimension, there are unkown creatures manipulating humanity behind the scenes to do their bidding.

And now for Dragon Age, which will serve as a example that demostrates how dark fantasy can be portrayed in a less extreme fashion.

We can begin with what Dragon Age lacks compared to Berserk: there are none/few lovecraftion creatures presented in the games, the closest thing would be the demons from beyond the veil but they seem to act like simple predators: waiting for a mage to lose control so they can come into the material world and wreck havoc. Demons seems to be understood by the different races of Thedas and known well enough to create institutions/orders (like the templars) to prevent further demonic interference from coming to their world. In other words: They are feared, but not something that is unfamiliar.

The player does however have the choice to make a protagonist that is morally ambigious/anti-hero/greedy/lustfull etc that can choose to form his/her surrodings as they want to. And Dragon Age: Inquistion actually have a apocalyptic storyline where demons are pouring out from different rifts and are about to destroy the world before the protagonist challenge them. The world of Thedas might at first look like a typical fantasy world, with elves humans and dwarfes, but all of the races deal with issues that come from the darker side of our history: apartheid, corruption, civil war, slavery, racism etc that brings a more mature and dark tone of the games. We need also to bring the aesthetics in to the discussion, since there is alot more to talk about there compared to Berserk (it being a manga an all, black and white). All of the games, mostly the first one, has pretty dark and gritty textures, enviroments and less of a high fantasy design when it comes to objects like the armors for an example. Especially when you dwell into the deep roads in DA:O, where it's extremly dark and even got some body horror thrown in. It tries more for a look that's less welcoming then...well... Lord of the rings.

Gosh Mister Frodo, this world looks just like New Zeeland!!

All in all: there are discussions that Dragon Age shouldn't be considered dark fantasy, but there are elements that definitly fits the description. Dragon Age is simply a lesser form of dark fantasy compared to other works like Berserk.

Now that we have discussed two levels of dark fantasy, it is time to discuss whetever Twilight Princess would fit the description.


Now...about that Nintendo game – is it dark fantasy?

Let's start with the story shall we? Well, it is the classical Legend of Zelda set up: A quiet hero named Link helps a princess Zelda save the world from evil forces...lead by a evil man/creature named Ganondorf/Ganon (sometimes they are the same person...makes sense if you play the games!). And what follow is: going trough dungeons, fighting monsters, collecting gadgets etc etc. The structure is pretty much the same from game to game, but the tone and style that decorate the games have changed alot. We will start with one of the things that really sets Twilight Princess apart from the other Zelda games: the evil forces Link has to fight.

We have seen monsters in previous Zelda-games with a dark/horrofying design before, like in Majoras Mask or Ocarina of time.

freaky-deaky!

But other than that, the overworld enemies looks less threatening and even sometimes adorable.

awh, it's not so bad after all!


Now, let's discuss the enemies of Twilight Princess. There are also goofy looking bad guys in this game, I know, but the main enemies of this game come from a whole new dimension...so they look like something that absolutely doesn't belong in the world of Hyrule.



The weird patterns all over their bodies, the long creepy fingers, the tentacle like hair, the lack of a real face....looks like we got something straight out of H.P Lovecraft here. It's like taken from a more horror setting than an actual Zelda game. Sure, there are still Zelda-esque design touches here and there but these creatures differt much from the other enemies from the game. And let's not forget another thing in this game that steps it up: possession, a common occurence in horror/dark fantasy. Not only are demonic powers corrupting good creatures of this world, it twists and turns them to monsters from your own personal nightmares:

 

...was really 13+ enough?

And heck even one of the villians with a pretty goofy personality, Zant, also has his moments taken from a horror flick:



Think we can wrap it up here with: These are the most dark and twisted creatures Link ever faced, some of them even belong in horror films. Next on, we'll discuss the aesthetics. If we put it this way: the game starts a sunset, in a forest.

This picture kinda sums up the color tone of the game. Of course there are brigther moments on like during the days on the field of Hyrule or when you visit Hyrule Castle...but then there is also the twilight realm itself which makes the earlier dark worlds of the Zelda-franchise look bright:

color scheme, the twilight realm, the dungeons...you can't help to think of dark colors when you talk about this game.

But it is here we must stop and make it clear: only the presentation of a game/movie/comic doesn't distinguish whetever it's dark fantasy or not. After all, the examples we mentioned above focus primarily of the themes that is usually present in this unpleasent genre. However, it was still important to mention the presentation since it also plays a part in presenting the world and characters in this game. Now while we are on the subject: does the characters in this game have their dark sides, their inner turmoil or anything that we would see in a dark fantasy tale?

The answer is pretty much a no. Link is the typical hero: he do what he's told and only want to save the world becuase...well...it's a nice thing to do! Zelda is a typical helpful damsel in distress: she also wants to save the world and help our hero since...well...it's a nice thing to do! Midna at first appear to have some more complexity and even mocks our heroes for their naivity, but then over the course of the game also want to save their world since it's so a nice place(well, there are more details to it, but still). Ganondorf is pretty much evil personified, just want's to take over the world and gain more power. There is a lack of psychological depth and the archetypes of a fairy tale still make so this Zelda-game don't stray away to much of a typical game of the franchise.

However, Zant does brings some depth to it: since at first, he was loyal to the royal family and dedicated his life to serve them. But he hated being trapped in the Twilight Realm and is even more frustrated with Midna taking his place on the throne. His despair over his existance and situation made him in desperation see Ganondorf as a "god" that could bring salvation to him and the twili, so you could argue that he in a existential manner decided to dedicate his life to this "god" and take the throne for himself. You could even make the argument that his change of character at the end of the game also plays a big part of who he really was: a pathetic creature, trying hide away his weaknesses by displaying power and authority....which he really didn't have in the first place. He even admitted it to Midna early in the game: "I need you". Zant does bring a more tragic and even dark nuance to the story, telling us how easy it can be to push a loyal servant into a power hungry maniac that bets their actions on a mysterious deity. I could probably even bring some existentialistic analysis into the mix but that would be for another essay.

I sit on a throne of lies

Lastly there is another aspect we must discuss that is incredible important to bring up: the gameplay. When presenting a genre, having a fitting gameplay is essential for making the message/genre/themes shine trough. Let's take Last of Us as a good example: the story is set in a post-apocalyptic world where mankind struggles and have to ignore ethics to make it trough the day, and the gameplay fits well as you have to scavenge supplies/save ammo/kill other people you encounter. How does Twilight Princess hold up? As a fantasy it does: fighting evil and helping people you meet with various great deeds like save them from the monsters to more trivial matters like fetch a bottle of water or play a nice tune for the sad kid on the street corner. As a dark fantasy?....let's just say that there is a lack of moral ambigiouty and just that makes it hard to distinguish the gameplay "dark".

And now, it's time to decide whetever this game could be considered dark fantasy.

We already established that Berserk is a definitivte example of a series that is dark fantasy. Then we made it clear that even if Dragon Age isn't as much dark fantasy as previous mentioned series...it is still a fantasy too dark to be just considered a typical fantasy.

And where would we place Twilight Princess? We can easily say now it can't be compared to Berserk with it's lack of morally ambigious protagonist and it's optimistic world which lacks serial killers or rapists (thank god). So it would probably to more correct to compare Twilight Princess with Dragon Age.

Comparing these two, you could sum it all up with: While Twilight Princess sure looks more like a darker game with it's color scheme, enviroment and some it's enemies/bosses comes straight out of a horror game. However it got nothing against Dragon Age's more dark themes like corruption, racism, apartheid, rape and all the more morally complex characters. Plus even if Dragon Age looks brighter than Twilight Princess, it still got a pretty grim color scheme that works with a dark fantasy. So out of these two, Dragon Age is certainly the one that mostly fits the genre...and considering that some even argue that Dragon Age isn't a dark fantasy tale, makes it harder to argue if Twilight Princess is.

Finale

And here comes the part I would say "No, Twilight Princess isn't a dark fantasy". Then again, as we mentioned earlier: there are really do decided tropes that can truly clarify what is a dark fantasy work and what is, there are more guide lines. For now we have to rely our own perspectives/point of views to define what a "dark fantasy game" really is.

But from studying the other examples, look up the common themes most dark fantasies have and finally from writing this essay....I can give you my take on it: I don't consider Twilight Princess to be a TRUE dark fantasy. However, I cannot brush it of as a regular fantasy either since this game still has similarities of what most of us would perceive as dark fantasy. It is still strange though, just the idea of a Zelda game being labeled as a dark fantasy, but yet I'm having this discussion on paper.

Perhaps this game got inspired by dark fantasies, but couldn't go fully through with it since it would be too much for long time fans of the franschie. Yet they couldn't ignore it completely since a dark fantasy does bring out a interesting story that for an example Lord of the rings can't give us. And quite frankly, in some respects they actually succeded: even if it's not considered the best Legend of Zelda, it not hated by any means since most of us found it to be an interesting attempt to make something different. Wind Waker also tried something different, but with much more succéss.

When you really think about it, the title "Twilight Princess" fits not only becuase of it exists a twilight princess in the game. You could even make the argument that is serves as an answer of our question: since it's a game that stands between a bright and a dark fantasy, somewhere in the Twilight.

Whetever it's the twilight before the dusk or the dawn is up to the player to decide