I had never heard the terms “diegetic” and “nondiegetic” before reading Galloway’s, “Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture” but recognized almost immediately what the terms referred to once they were explained. One thing that is very powerful about Galloway’s book is that it brings up a lot of different perspectives I had not considered before. I wrote in an earlier post about the new idea of the videogame itself working with the player, and this one is about the amount of control a player actually has in a videogame.
So, if the diegetic parts of the game are the parts directly related to the actions and storyline and the nondiegetic parts are the outside influences, like pressing pause, the question of who holds the most power comes into play. On page 28, it is stated that “game over,” the moment of gamic death, is the most “emblematic nondiegetic machine act.” At this moment, the machine has all the power and even stops accepting commands from the player’s controller. However, nondiegetic operator acts put the player in full control. Fore example, when a player presses pause, “the machine itself can never predict when a pause act will happen” (Galloway pg. 13). This puts the player in control because, also on page 13, it says that, “nothing in the world of the game can explain or motivate it [the pause] when it occurs.”
With this being said, I wonder if a certain amound of videogame popularity has to do with a fight for control of a given situation. Do you think that this is a factor? Also, do you think that they will ever make videogames that respond to player pauses, perhaps a sort of response to being put in a disadvantaged situation?