After doing research on ICO, Interactivity in Ico: Initial Involvement, Immersion, Investment by Drew Davidson caught my attention. Besides the fact that he types Ico and not ICO, Davidson’s study of the game revolves around initial involvement, immersion, and investment in the game’s narrative and mechanics. Davidson describes initial involvement as, “literally, the start of the game.” Everything cinematic before the player assumes control of Ico is part of the initial involvement. This, for non-gamers, is Davidson’s academic description of a tutorial. After assuming control of Ico and protecting and walking with Yorda the first time, the tutorial or initial involvement ends.
The immersion occurs after the tutorial is finished, allowing the player to explore the environment and solve the puzzles ICO presented. This is where I begin to disagree with Davidson. Immersion and later investment is not something that should be described chronologically. As a person who studies performance, I think Davidson misses the point of the mechanics available during the initial involvement. The relationship between Ico and Yorda starts with their first successful escape. Granted these describe stages for the player’s dedication to the game, but that would be assuming that after the initial involvement that the player decides to quit (which is still likely).
I cannot say it is necessarily wrong to analyze ICO this way, but I think the emphasis on the game-like qualities undermines what ICO attempts to express artistically. With the narrative presented, it would seem more appropriate to analyze the game as if it were a film or some form of literature. The study has opened my eyes to how the investment or, “[satisfaction from] completion of the game,” plays a key role in ICO’s success, but I want to defend this game’s emotional expression.
In summary, ICO has been a pleasure to play. I use Davidson’s writing here to show how I think the study of games should be flexible depending on the game itself. As I mentioned in my second post for ICO, I respect Anita Sarkeesian’s feminist critique, and although I disagreed with her use of this game, her analysis seems more fitting than Davidson’s. And as a side note, I learned that some versions of ICO have multiplayer capabilities for someone to control Yorda, making her active and therefore more empowered than she is originally portrayed. ICO has shown me that games with compelling narratives demand adequate analysis of the story and visuals as well as its mechanics which ultimately enhance the emotions expressed.
Check out Davidson’s Analysis: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958723