I’m currently reading an interesting book on the philosophy of the Legend of Zelda games (that sort of thing immediately jumps out at you when you see it in a bookstore). The first chapter is on why we care about what happens in the game world, knowing full well that it is fictional.

The author first criticizes the “suspension of disbelief” and “pretend” theories, as we are fully aware that the game situation is not real on a rational level yet are unable to fully control the emotional responses it evokes. The author then proposes a multilevel system of consciousness, under which we may locally consider the game world real yet may be globally aware that the world is still a game (performance anxiety is another example of this – some performers, myself included, become very stressed out prior to a performance, but are we in any mortal danger? No.

I think the author’s theory explains part of the scenario: just as we would pull away from the touch of a hot oven without thinking (a reflex arc), we apply the rules we’ve learned in the real world to the game world:

Fire -> Danger
Spikes -> Sharp pointy objects -> Danger
Monsters -> Deadly animals -> Danger

etc.

When under threat, it has been evolutionary advantageous for us to react quickly, with little to no intermediary processing. We apply our rules to the character, determine that we’re in danger, and respond as if the danger were real.

But there’s the rub: why do we care what happens to the protagonist? Link isn’t a real person. He can’t even speak. We don’t have any situations that can literally relate to his dungeon crawls (although it can be argued that Link’s adventures can be conveyed as metaphors for frightening scenarios in our own lives).

The answer lies in our capacity for empathy: we identify with Link’s motives, with the interactions he has with other characters, and in how his actions move the storyline forward. Because we are controlling Link, we often internalize his actions (“I just found the Master Sword” vs. “Link just found the Master Sword” are both plausible statements when playing the game), but we are just his guide. And because we are responsible for him and we have come to empathize with his motivations and struggle, we endeavor to protect him when threatened.