Empathy is normally described as a good thing. Placing yourself in someone else’s shoes creates a lot of incite towards another person’s perspective, but it is limited. A game or any type of media can’t fully immerse oneself into another person’s life. This is why many people hate when others say they can relate to what they are feeling, because if they aren’t them, then they really can’t. This is brought up by Teddy Pozo and that not only can this type of empathy accomplish less for the empathizer, there are always drawbacks, especially when the empathy causes more realization of distinct differences between the issue being explored and the people trying to empathize with it. It’s not only negative. It can also be beneficial like bringing awareness on an issue, but it almost seems like there could be a hint of danger with empathy. How far can empathizing go within gaming?

It is from queerness that we are confronted with empathy being essential not only within the game, but trying to connect from the controller to the game. Controllers do not fully connect us to a game. They are an extension of us, but there is no physical feedback except maybe the rumble pack in a console controller. Miguel Sicart stresses the importance of queering the controller. This would mean to have actual feeling from it. Miguel specifically compares how sex toys are made with the body in mind and that video game makers should think similarly. When reading Sicart’s article, all I thought about was in the movie Ready Player One, where the main character received a suit where he could feel everything in virtual reality. This reference is what I got out of Sicart’s interpretation of a queer controller for some reason. Now a bodysuit in virtual reality sounds pretty cool, but also to what extent could games become quite horrifying with this invention. There is something that could be quite amazing with being able to feel something in a game, but also there are plenty of terrifying events that could happen that nobody would want to actually place themselves fully into. I believe maybe games have no place in being a fully connected experience. In positive ways, it would be fine, but how far can we go before your controller becomes a torture device. Interactivity like pleasure and temperature are quite tame for a controller. It wouldn’t be a deathtrap and it would allow a greater experience for the player and their body. It could create better empathizing within games, but as I said earlier, we can’t experience the real life feelings of others.

Overall, when controllers provide the player with a deeper connection. It allows greater empathy. This is positive for a fictional narrative, yet people might find themselves becoming too close to the fictional or nonfictional experiences. They might feel like they know what another person has felt, which is never truly beneficial. The differences between the empathizer and one who is empathized with, would be lessened, but not everyone will see this as an opportunity to learn and spread awareness.

Works Cited

Pozo, Teddy. “Queer Games After Empathy: Feminism and Haptic Game Design Aesthetics from Consent to Cuteness to the Radically Soft.” Game Studies – Queer Games After Empathy: Feminism and Haptic Game Design Aesthetics from Consent to Cuteness to the Radically Soft, Dec. 2018, gamestudies.org/1803/articles/pozo.

Sicart, Miguel. “Queering the Controller.” Analog Game Studies, 23 Dec. 2019, analoggamestudies.org/2017/07/queering-the-controller/.