Groundhog Day and Twelve Minutes are similar in the frustration they induce, though this frustration has different homes. In the case of Groundhog Day, the frustration lands squarely on the character of Phil; due to its cinematic nature, viewers are able to access–and be entertained by–Phil’s frustration through the act of viewership. The means of this frustration as entertainment seems, in part, to be the point of the movie. On the other hand, the characters in Twelve Minutes never experience any frustration towards being stuck in a time loop–it is the player themselves that directly experiences frustration, through the act of playing.
And, I might posit, it is entertaining to watch another person play, puzzle, be perplexed by, become frustrated by, etc. Twelve Minutes in a similar way that it is to watch Phil in groundhog day. And this is precisely because of the distance from action created by viewership. When we are not implicated in some action, we are able to perceive it in a different way.
There is an obvious conclusion that Phil’s character in Groundhog Day and the player of Twelve Minutes are in analogous positions. Both can become deeply frustrated by the seeming impossibility of their predicament (unless, of course, you didn’t become frustrated at least at some point while playing Twelve Minutes – in which case, bravo, but I’m also deeply confused by you). So then, what might be analogous to cinematic character development?
In Groundhog Day, Phil experiences a great arc of character development–we see him over a seemingly infinite period of time as he binges, chases love, enters a depression, and finally falls into an acceptance; and in the end, instead of a crass, arrogant asshole, he becomes kind and good-hearted. I would not say that Twelve Minutes made me kind and good-hearted. In fact, I think I am closer to having the opposite character development of Phil, becoming more and more frustrated and angry. But, to answer my own question, I think what is analogous to character development is player experience.
And I think this holds true for any genre (yes, genre #TeamPatrick) outside of time loop games. While we watch character development in movies, we experience character development while playing video games. Yes, sometimes the internal narrative of a game’s characters is more apparent; but even so, it is impossible to walk away from a game without having another layer of thoughts on the player experience. What did this game make you think? How did this game make you feel? In my case, it was I think this game is putting me in a bad mood, but I still do have to ask why. I might hypothesize lack of objectives, lack of progression, and lack of control. And despite my unenjoyable experience, here I am thinking about own character development as a player.
The distinction to make between time loop games and movies is an important one, for your insight is correct to evaluate them differently; however, I am very intrigued by your thoughts on the subject for personally I had the exact opposite reaction! To me, Groundhog Day was frustrating as a viewer because I wanted to make different decisions than Phil; I kept begging him to leave early in the morning to miss the snow, try to avoid the daily occurrences he is subjected too, and, well, not be such a terrible person. 12 Minutes on the other hand alleviated this frustration as I was finally in control of the character stuck in the time loop. Elements of control and freedom are front and center within the time loop genre, and I feel that within the contexts of a game these feelings can be lessened do to active choice (or at least the illusion of choice). Thank you for your post because it’s so great to see how great different perspectives on genre can vary.
This is a strong comparison you’re making, and I think another important distinction is that of choice: by playing the game, the player chooses to participate in the time loop. They are willingly playing the game, and if they choose to leave, they are able to. Meanwhile, Phil has no choice to enter the time loop. He has no life outside of it: it *is* his life. In this way, he is forced to experience the loop with no escape. The ability to choose to participate makes all the difference. For example, Thursday’s lecture involved fewer attempts to break the loop than anticipated, and I would theorize a large part of that is that we knew it was a finite loop: eventually, the lecture would end and we would be free. Thus, the loop didn’t pose a threat. However, to Phil, with no such end in sight, the loop is a threat to his existence.
I would agree with your post. It’s way more fun to watch someone in the situation and laugh at their situation, but to be the one in the time loop is not so fun. I also understand @Steel_Citrone’s argument, that in a movie you don’t have control over what they do, so the feeling of helplessness is frustrating, and a game solves this problem. For me, being stuck and forced to repeat alot of the same actions over and over in a limited environment creates a frustration I don’t find as much fun. I think if it was a time loop game that had a larger environment and allowed more choices I would enjoy it more.