Crick “Game Body” article is a direct response to Vivian Sobchack work “Film Body”. Sobchack terms the‘‘film body’’ is the subject of the film’s moving images, a body that enacts perception in an equivalent way to a human viewing subject. Her take is that the film is an embodied sense, and the body and, the film are in a relationship with each other. It’s a personal connection the viewer can perceive and sense the film as a body. The screen/theatre actually becomes human form once you start watching it. Sobchack believes watching a film is like two bodies sensing and, experiencing each other.
The digital is inferior to the film image.
Timothy Crick says that the video games have a body and, your in contact with it. Crick states the three bodie, with the first one being “The Player Body” which is you the user who is getting the experience. Second is “The Avatar Body” which is the in game character. Lastly Crick says “The Subjective Camera” which is the invisible body that allows you to see the game perspective.
Game Studies 
I really enjoyed your post, but I have a question. Isn’t the theatre and the screen itself not like human form of a body, but it’s own form of a body? We, as humans, like to look at it from the human side though. Let me know if I am wrong! I really think its interesting how a film can physically touch you, but it totally made sense when Professor Kemp explained it in class. Film has it’s own sort of body, and it’s interesting to see how Crick’s view of the “game body” is vastly different. The three bodies of the game body really paint a different picture than any type of other body. Control gives us a new body to do so many different things with. There is still so much untapped potential in gameplay, storytelling, you name it.
I really enjoyed Crick’s view of phenomenology. This was something that was completely new to me, and I might actually pick up this book about it. Being a philosophy minor, these things always interest me. I hope you found as much enjoyment from this as I did.
LikeLike