what is missing from most games.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

It got A Green Mile and Oscar and made Harry Potter popular. It made A Blurred Line such a sucsessful freeware RPG and it's what everybody secretly craves in a game. Raw emotion. Pure and simple.Of course it is hard to convey through a game, books and movies are more sucsessful at it but why isn't it done in games? Why don't people sob and reach for a box of tissues or totaly hate the baddie? In an average game the baddie is a simple obstacle, nothing more, just a bit of fun with the puzzles and a bit of a laugh at the jokes. Where's the passion?

[GarageGothic]

If you want passion, play Gabriel Knight 2. Gay melodrama at it's best. But seriously though, I agree completely that emotion is an underdeveloped part of games.
I think the major difference from books and movies to games is the interactivity. Although the player is still "the audience", she is also, in some strange way, the main character. So crying over the character's tragedy would be some sort of weird self-pity. I think tears in games must be connected to something or somebody else than the player character, the loss of a friend, or - if it is related to the character - it must be in a non-interactive context, usually the end cut-scene of the game. The endings of Gabriel Knight 3, Blade Runner and Syberia certainly brought tears to my eyes.

As for other emotions such as hate (and love?), I think this lack stems from weak writing. Characters in games tend to be stereotypes, and it's difficult to hate the "supervillain of the week" (after all, it's just his job ) when you feel no personal attachment to him or to whoever he kidnapped in the game intro, be it your girlfriend who you never actually met or somebody else.

In general: Unique, well defined characters, as well as daring to be more mature and emotional instead of turning everything into a joke, is probably the solution.

[Dave Gilbert]

I hear ya.  I'm actually trying to do a "serious, character-driven game" right now called "Bestowers of Eternity."  I'm going for that raw emotion thing - and I'm finding it very difficult to keep up that intensity.  Some comedy relief is sometimes necessary in a game like this (Even Gabriel Knight had its comedy moments), but total vigilence is needed to avoid dive-bombing into pure silliness.  There's a demo of the game on the "In Production" forum if you're interested in seeing if I'm successful or not.

[DGMacphee]

You should read Las Narangas' document on Empathy and the Uber-Protagonist for and idea on emotion in games.

It's a damn good read.

[Barcik]

One of the problems is that sometimes what is needed to convey emotion is storytelling. And as GarageGothic said, more or less, computer games make a bad storytelling medium due to their interactivity, and most of the storytelling, if at all is conveyed through narrration and cutscenes, when the interactivity is disabled.

And this answers the 'why'. What attracts people to computer games is the interactivity, the ability to do things themselves. Storytelling has no place here, and therefore it is rarely used.

However, few games have tried to convey emotion. Planescape: Torment and Grim Fandango are the dominant examples which spring to my mind. This shows that it is indeed possible to have a game with emotion, just hard, and depends most on character building. The protagonist must be a character you can feel something about, and not a sterotype as GarageGothic said.

*Grim Fandango spoiler ahead*

Spoiler

If the player feels sad when your protagonist falls of a cliff as I did when Manny got shot, then you know you have suceeded.

[close]

Edit: There's your game theory discussion.

[Chicky]

i see what you mean,

at the moment im working on a comey but it has a lot of desperation in it. Just as your about to complete your goal (finish the game) along comes the 'bad guy' and ruins it for you. I really want a fell of character in my game so the player really gets involved in the whole affair. So i just thought id post err ... yeh

a chicken

[Hobbes]

I second everything said before, but also wish to draw attention to the following:

The music. Surely one of the most overlooked aspects of computer games has to be the music. Look at any good movie (e.g. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). The score for a movie really helps to set the tone. And when the piano and the strings roll in, you know it's the emotional part. Fate of Atlantis is a game that captured that wonderfully. Remember near the end? The score was truly dazzling there. It just had a sense of urgency, which helped to identify the player to the emotions there.

And, yes, Gabriel Knight has that nailed down perfectly. I cannot describe the emotions I felt when I fired up GK2 for the first time, and during the intro heard the haunting tune of GK as a low brass coming from my speakers.

When you reach that effect, you know you've succeeded.

[DGMacphee]

And this answers the 'why'. What attracts people to computer games is the interactivity, the ability to do things themselves. Storytelling has no place here, and therefore it is rarely used.

I disagree, and here's why:

Without storytelling, you have no adventure game -- It just becomes a series of unrelated interactions.

Everytime a player completes a puzzle, the action advances the story to the conclusion.

The problem is we need to care about characters and their circumstances (i.e. the story).

For example, one character I care about is Tobias from Hitman.

I care about Tobias because he is a victim of circumstance (And if you've played the game, you'll know why he's the vicitim).

Thus, I play the game because I care about helping Tobias interact with the game world.

Another example: Manny from Grim Fandango -- he's another vicitim of circumstance, because he did something wrong in his "life" and now he's trying to work off his time.

His redemption makes me sympathise with his situation.

Guybrush -- I care about him because he has a great goal: He wants to be a pirate.

Thus, I'll help him, even if we both have to face the Ghost Pirate LeChuck.

Many developers wrote adventure games for the sake of interactivity or graphics.

What developers need to focus upon are the reasons why we should care about the characters and their stories.

If I do not care about the characters or story, I will not care about the interactions (as I stated earlier, interactions drive the story, so why interact if I don't care about story advancement).

It's the same ideas used in any narrative, only adventure games have the ability to combine several narratives (based upon decisions).

It's the same idea as those "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" books.

The problem, as I see it, is not that computer games are not good at telling stories -- Far from it, as there have been some great stories told in computer games.

I think it's just that people focus too much upon interactivity and not enough upon story.

Both need to be balanced in a game.

Too much story -- You might as well watch a film.

Too much interactivity -- great, but why do I give a shit why I'm completing this game?

Balance.

But this is just my theory, so disagree if you will -- but I stand by it.

[Scummbuddy]

Who here was actually afraid of LeChuck in Monkey Island 4?  I would bet no one.  Not even afraid of Ozzie too, I bet.

[Barcik]

DGM, I understand what you say. I am a big fan of storytelling myself. What I mean is that there  seems to be no big interest in it from the wide market of gamers.

[Trapezoid]

Who here was actually afraid of LeChuck in Monkey Island 4?  I would bet no one.  Not even afraid of Ozzie too, I bet.

He wasn't scary in CMI either. More slaw.
Hell, he wasn't terribly creepy in MI1 either. Mostly just in MI2.

[Ginny]

I couldn't agree with you more, emotion is very important in giving a reason to do what you need to do in the game to advance the story. So I agree with DGMacphee. Even though it's fun to play humourous games where the story is just giving the game a little back-bone, not being the important part, and where the characters are just stereotypes.
But I do think every game needs a little humor in it, for balance.
In the end, making a good game which is both funny but emotional, both fun and challenging, is all about balance, as DGMacphee has pointed out.
The players have to relate to the characters and feel for them. Of course, not everyone can relate to everyone, and hardly anyone can relate to an annoying pompous super-hero (which luckily I don't think was ever a main character. Superman is a hero but he has problems and shortcomings just like anyone else). The reason we relate to certain characters, al least in my opinion, is that they have flaws, they have serious problems and they have interesting personalities.

I'd like to expand on Guybrush- I think another reason we (or at least I) like him, is that he has an unfullfulled dream, he wants to be a real pirate, and without almost any means, he tries to fullfill his dream, but many obstacles and enemies are in his way.
Manny is also helpless against the DOD which are denying him the wish to leave the land of the dead, and when he sets out to find Meche to work off his time, he is unaware that he has fallen in love with her (or at least in denial about it) and when later on the feelings intensify, he finds himself with an entirely different goal: to help the innocent and punish the guilty, and to eventually leave this world for the next.
In TLJ there are also a lot of emotions created, and in Syberia a little, and in other games, but each person has their own opinion and their own favorite game, and mine happens to be Grim Fandango, because of it's emotional story and characters, and because of it having not too little and not too much of everything. The music too is very important to create emotional situations and make them more strong and significant.
In Syberia there were moments where the music alone (however little of it there was) could make you feel emotional, such as the train from Barrockstadt (sp? I always get this name wrong, and I speak russian at home! ) to Komkolzgrad. The long train ride had an epic music score which made you (or me at least) feel a loneliness in it, and it was due to the music. Imagine that same cutscene with a happy little tune. It changes the whole emotion, you'd think Kate was going on a fun little journey.

And as GarageGothic said, more or less, computer games make a bad storytelling medium due to their interactivity, and most of the storytelling, if at all is conveyed through narrration and cutscenes, when the interactivity is disabled.

Exactly my point.

That's why I also think cut-scenes, which do most of the storytelling, are often the most emotional parts, because that's what they're meant for. This brings me to a point about games that is a little off-topic, it's the fact that most of the story is developed in cutscenes or just in parts where the interactivity is taken away and the game takes control for a moment.
I think it's probably very hard to tell the story and convey emotion during interactive gameplay, but it may produce great results if managed. I can't think of any example where the story was advanced in practise (not through revealing information in dialogs) while the player was actually playing the game. The reason I don't remember ever seeing it might be that it just doesn't work well, or as well, as cutscenes. However, nothing is impossible, it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it right. Hopefully someday this will be done well, and then then games won't be emotional just during the un-interactive parts. I admit that I don't remember even GF managing this, though it's been a while so I don't really remember.GF spoiler:

Spoiler

I do think that when in the end, you sprout hector, the action itself gives you satisfaction and makes you feel you've acheived your goal, not the cutscene, but the cutscene follows immeadiatly of course.

[close]

So yes it is possible to acheive, and the great thing is that when it's acheived, it's hard to notice. In most games however, where emotion is conveyed (if at all) almost exclusively in cutscenes, it's the cutscenes we tend to remember. Do you have a reason to remember a puzzle you solved if it wasn't either very difficult and satisfying, or emotional? I don't think so really. Sure you remember it as part of your gaming experience, but it's the other parts (ussually non-interactive parts) that you sometimes find yourself thinking about, and which are carved in your memory (again, not even that many games do that).

So basically, some people prefer to play just for fun, but when you combine fun, emotions, story, puzlles, and everything else, it becomes more than just fun, it becomes complete. A fun game is great, but it can be so much better if you add emotions, not detracting any of the fun. It's also important imo, to have varied emotions in games aswell as other media. If your'e sad all the time then you won't enjoy yourself, if you're happy and laughing all the time then you don't really seem to feel any emotions. It's important to have many emotions, like Ragnar Tornquist said "There'll be funnies, but there'll also be weepies".

To conclude, emotion should definetly be used more in games because it's what makes games memorable and makes you think of them many years later, and replay them even if you know every puzzle and every dialog by heart (which is the case I'm in with GF ).

OMG this was long..

[Barcik]

You know, there is one interactive action which progresses the story. A choice, in a junction of non-linearity. Take the ending of Planescape, or that of The Uncertainty Machine. It gave the player the power to choose how the story will end.

[Ginny]

Ah yes, of course, you're right! Especcially if the desicion is difficult and has an emotional impact, it is a case where the action inside the interactive gameplay is what progresses the story and trrigers the emotion. However making a game have 2 or more different endings (and they have to be very different for the choice to be of significance) somewhat destroys the purpose of the story, of what the designers wanted to happen in the end. It's also pretty much impossible if you want to make a sequel (which of course isn't neccessary but still) since which ending would you continue? If you just use the same or even different characters to continue the story in a different place, then maybe it's possible, but not if you want to make a direct sequel.
As an example: Syberia spoiler:

Spoiler

What if in the end of Syberia you were given the choice to either go home, or join Hans in his trip to Syberia. The adventure spirit in some would have led them to go to syberia, but since Kate's intention was to go home, many would also, just purely by instinct, enter the helicopter to go home. Then the sequel in syberia would be irrelevant to them. Of course, they can replay, and replay value is mainly the point of having non linearity and choices, but what if some people truly prefer to go home?

[close]

That's why in order for choosing the ending to work, the story and character have to be so important to you, and you have to feel so immersed into the game, that the story (and the designer of the game) lead you towards the "correct" solution, the choice you were meant to make, and it does so by making the choice important.

[edit]

Another way to acheive emotional actions, even without non-linearity, is to have for example, a very difficult desicion you must make, without an alternative. Like for instance (and this is probably a bad example but still) if you knew all you had worked for in the game and the lives of so many people would be destroyed unless you take your own life (very harsh I know) or leave your present life and friends to live alone somewhere, isolated, then the only choice you have is to do so, but it's a very emotional matter and is very difficult to bring yourself to do, so only if the game designers make the player care so much that killing themselves or even moving somewhere isolated and without friends will be so difficult and emotional, that the actual action is very emotional.
This is similar to what I said about the end of GF, because the action and the build-up, the realisation of what you're gonna do and what it will cause, is emotional.

P.S. I just thought about the idea that feeling sad for yourself in a game is not very possible, because it's self pity, but feeling sad isn't neccessary, you just need to care and feel sympathy for the character, and then when in hard situations you do feel sad for the character.
I'm quite torn on the subject of what is more important: Being able to feel sorry for the charcter and wanting to help him (or something like that) or actually feeling that you are the character. I'm leaning towards the latter though. What do you think?

I did feel like Manny for example at times, and like April sometimes in TLJ. This brings me to something else, the issue if it being easier for girls to feel they are the female characters and for guys to feel they are the male ones, if you know what I mean. This is another reason why stereotypes must be avoided, because when a character isn't a stereotype, both male and female players can feel like they're the characters themselves, that the story is about them, nomatter what gender the character is.

[Las Naranjas]

Emotion is damn easy to put in games. Easier than most mediums really.
Games that move, like Bladerunner, the GK games etc. have a simple medium advantage, in terms of writing they have no right to move with poor dialogue, acting and melodrama.
What really missing in most games it plain decent writing. Emotion is easy as.

PS, the document to which DG was referring www.sylpher.com/novomestro/blargh.htm .

[Barcik]

Las, can you explain your post some more? I really can't say I understand what you are trying to say.

[Las Naranjas]

That's because there's 8000 words linked that explain it

[Bionic Bill]

I'm gonna have to agree with Las. It seems like games in general get shafted in terms of writing quality. Emotive response should come pretty naturally from interactive narrative, so long as the characters are even slightly beyond two dimensional or stereotypical.

I think GinnyW was saying something about non-linearity messing with the creator's point in making the story. Non-linearity in many ways, I think, could be the point. The player choosing reveals something about his/herself. The problem is, of course, that the player may have a different personality than the avatar(if you get this distinction), and that ends in general weirdness. But that's a different discussion.

Back to writing, I had all of two articles up on adventuredevelopers.com before they went down--they detailed my thoughts on the subject, and then gave a smidgen of advice. Meh.

It seems to me that game designers need to study literature in addition to video games. Sometimes, I think we get stuck in gaming tradition, and if we stepped back and looked at what we were doing, we would realize some of the insane ruts genre video games have gotten into.

Anyways, right, yes, better writing, that's what we need.

[Nellie]

Passive media are best for conveying the sort of emotions we're used to seeing in...  passive media.

In a cutscene the 'director' has complete control.  Over the timing, over the dialogue, over the camera angle, over the exact moment the music should come in, and (most importantly) over some very specific actions that could not usually take place 'in-game'.

Take the opening to Full Throttle, from the point that Ben and his gang jump over the hovercar.  Suitable rock music kicks in, the camera follows them from behind at high speed, and weaves in and out of them until they reach the front, then the whole angle flips over and we see a dramatic shot of Ben on his bike, then the cool-looking title over his head.  It made the hairs on the back of my neck prick up.  Little of this would have been possible in an interactive section of the game.

I have to go now.  Continue this tomorrow.

[Barcik]

To Las Naranjas and Bionic Bill: A lack of emotion, or a badly conveyed emotion are a symptom of bad writing. I think you are wrong by separating between the two.