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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: There's your game theory discussion.
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
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.
Quote from: Barcik on Wed 30/07/2003 12:47:10
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.
Who here was actually afraid of LeChuck in Monkey Island 4? I would bet no one. Not even afraid of Ozzie too, I bet.
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.
Quote from: Scummbuddy on Wed 30/07/2003 18:43:19
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.
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! :P) 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.
Quote from: Barcik on Wed 30/07/2003 12:47:10And 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.
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..
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.
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?
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.
:)
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 .
Las, can you explain your post some more? I really can't say I understand what you are trying to say.
That's because there's 8000 words linked that explain it :P
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.
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.
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.
I didn't think I was separating between the two. Poor writing all around! Huzzah!
Most games vaguely attempt at some kind of implied emotive response. You're supposed to at least dislike the bad guy, and like the good guy. It's just very rarely done well. I think the same applies to most media, just moreso with games.
Basically I think that with poor writing comes together with poor emotion (as Barcik said, they are not seperate), and probably vice versa too.
And yes, there are few games which have good writing, and these few tend to be the ones which also have good emotion. Interesting, isn't it? ;)
I'm gonna go and think for a while on wether or not good writing can be done without emotion (focusing on games), and wether it's possible for a game with good emotions to have poor writing. Well, actually, I can answer the second right now, no, because poor writing means poor character writing and poor character writing means you don't care about the characters, meaning that emotion is practically impossible to create.
As for good writing without emotion, well, since good writing of characters will inevetably create emotion, then it's only possible if the story is utterly boring. That wouldn't be good writing though, so it's a contradiction. Mind, I wasn't asking and answering these questions to prove that emotion is part of writing, I was more checking if it was possible to seperate them, and it seems not to be.
Nellie: Yes, that' exactly the reason why emotion most often appers in cut-scenes, and such a result seems quite impossible to create with active media. It'll take some thought to see if maybe it is possible after all, because if it is, it'll improve immersion greatly, as well as some other things, but immersion mostly.
However the more I think about the more I think that it's best to leave most of the storytelling and emotions in passive parts of the game, but it's also important to transfer some into the actual gameplay. Not everywhere, yikes no, but in important parts of the game/story.
Bionic Bill- Yes, non-linearity can be the point (if I got your point right, heh) but when telling a major, interesting and emotional story, non-linearity can get in the way. You're right though, that's a different discussion ;).
Hmm, I should start disscuss threads like this one here, I find out that I have a lot to say in these threads, and there are many topics to talk about :).
edit:
Just saw your post, Las. I'll read the article (I've read part of it before) before adding anything.
Barcik-Read the article. In games good emotion is possible with shit writing. This is true in all mediums, but exacerbated in games. Interactivity aids this.
Wow.
This thread has given me a lot to think about in terms of character development.
It reminds me of the review I read for the new Tomb Raider movie that was posted on ainitcool.com.
Basically the reviewer said that the problem with the TR movies is that Lara is just a superhuman hero, with no flaws or personality. If you look at Indiana Jones, he gets into a lot of situations where you can tell he doesn't think he's gonna get out alive, and a lot of the time he escapes by luck. He gets hurt. He bleeds. You can relate to him. He seems relatively human. Lara on the other hand always has the right trick up her sleeve. There's no tension, no feeling of 'phew' when she does anything, because you just expect it of her.
Interesting stuff...
Music:
music is as tricky a mistress as everything else in a game, as was said "the music kicks in and you know an
emotional part is coming up" i think this is a good thing sometimes and a very bad thing sometimes.
let's take another harrison ford movie, Regarding Henry:
Spoiler
After he is shot obviously, he goes looking through some closests and comes apon a box of letters written to
his wife from a lover.
now there is NO music in this scene. why? because music would AUTOMATICALLY tip us off that something was going to
happen. for all we know he's just puttering around the house. The reveal of what is happening causes more emotion
than the music would ever because it takes us by surprise.
what i mean is that music can be just as stereotypical, "hmm i need to evoke emotion, i'll use some slow violins
and use a close up" instant stereotyped emotion. This isn't ideal and is mostly used in bad media and to me it's
instantly spotted and dismissed.
i enjoy when i don't have to feel lead around by the nose for emotion and the music i described above is just that,
so be carefull
lechuck: i don't think that you were really supposed to be afraid of lechuck. it was a comedy game and he was a
comic part of that game.
emotion: i feel that emotional content is very subjective and sometimes i've felt more emotion for the crappily
written 20 pixel high main characters of some AGI games and not for Guybrush. The connection you feel with the
story and character is so personal that a designer will never fully know how his players will react that is why
stereotypes are used so often. My friend Stieg and I are debating on how to create a game with no BAD guy, reading
through Philip K Dick's book there isn't really a bad guy and if there is you realize by the end that he's just a
guy like the main character, he means no ill will, they just don't agree.
by adding a stereotype you can easily tell the player "this man is bad! hate him, this is the love interest, get
awkwardly aroused at her! this is the main character his personality is toned down so you can easily inject
yourself into him."
then we move onto Myst with no main character and a shitty story. I did't feel anything for any of those people and
i definetly didn't feel any triumph when Attrus was all like "There I took care of them... Go away now."
Move onto Half Life [i know not an adventure game but it had more story telling than most games ever] No main
character but done well, sure he had a name at least but the first person view and the fact that he had no actual
personality made me feel more a part of the game world. I would have liked more options to define myself more as a
character [save this person, go out of my way to shut this down, not killing scientist and having it impact the
game more] my actions only changed the game world in how the game world wanted them to, like opening doors instead of character interaction.
Move onto Discworld, TOO much story for my tastes. Everyone had a LOT to say and they had no problem saying it in a poorly acted voice. The dialogue kept going and going and I felt bad skipping it but it pertained not to the game at all, just added to the humour of the characters and the world. Which is fine but... too much.
nonlinearity: i'm all for it, it's hard as hell to write for and can be done poorly. I don't think having a branching point at the end of a game is good. Like choose who lives or dies now!! If you're to have them they have to either be covertly happening with stats throughout the game or happening many times through the game. Under a Killing Moon...2 was it? Had multiple endings and they depended on dialog choices and actions as far as i remember. Alice In Wonderland and Below the Root had branching paths if only because talking nasty to someone may make them hate you for the rest of the game and you have to find another way through the game, and that was all the way back in the early 80's. I don't really know where I'm going with this sorry If it seems floaty.
To the emotion in cutscenes, again to bring up half life, i don't think control has to be taken from the player we just have to change our definition of cut scene, half life had "scripted sequences" which were pretty much cut scenes, unskipable moments where your actions were limited to walking around and listening to the actors act. Walking by a window and seeing just beyond it a man fighting with a headcrab, you can't save him and he eventually dies, or men falling to their doom in an elevator. These could have been cutscenes where we get all dramatic angles and crazy music but sticking to the players eyesight and the players field of view i think opened up all new levels of dramatic tension and emotion. how many times did i try and run to someone's aid as an alien in an air vent ate them, i knew that it was a scripted scene but i still tried a few times to get there before they died.
i'm gonna cut out here before i lose direction more than i already have
love,
eric
I agree about it being a bad idea to have a distinct choice at the end, non-linearity, if present in a game, must be implemented throughout the whole game, and the choices you make affect what happens later on, and in the end.
As for Half-Life, especcially what you wrote in the end about pre-scripted scenes, made me very interested in this game, and I'm wondering wether it can work in and Adventure.
Also about cinematic methods being used to enchance emotion, you're right, being surprised by what happens is much more dramatic and emotional than being "warned" and "informed" of it before, with music etc.
Las, I've read the article and I see that in the example of Simon, the story (in the article writer's view) is presented as poor, the character as unfriendly and thus not someone players relate to. And despite that the player feels guilt for doing something because he feels he's doing it. However this guilt does not express the Uber Protagonist in my opinion, and the player feels guilty on his own account. Another factor for making him feel guilty is, IMO, the writing of a character, not the one of Simon, but that of Swamplin. His patheticness and sadness make you feel guilty for leaving him to his loneliness again, but you feel as if Simon doesn't even have something to do with it. Since you are, techniacally, the one who is dictating the action, Simon is just "the tool" in a way and you are responsible. You don't care about Simon, you care about Swamplin, you care about your own guilty concience. But what about other emotions, such as satisfaction for example? Is there apoint where you feel satisfied by something you've done in the game, if you don't care about the character whose doing it? Yes it's possible, if you care about something else. If you save someone as the character (even though he does it unwillingly) then you feel satisfaction because you did it. However if you don't care for the protagonist, and if for example, you do something which helps only him, you wouldn't really care, would you?
There are certain situations which, if the protagonist is caught in, makes you feel some sympathy with him.
I am reminded of Apprentice (if you haven't played it download it now! ;)), where a certain action made me feel guilty, and with a comment triggered by the look action, I could see that the protagonist felt guilty too, which made me relate to the protagonist and feel that we are together in this adventure. This was the part which made me feel most connected, even with the humorous story, to the protagonist. However it didn't make me feel like I am the character, and i'm not naturally. Of course, this still gets into the subconcience as I don't say the character performed the action (Manny talks to Eva) but instead myself (I talk to Eva). And this I feel is the way it should stay, because even if being one with the character makes you feel more immersed, you feel as if you, that is the protagonist, has no story, no real personality, since when playing a game you don't convert your personality to the character.
Another thing occured to me though, is the Uber Protagonist possible when there is more than one player character? Would you say, I lower the falg, or, Laverne lowers the flag? I think the former still, despite the fact that "I" may be reffering to any of the 3 characters. You could say: As Laverne, I lower the flag, which means you acknowledge "being" the character in question.
Naranjas, excuse my curiosity, but did you play True Love ?
and if so, what did you think of it ?
great blargh, by the way. i'll spare you my comments though.
Eric, you're right on the melodramatic usage of music. The violin and close-up being a classic example.
But, as you put so perfectly: no music during that scene from Regarding Henry. Sometimes, silence can indeed have a much stronger effect than music.
I'm reminded now actually of "Saving Private Ryan". Sure, there was a lot of music in that movie. But not during the scenes at Normandy at the start of the movie.
The absence of music, the only sound that of a real battlefield helped make the movie something special.
But, music or no music, it is still the choice of the composer. If the composer chooses silence to help the scene, it is as much a conscious choice as having slow strings and a piano. If done properly, it gives a great effect.
But true, it isn't often done properly. :)
Now I really must sign off and get some bedrest.
Rode:
The thing I liked about Indy was he had one major fault: He was afraid of snakes.
Lara doesn't have any faults, which is why she has the personality of an onion.
Eric:
Sometimes it's possible to have a game without a "villian", just like in some movies.
However, even I'm not that advanced to write such a story because it becomes harder to develop the tension and conflict in a game.
But the way I see it, sometimes the villian doesn't have to be human -- there are hundreds of examples where the villian is an animal, a river, a giant mountain, etc.
And sometimes, the hero's worst villian is himself.
That's a game I'd like to play: where the main character has to face his own destructive faults (like the film Raging Bull).
As for emotion in games:
Anyone remember that final scene in Grim Fandango?
Always brings a tear to my eye.
Are you kidding, the GF ending is beatiful, wonderful, sad and happy at once, it's perfect! :)
I never kid about Fandango.
Aye, it was a great ending and I think Ginny used the word I was going to use.
Perfect.
Hehe, I meant when you asked "Anyone remember the..." heh, it's impossible to forget!
I just thought of what I said about mixed emotions, this sort of emotion provoking requires the player to really get involved with the game and characters, that he thinks deeply about what is happening and you feel many different emotions at once, all connected together, such as (spoiler):
Spoiler
Sadness (leaving Glottis), fear (of the unknown), happiness (because you saved all those people whose tickets were stolen, and Meche), and everything combined gives a genuine feeling, to which music is added for enhancement of the feeling.
There's also the fact that the game was som good that it's sad that it ended.
Ah.. *sigh*
What about Pleurghblurgh? I think it succeeded in being a great game with its engrossing mystery storyline and puzzle design, but it didn't really have much emotion going for it, other than the thick sense of dread around the murder scenes. There's hardly any character development, but the game is incredible anyway.
As you said, Pleurghburg was a great game with little or no character development at all. So, I think, a game can certainly be good and not elicit some kind of emotional response from the player. The best ones tend to get you emotional somehow. I remember being horrified when Glottis went over the waterfall in GF.
Maybe good games are made even better by the icing-on-the-cake of genuinely high quality character development. Or maybe a terrible game could be made into a good one just by being written well. Maybe there's some kind of discernable difference between the strictly "game" aspect of a video game and the "story" aspect of it. And the best ones are great in both aspects.
Not to be down on Pleurghburg or anything, but imagine the same game with some kind of emotional context done well, where Jake McUrk isn't just the name of the player character, but also a discernable human being with individual motivations. If the character grew to be endeared by the player, and then was in some kind of dire peril, the perilousness would certainly increase for the player. Well, anyways. Blah blah blah and such.
while chrille's gone let's tear PB up! hehe
i think one of the most interesting things about PB is the dream Jake has after the first day
it shows that he's effected by the murders. if only there was more of this is could go into the Psychological Thriller section
I agree that there didn't seem to be much character development in PB, Jake doesn't seem to have much character, as with the others, Parker, etc. Not much is known about the bad guys either, even after you beated the game, they're just identical cold guys in a robes, that all of them looked the same.
It seemed.
In fact, what is good about this game is not how the characters' characters (hehe I like this phrase) were developed in the game, but instead how the player was affected and his involvement in the game. Like what eric typed, that dream was one part of it, the in game Jake didn't seemed to be much affected after that, neither in his actions nor his dialogs, but you, the player, can be affected by that sudden event IMO, that you yourself felt about it - the story, gameplay, excitements for those timing puzzles, that you got yourself involved in it, and of course, also the realistic gameplay (clicking elevator buttons, using the keys everytime, submiting evidences, etc.) helped the player to get INTO the game too.
Plasticman - yes, and most of what goes for Sakura goes with it as well, but the structure of Sakura made analysis easier.
Ginny - It's not so much bad writing in Simon's case as completely different intent. The example there is striking not because it's got an impact that outweighs the skill with which it was written, but the fact there is no intent to make a strong emotional impact. the Swamplin is, above all else, meant to be funny. It's patheticness is exacerbated (intentionally) to the level of farce. Were it to appear in a medium without interactivity, the emtoive impact felt would not exist. Yet as it does exist, and the text does have interactivity, I use it to add to the thesis that the entity between protagonist and player created by interactivity aids the emotional response.
I don't think you've quite gathered the concept that I was trying to impart, but hey.
---edit---
you many well retort that you as an individual would feel a smiliar feeling should the Swamplin be portrayed in another medium. This may well be true considering all the post structuralist schick that's tied into the concept. Importantly for many people the impact is notably different only when the are connected to the act, and brought into the medium. Thus the concept exists still because it makes a notable difference.
As I said before, P:DA did one raw emotion very well-- the creepy sense dread in all of the murder scenes. A lot of it had to do with the music, and even the graphics.
The characters could've been a lot stronger though, and I know how. It's in the dialogue. It should've lightened up a bit, most of it was too business sounding. You need to have your characters voice their opinions, and constantly exude their personal sentiment. Unless it's part of their character to be docile, in which case they simply don't say much at all. When you understand what your characters are all about, emotion comes a lot easier.
I don't think there are any AGS games that have had me as immersed in the game universe as Pleurghburg has. While I'd have to agree with you that the character development in PB was mostly non-existant, I think he really managed to get the friendship between Lucas and Jake right. I could feel that they were good buddies.
That may explain why the most tense moment for me while playing PB was when
Spoiler
Lucas called (accompanied by that oh, so lovely and spooky music) and said there was somebody at his house.
Brilliant.
Another thing about the Grim Fandango ending:
I felt sad because Manny was leaving me!
I enjoyed the great adventure with him that when the game reached the end, I thought "Man, that was such a great adventure that I wish it could keep going. But Manny has to go now. He's reached the end and deserved his peace. He's found eternal rest and I have to get on with my dull life now."
It's when you, as the player, have to wave goodbye to all your favourite characters that the game becomes emotionally successful.
Wow, this thread really took off.
Too much to comment on, really, so I won't. And it shows me how we must narrow down the topics when we do the game theory discussions - although I agree that both are important, I think the two separate discussions about music and writing are confusing things - so maybe topics should be more specific. Anyway, we'll get into that after Mittens.
One thing that was brought up, which I think would make an interesting game theory discussion, is the gap between player and character - how the player character's personality might differ from the actual players. And how to deal with this within an interactive environment without compromising the characters or the story.
One case that comes to mind is, I think, from one of the Monkey Island games. But I'm not sure, so I'll write a fictitious example:
The main character is a coward, totally non-confrontational. He has to get past a bouncer at a club, and after some attempts at persuasion, the Bouncer says: "You want trouble?", and the player has a number of options, one being "Yeah, just come on, you big goon. I'm gonna kick your ass". But when you choose that option, the player character just says: "...uh, no."
Situations like this, limiting the player to replies suiting the character, are, in my opinion, important character defining moment. Especially in this example, as we see what could be interpreted as the characters real feelings, what he actually would say if he dared, as well as what actually comes out.
In my game, Shadowplay, I do something similar in a conversation, to reflect the issues of the player character:
Spoiler
Your male sidekick, who you've met during the game, asks the player character if she wants to go on a date with him. You get all kinds of excuses as options: You're too old for him, you don't think it's a good idea because you're working together, etc., and each time he counters with a good reason why it isn't a problem. Only when there are no excuses left, you are allowed to choose the final option, admitting to him, that you're actually gay.
I think limiting the interactivity, not for techinical reasons, but on purpose, is a major storytelling tool. But so is multiple paths, or at least multiple endings. Somebody mentioned the single ending of Syberia, and I agree, it would have been nice if the player actually made the choice for Kate. But seeing how much Kate had changed during the game, there really was no option for the character, she has nothing to return to. I actually think GK2 was more flawed in that respect, since it was a story about duality and following your animal nature. Gabe should at least have had the choice of running away with von Glower - like he had the choice of helping Malia, killing her, or doing nothing in GK1 (all of which led to "real" endings, not restart/restore/quit-screens) even though Jane Jensen marked out the "right" one by awarding more points.
Okay everyone, here an interesting question I thought of:
Do you prefer games where the main character has a seperate personality from the player (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island) or do you prefer the main character to have no personality and thus allows you to inflect your own personality within the game (Myst)?
I prefer the first option -- I like to play along with other characters.
It's like "Indy and I are a team! We're going to find Atlantis together!" or "Manny and I are sure going to smash that DOD corruption ring for good!"
A word about the ending of Grim Fandango: I agree with what you said here. This ending was exceptional and very emotional.
Eric - about a lack of music in key moments: Have you ever seen The Bourne Identity? If so, remember the assassination scene? It was so great because it had no music, no close-ups. Nothing. It was sudden, just like a real assassination should be.
LasNaranjas - after 10 attempts my printer has finally managed to print your article, I'll read it and comment later.
DG - I'd prefer to play a main character with it's own personality, at least in an adventure game. The reason is because I see the adventure game more as a story than other genres. Also, games where you can inflect your own personality on the main character are usually flawed. However, when I play an RPG I prefer the second option, due to the many possibilites, and the ability to play the game whatever way I like.
And a bit about stereotypes: They are not always that bad. Sometimes, a player can feel an emotion about a sterotype. Take Wally from Monkey Island 2 for example. He was a quite regular nerdy chap, yet I felt bad having to take his monocle. Why? Because the implementation of the sterotype was done well - he was a regular nerdy chap, but LEC actually managed to make him plainly ridicilous and pitiful, unlike most other cases of such characters.
You guys have given some great comments. I've found it difficult to portray distinctive character personality in the writing of my game. Since my story is an epic saga, it'd hardly make sense to not have two characters develop at least a light romance in the course of the game. I've NEVER been good with writing romance, unless it's comedic.
I've even worked as a writer before...a technical writer. It's not the same thing, but it at least gives me a basis for writing stories that are consistent and make sense. But as for raw emotion...PFFFT. That's one part I've spent hours and hours working on with limited success. Yet I'm not going to accept anything less than near-amateurishly-perfect for my game.
I've enjoyed all this talk on Grim Fandango. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds it so powerful and moving. It has to be the best game LucasArts made before they started pumping out all this Star Wars drivel.
They've been spouting out Star Wars drivel for a loooong time.
And yes, character development is key. There have been some great puzzle filled games that just don't keep me playing because i feel nothing towards any of the characters. They're 2 dimensional, so to speak. And it feels like you're playing with a cardboard cut-out. While games like GF, flesh these characters out, and give you something to care for, which compells you to see that character safely on his way.
-MillsJROSS
In one of the books on Creative Writing that I own, there was a rather interesting paragraph dealing with character. True, there were a few chapters, but DG's question made me think about that one.
I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.
Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.
Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).
So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.
Las: Let's see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that emotion is easy to put into games because it is naturally caused by the Uber Protagonist phenomenon?
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 31/07/2003 08:39:23
Another thing about the Grim Fandango ending:
I felt sad because Manny was leaving me!
I enjoyed the great adventure with him that when the game reached the end, I thought "Man, that was such a great adventure that I wish it could keep going. But Manny has to go now. He's reached the end and deserved his peace. He's found eternal rest and I have to get on with my dull life now."
It's when you, as the player, have to wave goodbye to all your favourite characters that the game becomes emotionally successful.
I agree completely as I said in post, leaving all those characters is sad, not to mention the feeling of "it's over, the adventure is finished".
That's part of the reason I would like a sequel to it, despite it being a perfect single masterpiece. I keep wishing the story would continue! Of course, unless they plan to invent what's it like in the 9th underworld, and unless they plan to have Manny and Meche not be able to get into the land of the dead for some reason, then they'll have to use different characters, and a GF sequel without Manny is somewhat not the same.
Las Naranjas - I haven't played Simon the sorcerer so I don't know what the intention was, I was just pondering about what I read the article. I was talking about the fact that despite not very good writing there is emotion, however the player and the protagonist are seperate in this emotion, as far as I understand, Simon doesn't feel guilt, but the player does, and in my opinion it's because of the Swamplin's character. Of course, in a different media with no interactivity, I wouldn't be the one leaving the Swamplin, thus I wouldn't feel guilt, and though I might feel a little pity (once again I haven't played the game so I can't know for sure, it depends on the Swamplin's character), but mainly I think I'd find the situation amusing. So yes, in a different type of media this emotion will not exist, since the Uber Protagonist doesn't exist. When you and the protagonist are joint in your actions, because you're the one "directing" his actions, then you feel as if you are the one actually doing it.
So, basically, I agree. Btw, I just realised it's your article, right? Well done in that case :).
I don't know if this is true in Simon's case, but it might be that in cuscenes you do feel connected to the protagonist's actions, even if they are pre-defined. This might be possible only when the protagonist is well written and you feel connected to him during the game, making this feeling transfer to the cutscenee as you said, but I'm wondering wether it exists with a character like Simon. :)
Gilbot, trap, Ghormak - I haven't played Pleughberg yet unfortunately (despite hearing lots about it), so I can't say anything about it.
GarageGothic - Such options being rejected by the player character when the playe wanted to choose them can be an interesting tool to strengthen the character, but can also pose a problem which could increase the distace between player and protagonist.
In the fictuous example, it may indeed cause a problem if the player is the type of person to choose that option, but it may also strengthen the character's personality. You could of course remove the option to say such a thing, but that may not be a good idea. As long as the character refuses to say it then it won't damage his image, on the contrary, but it might make a very brave macho player (no offence to anyone hehe) feel distant from the character. Then again, maybe not, or maybe he was already distant.
about your example from your game, I don't see much of a problem, since it's excuses, but it was unclear to me why the example limited the player. The only matter wa that the male sidekick found a good counter-reason each time. It's a humourous situation if the protagonist isn't gay, an if she is it might be interesting emotionally, if it's something that's hard for her to admit. I don't think it would affect the player/protagonist relationship. It might affect the protagonist of her relation with her male sidekick though. So yes, it is a good storytelling tool.
I'm interested in the example you thought of from MI, care to share it? ;)
"Somebody mentioned the single ending of Syberia, and I agree, it would have been nice if the player actually made the choice for Kate. But seeing how much Kate had changed during the game, there really was no option for the character, she has nothing to return to."
Yes, and as I pointed out earlier, even if it would have been nice, it would be unnatural for the character. That's why non-libearity in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed, or should be restricted, where one of the choices is unnatural for the character or the story. :)
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 31/07/2003 12:01:06Do you prefer games where the main character has a seperate personality from the player (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island) or do you prefer the main character to have no personality and thus allows you to inflect your own personality within the game (Myst)?
I prefer the first option -- I like to play along with other characters.
It's like "Indy and I are a team! We're going to find Atlantis together!" or "Manny and I are sure going to smash that DOD corruption ring for good!"
I agree, I don't like the second option because the characters are one of the most important things in a game IMO, and just using your personality as a guidline isn't as interesting. I think games let us get away into a different world for a while, and when someone says, "No, I can't do that, Kyle[or another random name of the main character] wouldn't do that", then it's a sign that the character feels at one with the protagonist, as you said, "Indy and I are a team" and so on with another character though. However, so you when you describe your actions in the game, say "Manny did this" "I did this" or "We [Manny and I] did this" ?
Another thing I thought of is this: Do you think if there is such a situation where the player and the character are different in personality, and the character is very well written, will the character affect the player somehow? Is it possible the character will alter the player's personality just a bit, or possible set an example for the player in real life? (this also has connection with the question of wether kids are afected by the violence in games, i.e. a change to the worse, but in my question I'm more interested in a change for the better or just somewhat different).
Quote from: Barcik on Thu 31/07/2003 13:09:22DG - I'd prefer to play a main character with it's own personality, at least in an adventure game. The reason is because I see the adventure game more as a story than other genres. Also, games where you can inflect your own personality on the main character are usually flawed. However, when I play an RPG I prefer the second option, due to the many possibilites, and the ability to play the game whatever way I like.
And a bit about stereotypes: They are not always that bad. Sometimes, a player can feel an emotion about a sterotype. Take Wally from Monkey Island 2 for example. He was a quite regular nerdy chap, yet I felt bad having to take his monocle. Why? Because the implementation of the sterotype was done well - he was a regular nerdy chap, but LEC actually managed to make him plainly ridicilous and pitiful, unlike most other cases of such characters.
About the games where you inflict your own personality being ussually flawed, I agree.
About stereotypes - ditto, I agree, stereotypes can be fun, but the main character, in order to have a complex personality, shouln't be entirely a stereotype. Other characters definetly can be, it all depends on implementation, such as your example of Wally. Stereoypes can be well written too. :)
Quote from: Migs on Fri 01/08/2003 01:12:12I've enjoyed all this talk on Grim Fandango. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds it so powerful and moving. It has to be the best game LucasArts made before they started pumping out all this Star Wars drivel.
Another GF fan! Great :). Is Star wars as good or better than GF in your opinion though? (I haven't played any so I'm wondering).
And yes, GF is definetly very moving and emotional. :)
I don't believe this, my previous message is too long, I can't put all this in it too. :P
I guess I ought to slow down a bit, but I have a lot on my mind hehe.
Quote from: Hobbes on Fri 01/08/2003 17:04:32I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.
Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.
Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).
So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.
Hmm, interesting, what's the book called?
When I think about, playing someone exactly or even almost exactly like me would probably be boring or at least not as interesting as a unique and special character with special attributes. God, I just implied that I'm boring! :P
Actually I think it's because maybe we have a need to escape from your world (which was obvious before aswell) but also from our personality, because it's tied with our life and our world. Playing the regular Joe doing normal stuff is boring IMO, no doubt, but if the regular Joe is caught in an unusual adventure, then it becomes interesting, and if there is character development and change during the game (another issue dealing with emotion) then it becomes even more interesting and even emotional.
So after all, playing a character based on yourself or very much like yourself isn't boring, because we're not really regular Joe's completely, we have strong personalities and different attributes and histories. However playing a game where you live out a life of regular, routine tasks etc, isn't interesting in my opinion.
And yes, a defined and unique character is very important in creating a reson for the player to identify with him, and the mosr defined and the more interesting and un-generic, the more identification. :)
Quote from: Hobbes on Fri 01/08/2003 17:04:32I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.
Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.
Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).
So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.
Hmm, interesting, what's the book called?
When I think about, playing someone exactly or even almost exactly like me would probably be boring or at least not as interesting as a unique and special character with special attributes. God, I just implied that I'm boring! :P
Actually I think it's because maybe we have a need to escape from your world (which was obvious before aswell) but also from our personality, because it's tied with our life and our world. Playing the regular Joe doing normal stuff is boring IMO, no doubt, but if the regular Joe is caught in an unusual adventure, then it becomes interesting, and if there is character development and change during the game (another issue dealing with emotion) then it becomes even more interesting and even emotional.
So after all, playing a character based on yourself or very much like yourself isn't boring, because we're not really regular Joe's completely, we have strong personalities and different attributes and histories. However playing a game where you live out a life of regular, routine tasks etc, isn't interesting in my opinion.
And yes, a defined and unique character is very important in creating a reson for the player to identify with him, and the mosr defined and the more interesting and un-generic, the more identification. :)
Here's an idea. One way to make a game have an undeniable aspect of character personality, is to make the main character 100% based on YOU. Each time you come up to a different obstacle, just ask What would I do? Would you get mad and frustrated? Would you stop and think quietly? I think this would be a good exercise in character development and consistency. From this, you can branch off and create unique characters.
Barcik-Not so naturally puts it there as exacerbates exponentially the tinistes shred of emotional impact (provided it comes from actions derived from what the player/protagonist does.).
QuoteAs long as the character refuses to say it then it won't damage his image, on the contrary, but it might make a very brave macho player (no offence to anyone hehe) feel distant from the character. Then again, maybe not, or maybe he was already distant.
Or maybe he would learn the frustration of bottling up emotions because of shyness, lack of courage or whatever. I think interactive environments, where the intereaction is restricted by the limitations of the character, is a great medium for gaining insight into and respect for people different from yourself.
Quoteabout your example from your game, I don't see much of a problem, since it's excuses, but it was unclear to me why the example limited the player. The only matter wa that the male sidekick found a good counter-reason each time. It's a humourous situation if the protagonist isn't gay, an if she is it might be interesting emotionally, if it's something that's hard for her to admit.
Yes, that was what I was trying to convey. She is indeed gay, but always comes up with some way to avoid the topic. It's sort-of inspired by personal experience, but I think it works really well dramatically as well, because her admitting it changes the dynamics of their relationship and deepens their friendship.
QuoteI'm interested in the example you thought of from MI, care to share it? ;)
I don't remember it exactly. But it was quite similar to the fictitious example. If nobody else remembers it, maybe it was from some other game. I'm pretty sure it was a LucasArts game though.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Sat 02/08/2003 09:47:10Or maybe he would learn the frustration of bottling up emotions because of shyness, lack of courage or whatever. I think interactive environments, where the intereaction is restricted by the limitations of the character, is a great medium for gaining insight into and respect for people different from yourself.
That too :).
Las, still trying to understand you better - Take the following situation. You as the player worked hard to help the protagonist get an item, and as soon as you find it, it is taken away by the villain in a cutscene. Something like the beginning of MI2, if only it was under your guidance that Guybrush made all that money. The player feels anger, dislike, perhaps even hate. Is that an effect of the Uber Protagonist phenomenon?
Barcik, I don't know if I should speak for Las, but from what I ascertain, you've got the right idea.
I think Las's text tries to explain the function of the Uber-Protagonist as a conduit between the gaming world and player's emotions, and specifically how the actions of the player determine such emotional impact.
Then again, it's Narangas' text and he could say it's something completely different, but that's the jist I got.
Fairly much barcik, but it's not so much the ramifications of what other characters do to the protagonist but the ramifications of what the protagonist does under the volition of the player. Whilst the former is true, it pales in the blinding light of the latter.
Well, Las, I've been thinking about it and it seems you are pretty much right.
However, this is still mostly limited to things which happen under the player's responsibility.
It's not really limiting though.
For a start, there's no alternative because all progression in the game happens under the player's responsibility anyway (As stated, the advancement of the story depends upon player interaction).
Thus, there is no game without player responsibility.
And further, Las's theory fits the same criteria as any aspect of an adventure game.
Therefore, you can't really consider empathy in a game as limited when it merely fits the same universe as narrative, character development, etc.
The player's area of responsibility (real or imagined) is over the protagonist (player character).
And a narrative is about the...protagonist.
Whats missing from most games.....?Hmmmm. NUDITY,GUNS,DRUGS!!!! Thats why Monkey Island is so popular... or is that GTA 3?
Shitar, would you please stop acting like an ass?
Quote from: Barcik on Mon 04/08/2003 23:48:23
Shitar, would you please stop acting like an ass?
How was I acting like an ass? ??? :'(
Both of you shut it, or I'll beat you both with this large lumpy stick:
(http://invis.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/projects/trc/2002/manual/images/bilingual/stick.jpg)
:-X