Emotions & Games

#1 @Jeremy

I like this topic a lot. Very interesting study.

I think that sometimes people cry because of pain. You can definitely get players to care enough in a game for them to feel pain. It will require the same things stories do where the player invests emotionally in the game. It will require them to open themselves emotionally to the game. It will require the suspention of belief that is required in storytelling. I think it can and will be done. I think it will require serious improvements to ai and the world environment in a game. For example... if it is a character that suffurs and we as players feel their pain... it will require a feeling of connection to the character. This will require actual personal development of characters in a game that makes the characters 3 dimensional.

I think that the games that are going to impact players emotionally are the games that require some kind of role playing. Not level up hack and slash role playing... real role playing. Where you take on the role of a person in a game where the game is more like a chance to live and experience than simply achieving a goal. This could be said to be more than a game. But... really... games are play and play is what acting is. When you are acting in a game... when you are letting go of your real world and pretending to be apart of a game world and you invest in the game world... then I think that you can be as deeply emotionally moved as in a story.

I remember playing max payne... the begining of max payne 2 when the girl is brutally killed... I was pissed off and I wanted to avenge her death and I blew the fuck out of the bad guys. I was suprised at my feelings when that happened. I mean... it's just a game... right. Well, The Thin Red Line was just a movie and I was hardly able to contain myself in the theater during the scene where the asian soldiers were crying and begging for their lives right after having tried to kill the american soldiers. I realised that the soldiers on both sides were getting fucked. It was just a movie though, right. But it was about real life. And that's the key to emotions in a game. It has to be realistic. It has to be about things people actually care about personally. Not winning or losing... but life. That's how you get a 3d character to make me feel outraged.

Great plan!! I love these kinds of studies.

#2 A little bit stream of consciousness, but I think you'll get it:

Making people cry is not hard. I do it on a nightly basis when I'm acting. People laugh and cry (or feel any other emotion, for that matter) when they are experiencing art because it reminds them of their own life, this doesn't necessarily mean lack of control.

You make an interesting distinction between the "gameplay" and the "story," which I can't say I agree with. Sure, there are some games that are just competition and no story telling. Tetris, for example. In the middle, I see games like Zelda that have a story, but segregate it from the gameplay. This is where most games seem to fall these days. Taking games even farther will require integrating these two elements. A game that wants to evoke emotion will require story telling.

Anton already said it: Role Playing is the way to achieve this integration. What if a game was open ended enough to give the choice to the gamer? The job of the developers would be to create a volatile situation, create strong characters and put the gamer in the middle. Picture a game that makes no assumptions about the player. They get exposition from the AI and can make their own choices.



I really do think a video game could make someone cry. Anton said, "It has to be realistic." I understand what he was saying, but I think a better way to put it would be, "It has to be truthful." Jet packs and hover tanks aren't realistic, but if the story is truthful it will still affect people. That point is really just semantics, though.

Video games are is still a relatively new medium, though, so they obviously have a long way to go. It also has bigger chains than most other artforms: computers.

#3 @James "Nycto" Frasca

Quote:Anton said, "It has to be realistic." I understand what he was saying, but I think a better way to put it would be, "It has to be truthful."

That is a better way to put it. I agree. :)

#4

Quote:
Making people cry is not hard. I do it on a nightly basis when I'm acting.

Exactly! It's out of their control ... do you cry at your performance? Certainly not unless it's in the script.

Then in Anton's example ... he felt rage as Max Payne ... which is associated with action. Games force you to take action so feeling rage isn't abnormal at all in a game situation. The other example he gave was from a movie ... and it was a situation where no action could be taken. Games are primarily about solving a problem and taking action. Any other medium relies on the loss of control ... taking something from the audience that they hold dear. I'd like to argue that the two are mutually exclusive. Once you take control away from the audience ... you are no longer dealing with a game.

#5 I'm with Jeremy on this one. I think the medium is just a bit too different from the current artistic mediums to be able to offer exactly the same thing.

I've discussed this with my students and the best they could come up with is a scene in one of the final fantasy games where a main character dies. Thats emotional but its just cut-scene stuff, basic storytelling really. Plus you've invested a lot of time playing with the characters.

The problem here is the mindset of a game player versus the mindset of someone reading a book or watching a film. Its very different for someone to be taking part in a scene and to be passively watching it. That fundamental difference is a big barrier to games.

I saw the film "good night and good luck" by George Clooney the other day and being a bit more mature than most reviews I actually understood the subtle message of the film (dont be shallow, society is shallow enough), most seem to have missed it. But it provided that message in such a subtle way that I really dont think a game will ever be able to create. The fact is, games are "toys" rather than stories. You can incorporate story and roleplay into using those toys, but fundamentally they do not seem to allow real emotion.

I'm hoping to be proved wrong, but over the last 30+ years of games, I havent seen it happen. Is it likely to now, given we are getting ever more shallow games?

#6 By way of an example:

I was playing heroes of the pacific yesterday and it has a scene where the japanese attack pearl harbour. It has some nice scenes earlier where you (the player) and your brother both learn how to fly, then your brother enlists in the navy and you in the navy air force.

So during the first main mission, your brothers ship, the USS Arizona is bombed and your brother is killed.

If that were any other medium, we'd be straight into "brother torn up over his siblings death" scene, but because its a game, you have to play out the mission in order to continue.

It wasnt at all effective, and yet they'd used all the normal techniques to make us care. What was different?

Also, take a look at Ace Combat 5, the simple story in that is great, but it really doesnt affect the gameplay at all.

#7 @Phil

I think that games in which the the story is the game and the player is a character in that story is how a game can become as deep of an emotional experience as books or movies. This is not only possible, but it's coming. But story telling that draws in an audience or a reader is not easy and especially in a medium as new as games. And games are still a sperm they are so new.

For me, games aren't that interesting in the sense that they are goals. The ability to experience a real time journey in a simulated world is what interests me about games. I would almost say that it wouldn't be a game then... except that the act of pretending is a game and in fact the most universal game in all of history. Fictional story telling is a game. Do some say it is more because sometimes it is a teacher as well as an enterntainer. Yes. But the act of play in children and infant animals is for teaching. So, I think that it is still ok to call games that are about pretending in a story... a game.

@Jeremy

Actually, actors do feel the emotion in the story they are playing in. That is exactly how it works. They allow themselves to experience the moments in the story. It's ussually that commitment to the moment that draws the audience into the experience. It is the same for the voice of the author of a book. This is why some actors and some writers sound so hollow when they can't do this.

#8 Interesting but unless the point of the game at which you cry ... is to cry (as it is the actors job to do on stage) then I doubt you'll see anyone cry while playing a game. My point is the audience is manipulated and is out of control. In fact the crying actor is simply putting himself in the shoes of a character who's out of control as well because the script is pre-determined. Games are about control and crying is about losing control.

Of course understand that I'm open to the idea that this isn't true ... I'm just stirring the pot ;)

#9 @Jeremy

Keep stirring! :) I don't know the truth of it... but it sure is interesting to think about.

#10 @Phil

I loved Good Night and Good Luck. My wife and I are buying it to show to our children one day. That is just a great movie with a great lesson.

#11 The only game I can think of that came close to doing this in the actual game play was "Wing Commander 3". The final mission (which was actually 3 missions back to back with no down time - I think) had your wingmen all sacrificing themselves so you (the player) could complete the mission. You hear their final audio transmissions as they die (no cut scenes). Depending on how you played earlier in the game, one of these wingmen was most likely your in game love interest - which lead to the ending where you are victorious - and going home alone. This was the closest I've seen a game come to evoking sadness in the game through playing it.

I agree though, it will happen eventually, it's just a matter of maturity and time. Early Hollywood movies weren't very good at making audiences due much more than laugh.

However, it won't happen until the game designers quit rehashing the same cliche' themes and/or trying to mimic actual movies. This medium allows for so much more - but no one seems to be pushing that boundary. Interactive story telling is the means that will make this will most likely happen.

#12 I think "cry" is a poor verb to use in regards to games as art. Art evokes any kind of emotional response (fear, joy, laughter, sadness, etc) to the viewer based on the artist's intents. One more recent example of games as art is Shadow of the Colossus. I'll skip the plot details, but ultimately you are attacking these giant indigenous creatures who in reality are peaceful beings. They do not attack unless you provoke them enough. As a player, you feel almost a sense of remorse to be taking down these creatures who really mean you no harm. This was the designer's intent.

We haven't seen many artistic game elements in our current history of games because of two major factors. First, graphics have been the focus of video games for far too long. I predict that once games are at a graphical apex (it can't be much longer), we'll start seeing some more artistic takes on games. Second, *most* gamers are completely ignorant of art. They haven't realized the power of artistic game design or the power of art for that matter.

I really hope things change soon.

#13 Another game example that popped in my head as I was walking on campus is Psychonauts. I was playing it yesterday and was inside Sasha Nein's head. After his "perfectly structured" brain went to chaos, one section of his brain was this elaborate stage that took place on a bed. The figments (one of teh items collected) laying around all resembled toy blocks or other childhood items.

I didn't think too much of this until I ran across a memory entitled "Sasha's First Loss". It was a simple slideshow that took place from his point of view. They were various memories of his mother doing all of these things for him, then seeing her sick in bed, then her gravestone. You then realize as a player that you this non-descript level you are on is actually Sasha's mother's death-bed. Both my friend watching me play and I immediately said "Woah." and were hit with a wave of emotion. This was Tim Schafer's intent, and he achieved it. That is art.

#14 (warning, long post!)

This is a great discussion, not just because I love discussing it, but because I think it's a necessary discussion for the games industry. But rather than focusing on "crying" per se, I think it's important to tease out the general concept that produces the crying effect: the telling of a story. It's the story itself, and the experiencing of it, that produces an emotional response, whatever that response may be. It could be Anton's rage response to the telling of the Max Payne story (at least the beginning of it), or some other player's tears in response to a story that evokes sadness. As a society, we love stories, we love becoming engrossed in stories, we love experiencing stories.

Chris Crawford, the computer games guru, shares your wishes. He's been pursuing this type of thing for many years, since the early 90's. At a speech many years ago at the Computer Games Developers Conference, his so-called "dragon speech" (you can read it here) he said:

Quote:"I dreamed of the day when computer games would be a viable medium of artistic expression -- an art form. I dreamed of computer games expressing the full breadth of human experience and emotion. I dreamed of computer games that were tragedies, games about duty and honor, self-sacrifice and patriotism. I dreamed of satirical games and political games; games about the passionate love between a boy and girl, and the serene and mature love of a husband and wife of decades; games about a boy becoming a man, and a man realizing that he is no longer young. I dreamed of games about a man facing truth on a dusty main street at high noon, and a boy and his dog, and a prostitute with a heart of gold."

Although he is still unsuccessful at producing true "interactive storytelling", which appears to be his ultimate goal, he has done a nice job over the years reviewing what storytelling is all about and how the game industry has really failed at embracing the concept of interactive storytelling thus far. Actually, Crawford would argue that interactive storytelling is very different from "a game with a story," but that's another issue. Storytelling, he would argue, is the kind of thing that has really been a secondary thought in the game world, and it shows.

In his book "Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling," he discusses this issue in the gaming world and makes a number of interesting points. At the risk of reproducing too much text from the book, here's a good quote:

Quote:"The programmers and games people...are comfortably ensconced in their world, making really 'cool' action games with plenty of graphics, animation, and throbbing music. They're successful and making lots of money...The games people are too comfortable to seriously consider the major effort required to realize interactive storytelling."

Quite the oversimplification, but I think it reflects a lot of the opinions here, like those of Jared above. The games industry has been too focused on graphics to really take storytelling seriously.

Crawford goes on:

Quote:"...they apply whatever random bits of information they've picked up about storytelling and assemble their parts list:

- Characters, preferably with good backstories
- A beginning, a middle, and an end
- Plot twists
- A romantic interest for the male protagonist
- Obstacles to overcome

Then they tack these components onto their game design as best they can. The result is a game containing some of the elements of storytelling."

He uses the example of Half-Life, which led the charge by using cut-scenes rendered by the game's graphics engine. Adding major plot twists using these cut-scenes gave it the sense of a real story, and it was hailed as a breakthrough. "What a laugh," Crawford writes.

He does discuss distant relatives of what he calls "interactive storytelling", like one of my favorites, interactive fiction (IF). I'm trying right now to incorporate interactive fiction into a 3D FPS game to improve the storytelling experience, but Crawford wouldn't really approve. He writes that "IF is certainly interactive, and it's fictional in the sense of being made up, but it's certainly not storytelling...the actual creations remain elaborate puzzles."

He does make a good point, however. He discusses one of my favorite IF games from the past, Infocom's "Planetfall". In that game, a robot (Floyd) befriends the player and provides all sorts of humorous diversions. Toward the end of the game, however, Floyd sacrifices himself to save the player, which provided a very emotional moment in the game. Crawford argues, however, that there was nothing the player could do to avert it...it was absolutely non-interactive. You could abuse Floyd throughout the game and he'd still sacrifice himself.

I still believe that there are ways to make IF better at storytelling, and very advanced IF programmers have done a decent job of producing different endings to games based on actions taken earlier. Would Crawford have approved of Planetfall had Floyd not sacrificed himself if the player chose to ignore or abuse him during the game? If there was a different but equally satisfying ending given that?

Crawford does make a point late in the book about the future of interactive storytelling. He states that "interactivity depends on the choices available to the user...if the games industry were to demonstrate some sort of evolutionary progress in integrating stories into games, you could see it in the verbs." I'm trying to take one small step in that direction.

(edited for formatting)

#15 Games can, of course, make people cry, and not even in the bad way Jeremy is referring to. What if, when you are playing Nintendogs, one of your puppies dies. Every kid playing that game would cry. When my son Jonathan was about 12 years old, he was raising a Seaman on his Sega. One day he came out to the shop with big tears in his eyes. When I asked him what was wrong, he could barely talk when he mumbled, "My Seaman died." Guys, this is powerful stuff. Don't be closed minded. Think about all kinds of games.

Interactive stories are another way to allow people to experience all kinds of emotions, but the industry is not doing a very good job of that right now. It will come back though.

One thing to think about. even if you are crying, you are having fun!

-Jeff Tunnell, GG

#16 I think the big reason it hasn't evolved is due to the industry getting burned in the mid 90's by it's infatuation with incorporationg movie sequences into the game and the player getting one or two choices for the next step in the story. I remember getting real tired of having to watch 10 minutes of bad acting by washed up or two bit actors before I could play some more.

The industry will experiment with it again. Soon I hope.

#17 I agree, but I think the real reason they got burned is because they went about it the wrong way. They were trying the quick 'n' dirty approach...adding story elements through cheap cut scenes. What we really want is for games to be the stories, to incorporate storytelling, not to just advance the game in a completely non-interactive fashion at breakpoints during the game.

Until the games industry sees that the key thing is the interactive telling of the story, not the inclusion of some simplistic backdrop to a mindless action game, it will never get it right.

#18 People would cry playing a game for the same exact reason they cry watching a movie or reading a book. Something sad or tragic happens in the story. That's it. If I ever see someone crying because the controlls are good I'd slap them and die from laughter. If you want an example of a game with a plot that has an emotional impact, then finish Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater all the way to the end. The ending scene's music, naration, characters expression and animation come together to create a very emotional plot tie up. Many games I've played have tried to use emotional scenes and just don't have the full effect. It's hard to feel emotion in a scene with 16-bit sprites consoling each other in a time of pain or MIDI music playing while a blank expressioned character dies in another stiffly animated character's arms.

I believe that music has the biggest emotional impact of any medium. It tells you how to feel. It can change the same scene from being goofy and silly to being sad and tragic just by the change of a cue. If you want emotion in your games then come up with a serious storyline (no adult is gonna cry because Sonic the Hedgehog got killed), hire good musicians (obviously no techno, rock, or any upbeat music), artists (the graphics have to be good enough to where you can see emotion in the characters faces), and put a lot of time and effort into your cut scenes.

Nobody is gonna cry because a green dinosaur jumped from one block to the other or Master Cheif stuck an Elete while sidestepping a ghost and taking out 3 grunts. Also, how can I build up an emotional tie to a character who dies in the first level? Why should I care that he died? On top of that I still have to complete the level still so I can't even reflect on what has happened, and now on to the next level like nothing happened. I just don't think enough thought goes into emotional scenes in games. And with games with a decent plot, I've noticed alot of people have AD/DH and can't sit through a 5 minute cut scene that is trying to build that emotional impact between the player and the characters in the game. Most games storylines are too rushed and broken up because of that.
-Ajari-

#19

Quote:Jeff Tunnell - Guys, this is powerful stuff.

See, that gave me shivers reading that. That's what makes game development so exciting to me. We have the best field of art/science in my opinion.

I know that focus on graphics are blamed for the medium being slow to mature emotionally and itellectually. But I think that it is a neccessary part of the growth. Think about the invention of digital movie cameras and the world of opportunity opened up to indie film makers to make movies at a massive fraction of the cost. This wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the pushing of graphics in the big budget movies like Star Wars and Titanic. The technology simply wouldn't exist yet. These big budget spectacles are in the end what is pushing the growth. Sure, it gets in the way some times, but in the big picture it is the fuel. That's why I don't feel threatened by big budget games.

And more food for thought. While playing Oblivion, my wife Melissa commented that when the graphics of these games reaches photorealism, that playing them is going to be a very very different emotional experience. For example... oozing fleshy zombies coming after you. While she would be ok with our future children playing Oblivion, she felt like it was already getting to real. When photoreal arrives... she said 'no way' are our children playing a game like this.

See... I don't even want to imagine what would happen to games if smells were incorporated. Saving Private Ryan the game. That would just be too much for me.

#20 The examples Jeff brought up were among the only things I could think of. They are similar to the MMO loss stories, only the death of a dog of Seaman is included in the game design. You're losing something ... I can see a young person crying about that. An older person would probably just start over again or give up. I thought of the idea though of a downloadable game where you get one shot. If you don't win ... that's it, no second chances. If it ramped up properly and made you care about the characters ... and ultimately you failed in the game and couldn't try again maybe some people would cry.

Quote:
I still have to complete the level still so I can't even reflect on what has happened,

This is what I'm talking about though with games. You have to keep moving on and since time is cut in games you don't have long moments of downtime to feel helpless ... you always get to act immediately on the problem at hand.

Someone mentioned Half-Life above ... that I think was the best interactive story telling. Both the first and second games were great and the second one was damn good at bringing on those tiny moments of being content followed by catastrophe. One thing about it though, cut-scenes were mentioned!!! Half-Life doesn't have cut scenes per se. You are always in the players perspective ... it never takes on a 3rd person perspective which to me isn't a cut scene ... it's still the just the main character's perspective. Anyway, same deal ... maybe in a movie they could have gotten people to cry over the scientists being slaughtered (it'd take some damn good acting) but in the game ... you're on the move and you just have to fight back. I liked the Wing Commander example ... that sounded close but of course it probably wasn't executed to the degree it would need to be done in order to make one cry.