Emotional Impact of Game Stories

[Rhydderch Hael]

Four years ago, Steven Spielburg told us that video games were on the way to becoming a viable storytelling medium that could tap into a viewer's/player's emotional core, but it "wasn't there yet". Fast-forward to today, with an odd advance or two in the game industry, and he thinks that the end is almost in sight.

Mr Spielberg said this offered new opportunities for game development

"The video games industry has not allowed us the opportunity to cry, because we were too busy putting our adrenalin rush into the controller, or wherever we swing our arm with a Wii controller to get a result," he said.

"Because of that, there is no room for a video game to break your heart. We now have a little more room to be a little more emotional with Natal technology than we did before."

The man clearly has not been playing the right sort of games.

In the time intervening the discussion back then and what I read today, I have traveled into the past through the Shalebridge Cradle and found myself pushing through my own palpable fears not only to just save Garrett's skin, but to help bring peace to the spirit of an innocent girl. I felt all warm and fuzzy when the Los Angeles Chantry allowed my Tremere to finally enter the clan, a feeling kind of like Harry Potter entering Hogwarts' for the first time. I have felt sublime despair after slipping out of the Imperial Prison sewers at dusk: a murdered Emperor behind me, an unseen world before me, and the thought that cunning, relentless assassins who have succeeded at every turn so far were still at my heels— and the most lethal weapon then at my disposal was a goblin's head stuck on a stick.

I endured the "Snowstorm" of GTA IV: fighting my way through a small army and making my escape in a shot-up sedan, I made the delivery and found out the truth behind an acquaintance. Once it was over, I found myself pushing Niko slowly along with my controller, literally making him walk aimlessly down a street to collect his thoughts (and mine) about just what happened. Didn't even bother to retreive the car he took to get there.

I still don't hold to Spielburg's take on the stories youd find within a video game (there's always two of them, at least: the one the developer wrote, and the one that you create). If he couldn't find that in four years when so many others have, I doubt that he's been looking hard at all.

[NuurAbSaal]

Couldn't agree more.

I was shocked when Aeris died. I put down my controller and just sat there when I found out that "I" was, in fact, Darth Revan. Speechless after the last movie sequence to feature Sgt. Johnson and Miranda Keyes.

Powerful stuff, or maybe I'm a wuss. I think I'll go with powerful stuff though.

take care
Tarabulus

[Jester]

I could list games that demand a serious emotional commitment going way back. In fact, I already did; Steve Meretzky's "A Mind Forever Voyaging" goes into much of the same territory as, say, Orwell's 1984, but by putting you in an exploratory first-person perspective, makes it seem disturbingly real. (Not that Meretzky is Orwell... the game is good, but it's not *that* good.) That was two decades ago.

But, understand, Steven Spielberg didn't grow up with video games. Without the childhood factor, it's very difficult to develop an emotional attachment to any medium. For instance, I find myself almost entirely inert when it comes to visual art, where others are moved to tears (or extacy). Similarily, dance has almost zero emotional impact on me. I weep openly at movies, and at video games alike, if they hit me in just the right spot. Music is somewhere in between, though closer to emotive than not. I have been known to go nearly mad about food. The difference? My childhood. When I was a kid, I watched plenty of movies, and played more than my share of video games, and put a lot of value on good food. I never paid attention to art, or dance, or a host of other media. Novels can move me deeply; poetry leaves me cold, exactly as expected.

For one extreme example of a "game" (more of a strict interactive fiction, really, this is NO fun to play) is Victor Gijsbers' disturbing The Baron. Definitely not for the squeamish or sensitive, but an indication of how a game can create an emotional reaction that wouldn't really be possible in another medium. (Although, now that I think about it, maybe not. Borges did once say that the magic of Macbeth was that you end up sympathising with the murderer, without ever forgetting that he's the murderer, or seeing him redeemed for it.)

-Jester

Afterthought: Another, even earlier Steve Meretzky moment, the death of Floyd in Planetfall, widely regarded as the first moment that made gamers cry. That was what, 1983? Get with the times, Steve. :P

[pakman]

I think the game that had the most emotional impact on me was most likely Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The big reveal is was did it. Also the little things like being able to kill NPC party members at certain points in the plot.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, was a genuinely creepy game to me, especially the first mission you go on in the abandoned hotel. I think I just sat at my computer for about 5 minutes after that calming down.

Not that there was great story in F.E.A.R., but that was also another creepy game simply for the environmental factor.

I greatly dislike when people say that games cannot be a viable medium. I believe it's still an incredibly unexplored medium. Books, movies, theater, etc. have been a around a long time, and gaming is, relatively speaking, a recent addition.

[Jester]

I think the game that had the most emotional impact on me was most likely Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The big reveal is was did it. Also the little things like being able to kill NPC party members at certain points in the plot.

The reveal was reasonably good, in an M. Night Shymalan kind of way. I will admit to feeling a twinge of disturbed guilt when, on my second playthrough, I forced Zaalbar to kill Mission. That was needlessly cruel of me. Of course, I hated Mission, so no big loss.:D

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

Four years ago, Steven Spielburg told us that video games were on the way to becoming a viable storytelling medium that could tap into a viewer's/player's emotional core, but it "wasn't there yet". Fast-forward to today, with an odd advance or two in the game industry, and he thinks that the end is almost in sight.

What I read in Spielburg's statements and why I think he is correct:

Each of us can throw out our anecdotal experiences with games and say "such-n-such game" gave me a wonderful emotional response. And generally the games people report in this way are the same few over and over (Aeris in FFVII is probably the all time highest reported instance.) Despite this, though, games in general don't seem to have any ability to consistantly create or maintain such an emotional impact.

There are two things working against video games that prohibit any sort of consistancy in emotional impact. The first is simply the cost of entrance. By this I don't mean price of hardware or software but more learning curve related to controls and the system elements of how the game worlds work. This is not a small hurdle for people to overcome. The Wii-mote brought a lot of people into games that probably normally wouldn't, but it definately didn't bring them towards games which have any chance for emotional impact. In the end it remains a gimick; any new gamer that jumped on with the Wii probably isn't playing Metroid or Zelda or any of the Wii games that could be said to have a higher emotional journey. They are still playing Wii Sports.

The other side of this coin which ends up working against games having emotional impact is the effect of metagaming. For those gamers which pass the cost of entrance and get a hold of control and system schemes they very soon become burdened with the effects of metagaming. Each new game you pick up ends up getting assimilated into the schemes you've created for previous games and the opportunity to actually challenge a gamers emotions from story etc. are limited just based on the fact that the experience they are having with actual gameplay has already been routine. I personally have played enough MMO's now that I have, unfortunately, lost the ability to be suprised by them. I have so sufficiently internalized the system of these games that there no longer remains any real feeling of exploration or that "anything may happen." I can pretty close to 100% understand what my gameplay experience will entail within the first 30 minutes or so of playing these games and that experience will pretty much conform throughout any amount of time I invest in the game.

These two factors working together create a very small margin for creating an emotional effect on the player. A game creator pretty much needs to release a game on the early edge of new tech (FFVII came out at the dawn of 3d gaming and as such gamers had not yet created schemes for these games) so that gamers who have a hold on the control issues will still not be limited by metagaming.

If Natal can do what MS and Spielburg hopes, it can be that item which lowers the cost of entrance that the Wii-mote wasn't. It can allow people that aren't totally adept at the control complexities to play games which would generally be relegated to the "hardcore." And thus increase the gap between Cost of Entry and Metagaming, allowing a much wider swathe in which games can effect a players emotional experience.

[Jester]

I notice that Peter Molyneux was one of the people involved in the demonstration.

I'm not a superstitious man, but that doesn't bode well for Natal. :(

-Jester

[Roland]

He clearly has not played Final Fantasy VI (III), nor Secret of Mana.

Both of those games affected me in great emotional waves, both high and low. I'm not ashamed to admit, I almost (ALMOST!*) could not kill the Mana Beast in Secret of Mana, and I replayed the great rending in Final Fantasy III (VI) until I managed to rescue Shadow.

In some ways, I have found fewer and fewer truly "epic" games - games that drag you through great emotional upheavals as part and parcel to the playing. Part of that, IMHO, is a lack of quality storytelling in even the best games. Part of it is also due to the sandbox movement. Part of it is just a lack of quality games. Admittedly, part of it is just my stalling of game-playing over the last decade, and my seeming inability to truly become engrossed with a game, no matter how good it may be. I fear I may have moved beyond the realm of games being a storytelling medium that sucks you in wholly, and into the realm of games are a way to pass the time, no matter how good (or bad) they may be. But, that's just me.:P

* - I literally sat for a few minutes trying to decide if I could bring myself to finish the game. I weeped (on the inside) at the thought, and throughout the whole fight. To this day, it still haunts me, and I get a little wistful thinking about it. I think a part of my innocence (I didn't even know I had any left back then) died during that fight. I had a very similar emotional episode while reading Stephen King's Bag of Bones. At a certain point in the story, I was so shocked at what had transpired I had to stop reading. I didn't pick that book up again for several years, but I managed to read through it in one go the second time around.

[Chesspiece_face]

I notice that Peter Molyneux was one of the people involved in the demonstration.

I'm not a superstitious man, but that doesn't bode well for Natal. :(

-Jester

If you are interested in watching Peter's part of the demonstration you can get a full video of in on IGN here:

http://video.ign.com/streaming/e3-2009/#

this requires a video playpack install that IGN is now using. I believe his section starts at around 4:52.

It will be interesting to see how limited his Milo is in scope and how much it can be expanded. Just off the top of my head, if this tech was in Fable II for the dog that game would be an entirely different animal (no pun intended.)

Edit: the full Natal section starts at 4:34. Millard Fillmore!

[--Pete]

Hi,

I fear I may have moved beyond the realm of games being a storytelling medium that sucks you in wholly, and into the realm of games are a way to pass the time, no matter how good (or bad) they may be. But, that's just me.:P

No, it's not *just* you. Perhaps it is the games, perhaps it's we who've changed. There once was a time when a game could suck me in for, literally, days without a break (longest non-stop gaming session was around 80 hours). Now, half an hour with a game and I get antsy and bored. Doesn't matter if it is WoW or FreeCell.

And I'm finding the same to be true of movies and of literature. Geriatric ADD, I guess.

Or maybe "And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise." (Lepanto - Chesterton).

--Pete

[kandrathe]

He clearly has not played Final Fantasy VI (III), nor Secret of Mana.

Both of those games affected me in great emotional waves, both high and low. I'm not ashamed to admit, I almost (ALMOST!*) could not kill the Mana Beast in Secret of Mana, and I replayed the great rending in Final Fantasy III (VI) until I managed to rescue Shadow.

I think many of the FF series are well thought through in terms of character play. I remember in FFX that I spent many hours becoming an expert in playing blitzball, just so that my character Tidus could live up to his reputation and the expectations of his father. In FF8, I think I spent more time playing Triple Triad than I did the rest of the game.

[weakwarrior]

longest non-stop gaming session was around 80 hours

Wow! Were there napping breaks? Food breaks? And the million dollar question - what was the game?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wow! Were there napping breaks? Food breaks? And the million dollar question - what was the game?

No naps, food at the keyboard. Falcon 3.0 Oh, and I lost the war:)

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
No naps, food at the keyboard. Falcon 3.0 Oh, and I lost the war:)

--Pete

Well no one can say you didn't try.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well no one can say you didn't try.

I probably would have done better had I taken breaks, slept, etc. But I was suffering from one-more-mission 'diction;)

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
I probably would have done better had I taken breaks, slept, etc. But I was suffering from one-more-mission 'diction;)

--Pete

?! Were you raised on wolves milk and RedBull?!

Though on reflection, you'd probably blend right in in some of the 24hr net cafe's I used to frequent. During the day it's mostly college\university students, by night it's mostly gamer's central. Some cafes even offered a gamer's pass that went anywhere between 9-10 PM to 6-8 AM, some places might even throw a bag of chips and Mountain Dew for good measure.

It's not super rare that some folks even use it as a makeshift crash pad. It's still cheaper than a Motel 6.

[Hammerskjold]

What I read in Spielburg's statements and why I think he is correct:

You raise some very good points, I just want to address a few things about Spielberg's views and opinions first though.

Spielberg's view on some subjects IMO absolutely deserves a good listen to. The man who overcame the technical limitation of a rubber shark and can make a weird little alien with a glowing finger sympathetic, certainly has my ear on say, how to tell a story cinematically etc.

The barrier of technology, cost, and interface is still a relatively fluid thing at the moment. I've read that there's 2 things that defines a videogame as a videogame. One is interactivity. That's the one that gets the most press. The second usually not as much, and that's complexity. Not just the tech side, but the elements that might be in it. Anything from text, music, sound, and animation\movies. A person with far more experience said combining those elements wasn't additive, but multiplicative in complexities.

So while I think Spielberg is mostly right when he uses the analogy of development in film tech and video game tech, I personally think video games are not even in it's infancy yet. IMO it's still at the embryonic stage. Maybe not zygotic, and the rate of development is arguably one of the fastest when compared to other media in history.

But it's still a very very early age for video games, at least in my views. Spielberg mentions things like Cinemascope and Imax, while I think video games despite it's fast advancement rate, is still more along the lines of a late stage Magic Lantern and possibly kinetiscopes. At least compared to the possibilities that has so far can only be portrayed in movies and tv. By that I mean if we have a FForward button, video games in the far far future might be something along the lines of 2 things, The Holodeck, and or The Matrix.

The Holodeck may not be possible like, ever. The Matrix style or something similar without the jack in the back of the head is probably still technologically far away, but it might be an easier sell. Say, the Sony Dream Machine 4000 TM (future patent still pending) that puts you in a very vivid dream state. Now with less seizures than the Sony DM 3000.

In other subjects, he's IMO, only half right at best and mostly airing out his own personal bias. Again with the crying thing. Maybe it's just me, but since when are tears the only metric of validation worth measuring in a story, or all stories?

If all Spielberg wants is to make me cry, well the last time he did that was when he and pal George Lucas raped Indiana Jones.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/late...-lucas-protest/

/snarky mode on

Seriously Mr. Spielberg. If your benchmark is to make me cry, just spritz some cayenne on my eyeballs. It'd be faster for everyone involved. Make sure it comes out of a walkie talkie though, don't want it to be too violent like coming out of a water GUN. Don't want to scare the youngins.

And while Mr Spielberg is certainly entitled to his opinions re: videogames, wheres the tears?!. I wonder if this could be something as simple as not seeing a different media as valid unless it produces someone that mirrors him and\or his own views. Ie:, video games are not a real media unless it produces a Spielberg of it's own, at least in the eyes of Spielberg.

While I always will give credit to the talent, skill, and hardwork of people like Spielberg and Lucas. I also pray everyday that one day soon, hopefully in their lifetimes, a defining person(s) will come out with their work that marks a moment where the medium can proudly and with no apology, claim it's uniqueness. It doesn't have to claim and proclaim we have found a Spielberg of VideoGames, anymore than say architecture needs to find a Spielberg equivalent in order to be taken as a valid thing. It can instead say with no idle boast but with honesty, it is Video Games's (insert name of future great person here).

Maybe that day, just maybe, Spielberg can S. T. F. U. At least when it comes to video games lacking tears and therefore not very valid.

/snark off


That aside. Very meaty and interesting points you've raised Chesspiece.

This one especially:

It can allow people that aren't totally adept at the control complexities to play games which would generally be relegated to the "hardcore." And thus increase the gap between Cost of Entry and Metagaming, allowing a much wider swathe in which games can effect a players emotional experience.

I've seen the point above mentioned and discussed in various places ie: gamasutra, but the paragaraph above basically said it in one of the clearer I've read so far.

[--Pete]

hi,

?! Were you raised on wolves milk and RedBull?!

I've done research runs at accelerators that went longer than that, though I usually caught a catnap or two while they were retuning the beams. If you can't handle weird schedules, you probably should avoid experimental physics;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

The barrier of technology, cost, and interface is still a relatively fluid thing at the moment. I've read that there's 2 things that defines a videogame as a videogame. One is interactivity. That's the one that gets the most press. The second usually not as much, and that's complexity. Not just the tech side, but the elements that might be in it. Anything from text, music, sound, and animation\movies. A person with far more experience said combining those elements wasn't additive, but multiplicative in complexities.

I think you make an excellent point. The technology for video games is in its infancy. Holodeck, Matrix, or perhaps something like Larry Niven's Dream Park is what we tecno-geeks have dreamt of all our lives. What we have are keyboard and mice, the so-so console controllers and some joysticks ranging from mediocre to fairly good. We've got gloves that sometimes work and goggles and virtual headsets that make us puke. Compared to our dreams, what we have is horse and buggy.

However, compared to most other media, what we have is a magician's wand. We have the potential of being in the story rather than just having it unfold before us.

So, while the technology is in its infancy, and I hope that more of its promise comes to pass, I think that no one has yet even come close to exploiting what is already available. The technology has evolved very far from the Zork days, the story telling not so much.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
I think you make an excellent point. The technology for video games is in its infancy. Holodeck, Matrix, or perhaps something like Larry Niven's Dream Park is what we tecno-geeks have dreamt of all our lives. What we have are keyboard and mice, the so-so console controllers and some joysticks ranging from mediocre to fairly good. We've got gloves that sometimes work and goggles and virtual headsets that make us puke. Compared to our dreams, what we have is horse and buggy.

However, compared to most other media, what we have is a magician's wand. We have the potential of being in the story rather than just having it unfold before us.

So, while the technology is in its infancy, and I hope that more of its promise comes to pass, I think that no one has yet even come close to exploiting what is already available. The technology has evolved very far from the Zork days, the story telling not so much.

--Pete

Let me continue this line of thought as well as debunking some of the outside analysis i've seen going on right now (particularly in a gamasutra article.) The article in question Here quotes an analist opining that Sony's motion control has the greater potential. This is completely and absolutely wrong, and for one reason; the same reason that the Wii-mote hasn't broken and grand barriers in interactive storytelling. A developer designing a game for the platform essentially has to make a choice between creating a game designed around the controller or a game designed around traditional game mechanics. It's an either/or scenario. Sure the new Wii-mote and the playstation wand will be increasingly more and more exact in it's responses but all that means for games in any foreseeable future is that the small portion of games that use these control schemes well will get better. All the other games will see no effect at all.

Microsoft's method, however, is not limited to any control scheme (with the Wii or Playstation wand the player can't possibly use a "regular" controller and the wands at the same time.) IGN reports Here on their interactions with Molyneux's Milo. The take home point in this article is the fact that Milo at the present (obviously) can't understand a wide variety of conversations, just the little vocabulary he's been programmed to. What the program is suprisingly good at, however, is recognizing tones etc. Much like your mother probably told you: "it's not what you say, but how you say it." Imagine now a future Mass Effect game where you control the combat and character movement using traditional control schemes yet when you get to the character development scenes and conversations you actually talk to the people (or in mass effects case maybe you speak the generic conversation item you want your character to persue.) and instead of chosing the prescribed Evil or Good responses the characters in the game respond to your tone or aggressiveness in your voice and in turn your reputation is built and maintained through how you actually act towards the game. Even if you are trying to be a Good character maybe anytime you talk to that one annoying character in the game you can't help but be snide.

The way it looks going forward now is that Nintendo and Playstation will take the path of making better and better Golf games. Microsoft's tech on the other hand is versatile enough that developer's can choose to use as much or as little of it as they wish and can in turn effect a greater variety of games.