03-27-2005, 11:48 AM
On the "anti-cry"-side, I think we're dealing with two subdivisions of people:
1. The people who consider the characters and stories of games, movies, books, television-series to be fake and thus not something to invest emotion in.
2. Those who still stigmatise videogames as an abhorrent, anti-social past-time for deviants of society, and therefore don't consider them to be of any worth.
I think prejudice is the bottom line here. People who are skeptical to videogames don't invest enough time in them to see their worth; which is perfectly natural. Why would you want to spend hours doing something you think will be waste of time, when there's a perfectly good book waiting on the coffee table? Naturally, people who don't see the value in videogames, will of course also not understand the emotional and physical reaction to playing these games. (other than "becoming antisocial" and "growing fat".) These are the ones who belong in my secound grouping of people - the non/anti-gamers.
However, group 1 contains both gamers and non-gamers. Those who do play videogames are the ones who play for 'fun', who can sit down with FIFA2005 or QuakeIII 10 minutes before work and have a blast. The article mentioned that games with decent storylines are few and far between. I agree. But that means there's a veritable landslide of games that do not have characters, plots and story arcs that can invoke some sort of feeling. Not all games are meant to be epic tales of death and love, and it's perfectly understandable why someone wouldn't shed a tear just because Ryan Giggs got a red card for a tackle or because the player couldn't afford a purple spray paint on their Porche in Need for Speed: Underground. Obviously, if you don't play the games that have the ability to invoke feelings of fear, sadness, terror and supreme joy, you won't understand why some players get out the old hankey every time Sephiroth goes all stabby.
I am one of the gamers who can invest lots of time and emotion in characters, and generally do get upset when a favourite character is hurt or killed. In some cases, such as the above-mentioned Final Fantasy, it is when the love interest of our protagonist is brutally slain by the villain, however in the case of Metal Gear Solid, (which was also mentioned in one of the articles) it's when the player kills the baddies that I choke up every time. I've said this before, but it warrants saying again: it's pure artistry to be able to characterise a set of people - villains and heroes - in such a way that you sympathise more with the villains than the person you're playing, so when you command your hero to put that final bullet in Sniper Wolf, you are actually conflicted.
(By the way, I too feel the swelling within as Tassadar makes the ultimate sacrifice at the end of "StarCraft." That slow zoom in on his face gets me every time. The music also helps, of course.)
1. The people who consider the characters and stories of games, movies, books, television-series to be fake and thus not something to invest emotion in.
2. Those who still stigmatise videogames as an abhorrent, anti-social past-time for deviants of society, and therefore don't consider them to be of any worth.
I think prejudice is the bottom line here. People who are skeptical to videogames don't invest enough time in them to see their worth; which is perfectly natural. Why would you want to spend hours doing something you think will be waste of time, when there's a perfectly good book waiting on the coffee table? Naturally, people who don't see the value in videogames, will of course also not understand the emotional and physical reaction to playing these games. (other than "becoming antisocial" and "growing fat".) These are the ones who belong in my secound grouping of people - the non/anti-gamers.
However, group 1 contains both gamers and non-gamers. Those who do play videogames are the ones who play for 'fun', who can sit down with FIFA2005 or QuakeIII 10 minutes before work and have a blast. The article mentioned that games with decent storylines are few and far between. I agree. But that means there's a veritable landslide of games that do not have characters, plots and story arcs that can invoke some sort of feeling. Not all games are meant to be epic tales of death and love, and it's perfectly understandable why someone wouldn't shed a tear just because Ryan Giggs got a red card for a tackle or because the player couldn't afford a purple spray paint on their Porche in Need for Speed: Underground. Obviously, if you don't play the games that have the ability to invoke feelings of fear, sadness, terror and supreme joy, you won't understand why some players get out the old hankey every time Sephiroth goes all stabby.
I am one of the gamers who can invest lots of time and emotion in characters, and generally do get upset when a favourite character is hurt or killed. In some cases, such as the above-mentioned Final Fantasy, it is when the love interest of our protagonist is brutally slain by the villain, however in the case of Metal Gear Solid, (which was also mentioned in one of the articles) it's when the player kills the baddies that I choke up every time. I've said this before, but it warrants saying again: it's pure artistry to be able to characterise a set of people - villains and heroes - in such a way that you sympathise more with the villains than the person you're playing, so when you command your hero to put that final bullet in Sniper Wolf, you are actually conflicted.
(By the way, I too feel the swelling within as Tassadar makes the ultimate sacrifice at the end of "StarCraft." That slow zoom in on his face gets me every time. The music also helps, of course.)
