Im starting this thread for 2 reasons, fuzztrek from the fear topic was angry because we were focusing on fear, and iv been thinking about it for a while. So heres the question: How can you truely make the people feel sadness and happyness in a game? I think one of the keys to this is leaving the "happily ever after" endings behind. In most games you usually have one main quest, like fight the forces of hell until they are destroyed or sumthin like that. But along the way you get other goals like save your father from being killed. In most games you play you come to expect "and all was perfect and everyone was happy forever" at the end of the game. But what if things dont go this way. Lets say half way through the game the dark lord captures a loved one and puts them in the "cage of eternel damnation" and the dark lord is the only one that can open it. So you get to him and then you have to kill him and then heas dead. Now about at this point of the game you expect the little "and by the mysterios power of love the doors to the cage opend and all was well" but what if that doesnt come, yes you have done what you set out to do, but was it really such a victory? You lost a loved one. Now what happens at the end the game shood be a direct effect of decisions that you made during the game, and i dont mean having 23 different ways of living happily ever after, i mean like when the end comes, you know that if you would have done somthing differently than they would not be in that cage and things would have gone better, or worse. Because thats what players want right, to feel like thay made an impact on what happend, for beter or worse. You would feel it was your fault that these horrible things happend, and tha truth is it would be, you would know if u would have done somthing different, thais wouldnt have happend. Of course this would all be intensified by emotional cinimatics, like at the end, whaen your loved one is sitting in the cage, you stare into your loved ones eyes who is in the cage, and they stare back, and cry, and then you turn around and walk away because you know there was nothing you could do. I think it would make a huge impact of the player if all was not well in the end, and it was their fault. I think this sortov ties in to the suspense topic because they were talking about how can you have suspense when in the end you know you have to win. Well this way you only have to win your only true quest, the others can go horribly wrong. A game that did this well is myst 3 exile. In the last world you go into you encounter the person who has cause you this trouble the whole time. Now if you make the wrong move he kills you. Now you do the puzzles and get the thing he wants, if you give it to him he kills you, so you have to do this complicated thing an trap him outside. Now you go down and he beggs for the thing, he needs it because its the only way heall ever see his loved ones again, so he asks you to let him in, if you do he kills you. Now you go then come back and he starts crying, begging to have the thing back, if you give it to him you loose, but at this point you can win, leave him out there trapped, crying, never going to see his loved ones again. Then you go back win the game, the ending cinimatic is sortov like a guilt trip. Its kind of like, congratulations you compleatly destroyed another persons life to compleat your task, you very mean person. And this seriously hit hard. I admit my eyes got a little misty when i did this, i really felt like a horrible person, that part of the game was that emotional, and im not one of those people who cry when sad things happen in movies, im just like, "who cares its just a movie" but this was alot more intense. Then i went back and found a way everyone could live happily ever after, and it made me feel really good about my self and i just had to smile, i couldnt stop myself. The happy ending was not a bad thing to have, it was just nice to see that the game did not just make everything happy because thats what games do, you had to work for it. So what are some of your guyses thoughts on how to make games more emotional? (ps im not going to be back to monday or maybe tuesday, hope there are lots of responses)

i can''t really add anything- you''ve hit it bang on the head!

people like "emotional rollercoasters" in books/films/games but to have events swing wildly in all directions because of what you do is 1)hard 2)possible 3)toutching.

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It''s Worth by Fighting Back

Interesting idea, and one I've thought about too. I've been having an idea in the back of my head of a storyline in which the player can not "win". He may achieve his objectives, but at the end, despite all of his hard work all has come to naught. I really got the inspiration from the Wrath of Khan movie with the Kobayashi Maru test. What would it be like to fight knowing you can not win? Most players would say it's just frustrating, that "games" are about making you feel good.

I see games a bit differently and see them something that we can experience. Limiting games to "fun" is I think what is hampering game's evolution into a serious art form. Look at sad movies which people love to see as proof that a game does not have to be "happy" to be succesful. What one must ensure in a game though is not making something too diffucult or frustrating that the player can not relate or get something out of the experience of playing the game.

In my game scenario, I'm seriously leaning towards the idea that the player's faction will ultimately lose...it is how they deal with the loss that determines what one can get from it. My game background very much centers around the concept of responsibility, duty, and sacrifice, and I believe the only true way to make this hit home is to have players realize that it's possible that they may not win....no matter how hard they try. But in lieu of "victory", they must be given something else...a feeling of doing the right thing, or praise, or something to recoup the notion they have "won". Another way could be taken from Braveheart for example....the protagonist of the story dies a horriffic death, but at least his example motivated and inspired his countrymen to finally fulfill his dreams.

I think one more point needs to be made. Having an emotive experience with a freeform style of games is, I believe, near impossible. Stories by their definition have a beginning a middle and end. Without direction, there can be no story, and without guidance, and it is virtually impossible to have direction. That is why MMORPG's have little fascination for me. To me, they are just a bunch of people on little quests that can socialize with other people online. To me, it is the fixed storyline that has the most power to influence the player's emotions. However, I think some leeway can be made with the player's decisions, affecting how missions play out and perhaps the ending itself.

[edited by - Dauntless on October 26, 2002 11:54:08 AM]

I have been thinking about creating a very sad ending. Okay, this is my little scenario.

We have a RPG where the main character basically has two best friends (one''s male the other''s a female). Throughout the whole story the game centers on their great friendship. They go through many trials showing how loyal they are to each other. The anatogonist towards 3/4 of the game will capture both of the main character''s friends. He gives the main character a dilemma. You can save one friend and not the other. Once the main character sets out to save one of his friends the other one will inevitable die. The player is given to make the choice. The game does not have a happy outcome where he can save both of the friends. Only one cane be saved. After that person is saved, the person who is saved will mourn and become depressed throughout the rest of the game.

quote: I see games a bit differently and see them something that we can experience. Limiting games to "fun" is I think what is hampering game''s evolution into a serious art form. Look at sad movies which people love to see as proof that a game does not have to be "happy" to be succesful.

I don''t believe you can compare films and games, due to the inherent difference in interactivity. People can watch a sad film, and not get frustrated for a few reasons. The main one is a sense of detatchment, the one thing film makers strive to overcome. When you watch a film, you can sympathise with the character; imagine what they''re feeling, but you''re still very much detatched. Nothing in the film has been caused by your actions, you are not in control, and as such, stay pretty much detatched. You can become involved in the film, but at any point you choose, you can sever any emotional involvment. In games, you actually control your actions, the line between "the character" and "you" gets significantly more blurred than in a film. Therefore, when one invests time in playing a game, you''d tends to expect it to leave you fulfilled - not necessarily happy, but certainly fulfilled; satisfied.
You''re right that games should not be limited to "fun". They should however, be "entertaining". That is, after all, the whole point of any game, computer or otherwise, to entertain.
I personally, and most non-hardcore gamers, wouldn''t find playing a game for ages, only to get an unhappy ending very fulfilling, it would put a downer on the whole experience. Yes, it may make it more dramatic, perhaps more realistic, but not more entertaining imo.

I think when people start considering games an "artform" is when games will start getting too pretentious, and forget that games are made to entertain, not impress.

quote: He gives the main character a dilemma. You can save one friend and not the other. Once the main character sets out to save one of his friends the other one will inevitable die. The player is given to make the choice.

Okay what is the first thing what comes to that players mind? "How can I save both of my friends? Because games have _always_ happy endings. What must I do to save both of them and get the happy ending?"
From this idea you can misdirect the character to do something he wouldn''t else do. Like go after some ridiculous clue you give him. Even if you give him clear enough hint that his both friends will die if he doesn''t go save one of them immediately.
Or you could give him hints that there could be a way to save both of his friends, but because player doesn''t have enough guts to go and sacrifice one of the friends, he will go after every clue and maybe lose both friends.
There would a situation where he must choose or lose both.
Then there would be some super-hard quest or line of quests which player would have to complete if he would like to save both, but that would be extremely secret and would take real dedication to explore the world before even the friends are captured.
It is great for player if he gives lot of his time for the game and he is some way rewarded for that.

quote: Original post by Andru
I personally, and most non-hardcore gamers, wouldn''t find playing a game for ages, only to get an unhappy ending very fulfilling, it would put a downer on the whole experience. Yes, it may make it more dramatic, perhaps more realistic, but not more entertaining imo.

I don''t think this is always true. Take Final Fantasy X. It wasn''t an entirely happy ending. I thought it was very bittersweet but it was still fulfilling.

Also, look at Half-Life''s utterly downer of an ending. It wasn''t fulfilling but I think that was a good thing. It left things open for a sequel (set for release in 2009 I believe).

There are a couple of games that accomplish "sad ending" relatively well. If you''d played Metal Gear Solid for PSX, there''s a time when your ability to hold your breath (controlled by tapping on the button quickly) would determine if the female character lives in the end. If you haven''t played the game, play it. It''s the masterpiece for story-driven gameplay.

In FF7, we all love areial. When we see her die, we were shocked with tears in our eyes (admit it! ).

I think sad ending should come as some form of a surprise. You''re not expecting it, and if the player can add a little control of the fate of lovable character.

Andru-
I think "entertain" is still too limiting for the development of games. To me, games much like movies, can and should be "experiences", and experiences can run the gamut of emotions. What makes movies or books still more popular to the masses is that it is not _just_ entertainment, but a medium which can educate, inform, help, make you sad, etc etc. Indeed, to some people the very word "game" has a bad connotation as something not serious and superficial.

You''re right that movies and books can be more detaching than games, but that is games strength actually. By providing an interactive form, computer games allow the player to become more immersed and more attached than non-interactive mediums. I think this allows for a more enrichening and vivid experience. As you mention, the line between the character in a game and the player is much more blurred making the player want something more.

But what is that something more? We can get more from a game than mere entertainment...we can actually become wiser, or more learned, or achieve a new perspective. I believe that it is an indication of our society that we always want something good without really giving something in return. Entertainment can come in many forms itself, but I believe that if our goal is just entertainment or fun, then we lose out on other possibilities of game design. The investment of time that a player makes can actually add to the experience of a game...whether it be pure entertainment, or something more than that. As long as the player takes something positive out of the experience, then the game has a useful function. A positive element need not necessarily be entertaining or fun, but perhaps enrichening, enlightening, or educational instead.

I think one of the biggest problems is that emotional value is relative to the user. However, while I don''t think it is possible to satisfy everyone, you can satisfy a lot of people. For instance, I think that warcraft III is a perfect example of a great game with lots of emotion driving it, but I''m sure lots of people just think it''s just like any other game.

I think that, Dauntless, it is a very good idea to have a broken, or uncomplete win in the end. This shows that the user is taking away something. May it be his/her character''s loved one, or just the shear amount of pain and suffereing that other characters in the game had to experience. By incorporating emotion into the character, you can make the game that much more realistic.

In my opinion, Starcraft was a very wordy game. The storyline was (somewhat) complex, and everything fit together so well. While playing it, I found that I felt like I was in the middle of a real war that spanned quite a few years. The cinimatics showed marines down in the trenches, the admirals making horrible decisions, and the secret government conspiracies.

When I was done the game, I felt like I had just read the first book of any classic series. I feel the sameway about warcraft 3, but warcraft was third in the series and perhaps if I had played warcraft 1 & 2 I would have felt more. Don''t get me wrong, I think there both great games.

I guess its like anything. Just because people are always going to carnavals and going on fun adventures in a move or a book, doesn''t mean that that movie or book is the BEST happy movie or book.

You could classify it as "blunt" emotion and "complex" emotion. Blunt emotion just shoves everything in your face. Sure, you can scare the view, you can make the viewer happy, you can make the viewer sad. However, this would probably be considered rude or offensive. You don''t get the same long-term effect with "blunt" emotions than you do with complex emotions.

I hope that in the future, when computers can handle AI better, that games become revolved around emotion. I know lots of MMORPG''s are going this way.

Fuzztrek

¬_¬