How many games invite you to feel pity for game characters, how many ask you to share character's joy? If you are playing a shooter and you come across a wounded "hostile" alien moaning in pain, what would you do? 9 times out of Ten the player would probably shoot it. But what if instead of shooting it, you could try to help it. Like the fable of the Lion with the thorn in its paw. Likewise, how many games ask you to share in the "pleasure" of in game characters? Do games need to have simulated emotional responses as opposed to pre-scripted acted "lines" that they just repeat endlessly. If you can look into a character's eyes and detect a mixture of emotions, then this comes one step closer to "humanising" them. What do you think?

Do we really want to humanise a hostile alien? In some cases, we very well might, but I feel it's important to note that one of the reasons so many games use enemies such as aliens, zombies, demons, etc. is that the player won't empathise with them to any great level; they will have no qualms killing them, and we neatly sidestep the moral issue of having a player kill human characters.

Now, what if we want to raise those moral issues? This could perhaps provide for a very interesting game, however, I think that in this case we would need a much better storyline and setting to back up the interaction. There's no real point in setting up an emotional interaction with one of the aliens if we aren't going to have some kind of consequence for this, and I think that requires giving the player a deeper insight into the motives of the enemy. Why bother helping an alien/demon/whatever if they're simply going to remain a hostile entity? This doesn't neccesarily mean we have to have an alliance formed between the player and the creature in question, but could simply mean giving the player a better idea of why these creatures are after them? Perhaps they have been forced into it by a more powerful race, or something of similar nature.

I think you have just stepped in the territory of delivering emotions through gameplay. The equivalent questions you ask is one of the basic questions that one would ask regarding any other medium, and it is not an unexplored area.

To put your inquiry in perspective, the story of a game is already capable to deliver various emotions. The question is not about whether a game can can include emotional plots or storyline, but to induce emotion through the interaction between the player and the game elements. In the context of delivering emotion through gameplay, excitement achievement, and fear are the most basic emotions that can get across. The question is how empathy and joy can be induced, and under what circumstances is it appropriate to be induce.

There are many ways to induce the other emotions. But the more important question is why would you want to do that, and what impact will it have to the game, in terms of its implementation and player experience.

So what Kazgoroth was correct. Before trying add something to the game, first think about why it should be there.


"Likewise, how many games ask you to share in the "pleasure" of in game characters?"

This seems unjustified. Most games aim to engage the player emotionally. You don't need to look far to find examples. Maybe you were not looking at the right type of game, or you were making an out of context complaint. For instance games like Animal Crossing aim to share a great variety emotion with the player.

So I would suggest you to re-frame the problem in a context where empathy and joy are appropriate.

I was sad when Aeris died in FF7.

I can't think of many games where you are encouraged to emotionaly bond with other charac ters, particularly in relation to their positive emotions.

Actually many of the games I've played don't have characters that have any simulated emotions, they are just puppets repeating pre-written lines. I find it hard in many cases to emote with these one-dimensional puppets.

(I've heard of Animal Crossing) but not played it. In most games I've tried other character's joy happiness etc. are instrinsically linked to the player's success. Ie. if the player helps them, they help him out too. So it is just a case of buying affection, or items, or quest rewards.

Furthermore, I would say that when a player controlled character gets a reward and shows onscreen joy. That this isn't usually something that the player can relate to, the player may feel satisfaction that THEY THEMSELVES have done it. But they know that the on-screen puppet is an emotionless puppet.

In case you wonder why I am asking about emotional relationships between game and player, it is because of the pitiless violence in Manhunt.

I hated Manhunt, but not for the lack of emotional content.

I think that it can be useful to portray characters in-game as round, emotionally complex beings, but only as a means to an end. Fire Emblem 4 had a system where your characters could get to know one another by fighting together. The game spanned several decades, with a playable battle taking place every few years, and if you played right, your characters could fall in love, get married, and eventually have kids. SOme of the kids grow up to be soldiers, and they join your army.

This seems like an emotional system, a sort of romance engine. Really, though, it's just a vehicle for eugenics. You have a super-strong warrior and a powerful sorceress, and you think, "Boy, if those two had a kid, it would be a usefull addition to the team," so you make sure those two spend a lot of time rescuing each other, and eventually they hook up.

Thinking of your characters as complex emotional beings in that case ultimately lets you unlock uber-characters, a gameplay benefit. Just getting your little Sims to scrump on command for the sake of scrumping on command is a little bit psychotic, in my opinion.

There are several types of emotional bonds:
1) between the PC and the NPCs, where the player feels inductively connected.
2) between the player and the PC
3) between the player and the NPCs

Which one are you talking about, or are you talking about all of it in general?


"In most games I've tried other character's joy happiness etc. are instrinsically linked to the player's success. Ie. if the player helps them, they help him out too. So it is just a case of buying affection, or items, or quest rewards."

The observation is that the intention of the player is corrupted. How about this: You are playing FF and you have the pet carbuncle. It you treat it kindly, it will rub you on your leg when it comes to you. There are not stats or attack bonus or anything, but you can show off to your online friends how well you treated it. Is this satisfying?

No, because, you will find online the exact way to make the carbuncle feel loved. So it all becomes mechanical.

Now, how about each carbuncle has a different personality, so you can't find a cookbook guide to make it love you?

No, because there is a systematic way to find out exactly what personality the carbuncle is, and after that you can deduce how to make it love you precisely.

How about...

No.

The 'emotionless pupeet' is a hard concept to defeat. It is the cousin concept related to the C word in artificial intelligence, and evolution/biological psychology. Put this in perspective, the intention of the player is important, as long as the player try to play the relationship as a game, the bond is unlikely to be formed, no matter how hard you try. So in this argument the player is partly responsible for not receiving the bond that is being offered, because the player consciously rejects the bond. You can try to lessen the signs that the emotional system is mechanical, but at some point the player needs to stop thinking and just look at the cute eyes of the carbuncle and say, "oooo it loves me <3".


Second look:

Supposed your carbuncle is rubbing on your feet and you feel that it loves you and that you love it. Now, suppose you go online and found a picture of a carbuncle rubbing on the feet of another player. Suddenly the you feel that your carbuncle has cheated on you, that it is just a mindless slut. The puppet concept hits hard. How do you go about countering this effect? How do you retain the notion of intimacy and uniqueness of the emotional bond?

Customizable Carbuncles? Variations of means of expressing affection?

A method to make the elements unique is to allow them to differentiate and interact among themselves. For example,

The player connects online to a database of carbuncles, and can form a relationship to a carbuncle. The carbuncles themselves interact with one another, and are also free to make friends, and attain different roles. So now each carbuncle with have a dynamically differentiated history, role, and personality.

This does not defeat the puppet concept.