Quote:Original post by Estok
This is correct. The posts about characters and the use of music were correct, but those are what we already know and can readily borrow from other medium. Interactivity (gameplay) is what unique pertaining to games.

I've been thinking recently about how a game can combine the game rules (ie. monster health / vulnerabilities), with character and level design to "slide" between a range of emotional responses. Ie. If you are being chased by a tough monster that you cannot defeat it will be more panicky (Haunting Ground?) whereas monsters with few hit points will generally be less worrying. Unless they are in large numbers (imagine sneaking through a Zerg lair!), or if the character is low on health / particularly vulnerable to certain attacks. Likewise if the player has lots of armor and powerful weapons they will feel more secure and powerful. Of course they don't know how long this superiority will last. And for positive feelings a game could build on AI teamwork, frequent bonuses (the fruit in Pacman), Building up the player's 'stats' (Zelda gaining bonus hearts on winning. Camararderie etc.

edit:You may have noticed at least from my examples that the emotions via "gameplay" tend to focus more on the actual player and their unit. Can we expand these psychological factors so that they encourage bonding with NPC characters and get the player to feel good bad, empathy / sympathy / understanding / camararderie / affection / suspicion / trust / distrust towards them and are affected when something happens to the NPCs?

Another thought is that instead of using characters (ie. human or alien, or animal) I wonder what can be done if we design LEVELS (ie. places and worlds and countries) so that the player feels the same sort of link to them as they do to people. Have you ever noticed that some game worlds almost become characters in their own right? Consider coming to the safety of the farm from nighttime in Hyrule field in Zelda:Ocarina of Time... where the gameplay (few monsters) and the homely atmosphere combine to make a welcoming place vs. the run down bits in say, Grand Theft Auto. Different levels can deliberately reflect different attitudes and values, ie. between livning in a stable democracy and an oppressive dictatorship. (Obviously this has been done before, but I think it is still a worthwhile observation).

One last observation for the moment:
http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=20031010040723368

Quote:
The short argument in favor of the idea is: Games are rule-based--call them algorithmic. In a sense a game is pure thought because rules are pure thought. You don't need emotion in a game to make it work. Things that we call games, like foreign policy and dating, have a lot of emotional content. But they are not games in any sense close to what we mean by "game" when we use the term "video game". Chess is a game in the purest sense, and happens to stand-in as a metaphor for all cerebral activity. That doesn't seem to be an accident.

This rational, ideational nature of games is unique. There is no expressive medium I can think of so naturally devoid of feeling, a medium that can exist so easily without it.

I'm wondering if it would help to add more shades of grey to games, ie. an emotional stimulus doesn't always produce the exact same result in the different simulated characters. Ie. If someone slaps someone then they might get angry, or they might run off crying, or they might simmer with anger and plan a sneaky revenge. If they do it twice then they might get a more angry reaction. There are still rules, but they are less obviously rules and become more realistic. It creates the illusion that it isn't just if a then b, but becomes if a then a, b,c,d, or e.

[Edited by - Ketchaval on May 17, 2005 7:53:57 PM]

Scaring the player using gameplay

This is not about making the player believe that the character is afraid, but scaring the player directly through gameplay. It is not difficult to scare the player with various means through cinematics and context. The topic here is how fear can also be delivered through the channel of gameplay.

When was the last time you click on the menu, and you see an option (or the abscence of an option) that makes your heart stop beating? A principle behind the induction of fear is to place the player out of the comfort zone. In terms of gameplay, this could correspond to:

1) introducing area with threats that cannot be overcome (what you said)
2) denying the player's knowledge or usage of past experience for the current situation
3) introducing gamerules that had gone very wrong with respect to the context

The objective is not to make the game harder, but to scare the player.



Yes you can expand the psychological factors to encourage bonding with NPC. This goes back to the discussion about character development.

Quote:One last observation for the moment:
http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=20031010040723368

Quote:The short argument in favor of the idea is: Games are rule-based--call them algorithmic. In a sense a game is pure thought because rules are pure thought. You don't need emotion in a game to make it work. Things that we call games, like foreign policy and dating, have a lot of emotional content. But they are not games in any sense close to what we mean by "game" when we use the term "video game". Chess is a game in the purest sense, and happens to stand-in as a metaphor for all cerebral activity. That doesn't seem to be an accident.

This rational, ideational nature of games is unique. There is no expressive medium I can think of so naturally devoid of feeling, a medium that can exist so easily without it.

The author is incorrect. There are different kinds of rules. Not all rules are related to strategy. That the very simple game of tag. The rule that, "The one being tagged must tag the other player", is a direct implementation of fear through dominance. Now take the game of hide-and-seek. Similar rules, but you know that you are afrad (or excited) when the seeker is right outside the cabinent you are hidding. In both situations, fear is induced by complete dominance introduced by the game rule, where the state of the player is discrete.

Quote:I'm wondering if it would help to add more shades of grey to games, ie. an emotional stimulus doesn't always produce the exact same result in the different simulated characters. Ie. If someone slaps someone then they might get angry, or they might run off crying, or they might simmer with anger and plan a sneaky revenge. If they do it twice then they might get a more angry reaction. There are still rules, but they are less obviously rules and become more realistic. It creates the illusion that it isn't just if a then b, but becomes if a then a, b,c,d, or e.

There is a difference between what you consider as rules and what I have been refering to. "Delivering emotion through game rules" is not the same as "Designing the rules that govern the emotional behaviors of the NPCs". With respect to shades of grey, it is in general expected that NPCs with different personalities will have different reactions to the same stimuli.

Quote:Original post by Estok
Scaring the player using gameplay

Yes you can expand the psychological factors to encourage bonding with NPC. This goes back to the discussion about character development.

Any ideas on how to use gameplay to (attempt to) strengthen an emotional bond between the player and another character. So that they are pleased when something good happens to the other character, and are upset / worried / concerned when something bad happens to them.

Are games too much of a narcissistic medium?
Warren Spector says
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/596/596223p1.html

Quote:
Warren Spector said that there were a couple of major elements that stories bring about. The first is genuine human interaction. He admits that the game industry has made great strides with making more believable characters, but that they're still 'cardboard cutouts' compared to what's available in other media. He also thinks that empathy is a key element of storytelling. "I want to feel what they're feeling," he says. He suggests that maybe we don't feel more for videogame characters because it's such a "narcissistic medium," where the players see every NPC as an obstacle.

Some thoughts on ways to encourage a bond between the player and another character through gameplay (and tiny tiny cutscenes). character design.

1. Character design and motivations.

-Is the character working towards the same goal as the player? If they are working against their intentions then the player should be less likely to bond with them.
-Is the character good / trustworthy? Will they stab the player in the back when they have got what they want?


2. Gameplay
- Common goal: are they working towards the same goal? Ico needed both the player and the NPC to survive because they could only escape as a team. This doesn't allow us to kill them off or maim them though, so if this happens then the player knows it wasn't meant to happen.
- Help each other out, if the other character can save your butt on different occasions then this could help promote a bond.

... Umm? Cant' think of much else at the moment.


3. I've only touched upon combat oriented games so far.

Re: Creating emotional bonds between PC and NPC

Why is it easier for an audience to feel connected to a character in a movie than to an NPC in a game? It is because in a movie, the audience is focusing on the emotional value and meaning of the characters, while in a game, the audience is most likely to focus on their utility. In a game, the player is more likely to see NPCs as pawns.

Therefore, the logical solution is to destroy this association.

Through gameplay:
The follow is in the context of a combat RPC where the PC selects and group with a group of NPCs.


1) Dampen the initial strategic value of a character, allow the character's ability to develop, and differentiate as a complement through time

2) Destroy the relation between the NPC and the different game goal. Let the PC pick NPC and goal independently, where any combination of selected NPC is capable of achieving the desired goal.

3) Destroy the relation between performance and emotional state of an NPC. i.e. if the PC is trying to make an NPC happy, the PC is not doing it to get a state bonus, but to shape the story and dynamic a certain way. No bribing.

4) Promote emotional and meaningful plot elements that provide no bonus to combat.


Comments on your method:

- Character working toward the same goal is not required for creating an emotional bond. In fact, conflicts (emotional and visional) promotes the presentation of the characters.

- Character are also not required to be good or trustworthy. These are tangent to the issue.



"Are games too much of a narcissistic medium?"

No, this is cause by players seeing games not as a medium, but as an channel for self-expression for them to entertain themselves. There is nothing wrong with the medium. It is the receivers being narcissistic.

For me, the biggest thing that disconnected me emotionally from Warcraft 3 and the Frozen Throne was the Really Bad DialogTM. The storyline was just one big cliche, which is never a good thing. Contrast this with Starcraft and Brood War, which I found much more realistic. The characters had more depth, more history, and most importantly there was a distinction between the races and their conduct both with each other, and with aliens.

In War3, it was clearly obvious that Arthas changed physically when he picked up the runeblade. But he didn't change emotionally - even once he turned Undead he was the same old annoying character that he was when he was human. Except he had a shaky voice. When Kerrigan went through her transformation from Human Ghost to Zerg Queen, her entire mentality changed. She was no longer the peppy, task-orientated Human - instead, she became a cunning, deceitful ruler who excelled at bending her enemies to do her bidding. This along with the very intriguing plot twists made SC my personal choice for best game ever.

There was considerable dialog in Starcraft. Perhaps much better voice acting also played a part - the children in War3 still bring back nightmares. But then again, you can have all the talk you want and it still won't evoke any emotion unless it is creative, unique, and literary.

Quote:Original post by Estok
Re: Creating emotional bonds between PC and NPC. Removing link between meaning of characters / their emotional state and their utility.

emotional value and meaning of the characters, while in a game, the audience is most likely to focus on their utility. In a game, the player is more likely to see NPCs as pawns.

Therefore, the logical solution is to destroy this association.

3) Destroy the relation between performance and emotional state of an NPC. i.e. if the PC is trying to make an NPC happy, the PC is not doing it to get a state bonus, but to shape the story and dynamic a certain way. No bribing
No, this is cause by players seeing games not as a medium, but as an channel for self-expression for them to entertain themselves. There is nothing wrong with the medium. It is the receivers being narcissistic.

Hmmm, an example comes to mind here, that of a new version of Ico (where you save a fragile young girl from a castle and many people see the bond as tender). It would be possible to, remake such a game where it is up to the player and how they approach it to decide how the Player's Character unit (PC) acts towards the NPC. A horrible example given the sweet nature of the game. But I can see that it could be made so that the player could take a range of emotional responses - and correspondingly actions towards the character.

Ie. They can be caring and tender like they are in the game now. Or the player can be less caring mean and just drag Yorda along because she is the only way the player can escape the castle. So you could have a range of "player attitudes ie. Caring - pragmatic - cold.And you would get different body language from Yorda to reflect her treatment.

Maybe depending on the way you treat her, you would get a different ending?


Another thought is that of how the NPC and the PC interact on a strategic level. If the NPC picks up a health pack is the player disadvantaged?

[Edited by - Ketchaval on May 19, 2005 2:43:53 AM]

Lately i have been thinking about working on an adventure game. Always love the old point and click lucas arts games. But instead of the normal i have to complete a mission sty make it more about growing a character. The game starts as your walking home after finishing work 2 hours early to find the woman you are totaly in love with cheating on you. depending on the choices you make you can turn into an evil mentally fucked up phyco or try and turn things around. The idea kinda brings together the sims and the classic point and click adventure. You have to set your self goals based on things you see or characters you talk to. the goals can be evil or of good nature and help grow your character. basically the end of the life cycle is reached when your character reaches true happiness or dives into a homcidal rage and looses the plot and goes on a rampage.

apriciate and comments good and even more the bad
ps also think larry :)

Quote:Original post by Estok
"Are games too much of a narcissistic medium?"

No, this is cause by players seeing games not as a medium, but as an channel for self-expression for them to entertain themselves. There is nothing wrong with the medium. It is the receivers being narcissistic.

I believe that it is possible to make games where the player is concerned about several different characters (independently of the controllable characters). I've been playing Shadow of Destiny (a time-travel themed adventure game). And I've been interested in the other characters and wonder what happens to them.

I can envisage a mission-based game where you get short (several seconds 1 min long we don't want to be Hideo Kojima) cut-scenes and debriefings which show how your actions have affected several different main characters. For example as you sneak through the prison camp, you could get a quick cut to a facial close up of someone back in their bunk cheering you on. Ie. And at the end of the level you see how your attempt to escape from a POW camp affects the other characters who have their privileges reduced, are they upset, do they secretly support you? So throughout it you get updates on the other characters.

(There have been games which put more emphasis on other characters RPGs like Final Fantasy for example, but these tend to be confined to kill the foozle things. Likewise there are dating games but I can't comment on these since I haven't played any.)

As it stands many games come down to being a case of "I'm all right Jack, so who cares about you!". I reckon these types of techniques (used in conjunction with many of the other ideas about writing and characters in this thread) could help to make games more character driven and less selfish / narcissistic.