The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The playstation 2's CPU is nicknamed the emotion engine, because, as the hype suggested, it would be able to produce scenarios so realistic, emotions could be created, and here we are two years after the uk release and theres still no sign of emotion in games, not just on the PS2, but the X Box, Gamecube and PC too. So why hasn't this critical component of a good narrative successfully been recreated yet?
The question seems more hypothetical than anything, as to think of it I honestly can't answer it, even supposedly heartbreaking moments in games just dont have that feeling, the feeling that gets you in the throat and chokes you until your eyes weep - lets take for example the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7, to break down and analyse the scene, it does contain every prerequisite for the scene to get to you, suitably sad musical score, unexpected and tragic exit of a character that youve spent hours of your life getting to know, a heartbroken hero, and a suitably spectacular farewell - and yet the tears do not well up in your eyes. It just doesnt get to you.
Is it a problem of pacing? Did we get to know the intricicies of the character over a suitably lengthy period of time, or did they die on the first level - well, in my example, you would have spend a dozen hours or so getting to know Aeris, and more information about her unfolded as you progressed, character development was top notch, but when she died, I just didn't care.
That may sound harsh, but I honestly couldn't give a toss about losing Aeris, its not that Im a stoic unemotional individual, loads of films and TV shows have managed to bring a tear to my eye, from The Green Mile, to ER, to Ally Mcbeal, to Buffy, all have managed to get me wiping the tears away, and yet not a single game has ever done this.
Prehaps the problem comes from the core concept of the game - interactivity, after all movies and TV shows take you on a journey, that you have no control over, that you can get lost in. A game however, allows you to forge your own path, do what you want and have events unfold how you want to, so maybe consequences in games dont affect you as much - but, in theory shouldn't the loss of control at certain events, when a key story moment occurs, where the whole scope of the game is altered, shouldn't the drastic loss of control affect you more?
The only other possible explanations are that either the graphics aren't realistic enough for us to take them seriously and consider them as fully fledged three dimentional characters (but the fact that cartoons such as the Lion King can evoke a great spectrum of emotion despite being a cartoon and therefore even less realistic than a PS2, X Box, or Gamecube games character kind of offsets this theory), or that the games developers simply aren't that good at making their games cinematic and emotionally touching, and given the quality of the Final Fantasy movie, directed by one of its key developers may support this argument, but you would imagine that given the quality of the rest of the game, no developer would allow such a weak link in the chain, so just where does the problem lie?
So while games such as resident evil can make us jump, and our heart race soar to dangerously high levels, and games such as Crazy Taxi can make our eyes open wide and make us roar with laughter, why cant a game be personal, and make us sad? This question I pose to you all, and who knows, maybe one day, playing Final Fantasy XXVI on my Playstation 12, a tear will roll down my cheek and the problem will have been solved.
The question seems more hypothetical than anything, as to think of it I honestly can't answer it, even supposedly heartbreaking moments in games just dont have that feeling, the feeling that gets you in the throat and chokes you until your eyes weep - lets take for example the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7, to break down and analyse the scene, it does contain every prerequisite for the scene to get to you, suitably sad musical score, unexpected and tragic exit of a character that youve spent hours of your life getting to know, a heartbroken hero, and a suitably spectacular farewell - and yet the tears do not well up in your eyes. It just doesnt get to you.
Is it a problem of pacing? Did we get to know the intricicies of the character over a suitably lengthy period of time, or did they die on the first level - well, in my example, you would have spend a dozen hours or so getting to know Aeris, and more information about her unfolded as you progressed, character development was top notch, but when she died, I just didn't care.
That may sound harsh, but I honestly couldn't give a toss about losing Aeris, its not that Im a stoic unemotional individual, loads of films and TV shows have managed to bring a tear to my eye, from The Green Mile, to ER, to Ally Mcbeal, to Buffy, all have managed to get me wiping the tears away, and yet not a single game has ever done this.
Prehaps the problem comes from the core concept of the game - interactivity, after all movies and TV shows take you on a journey, that you have no control over, that you can get lost in. A game however, allows you to forge your own path, do what you want and have events unfold how you want to, so maybe consequences in games dont affect you as much - but, in theory shouldn't the loss of control at certain events, when a key story moment occurs, where the whole scope of the game is altered, shouldn't the drastic loss of control affect you more?
The only other possible explanations are that either the graphics aren't realistic enough for us to take them seriously and consider them as fully fledged three dimentional characters (but the fact that cartoons such as the Lion King can evoke a great spectrum of emotion despite being a cartoon and therefore even less realistic than a PS2, X Box, or Gamecube games character kind of offsets this theory), or that the games developers simply aren't that good at making their games cinematic and emotionally touching, and given the quality of the Final Fantasy movie, directed by one of its key developers may support this argument, but you would imagine that given the quality of the rest of the game, no developer would allow such a weak link in the chain, so just where does the problem lie?
So while games such as resident evil can make us jump, and our heart race soar to dangerously high levels, and games such as Crazy Taxi can make our eyes open wide and make us roar with laughter, why cant a game be personal, and make us sad? This question I pose to you all, and who knows, maybe one day, playing Final Fantasy XXVI on my Playstation 12, a tear will roll down my cheek and the problem will have been solved.
I have to disagree with you about the emotional content of games. Excitement (Wipeout) and frustration (Monkey Ball) are two emotions that are regularly stimulated by my gaming. Not to mention trepidation (Resi Evi), wonder (final fantasy), satisfaction (most good games) and disappointment (most bad games).
However, I agree with your point that the interactivity of gaming makes emotional connections with the characters more difficult. Following your example of Aeris, I think that the problem is that although one spends many hours of playing with Aeris as a member of the party, you never really care about her (or any of the other characters), as you're focussing on the game as a game, not as a narrative. Books and film are 100% narrative, whereas the proportion of even a narrative-heavy game like the Final Fantasies is much, much lower, with the emphasis firmly on gameplay. Otherwise you end up with more 'interactive movies' (CD-i anyone?)
I think that precisely because you're taking control of a character in a game, you lose the empathy with the character - it becomes you, rather than you 'feeling for the character'. Personally, I found Aeris' death one of the most emotional moments in gaming, but still, far far removed from the depth of emotion that a well-made film can generate.
Perhaps the start of fully voiced and cut-scene'd narrative sections, as we saw in Final Fantasy 10 will make the emotional connection easier and stronger - it certainly made the narrative element of the game far more enjoyable for me, as the game more closely approximates cinema.
However, I agree with your point that the interactivity of gaming makes emotional connections with the characters more difficult. Following your example of Aeris, I think that the problem is that although one spends many hours of playing with Aeris as a member of the party, you never really care about her (or any of the other characters), as you're focussing on the game as a game, not as a narrative. Books and film are 100% narrative, whereas the proportion of even a narrative-heavy game like the Final Fantasies is much, much lower, with the emphasis firmly on gameplay. Otherwise you end up with more 'interactive movies' (CD-i anyone?)
I think that precisely because you're taking control of a character in a game, you lose the empathy with the character - it becomes you, rather than you 'feeling for the character'. Personally, I found Aeris' death one of the most emotional moments in gaming, but still, far far removed from the depth of emotion that a well-made film can generate.
Perhaps the start of fully voiced and cut-scene'd narrative sections, as we saw in Final Fantasy 10 will make the emotional connection easier and stronger - it certainly made the narrative element of the game far more enjoyable for me, as the game more closely approximates cinema.
genesisofthesith wrote:
> ElfMan wrote:
> Its hard for gaming companies who make
> games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
>
> A valid point, but shouldn't a story, whatever medium it is finally
> presented in be of a similarly high standard, a good story is a good
> story, and a bad story is a bad story however its presented, and if
> games companies dont employ story writers with proficient enough
> skills shouldn't they hire some who are?
Sure thing, but gamnig companies have to work of there resouces, and i know few games (excluding clive barkers undying) that have decent script/plot authors. They have enough problems finding decent graphics engines. Although planescape torments plot writer was a novel writing genious, and i think his plot should be an independant book, but i have no control over the world, not yet, but soon.
> ElfMan wrote:
> Its hard for gaming companies who make
> games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
>
> A valid point, but shouldn't a story, whatever medium it is finally
> presented in be of a similarly high standard, a good story is a good
> story, and a bad story is a bad story however its presented, and if
> games companies dont employ story writers with proficient enough
> skills shouldn't they hire some who are?
Sure thing, but gamnig companies have to work of there resouces, and i know few games (excluding clive barkers undying) that have decent script/plot authors. They have enough problems finding decent graphics engines. Although planescape torments plot writer was a novel writing genious, and i think his plot should be an independant book, but i have no control over the world, not yet, but soon.
ElfMan wrote:
Its hard for gaming companies who make
games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
A valid point, but shouldn't a story, whatever medium it is finally presented in be of a similarly high standard, a good story is a good story, and a bad story is a bad story however its presented, and if games companies dont employ story writers with proficient enough skills shouldn't they hire some who are?
Its hard for gaming companies who make
games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
A valid point, but shouldn't a story, whatever medium it is finally presented in be of a similarly high standard, a good story is a good story, and a bad story is a bad story however its presented, and if games companies dont employ story writers with proficient enough skills shouldn't they hire some who are?
Emotions in the eye of the beholder. There are many people that find games very emtional, I find the final fantasy *here i go again* romance scenes preety relastic for games, and Doom *ahhhhh doom* plus Alien Versus Predator 2 does scare me at times, or at least send me heart racing up my poorly wallpapered wall.
Althought its hard to figure out emotions in some games i mean, what would a 10 foot ogre feel? Its hard for gaming companies who make games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
Althought its hard to figure out emotions in some games i mean, what would a 10 foot ogre feel? Its hard for gaming companies who make games, not write novels, to come up with convincing emotions.
I think there are some fair points here, it's hard to truly beleive what you see on screen.
Final Fantasy 10's facial system was a very good way of showing emotions - Tidus was confused, angry, upset, happy, sort of unhappy but looking happy - and all of which were easy to recognise. When Aeris shows no emotion, having a small face and no mouth can't help that much :-)
Final Fantasy 10's facial system was a very good way of showing emotions - Tidus was confused, angry, upset, happy, sort of unhappy but looking happy - and all of which were easy to recognise. When Aeris shows no emotion, having a small face and no mouth can't help that much :-)
The playstation 2's CPU is nicknamed the emotion engine, because, as the hype suggested, it would be able to produce scenarios so realistic, emotions could be created, and here we are two years after the uk release and theres still no sign of emotion in games, not just on the PS2, but the X Box, Gamecube and PC too. So why hasn't this critical component of a good narrative successfully been recreated yet?
The question seems more hypothetical than anything, as to think of it I honestly can't answer it, even supposedly heartbreaking moments in games just dont have that feeling, the feeling that gets you in the throat and chokes you until your eyes weep - lets take for example the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7, to break down and analyse the scene, it does contain every prerequisite for the scene to get to you, suitably sad musical score, unexpected and tragic exit of a character that youve spent hours of your life getting to know, a heartbroken hero, and a suitably spectacular farewell - and yet the tears do not well up in your eyes. It just doesnt get to you.
Is it a problem of pacing? Did we get to know the intricicies of the character over a suitably lengthy period of time, or did they die on the first level - well, in my example, you would have spend a dozen hours or so getting to know Aeris, and more information about her unfolded as you progressed, character development was top notch, but when she died, I just didn't care.
That may sound harsh, but I honestly couldn't give a toss about losing Aeris, its not that Im a stoic unemotional individual, loads of films and TV shows have managed to bring a tear to my eye, from The Green Mile, to ER, to Ally Mcbeal, to Buffy, all have managed to get me wiping the tears away, and yet not a single game has ever done this.
Prehaps the problem comes from the core concept of the game - interactivity, after all movies and TV shows take you on a journey, that you have no control over, that you can get lost in. A game however, allows you to forge your own path, do what you want and have events unfold how you want to, so maybe consequences in games dont affect you as much - but, in theory shouldn't the loss of control at certain events, when a key story moment occurs, where the whole scope of the game is altered, shouldn't the drastic loss of control affect you more?
The only other possible explanations are that either the graphics aren't realistic enough for us to take them seriously and consider them as fully fledged three dimentional characters (but the fact that cartoons such as the Lion King can evoke a great spectrum of emotion despite being a cartoon and therefore even less realistic than a PS2, X Box, or Gamecube games character kind of offsets this theory), or that the games developers simply aren't that good at making their games cinematic and emotionally touching, and given the quality of the Final Fantasy movie, directed by one of its key developers may support this argument, but you would imagine that given the quality of the rest of the game, no developer would allow such a weak link in the chain, so just where does the problem lie?
So while games such as resident evil can make us jump, and our heart race soar to dangerously high levels, and games such as Crazy Taxi can make our eyes open wide and make us roar with laughter, why cant a game be personal, and make us sad? This question I pose to you all, and who knows, maybe one day, playing Final Fantasy XXVI on my Playstation 12, a tear will roll down my cheek and the problem will have been solved.
The question seems more hypothetical than anything, as to think of it I honestly can't answer it, even supposedly heartbreaking moments in games just dont have that feeling, the feeling that gets you in the throat and chokes you until your eyes weep - lets take for example the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7, to break down and analyse the scene, it does contain every prerequisite for the scene to get to you, suitably sad musical score, unexpected and tragic exit of a character that youve spent hours of your life getting to know, a heartbroken hero, and a suitably spectacular farewell - and yet the tears do not well up in your eyes. It just doesnt get to you.
Is it a problem of pacing? Did we get to know the intricicies of the character over a suitably lengthy period of time, or did they die on the first level - well, in my example, you would have spend a dozen hours or so getting to know Aeris, and more information about her unfolded as you progressed, character development was top notch, but when she died, I just didn't care.
That may sound harsh, but I honestly couldn't give a toss about losing Aeris, its not that Im a stoic unemotional individual, loads of films and TV shows have managed to bring a tear to my eye, from The Green Mile, to ER, to Ally Mcbeal, to Buffy, all have managed to get me wiping the tears away, and yet not a single game has ever done this.
Prehaps the problem comes from the core concept of the game - interactivity, after all movies and TV shows take you on a journey, that you have no control over, that you can get lost in. A game however, allows you to forge your own path, do what you want and have events unfold how you want to, so maybe consequences in games dont affect you as much - but, in theory shouldn't the loss of control at certain events, when a key story moment occurs, where the whole scope of the game is altered, shouldn't the drastic loss of control affect you more?
The only other possible explanations are that either the graphics aren't realistic enough for us to take them seriously and consider them as fully fledged three dimentional characters (but the fact that cartoons such as the Lion King can evoke a great spectrum of emotion despite being a cartoon and therefore even less realistic than a PS2, X Box, or Gamecube games character kind of offsets this theory), or that the games developers simply aren't that good at making their games cinematic and emotionally touching, and given the quality of the Final Fantasy movie, directed by one of its key developers may support this argument, but you would imagine that given the quality of the rest of the game, no developer would allow such a weak link in the chain, so just where does the problem lie?
So while games such as resident evil can make us jump, and our heart race soar to dangerously high levels, and games such as Crazy Taxi can make our eyes open wide and make us roar with laughter, why cant a game be personal, and make us sad? This question I pose to you all, and who knows, maybe one day, playing Final Fantasy XXVI on my Playstation 12, a tear will roll down my cheek and the problem will have been solved.