Games Can Make Us Cry 170
A study by Bowen Research is getting some commentary in the gaming press, with their analysis being that "More than two thirds of all video gamers feel that video games already surpass, or will soon at least equal movies, music and books in delivering an emotional impact." The Guardian Gamesblog has a look at the research. From the article: "Of course it could be argued that RPGs simply attract more emotionally unstable gamers, and that if these same players were forced to try Microsoft Flight Simulator, they'd cry like babies when their Cessna crashed into a pylon during a failed runway approach. Sadly, Bowen does not appear to explore this possibility."
Neverwinter nights experience . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
The key is for developers to tap into those strong emotions, telling a story that involves the player, encouraging them to invest a portion of their emotions into the game.
Players will walk through a swamp for gold and fight an army for vengeance, but they'll walk to the ends of Hell for love.
When I killed that demon-spawn.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh, games better than movies - maybe...if your talking about the latest summer blockbuster schlock. Books, no way.
Books are victorious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll also admit, I've almost come to tears once or twice while playing a game where a primary character dies off unexpectedly or unfairly.
Yet, when it comes down to it, I can feel part of a well-written book over a game any day. The ability to completely use my imagination removes the last facest of alienation experienced when playing a game or watching a movie... Books definitely produce the largest emotional responses for me. Whereas some games are possibly better than movies, no game is as good as a well written book.
Unstable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it could be argued that RPGs simply attract more emotionally unstable gamers, and that if these same players were forced to try Microsoft Flight Simulator, they'd cry like babies when their Cessna crashed into a pylon during a failed runway approach. Sadly, Bowen does not appear to explore this possibility.
Couldn't it just be that RPGs have the most involved stories and that the people who play them pay attention to the story? Of course those who play story-intensive games will have a more emotional reaction to gaming than the person who plays only sports games and other story-light titles. The aim of a game is to entertain, and some us are entertained by a good story along with our button mashing.
Stories (Score:5, Insightful)
A simulated aircraft crashing at the runway doesn't have the same emotional charge without story: it is just an event in a sterile world. If on the other hand prior to takeoff we had cut-scenes showing a pilot, spouse and children boarding the plane to make a trip that was important to them, then the same crash in the same game environment might have more emotional impact. The more "connected" the player was to their story, the bigger the impact.
Other types of games can deliver story, sometimes simply through the environment (a burned out village, an isolated shoreline surrounded by jagged cliffs, etc). In some ways this is more effective for more interactive games because interactive environments tend to pull the player out of the emotional impact when the player can interact in ways unsuited to the emotion of the scene. Half life, for example: the scientists you meet throughout was a ground breaking "in game engine" way to experience the progression of the story. Assuming you listened, didn't shoot things while they talked, etc. RPGs tend to avoid that problem by literally tearing the control out of the users hands, although some more recent games have made good progress at interactive storytelling methods that don't feel so abrubt.
May I ask... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Guardian Gamesblog has a look at the research. From the article: "Of course it could be argued that RPGs simply attract more emotionally unstable gamers, and that if these same players were forced to try Microsoft Flight Simulator, they'd cry like babies when their Cessna crashed into a pylon during a failed runway approach. Sadly, Bowen does not appear to explore this possibility."
The story was fine on its own merits, this is simply to incite a reaction.
RPG's attract unstable gamers, eh? How any site such as "The Guardian Gamesblog" can make such insane statements is beyond me, and then to get placed in the same post as a well researched factual article boggles the mind.
When was the last time a flight simulator had enough storyline to make anyone care or become attached to a character or a plane? Never. Save maybe the Wing Commander series. *gasp* maybe it is the fact that RPG's are story driven, and can be very immersive and draw the player in very close. I defy anyone who played FF VII to have not been emotional when Aeris dies. Maybe not box-of-kleenex tear gusher, but evoking some emotional response.
This was simply not needed and detracts heavily from the real "news," a well researched and well written article.
Differences (Score:5, Insightful)
One theory is that games are almost always winnable by definition which doesn't accurately mimic reality, and this blunts an emotional response. There's no real question about the fate of the hero, they can eventually "win" one way or another. You're not going to get to the end of Super Mario and find the princess behind an impassable brick wall (this is a hack I've considered doing.)
My friend and I were discussing this, and he pointed out that early video games sometimes had movie-like scenarios but were not winnable. Take Robotron for example. Sure there are some maniacs who can play a long time, but for the most part, it just gets faster and there are more aliens and robots until you die. Personally, I did find the game subtly disturbing.
Part of all this may also be due to the fact that games tend to dwell more in the realm of craft rather than actual art. Videogame art is emerging, but there's not much exposure, or a middle ground between pure conceptual art and something that's actually fun to play. Perhaps Katamari Damacy is a step in that direction, since the importance of goals and challenges is diminished in that game. It becomes more of just an activity, a time where you exist in that world. Frankly, that's the game that's evoked the most emotion from me in recent times just because it's so beautiful visually, musically, and conceptually.
-paul
Re:Emotions from games? duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is true of a certain subset of games. Perhaps the largest subset, but still only a subset. I don't belive it's possible for a movie to get you as emotionaly invested in a characher as one of the better written RPGs.
With a movie character, you watch their world for 2 hours. With a game, you live in their world for 80+ hours. That can lead to some serious emotional attachment.
Re:Differences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May I ask... (Score:1, Insightful)
And one time is not too much.
The example of Aeris is a good one to benefit my argument. That is what I meant to say and how I should have worded it. Apologies to my vague wording and upon retrospect I see I worded it wrong.
"No innovation in well over 20 years does that to a genre."
Exactly... the death of a "sweet" character is such a standard and obvious death in a number of stories and for some reason I should overlook this? Hell, it worked for A Christmas Carol with Tiny Tim. Now what would have been interesting is if someone who had actual depth to them perished, or if in the continuation of a real series a main character you grow to love dies. But since the FF series just slaps new names on the same stereotypes over and over again, you never see this happen.
Phantasy Star did the death of a character best. The main character through nearly the entire series of the games gets killed midway through the game. This is a character you grew up with, played the game with through the entire series, and now... toast. Now there is a shock. That is not to say the depth was there (look how old the game series is and how poor game stories were at that time) so I can't argue that. But as far as I'm concerned that is something you don't see coming; something that affects the people who are a part of the series.
Aeris is in ONE game and is barely even in half of the game and you've experienced so little of her life, feelings, ideas... hell she barely even has much dialogue.
I like an RPG as much as the next guy, but I can't honestly see why people use this Aeris example so much. When she died, it didn't bother me at all for all of the above reasons I mentioned. Hell, Barrett dying would have been more dramatic since he's actually a likable guy that your main character seems to have a real connection with, not just some forced love-like scenes.
Re:Too many emotionally retarded gamers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because so far, a story in a game has not incited a revolution of philosophy or thought, nor has it created an enviroment where it is real enough to make you feel a connection to it.
The problem with the game is just that... it is a game. You have to play it. And a literary equivalent to an amazing story, great characters, and so forth generally means you have to sacrifice the gameplay to have add depth.
I'm really interested in the topic of "games as great additions to culture". You have to remember that they aren't that old, I mean even comic books had to take a while to get to where we are today (with deep, developed stories and characters that are more realistic/dynamic and less soap opera). So hopefully a developer will come along who can make something that will create a real, long lasting emotional attachment... but until then, we'll just have to keep playing games and see what happens.
Everyone can disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, the gaming world has yet to produce a truly classic story with really memorable, deep characters. They are excellent, on the other hand, at creating pop culture icons that give us catch phrases.
Re:Too many emotionally retarded gamers. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's incredibly rare that a book will do this either. Becoming more rare every day, in fact, because publishing is profit driven.
Everyone can disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, the gaming world has yet to produce a truly classic story with really memorable, deep characters. They are excellent, on the other hand, at creating pop culture icons that give us catch phrases.
I disagree with you on the most fundamental level. Unless, of course, you also think that modern literature has yet to produce a story that isn't a rehash of an ages old plot. The problem isn't that games can't be an intellectual work, it's that the signal to noise ratio is roughly the same when it comes to games as it is with every other form of expression, and there are more books published every week than there are games published all year.
Re:You can argue anything (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Aeris dying if FF7, well, I don't know how I would have reacted if that hadn't been spoiled for me long before I had any interest in playing the game, but earlier Final Fantasy games were so full of characters sacrificing themselves for each other that I probably wouldn't have been very surprised. I think losing the twins in FF4 was harder, personally.
Losing the twins could have been considered hard, but I think perhaps the weepiest Final Fantasy moment would be at the end of 10 with the fading away of those neat aeons and with then, the fading away/death of the main character Tidus. Very emotionally affecting, and made a friend of mine rather misty-eyed, and he didn't seem like the type to do that sort of thing. Kindof a tough guy.. on the surface. ;)