|
There is a genre that I really can't stand playing, not because the games are dead boring or of generally bad quality, but because they feel too real to me as a player. It's the horror game genre with games such as the classic Resident Evils and Silent Hills. I mean those games apparently are amazing masterpieces, from what I hear, but I never can get my nerves together for long enough to finish one of them. In fact, I usually quit the game after the second scary moment in a game. In Silent Hill 2 I stopped the game before even getting to the town. That whole eerie fog and the sounds scared the living hell out of me. Funny though that I find most of the supposedly scary horror movies (Grudge, Ring, both jap. versions and etc) really just entertaining, and not that scary at all. I can't help but laugh out loud sometimes even when a particular cheap trick is used in a particular cheap way. So...what is it with those freaking games?
I think it's obvious. First of all, I play the protagonist, that means that I personally am Jill Valentine, Harry Mason and etc. When those screeching sounds coming from that dark corner, it is really giving me the creeps. When a freaking 4 legged monster frantically moves toward James Sunderland, it is me who panics and is feeling helpless swinging around a piece of wood with a nail on it. Horror games have in my opinion found a perfect way of connecting the protagonist with the player, really making the player a part of the fiction, creating a real sense of experience. It is my adrenaline shooting up, it is me feeling unwell inside, not just the character I'm controlling. I don't have to root for the hero, because I wouldn't have to make a conscious decision in life to root for myself either. It's that strong a connection.
Which brings me to other games that have weaker connections. Those would be in my opinion pretty much all RPG's, Adventures and Action games. Designers often have a real hard piece of work to create that connection. RPG's kind of try to sidestep the issue by letting you choose how you play and how you develop the character. FPS's often don't even require much of a personality for the protagonist, because you're not looking at him/her most of the time anyhow. Half-Life for example makes a point of breaking that illusion (you are Gordon Freeman) as little as possible, by not including cut-scenes, there being hardly any mirrors at all and everybody looking at you when they talk, and Freeman himself never speaking a single line of dialog.
More interesting are Adventure games and 3rd person action games. Everybody knows that Monkey Island has a lovable protagonist in Guybrush, just because he's such a likable and funny anti-hero, and yes, identifiable for a broad range of gamers (but not all). And he better damn well be, because in those story heavy sort of games, if the player doesn't even really like the hero, then there's no incentive to play at all (except for puzzle enthusiasts maybe).

Same goes for games like Tomb Raider, Batman Arkham Asylum, Mafia 2 etc, but to a lesser degree. Those games are more action intense, meaning that you will have bad guys attacking you, so it is a natural thing to fight back and not ask yourself first "Well...do I really want Lara to succeed?". Those games still have you watch cut-scenes to show you more of the protagonist and their personality. So it's a bit 50 - 50 here. Even if I don't really like Solid Snake, that doesn't really matter when shooting/strangling/blowing up bad guys. I can still have good fun.
What I'm really getting at is that horror games are a special case that has an advantage over other genres. They speak to very basic human emotions: fear, confusion, panic or loneliness. Everybody knows those feelings and in the gameplay mechanics of killing stuff and running around creepy empty places those emotions can be evoked really effectively. Many other games have the main character go through much more complex feelings (not to say that horror games don't feature deeper emotions for their characters), such as shame and revengefulness. It is a lot harder to communicate these emotions to the player. Most of the time these things are only shown. We only watch Kerrigan getting abandoned. If we can feel compassion for her (for that reason she is pictured as an attractive woman), we can root for her or at least understand why she's so pissed off. But we don't really feel revengeful ourselves.
What this wonderful medium of games allows us to experience is not just the ability to act and change the outcome of events, but also to feel emotions tied to our own actions and things done to us as a direct consequence. Think about this: if you get beat by another player in SC2 in a particular humiliating way, you will likely feel real anger, real frustration and a real desire to get your revenge. (Maybe not as strongly as the guy below playing Halo is angry with his team mates)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Af4zxwrvM
It isn't even really about the fact that your opponent is a human and not an AI. If it was an AI, we'd still feel those emotions. Having a human being to be frustrated with makes it only more personal. We actually feel so pissed off because we simply screwed up. Our actions led to a horrible defeat and that's why the defeat tastes all the bitterer.
What game designers need to figure out to really engage a player and create that connect isn't really about creating protagonists with amazing personalities. Gordon Freeman could be a walking piece of wood for all I care. Gameplay should feature direct consequence for the huge array of interaction we have in real life that therefore must also be featured. No more cut-scenes. No more walls of text that tell us how XYZ feels about this situation. That's the reason why Warren Spector's motto "Playstyle Matters" is so darn important to understand if the medium is to advance and to take full advantage of interactivity.
My personal view is that in order to make that move forward, breakthroughs in AI technology must be made, as well as in Input technology. Maybe the Wii and Kinect are the right steps forward in that direction, and not just the entry door for new casual gamers.
|
My personal view is that in order to make that move forward, breakthroughs in AI technology must be made, as well as in Input technology."
I find it interesting that that was your takeaway from Spector's talks since, from what I've read of his views, it seems to me he doesn't believe that a purely tech focus is what the industry needs to push the boundaries. I always felt that what he was getting at was more about understanding your audience, understanding your goals in your particular game, and then understanding the way your audience will approach your game and then building to support those approaches (playstyles). I'm not saying you're wrong of course. The contrast in conclusions just struck me as interesting.
Given that, I disagree slightly with this statement:
"No more cut-scenes. No more walls of text that tell us how XYZ feels about this situation."
Cut-scenes and extensive dialogue are appropriate in certain games. Why? Because certain audiences enjoy them. That is a playstyle they enjoy. Is it appropriate or necessary everywhere? Absolutely not. But the industry should attempt to create content for each audience, rather than excluding certain approaches entirely. Identify your audience, identify their playstyle, and cater to them. Don't limit the industry, expand it.
Interesting observations though. Thanks for sharing. Seems several people here were thinking about the survival horror genre recently and comparing/contrasting their opinions and reactions has been fun.
I actually enjoy cut scenes. I really liked most of MGS' cut scenes, or more recently, Mafia 2's. I have no problem reading walls of text, if they're written well. What I mean though is that for me to truly feel in place of a character in a game, it's all about the question "What does the game's game play cause me to feel, rather than tell me what the character feels?". When I mess up in GTA and the police arrests me, it feels like I messed up, not the game's protagonist. But when Scaletta in Mafia 2 goes to prison and shows a very good and epic cut scene how he gets to prison, then I'm just watching it happen, not feeling at all like I messed up, but just "Oh well, I suppose Scaletta is thinking now about what he did wrong".
My takeaway from Spector's motto and having played Deus Ex, for example, is that his idea of interactivity is that the player is free to solve a problem the way they want, and deal with the consequences. When sneaking around in Deus Ex as opposed to shooting my way through, it feels more like I'm a sneaky guy, not JC Denton. Therefore any consequences of my choice to sneak are directly addressed to me and it gets more personal.
Creating quality content for the player is very important, no doubt, but curiously, often the most awesome, memorable experiences in games don't come from hand made content but from doing something unusual and getting a great response from the game, that the designer didn't anticipate, which was caused for example by AI, or physics.
I believe what I'm talking about is still very far off, and trying to create content to support such vast interactivity in a game would take years and still not be truly there. So that's why I'm calling for a push in the purely tech department, so that designers can have a bigger spectrum of things to work with and utilize those techs in cool new ways. Havoc physics engine for example demonstrated it with game physics.
The blog post http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AlexBelzer/20100907/5912/Sex_Lies_and_Vide ogames.
php
explores a different idea though, and I'm thinking that this could well be a more "authored" way of embracing interactivity in a profound way
I also enjoyed that blogpost and the 1 by Kimberly Unger as well. As I mentioned, it seems a lot of people had the Silent Hill series on their minds recently