Science of Delusion
I absolutely despise the question 'can a game make you cry?' It's not only profoundly ignorant and disrespectful to every game creator who has developed storytelling in games over the last two decades, it's completely symptomatic of gaming's bipolar relationship with film: mocking it's low budget afterthought film-to-game tie-ins and then idolizing and imitating it as a sign of sophistication. It's like under the pressure of societal scrutiny to prove they have 'artistic merit' games have developed a sort of dissociative identity disorder: copying the styles and values of film as a way to try and convince the critics of their value. "Look at this" they say, "aren't we just like a film? Don't we deserve to be treated just like them?" A profoundly obvious point must be made: games aren't films. Games have their own strengths and weaknesses, values and tropes. Games slavishly imitating films have a battery of shortcomings, from the burden of expectation for how realistic environments are supposed to physically behave to certain settings making gaming's reliance on constant physical conflict and interaction to drive narrative more pronounced.
I was inspired to rant about this by reading an interview with Steven Spielberg about his upcoming games. After a few fairly positive and innocuous points he drops this bombshell;
Hopefully, we’re headed toward games that address an emotional remoteness in gaming today. Videogames push the adrenaline button but don’t really create a bond with a character, or a real sense of caring about the outcome of a character leading you through the game. That’s where the movie industry has it over the game industry. Most films are stories that are full of surprises, and the audience just sits and lets the experience wash over them. Whereas with videogames, you’re so busy waving your arms or using your thumbs and standing on your feet and leaning forward, there’s so much body language and adrenaline that it blocks any chance to have a feeling about a character.
No Steven. I'm sorry, that's not how it works at all.
What Mr Spielberg has come out with here is just a more-politely worded version of the widely-held delusion that since all games are about shooting and fighting and destroying and killing and raping prostitutes etc. etc. that there's no room for detailed storytelling and consequently no character development or emotional investment. It's a fair enough point to make that detailed narratives are not a strength of gaming, but I can assure him quite strongly that games do encourage emotional investment, and they do so in a way that is easily missed because it is completely unlike what other mediums do.
Games do not need to tell or even show. Games let the player become a part of the world. Even in something as simple as the later Gradius games I can choose which set of weapons to outfit my ship with. This is the game allowing me to change a part of itself to my liking. This is a preference of mine being reflected in the game. I'm now more inclined to empathise with it because I can see an attribute of myself reflected in the game, and I'm talking about a spaceship. Surely the effect must be so much stronger when actual human characters are used? Maybe I can customise their appearance or skillsets to reflect my preferences. That's like a exchange between me and the character: they offer a choice, I help them make it and see the result afterwards. I become the invisible fourth or fifth member of a JRPG party helping my characters with their fights, directing them like a general. When I see my avatar(s) get hurt I have reason to care because whatever caused it was partly my fault. How can actually being responsible for the characters require less investment than just watching them? This type of interaction has no parallels to anything in film so it appears invisible to those using film as the basis to judge gaming.
Let's ask the same question in reverse: why should I care about characters in film? I'll know them, in a majority of cases, for less than two hours and whatever happens in that time will resolve itself without my input. There's no reason to invest unless a character appeals to me in some way.
What Mr Spielberg is doing isn't wrong. He's approached gaming with an enthusiasm and open-mindedness that would shame people half his age. But there's the case of his supposedly 'emotional' gaming project LMNO, the game that will Make Me Cry. If anything is going to reduce me to tears here it's going to be the media's ignorant, hyperbolic assertions that NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE SYMPATHETIC, REALISTIC HUMAN CHARACTERS, and that there will actually be people who believe this. This is partly gaming's fault for it's inability to accurately record it's own history, leaving gaps in the general knowledge for the unscrupulous to exploit by claiming they 'invented' something when in fact they just popularised it. Even if LMNO just turns out to be Ico with different characters the press will still lavish praise on it because none of them have the balls to question whether or not their beloved filmic mimicry is a crutch which is inhibiting games from developing as they should.
I was inspired to rant about this by reading an interview with Steven Spielberg about his upcoming games. After a few fairly positive and innocuous points he drops this bombshell;
Hopefully, we’re headed toward games that address an emotional remoteness in gaming today. Videogames push the adrenaline button but don’t really create a bond with a character, or a real sense of caring about the outcome of a character leading you through the game. That’s where the movie industry has it over the game industry. Most films are stories that are full of surprises, and the audience just sits and lets the experience wash over them. Whereas with videogames, you’re so busy waving your arms or using your thumbs and standing on your feet and leaning forward, there’s so much body language and adrenaline that it blocks any chance to have a feeling about a character.
No Steven. I'm sorry, that's not how it works at all.
What Mr Spielberg has come out with here is just a more-politely worded version of the widely-held delusion that since all games are about shooting and fighting and destroying and killing and raping prostitutes etc. etc. that there's no room for detailed storytelling and consequently no character development or emotional investment. It's a fair enough point to make that detailed narratives are not a strength of gaming, but I can assure him quite strongly that games do encourage emotional investment, and they do so in a way that is easily missed because it is completely unlike what other mediums do.
Games do not need to tell or even show. Games let the player become a part of the world. Even in something as simple as the later Gradius games I can choose which set of weapons to outfit my ship with. This is the game allowing me to change a part of itself to my liking. This is a preference of mine being reflected in the game. I'm now more inclined to empathise with it because I can see an attribute of myself reflected in the game, and I'm talking about a spaceship. Surely the effect must be so much stronger when actual human characters are used? Maybe I can customise their appearance or skillsets to reflect my preferences. That's like a exchange between me and the character: they offer a choice, I help them make it and see the result afterwards. I become the invisible fourth or fifth member of a JRPG party helping my characters with their fights, directing them like a general. When I see my avatar(s) get hurt I have reason to care because whatever caused it was partly my fault. How can actually being responsible for the characters require less investment than just watching them? This type of interaction has no parallels to anything in film so it appears invisible to those using film as the basis to judge gaming.
Let's ask the same question in reverse: why should I care about characters in film? I'll know them, in a majority of cases, for less than two hours and whatever happens in that time will resolve itself without my input. There's no reason to invest unless a character appeals to me in some way.
What Mr Spielberg is doing isn't wrong. He's approached gaming with an enthusiasm and open-mindedness that would shame people half his age. But there's the case of his supposedly 'emotional' gaming project LMNO, the game that will Make Me Cry. If anything is going to reduce me to tears here it's going to be the media's ignorant, hyperbolic assertions that NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE SYMPATHETIC, REALISTIC HUMAN CHARACTERS, and that there will actually be people who believe this. This is partly gaming's fault for it's inability to accurately record it's own history, leaving gaps in the general knowledge for the unscrupulous to exploit by claiming they 'invented' something when in fact they just popularised it. Even if LMNO just turns out to be Ico with different characters the press will still lavish praise on it because none of them have the balls to question whether or not their beloved filmic mimicry is a crutch which is inhibiting games from developing as they should.