Emotion In Games, A Footnote

Assuming already that emotion exists in games and that it's a good thing, of course.  Having my baby led to a train of thought that I'd like to share:  finally, after twenty hours of labor (but only two hours and ten minutes of pushing, so it's not as bad as it sounds), when we finally had our baby, and hit that emotional moment that parents on Birth Day claim they're so proud of, we didn't care.  We went through the motions, taking the photos and cutting the cord and holding our little blood-spattered extra-terrestrial looking baby-thing and generally feigning happiness, but really we were just exhausted.  Two days later, we were able to look back at the birth and how nice the doctors and nurses were and how Cathy was able to push a poorly-aligned baby out through sheer force of will without having to resort to a C-section and actually feel some emotion.

My point?  In one of my psych classes way back when I found out that when you feel emotion, a chemical gets released.  This chemical is in limited supply.  Which means you can only feel emotion for so long before you run out.  Which means, if a game is about making you feel a constant stream of intense emotion - and most survival horror games fall into this category - it only works if the player plays the game in small doses, or if the game itself consciously varies the intensity of the experience.

So:  vary the intensity of the experience, right?  But this comes into conflict with another good guideline for game design, which is to focus on the game's strength and trim away everything else.  For obvious reasons:  less is more, focus is good, lower quality stuff will dilute overall quality, blah blah blah.

The Zeldas vary intensity excellently:  you have your intense dungeons where you're feeling a lot of fear, frustration, engagement--and often the joy of discovery;  then you have the calmer, sometimes idyllic, surface level where you can talk to people and shop and so on.  I always thought the shopping and talking portion of games was fairly boring and wanted to get back to the hacking and slashing and puzzle solving - I always thought they should make a Zelda that was all dungeons.  I now think that I was wrong.  If you could trust the player to quit playing the game after they were 'drained', and come back refreshed, it would be a good thing - but if your players are like me, you can count on them to binge until the game's over, even if they're not enjoying it as much as they could if they spread it out.  So you do what Zelda does:  you include  low-intensity, low-emotion stuff between the high-intensity areas so the player can recharge.

Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a hub or an overworld, (although hubs and overworlds have so many other benefits you need to ask yourself why *not* have a hub or overworld rather than why have one).  If you're doing a fairly linear funhouse walkthrough sort of game you can vary the intensity level-by-level:  explore, then fight, explore, then fight.  Prince of Persia is a pretty good example of that. (And so are movies:  good horror movies don't try to scare the crap out of you every second;  they have sequences where they let you catch your breath and recover before they start building the tension again.)

I was asked not long ago if and how I use my psych background in games.  Well, this is an example of me using it.  Yay!  My four years of college weren't totally wasted!

Comments

[Lowell]

I couldn't agree more, especially in FPS games I have a tendancy to get too burnt out when the action is constant. All the games I've beaten (and enjoyed the whole way through) were ones that varied the playing experience (All the Zelda games, recent PoP games etc.)

The Diablo games also do a nice job of giving you breaks to catch your breath when you go back to town to restock equipment.

I think you're on to something.

[Eric Lulie]

You know, X-Com would be another game to add to the list: long periods of tense tactical battles, punctuated by relatively mindless stretches where you scan the skies, research stuff, build or sell stuff...geez, even the interceptor missions are low intensity compared to the battles. And I could play that thing for hours...

Contrast that with my experience with most RTS games: I can play a single battle once, then I have to back away from the computer for a long time. That single battle is usually too much of an intense and prolonged experience for me.

[obi busta nobi]

"Chemical release?" Are we as developers trying to produce the next big "fix?" Making sure that we don't give out too much, ebbs and flows in game designs, in order for them (our customers) to keep wanting more. In doing so, creating a new generation of "game addicts?" Oh, oh I hear Senator Lieberman at my door... quick! Hide the Zelda!!!

[lukeyes]

Actually, I think Spiderman 2 did the emotion thing VERY well. A lot of time I spent just exploring the world, perfecting my swinging technique. These times in the games were not very intense, but they were fun nethertheless, like a car ride in the country or a walk in the park.

The fact that you could spend the whole time swinging around the buildings, exploring the city, allowed you to take breathers in between the tense moments - the time-based missions like stopping robberies and advancing the story.

However, the exploration brought some intense emotions as well. For example, when I was doing the photo mission, and had to climb to the top of the tallest building in the city, I actually started becoming very afraid. The perspectives were so realistic, that I became afraid of heights, fearing that if I messed up with the control, Spidey would fall to his death.

So I find it somewhat funny that this stuff didn't really come to mind before, because you helped build a game that really seems to understand the pacing necessary with a good game.

[Origence]

Interesting subject.
I think the example that Eric Lulie mentioned about RTS is a bit different.
One thing is the fear, tension from many adventure games, specially horror, terror based ones like mentioned already.
And the fun, concentration, focus of highly replayable games, specially multiplayer ones. I remember PSO online sessions of around 15 hours non stop without the thrill going down. But it wasn't exactly emotion. And other times with 1 stage run I felt it was enough focused play. But I think that is not related to the emotion thing. It depends more on our mind status. If we are tired or fresh, all that. Not the chemical emotion stuff. Or maybe there is quite a mix of different feelings. Well I mean that is not exactly the same the emotion of progressing in an adventure game with its storytelling and all, and the tension or thrill of a replayable game.

Ok, I stop going offtopic.
Now I realize why I always had to play games like Resident Evil, Alone in the Dark, Eternal Darkness in small doses to maximize the emotion and the experience. Is something I did automatically without knowing the psychological reasons. I felt I needed to play that way to enjoy those games.
The problem in some games that have the mix of intense and relax moments is that many of them require longer sessions of play. Zelda and Metroid games for example I need to play them many hours consecutively in a short time frame, like 1 month maximum. If not they aren't interesting enough for little 30 minute sessions. Maybe some half hour sessions will be really dull. The compensation of high and low momments is good when taking a longer time with the game.

[Jeffool]

Very interesting stuff. I wonder if this is why Tetris is the greatest game ever? You're completely focused on the game, but the pressure is only 'on' when the blocks get up to about the 3/4 mark, which doesn't happen often or immediately. And if you fail, there's the lull in between those moments where you can get back into your groove. Granted I don't last hours on a single round of Tetris, but maybe the same theory applies.

I could easily see this being rounded into a better theory of game flow. Books, movies, and music have them. Why wouldn't such psychology be applicable to games in some fashion? So maybe the "Theory of Everything: Games" is to (ab)use these natural cycles and to make the inbetweens entertaining and engrossing. I'd go so far as to say we have the advantage. I'm sure we can devise ways to find out when the player needs to recouperate and facilitate that. I mean, that's the advantage games have over other media, right?

Imagine a San Andreas where the music changes according to the player's percieved mood. Hmm, I'm going back to reread Coercion by Douglas Rushkoff.

[Origence]

Yes. A game needs to have quiet moments to deliver greater emotion in the needed moments.
I come back to this post after playing Zelda 4 Swords Adventures. I can't say the game is less enjoyable or fun than the typical Zelda game. What I can say is that it really is less emotive. Probably it is not only for the reason talked here. Few dialogues, old style graphics, no cutscenes, few NPCs to talk with are among others some reasons that reduce the emotional level of the game.
Now I try to imaginate play a game like Wind Waker going straight to clear the game, talking only the minimum needed and never stopping to talk, explore in a quiet way. Imitating 4 Swords rythm and pace but keeping all characters, cutscenes, graphics and I can nearly feel how some moments of the game would have way less impact on the player.
Anyways we shouldn't forget not all games need to hit the player in an emotional way.

The last comment of Jeffool above this makes me drool about the possibilities of the future. If a computer could notice the player's mood with different type of sensors the game developers could make adaptative objectives to satisfy the player in each moment. So far this looks more appropiate for a sci-fi book or movie than a reality in digital entertainment. Can we hope?