Slashdot Mirror
When Will Games Disturb Us?
Game Girl Advance brings up the subject of emotion in games, again, by going to the dark places. Jane talks about movies that are just plain uncomfortable to watch (shades of Donnie Darko), and wonders why when games will have the same effect. From the article: "Yet you could argue that Manhunt used a cheap trick - it set up the situation in order to exploit it for someone's idea of 'fun.' You could say that the developers did not mean to convey any message beyond entertainment. City of God was entertaining, in the broadest sense of the word, but it was also a portrait of hopelessness and a cycle that trapped its inhabitants; it was also in some ways a social history of gang violence in the slums from the seventies to the eighties. Manhunt does not have enough external references to be about anything other than what it is."
A: August 2, 2004
Sorry doom 3 was creepy as hell (bad pun) when i frirst started.. then again i did start at night with the lights off and hifi audio going - the random people screeming through the walls really got me
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
F.E.A.R. is the only game I have ever played where I was literally scared to play any further...especially since i was playing during nighttime.
It would seem that the author's never played a Silent Hill game before. Or System Shock 2. Or Eternal Darkness.
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
The first game that disturbed me in a good way was the original Doom... even low res, those weird textures that seemed to be based on skinned flesh was just creepy.
The first game that disturbed me in a bad way was the first Duke Nukem, where if you shot the strippers, they turned into piles of money. That's just mysogonystic. Yes, in theory the strippers were taken over by aliens, but that's wasn't the primary reason strippers were shootable. Someone on the team just wanted to be able to shoot woman (and let's face it, if you listen to the guys at the top of 3D Realms, they strike me as men with serious psych issues with women).
Even games like GTA didn't give me a sick feeling like that did. The violence in GTA is in the context of the world. The Duke Nukem thing felt like it was someone's sick fantasy that they thought was funny.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The mood of a game is a result of its story-telling. If the underlying story isn't disturbing, putting more special effects isn't going to change anything, either. But if we assume there are books that can be disturbing to read, then certainly any game has at least as much access to present information as well as a book, so of course they can be, too.
And I don't think mass audience interactive entertainment (a.k.a. Video Games) will cross into truly disturbing Territory anytime soon. There's a difference between being a passive observer to something disturbing such as all the many movies already mention and being an active participant. And I think that the mental and emotional consequences of crossing that line are going to be too high for the majority of people to accept.
Granted, there's games out there with downright creepy premise, but they don't tackle such socially disturbing topics as movies because movies don't require that you project yourself as an active participant. The mental and emotional toll required to do that would, I think, force 99%+ of people to abandon such a game only a few minutes in.
"Takeshi's Challenge", the 1986 NES game by Takeshi 'Beat' Kitano (who later went on to create the tv show we know as MXC). The game begins with a screen saying "This game is made by a man who hates videogames" and is designed to make the player as miserable as possible. The game includes such gems as a sequence where the player is forced to continuously sing karaoke for one hour without pressing any buttons; a gap which appears to be jumpable but is exactly one pixel too short to jump across, forcing the player to try and fail several hundred times until after several hundred deaths the game suddenly announces that the gap was actually impossible and lets you to the next screen; and a final boss that must be hit 50,000 times to defeat it.
Games can't ever be truly disturbing because disturbing is a subjective, personal quality; what one person finds disturbing another will find really neat, and vice versa. But Takeshi's Challenge, by abandoning the idea of shocking the player and actually moving into the region of purposefully causing them pain, was outside the possible comfort zone of anyone.
The original Diablo in all its 640x480 glory.
Maybe it was the soft string instruments in the background.
The intro movie was pretty good too.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Storyline is what disturbs. Let's get back to telling real stories.
Such as Infocom's Trinity (about time travel and nuclear war), and A Mind Forever Voyaging: Starts off with the mildly disturbing premise of what it's like to be a "brain in a vat, experiencing a computer simulation". Continues with the extremely disturbing unfolding of what happens when (because reality's just a computer simulation), the simulation extrapolates social/political consequences of what happens when one plugs in a certain Senator's "plan" to save the economy... and what happens to the brain in the vat when it starts to learn things about the "plan" that the dear Senator might not like.
AMFV was probably the most disturbing interactive fiction title that Infocom ever released. (Because we're arguably still playing it - you and me reading this - today.)
I'm a player of EVE-ONLINE. It didn't take long for the PvP aspects to have real effect. (Consequently, they have much less effect now; perhaps an end all be all definition of pirate depending on why?) Early, my heart beat would raise, adrenaline rush and all of a sudden I would get a real feeling of fight or flight mentality whenever a 'flasher' would warp in. That "oh shit" feeling, that even if kept silent is obvious to any onlookers. The effect is so strong, from myriad accounts not just my own, that I have often pondered if CCP will eventually have some sort of medical warning to those with heart conditions while starting to play the game. Not only does the game genuinely enduce physical and emotional characteristics of imminent hostile danger, but if you get to see your opponent pop you get a genuine sense of gain or power, if you die, you have a genuine sense of loss.
From these effects, they enduce real emotion as well. For example, hate mail or something within EVE known as 'smack talk', there has even been situations where the sentiment has been extended into real life threats and harrassment. Usually, becuase someone was attacked and killed by another pilot, but as involved as the game is, there are many ways to 'screw' over another player; such as undercutting their business stealing their customers or sabotaging political ties with alliances/corporations for your interest, or internal disloyalty and corp theft/betrayal.
This is all on account of game structure and mechanics. And, if this much can be enduced simply by interactive 'situational' analysis, then any other game could be developed to target a particular effect just by building up all the variables to justify the reaction whenever something happens. One of the chief causes for the seriousness of EVE, is that you do encur real loss and actual gain. If you die, you lose what you had and have to work towards acquiring it again, if you win, you may loot your victims wreckage for items valuable to you (that, and you get the killmail to further insult them by posting it on public forums.)
Whenever I think that EA games could eventually buyout and control ALL game development....
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
/catches breath
Man, that is truly disturbing.
I remember the first time I played through the Seventh Guest... and then not long later Phantasmagoria.
I dare you to find anyone that played those late at night that wasn't at least a little scared. The environment on those two games... especially with the sound was just creepy.
Even some of the Myst ones had some creepy moments in them. Not near those other two though.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
The first XCOM had some creepy bits. I remember the first time I found an "examination room" in a UFO.
The general ambience was just plain spooky, especially the night terror missions.
No current games are disturbing in the "keep you up at night thinking, appear in pathologically terrifying nightmares, make you think twice about telling people about it" sense. They're scary and shock in the same way a slasher movie will, but ultimately they're shallow in the same way, lacking in depth and development. Nothing 'horrific' in that sense happens in films like Donnie Darko, Jacob's Ladder, Requiem for a Dream or Silkwood, but they're far more emotionally disturbing than, say, Doom or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They express a deep, complex and gut-wrenching fear of the real and utterly tragic rather than simplistic caricatures of brutal violence. No game has ever made me rethink my attitudes to nuclear energy, phone up an old friend just to see if they're still alive or toss and turn for days.
When I played the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Omaha Beach level (aka "D-Day"), it was the first of it's kind (before 8 zillion clones), and it was simply... disturbing. It was produced by Steven Spielberg and was definately in the tradition of Saving Private Ryna. I was 22 at the time, so I thought first off that every boy there was my age. I'd die immediately when the boats opened the first 10 times or so. I died tons more on the way up. You'd look over and see other soldiers, grown men and ppl your age kneeling under a bunker and crying. Others mortally injured and screaming for mommy simply made the game "How would you have done if you were at this event in history" (answer: I would have *died*) rather than "Enjoy this video game level."
Actually, it's kind of an original concept. Most of the stalk-and-kill games involve creeping up and slashing guards' throats, sneaking further into a fortress, and doing it all over again. Thief, Metal Gear, Commandos, Desperados, they're all the same.
Stalking people, then killing them, then worrying about the evidence, add some shootouts and narrow escapes from the cops... that'd be great! You could have a voice in your head telling you which victims to find ("Balding man between the ages of 30 and 45", "Young boy with dog") to act out repressed tresspasses on you. The police could follow your actions (for example, if you always kill in a 3 block radius, they'll step up patrols there), you could go on killing sprees, where you'd have to kill X people within X minutes, you could have slasher sections where you'd have to kill groups of cliche, dumb teenagers while dressed in a scary mask... A minigame where you have to invade a high school and take out as many people as possible. Killing with interesting weapons and devices ("Kill this guy by dragging him behind your car." "Kill this lady by setting her on fire.").
Call me deranged, but that sounds way more fun than GTA.
I had for sometime was a game based loosely on the old RPG (boardgame) Orgre. The thing that was appealing was that you were being hunted relentlessly by a (virtually) unstoppable (technological) force. I always thought if you removed the "virtually", you could really have something.
I've yet to see a game that presents an undefeatable boss. The idea being how long you survive IS the game. The environment could be anything but you could slowly ramp up the pace and create traps that would confound the player as they're being pursed. Sometimes slowly - sometimes quickly - but never stopping. You could slow the "ogre" down, even delay it - but never stop it. You would die - and then the game would end. When you would die was up to you. How you would die was up to IT.
It could even be done in a multiplayer deathmatch environ where you would watch all the other players get destroyed one by one. You could gang up - and perhaps really delay things - but never defeat it. Even being reduced to a spectator when you die could be fun - watching each player be killed one by one until the end of the round. You do see this in deathmatch shooters, but that's just a gaggle of humans whacking each other. Man vs. unstoppable machine would be - or could be - much more fun.
Most good horror films have this in some shape or form but in video games today - you always "beat" the protagonist. Take THAT element away - and you could have something very-very disturbing. It's what made the zombies (initally) scary in Resident Evil. The idea that you only were putting them down for a while - and that they could get back up and pursue you. Until you killed them again which suddenly didn't make them nearly as much fun.
Just email me for the royalties - or hire me, I'm a freelancer (mgabrys@netherworld.com).
Games have been disturbing us since 1982.
And it doesn't stop there. The various body parts acting as part of the machinery are everywhere, complete with vaguely humanoid pumping noises. Some of the bodies are missing most of their limbs, others are fairly complete but are attached in cruciform positions and writhing in response to various stimuli.
And Quake 4 is not the only one out there in that genre. System Shock 2 (especially with the enhanced graphics mods) gets right inside your psyche and keeps hitting. To say that there are no disturbing games out there either indicates that the reviewer hasn't played many games or is remarkably blind to the horrors around.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I found the game Sanitarium fairly disturbing at some points. Incase anyone missed it, it was a point and click adventure where the player assumes the role of a mental patient. You drift between fantasy and reality and try to sort out your memories, and save the world or something. I forget.
It's disturbing not because it tries to shock you with weird stuff, which it certainly tries to do and doesn't do that well. It's disturbing because as you play through the fantasy worlds you get the impression that something very wrong is going on in the real world that you are powerless to stop.
The answer to how to keep players playing disturbing games is so simple that it's sort of depressing that people get mystified and ask if it is even possible in games. Give the game a compelling story, what they are going through now may be disturbing but maybe the characters and scenario will develop. You could also, like, make the game fun to play. Worth a try.
What you just described already exists, but for the last few bits. It's called Hitman. No, it's not a serial murder simulator, but it's pretty much exactly what you described: Stalk your victim to learn their patterns, stay hidden, kill your victim (and others, if you like, though no Silent Assassin rating for you if you do), leave no trace. The "voice in your head" is the agency that sends you on the hits rather than schizophrenia, but is it really that different?
Hey guys! Yeah you, the ones with mod points. Why are you modding up all these posts about being scared or "creeped out" by a video game? That's not disturbing, anymore than riding a roller-coaster is disturbing.
Storylines that pull back the fascia of society to reveal ugly truths about the nature of man are disturbing. Hotel Rwanda is disturbing. A love story like Oasis where one social outcast rapes another and yet the two are able to develop a relationship that is 100x more healthy than the "normal" society around them is disturbing (just read the comment from the woman who naively rented the movie for valentines day).
The point of the articles is that movies like those are the level of story-telling to which video games should be striving. What the article doesn't really discuss is just how to motivate someone to continue interacting with a game when the story hits them with such a huge emotional wallop. When it happens in a movie, the audience can just sit there, stunned into immobility (and often tears) and let the experience flow over them. But that's not what games are about. Perhaps it is just not possible for a game to evoke the kind of strong, personally felt, emotions that a movie or book can. Or perhaps the genius who will figure out a way just hasn't been born yet.
If you want to understand the difference between elemental horror and the fun-house shocks of Doom there is no better place to begin than with H.P. Lovecraft: Tales, in The Library of America series.
Lovecraft's best effects are achieved through suggestion.
You never see anything clearly or fully but you are left with the conviction of having encountered something profoundly alien.
If you want the original commercial versions, you are probably going to be bin diving at whatever game stores there are near you, raiding Ebay or cruising the darker side of the web.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I'm not sure it's "disturbing" in the way that, say, A Clockwork Orange was, but Eternal Darkness for the Gamecube was a very freaky experience for me.
For those who aren't familiar (shame on you) the game used so-called "Insanity Effects" which were basically designed to make your character think they were going crazy - except they also applied to you. You would walk into a room and be immediately decapitated. Then the screen would flash, your character would scream a bit, and you could continue playing the game. Other effects included rooms appearing completely upside-down, invincible monsters, and ever-present whispering that really freaked me out the first time I heard some of them.
ED was fantastic at really working the psyche and trying to make a real "Horror" game that didn't involve things randomly jumping through windows at you.
1. Less 'personal space.' Face it, every good gamer knows how to use every little bit of space, environment and layout of an area to avoid enemy attacks. If I want to be scared I don't want to be able to dodge fireballs and pouncing imps just by moving three feet to the side.
2. Weaker weapons. Unless I'm going up against hordes of enemies Doom 1 or Serious Sam-style, I should NEVER EVER get a one-hit kill weapon (with the possible exception being a sniper rifle). Face it, its hard to be scared of a zombie when you have a shotgun that can decapitate them in one shot. Rocket launchers? BFGs? Wth?! Why not just give me a nuke and be done with it?
3. No truely scary monsters. Face it, with the exception of next to/completely impossible to kill monsters (the spirits in Silent Hill 4 come to mind) horror games have not delivered in the monster department. Sure, some monsters (usually bosses) come to mind but compared to the great horror characters of cinema (the Alien, Dracula, even The Thing) nothing comes to mind. Silent Hill's Pyramid Head was easy to deal with for its slow speed, every enemy in Doom 3 was a joke for gamers with years of FPS experience under their belt and Half-Life 2's enemies were overly predictable with poor AI or were artifically difficult (Combine soldiers were a joke as long as you didn't run in guns blazing and fighting an helicopter or strider was difficult simply because you didn't recieve the necessary weapon needed to defeat it until you simply ran past it to progress through the game.)
Course the problem with these ideas is the more you apply them, the less they remain games and more they become movies..