Emotions list

[Christian]

Hello, i have been thinking on a clasification of the different emotions a person can have, emotions that can be repoduced on a game.

I think that a designer can choose a list of emotions to reach his/her objectives of design, and that to make the player feel those emotions, the designer must reproduce in the same way the things that make that emotion arise in the real life.

So, for example, take the emotion of "Achievement", that thing you feel when you have got something you wanted...

The first step to reach this emotion, is to make the player have an especific objective inside of the game, for example, a valuable treasure box.

The second step is to make the player encounter obstacles.

The third step is to make the obstacles harder than in the begining. (it must be challenging)

The fourth step is to encounter the last and hardest of all of the obstacles, and in this step, make the player see how close he/she is of the objective.

the last step is let the player take what he/she wanted.

The important thing is that the objective must be something valuable inside of the game, and it must not be a reward, and must not be a pay, it must be something that the player really really wants to get.


So, what do you think about this idea???. Does anybody know how to reproduce other emotions?

[soniCron]

So, for example, take the emotion of "Achievement", that thing you feel when you have got something you wanted... So, what do you think about this idea???. Does anybody know how to reproduce other emotions? Well, "achievement" isn't an emotion. Perhaps you mean, "satisfaction," which is felt after something has been achieved. Even then, "achievement" doesn't always lead to "satisfaction".

Imagine painting a house. For the first 12 hours, all you can think about how good it'll feel to be done with it. After the 19 hour mark, just as you've finished, you don't feel satisfied to be finished painting, you feel satisfied it's time to go to bed. You can't truly appreciate the work until the next day, after your rest.

This is because the need of sleep (an instinct) trumps that of satisfaction for doing a job well done. "Satisfaction" took a backseat to "sleep." That's not to say that no achievement is satisfying, but you live in your house, and you can appreciate your work every time you go outside. However, in designing a game, you have to be careful to let the player appreciate their work, and thus be satisfied. Simply overcoming something isn't satisfying without a reward to accompany it.

Sometimes this reward can be a natural progression from the achievement, similar to painting your house, like a well constructed city in SimCity. Most often, however, you, as the game designer, have to provide the player with a more substantial reward, because the player can't take the dungeon he completed with him. Give the player a device which allows him to part water so he can get to places across rivers that were previously inaccessible. Give the player access to a new car, 2 new tracks, and some cool decals. Fulfill the player's future gaming experience to serve as a reminder of this achievement. This will leave the player satisfied.

[mahlzeit]

David Freeman wrote a book called "Creating Emotion in Games". It deals with some of these things, although it is mostly a screenwriting guide for game designers. (Chris Crawford seems to hate Freeman's "Emotioneering" approach, by the way.) It has been a while since I read the book, though, and I have no time to look up any specifics, because I have to finish my piano lesson!

[Christian]

Yeah sonicron, perhaps i should have said "feeling" instead of "emotion", also, what you say demonstrates that "satisfaction" is not the same than "achievement", what im trying to do is to clasify more preciselly feelings , satisfaction is more like "wow! the game gave me something nice, yohooo!" and achievement is like "i fought hard and i finally got what i was looking for". The later conveys pride, and satisfaction, the other, maybe surprise, and satisfaction.

To be a little more clear, for example, you reward a player that does something that you wanted him to do, what i am saying with the feeling of achievement is that the player must for him/herself want that thing. Like "Hey player!, do this and ill give you a Golden Axe of skullcrushing", that would be a reward, but this is achievement: "Player, i announce you that on the mountains, there is a red Lamborgini car waiting for you, but there are monsters on the way, if you like cars you can try to get it...", see the difference?.

And i readed some of freemans book, i didnt like it because it deals more with storytelling rather than games.

[soniCron]

...what im trying to do is to clasify more preciselly feelings , satisfaction is more like "wow! the game gave me something nice, yohooo!" and achievement is like "i fought hard and i finally got what i was looking for". The later conveys pride, and satisfaction, the other, maybe surprise, and satisfaction. Perhaps I'm only piquing at semantics, but I think the point remains: the act of achieving something doesn't necessarily produce a positive response. When I walk across the room, I've achieved walking across the room but I surely don't feel like congradulating myself for it. I just want you to understand what you're saying.


Like "Hey player!, do this and ill give you a Golden Axe of skullcrushing", that would be a reward, but this is achievement: "Player, i announce you that on the mountains, there is a red Lamborgini car waiting for you, but there are monsters on the way, if you like cars you can try to get it...", see the difference?. No. I don't. They're both charges. In one, the goal is to "do this" and the reward is the "Golden Axe of Skullcrushing." In the other, the goal is to traverse the mountains and defeat the monsters to get the Lamborghini. It's the same process.

[Black Hydra]

I think soniCron is arguing you on the definitions of the word achievement and satisfaction. Achievement is the act of completing something, not an emotion. Satisfaction is a possible emotion you can get from achievement, but the word achievement doesn't describe an emotion. Unfortunately the English language is sorely lacking in words that describe emotions (particularly more complex ones) so you sometimes have to make do. Nonetheless, Christian, I think we understand what you mean when you say the feeling of achievement.

There was a big article by XeoDesigns talking about the emotional experiences of players. I can't seem to find it now (how some of you manage to just drop links amazes me...) but there was a link to it somewhere on an older forum post.

[Valkilos]

I believe the Hydra is referring to this article (http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf). They talk about many emotions they witnessed among players, including:

Fiero (Italian) - Personal triumph over adversity

...which probably best fits the whole "satisfaction/achievement" feeling being talked about. Some other emotions they noticed that you normally might not think of applying to games include fear, wonder, and schaenfreude (gloat over the misfortune of others, particularly a rival).

[Christian]

Well, what i am talking about is about something like Fiero, mixed with obtaining something, because in the pdf of Xeo design, it describes Fiero when you overcome difficult obstacles, but not having a reason to overcome those obstacles and no outcome of overcoming them.

Maybe a word like "AchieFiering" will suit my definition, since it appears "Achievement" is allready occupied :)

Another thing about the Xeo design paper, i belive there is a mistake on it, when it says the emotion of disgust, i think it doesnt have to do with interactivity, i think that that emotion only comes from watching things.

[soniCron]

Another thing about the Xeo design paper, i belive there is a mistake on it, when it says the emotion of disgust, i think it doesnt have to do with interactivity, i think that that emotion only comes from watching things. What? Why?

[Christian]

Well, disgust happens when you see something disgusting, MAYBE it can be a result of something that you have done, but not actually from DOING something, as the other feeling.

[soniCron]

Well, disgust happens when you see something disgusting, MAYBE it can be a result of something that you have done, but not actually from DOING something, as the other feeling. So you're saying you wouldn't be disgusted while gutting a deer? What about another human being? Perhaps you would choose not to do these things because they disgust you, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd be disgusted doing them. (I hope!)

[Christian]

You would be disgusted only if you see theyr inner organs coming out of them as you slash them with your sword, and you would feel disgust if the deer you are killing is screaming like a baby, crying for help, trembling of the pain and to see the dead baby deer coming out of its stomach.

Yeap, all those things are disgusting, but, think about this, you can imagine, and see those things on your mind, and feel disgust, thats a proof that its not about interaction, its about watching things, and as i said, it MAYBE can be a result of something you did, but if the deer just disappears with a shoot, it doesnt disgust you, or if the human beign you just killed simply stops moving, that isnt disgusting either, so its just a result, the visual feedback of your actions that causes disgust, not the actual action that causes it.

[Ska Software]

Does anybody know how to reproduce other emotions?

Have the user fill out a lengthy questionaire at the beginning and use the results in a highly sophisticated Bayesian network to piece together their entire life, sort of like how they did it in The Game. Then use their experiences to invoke emotions.

For example, if the user's mother died five years ago, every time the user's character falls into a pit and dies have a message pop up that says "Haha your mom died."

I can't think of a better way to do it...

[Christian]

Another feeling available for our use is the feeling of frustration.

We have to use this feeling with caution, since if we want players to feel happyness and satisfaction, we cant throw a feeling such as frustrarion because it will get them away from those positive feelings.

If our objective is to make the player feel "positive" feelings, then we should get away from the feeling of frustration at all costs.

But imagine this, what about if you wanted the player to feel something negative about something inside the game, for example, the enemy of the player, then this feeling will be usefull to you.
If the enemy of the player causes frustration to the player, then the feeling of hate will arise, and the target will be the enemy, vengance will take control of the player, concluding in incredible satisfaction if the players gets to accomplish its vengance.

What is frustration then?, i think its the feeling that comes of interrupting the player in its way of getting what he/she wants, the interruption comes from something external to the player, that is, the player is not responsible for the interruption.

For example, the player wants to grab something on the floor by clicking the left mouse button over that item. Each time the mouse cursor is over this item and the left mouse button is pressed, the mouse cursor changes to a random position away from the item, making the grab of the item impossible. This will make the player feel frustration, the feeling of hate arises, and the target of vengance is the game developer, since she/he is the one who built the mouse-change-position thingy, and no other responsible is at sight.

[Ska Software]

and the target of vengance is the game developer, since she/he is the one who built the mouse-change-position thingy, and no other responsible is at sight.

I regularly have to fend off assassination attempts for this very reason.

[Christian]

YOU SEE?!??
You see how important is to apply emotions in a correct way?? :D

Ill continue with my list as long as my meditations continue to progress, so stay tuned.

[cheese_phantom]

Hey there,

I could not really think about the thread, but I decided to refer to some articles that might be related and could push the thread a bit further...

Ben Calica's article "I Second That Emotion, Or... Playing Games With People's Feelings" might be interesting. I think I found it at GameDev, but don't have a link for it.

Tynan Sylvester's "Decision-Based Gameplay-Design also "touches" emotions. Read it at: www.gamasutra.com/features/20050321/sylvester_01.shtml (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050321/sylvester_01.shtml)

"Motivations in Games" by Sarbasst Hassanpour can be found at Game.Dev


"The Psychology Behind Games" by Anders Hejdenberg can be found at
www.gamasutra.com/features/20050426/hejdenberg_01.shtml (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050426/hejdenberg_01.shtml)

"The Psychology of Choice" by John Hopson can be found at www.gamasutra.com/features/20020204/hopson_01.htm (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020204/hopson_01.htm)

An excerpt of "What Players Want" by Richard Rouse III can be found at GameDev.

Finally, "A Theory of Fun for Game Design - What Games Aren't"
by Raph Koster has also some remarks about emotions. It's at www.gamasutra.com/features/20041203/koster_01.shtml (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041203/koster_01.shtml)

Have fun!

[Christian]

Those links are good, recommended.

I have been thinking...what i am trying to do is to contrsuct a LANGUAJE of interaction, like there is a languaje for poetry, music, movies, i think that a languaje for interaction is missing, and it can be contructed with emotions that can be reproduced by living experiences.

Ok, now, i have been thinking about love...how to reproduce the kind of love someone feels for something, like "i love my car", or, how many kinds of love can you think of?

I think there is a love for things, like a car, a thing without life, a death thing, and also a love for living things, like a cat, or a person, wich are interactive.

Love to a thing arises when you are identified by it, that thing ends representing you in some way, and you like it because of it. Take for example a car (imagine you have a lot of money), you see it and you like its beautyfull shape, its powerfull, you like to feel powerfull, and you think you are beautyfull (thats what you think...) too, its perfect for you, so you buy it.
You love your car, and you start going everywhere with it, to the beach, to the cinema, to a restauran, so you and your car start living a lot of experiences togehter...a powerfull link of love is formed between you two.
This experiences are what makes the bond stronger. Wash it, fix it, paint it, crash it, renew it, all those things you do to your car will make you love it more and more.

Almost the same thing happens with people. Make things togehter and the bond is stronger.
But why you love someone in the first place?, good question!...it happens for the same reason than with things, you feel identified with this person in some way, and thats why you like him/her. It may be you brother, sister, father, cousin, boss, friend, neighbour, anything that is needed is a link between you too, something that identifies you, with that person, if there is no link, there is no love.

In things and people can be an infinite quantity of links, all depends of the context of your game, so, it depends on you to choose the possible links.

[soniCron]

First, I think you mean "language." (Not "languaje.") Second, I'm not so sure that connection itself provides any feelings of love. Rather, you love something when it makes you feel good. A pet cat or dog often returns affection which, in turn, makes you feel good; it makes you feel loved. After washing your car you may feel a sense of satisfaction for your accomplishment, and perhaps feel "cool" driving around town. Again, both are positive feelings that the car directly or indirectly made you feel. The time spent with people and things can create a feeling of security that is very important to us. In this way your "connection" is achieved. (Really a feeling of "security" or "safety;" both positive feelings.)

[Christian]

I agree that security and feel affection feels nice.
You say that people love things that make them feel good, i say that they not necesarily "love" them, they just "like" them.

Love doesnt just pop out of nothing, its a thing that is built with time.
As you say, when you do things with your car, when you drive it, and you feel cool about it, and you get many other feelings with your car, and you repeat the process many times, then you begin to feel love for your car.

I think love is just the bigger picture of the many good things that things and people make us feel. But there has to be many feelings, and to be many feelings time is needed, time to make those feelings happen.

And since time is important in love, also memory is important. If you dont remeber that something made you feel good many times, then you cant love it. So its important to have a good way to remind players of the good tihngs that happened with them and the object of theyr love.

(Sorry for my english, my main language is spanish)

[cheese_phantom]

Some linguistic theories claim that languages function on two levels: the analytical level, and the synthetic level.

The analytical level functions horizontally. It is a set of equal tools, that alone are not able to create meaning. Such sets are also referred to as paradigmas. (an assembly of tools and methods you can choose from but to which you are limited to at the same time).

If I utilize things in a paradigm to build something meaningful with them, the thing I create or form is called a syntagma (or syntax). The tools in a paradigm have no meaning alone, they gain this meaning when they unite on a higher level and through their syntagmatic relation with other tools. This co-creation of meaning is what the synthetic level refers to.


Example:

Imagine this set of letters as a paradigm:

t-a-h-c-o-s-n-r-i

Let's "synthesize" them to creating something meaningful:

c-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n
s-o-n-i-c-r-o-n

Other words we could create with this paradigm are for example "i-s", "n-o-t", "h-a-s-", "h-a-t", "-a-"... etc

is-sonicron-not-christian-has-hat-a...

From here we can go up to a higher level:

Christian is not Sonicron
Christian has a hat
Christian is a christian


Vertically, we can climb up three levels. In other words, we have three levels of synthesis. All three levels are based upon three paradigmas, all of utilizing their own tools:

1. The word level - letters form words

2. The sentence level - words form sentences

3. The narrative level - sentences form paragraphs


On the narrative level, we reach our vertical upper-limit. The basic idea is, that once you have a sentence, you are on the narrative level. Whatever sentence and how many sentences you create and glue together, there is no fourth level. They all will remain on the narrative level. Technically, a sentence is always the shortest form of a paragraph. And a paragraph always consists of at least one sentence.


What is so important about the narrative level for games in particular? To understand that, we can take a look at what it means for movies: Well, they say that the audiovisual arts, directly work on the narrative level. Films for instance, have no "letters" or "words": Even the shortest of shots, is a "sentence"; which means films function on the narrative level. To name such "cinematic sentences" some scholars tried to utilize concepts like "kinem" (resembled from phonem in linguistics) as the smallest paradigmatic unit.

Once you agree that movies work on the narrative level, you can use some concepts of narratology to see how they work and turn into something "meaningful".


In narratology as well as in linguistics, there is another crucial distinction: The one between "substance" and "essence". This particularly frees the theoricist from the implications of the medium that is at question.

Substance is the form in which you present essence.

Christian
Christian
Christian
Christian

Christian is the essence; the fonts are the substance.

If you broaden this concept to narratology, it means, the essence is relatively free from the substance. I can tell the story of Romeo and Juliette with film, on stage, as a novel, as a cartoon, as a radioplay, a pandomime, as a puppet-theatre... whatever. Important is, that the rules to create the narrative essence won't change really.

But most of the narratology research has been done in literature anyway. Later often translated or applied to other media. Anyway, what they are interested in, is how the story, the narrative works. Not what the different media change in how it works.

Typical structural analyses of narratives provides nice concepts like for example the concept "function". Functions have a simple rule: Show (Expose)-stay idle-use(activate). A gun that you show in Scene 1 will be fired by someone (you also probably showed in scene 1) in scene 3. It's like setting a trigger and later activate it.

The thing in narrative analyses is, that they analysed thousands of stories and found out that, whatever the story is, the number of functions is limited. For example Vladimir Propp, a Russian scholar that analysed over 2000 Russian folk tales, found out that the total number of functions is 31 and that they can be categorized in 6 or so funtional areas. He also found out that, even if you don't use all 31 functions, you always follow them step by step. If you use function 6, 12, 18, 19, 21 and 28 for example, you wouldn't use 21 before 12. Also, something that is utilized in one functional area, can't be utilized in another functional area, as it creates contradictions. So, by coming from structural linguistics; they used the structurialist model to define the structure and the structural elements of narratives.

So if you go for a "language" of games (which means after a certain point you'd have to go on a "narrative" level); what is your lowest analytical level? What is the paradigm of tools that you create a meaningful game experience with? How do game elements work on the synthetic level?

If these are questions you want to answer, and you go with structural methods often used in language theories, you would maybe start with a list of the smallest game elements, that alone have no meaning, but need to unite with other elements to create a meaningfull thing on a higher level... You would want to find out how much analytical and synthetical levels are there until you reach the highest level: The game.

Ah, and don't get trapped by the substance or the medium (a board game on table is essentially the same like it's PC version, but substancially it is different) . Think about the essence :-)

By the way; this is a subject which created some sort of clan-wars. Some say that "games are not stories" and don't wanna hear words like "language" when you talk about games. Some think it would be wise to make use of language theories.

And some just say: "All crap, let's just make games." :) :rolleyes:

Still wanna find the language of games??? :D

[Christian]

Thanks for all those interesting info, really interesting and usefull, im growing in knowledge :)

Well, i think that there cant be a language for games now that i read this...because games dont exist for communication, i think they exist as training of human capabilities. If games where a medium of communication, then a language could be constructed.

Still, i belive that a paradigm could be constructed, but the things i build with it could not be sinthetized, that is:

i have this feelings Fear, Hate, Anxiety, and i could form FAH, or HFA, or FHA, there could not be an interpretation of this, since feelings are just sensed, not percieved, they come from inside, not from the outside.

Allow me to tell you a really crazy theory:
Paradigmas are horizontal, linear, then for games there should be something similar, a set of tools, but instead of beign formed in a linear, horizontal way, they are contructed in a consentric triangular way, i mean consentric as if theere is a point of intersection between the main triangles, something like this:


/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/__F__\/__H__\
/ \
/ \
/__A__\


This triangles represent each felling, in this example there are 3 main feelings (Fear, Hate, Anxiety), each side represents the "levels" of that feeling, the horizontal lines are dull moments of that feeling where the feeling is almost imperseptible, the horizontals are one in assension and othe in downhill, the upper intersection of lines is the maximun intensity of the feeling.

Also, it can have triangles comming out at any point of any triangle, so you can feel fear and anxiety at the same time:



/ \ / \ / \
/_a_\/ \ / \
/__F__\/__H__\
/ \
/ \
/__A__\

[soniCron]

EDIT: Double post. :( Sorry.

[soniCron]

Well, i think that there cant be a language for games now that i read this...because games dont exist for communication, i think they exist as training of human capabilities. If games where a medium of communication, then a language could be constructed. So role playing games, point-and-click adventure games, text adventure games, and many others don't tell a story? Their purpose is not to communicate with the player, even if it means to pique emotion in the player? I disagree. Language is not just constructed of words; language is a process. Games are a process; a progression. It seems to me they'd fundamentally go hand in hand.

[Christian]

It ok that games are processes, but not all procesess are games, in the same way all games are interactive, but not all interactive things are games (example: word procesor is interactive and not a game).

Role playing games have two parts, a game part, and a storytelling part, when people start talking, and you start reading or listening, you have come out of the game, you are not playing anymore, you are listening, later, when decitions must be made, when fight must be fought, then you are playing the game.

Point and clik adventures are part story, part puzzle, not games, you read some part of the story, you encunter a riddle or puzzle, you solve it, and you go to the next part of the story, and so on.

How many definitions can of games can exist?, i think that for us game designers should exists only one, one that diferentiates well between forms of interactive entertainment, because there is puzzles, sports, competitions, riddles, and games.

I think that a good definitions of games that differentiates from the previous forms of interactivity is that in games you encounter opositions, obstacles, that respond accordingly to your actions (from Chris Crawford definition of games).

[Christian]

To probe that games are a form of training, heres a part of this article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/619666.html :

"Pilots train on flight simulators - which are essentially video games - for good reason," continues Leibovitz. "They are a good and inexpensive way to improve [pilots'] capabilities. In fact, if you delve into the historical background of video games, you'll discover that it all began when the American army approached engineer Ralph Baer and asked him to create a mobile game to sharpen the soldiers' reflexes. He developed a type of electronic Ping-Pong that about a decade later was turned into the well-known Pong, by Atari."