Deleted blog

Saw this thinking "Hey, I know a Hamish from Glasgow" then realised you are indeed said Hamish. So uh, hey. It's Ewan. How's it going?

Yup, that one. Internet is fucking weird sometimes. I'm through in Edinburgh now working as a programmer which is alright. How about you?

I'll respond to this piece on a paragraph by paragraph basis since that seems to be the easiest way of doing so.

Paragraph 1: It seems your entire issue is simply a desire for people to use a larger vocabulary as opposed to using "emotional experiences" as a catch all? Seems simple enough, and I presume is a problem that will remedy itself over time.

Paragraph 2: Regardless of whether you agree with David Cage or not, I don't see how that quote was as confusing as you purport it to be. "Citizen Kane used camera techniques to tell stories in ways other movies had not up to that point. We want to try to do something similar in games" is a very clear and direct statement.

Paragraphs 3 and 4: You make strong case for how Brothers' game play mechanics hindered any potential emotional resonance with you the player. That's all well and good, but what does that have to do with your point overall? You mentioned at the end of paragraph 2 of taking issue with the critical reception of the game, but then fail to back that statement up, analyzing the game solely as oppose to critiquing the reception in further detail.

Paragraph 5: Things seem to return to your point in the first paragraph, simply a desire for people to describe their reactions in greater detail and with greater specificity. You don't seem to have issues with "emotional experiences" in general at all, merely having dissatisfaction with what you perceive to be the limitations in how people are discussing them, and the limitations with what emotions some games are trying to evoke.

I still feel like the majority of the better emotional responses games give are by accident, or at least aren't pushed to the fore as much. I really, really hated what Trevor did to Floyd and his significant other in GTA V, for example but they really don't quite know how to use Trevor beyond making him a cartoon psychopath.

I love when games really delve into emotions. Emotions and the heart are what I'm most interested in in real life and I think games are a great way to put you in someone elses shoes.

I get what you mean here though. I think the term "emotional experience" is manipulative and sometimes the games are maudlin and insincere. It also just screams marketing jargon bullshit since it's so vague. I could do without the word "experience" altogether honestly. Many people say "emotional experience" because they're not emotionally qualified to categorize further. And if you think about it, video games for some reason shy away from most genre categorizations that other mediums use. What should be considered a drama or romance is an "emotional experience".

Congrats on your sobriety, Hambo!

@gianthamish: Absolutely! Your essay was really entertaining and I never thought you were saying that games shouldn't strive for artistry. It actually crystalized a few ideas that I haven't been able to put my finger on.

I actually believe the opposite about categorization though. It would be helpful if we didn't shy away from using words like drama or romance to describe games. Especially when they're story focused. Video game genres are mostly mechanically based, platformer, fps, tps, rpg, puzzle, fighter, etc..but for some reason we feel like we can't delve back into the established categorizations we've been using for storytelling for centuries. Yes, video games are a relatively new medium but they're just a new way to experience (that fucking word again) things we've already...experienced.

Video games are definitely in their infancy but we don't need to pretend like they're some brand new thing that should reinvent all genres or create their own since they're so important. They aren't. Brothers is a family drama. Gone Home is a coming-of-age romance. I'd venture to guess that we don't call them those things (what they are) because those genres aren't profitable for the teenage gaming demographic that gets most of the commercial marketing attention. The kid swearing in the microphone playing Halo probably doesn't give a shit about Kramer Vs Kramer and marketers know it.

No, the other one. No not Fat Ewan. The other other one.

I agree that 'emotional experience' is a pretty vague goal for a game to aim for. If the game has any kind of story then you would hope it would elicit some emotional response as standard. I don't just mean sadness, it could be excitement, fear, joy, whatever. The way the term has been used by some suggests that games are typically emotionless and that to elicit an emotion they need to deal with sadness.

Thinking of a few emotional moments from games that provoked a good mix of feelings:

Walking Dead Season 1: That ending. It was genuinely sad to me what happened to Lee. That final conversation with Clem made me tear up. But the game also made me laugh a bunch at some of the strange things Clem would do. There was dread when you find out that someone is stalking the party and straight up anger when those guys steal your boat.

Persona 4: Fear and Sadness when Nanako goes missing. Really missed her saying 'welcome home bro!'. The music also changed. But that game was already really funny in parts and again, the midnight channel music really creeped me out.

Metroid II: Probably never described as an emotional experience, I was weirdly affected by the ending of the game. After you beat the final boss, you witness the hatching of a baby Metroid and it helps you escape. It even squeaks. For the last minutes of that game I grew weirdly attached to the little metroid.

I've just noticed that all of these examples are kinda paternal (I know Samus is a lady) so I don't know what that says about me. But the games that have made me sad are generally ones that have also been good at making me feel all kinds of things.

I share the OP's weariness with self-proclaimed "emotional experience" games. For me, the most effective examples are games which don't go out of their way to try to force emotions onto the player, they're simply worked into the narrative organically. Every time I see some obviously contrived attempt (e.g. CoD's "Press x for emotions" moment), it falls 100% flat. Also, whenever a game is straight-up marketed/billed as some "emotional experience", what that says to me is "oh, they're going to kill off the sidekick you're supposed to like", and then they almost always do exactly that. It's made so much worse because they always seem to want to "drop the mic" over this shit, as if people are all going to weep uncontrollably at this high drama moment that theytold everyone to fucking expect.

Sadly, most games do the emotional stuff extremely poorly. As good as facial animations, voicework, et al. can be now if effort is put into them, there's really no excuse at this point not be able to create some compelling situations. Hell, some of the early MGS games pulled it off despite craptastic graphics, and yet we can't pull it off now with the ability to damn near make film visuals? Let's also please tap into more of the emotional spectrum than "here is scripted sad moment". Make me angry. Make me laugh. Make me care about the game's characters and the story. Then I might shed a tear for something that's supposed to be affective.

Games need more shades of grey. They're filled with one-note villains, one-note hero protagonists, and supporting characters that are generally underdeveloped to the point that you don't really care what happens to them. Storytelling in games mostly sucks, so when I hear someone tout their game in this regard, it's an eye-roll-inducing moment for me. Especially since the people making these games tend to be arrogant about their supposed genius to the point of being entirely offputting. Don't oversell it. Make it substance, not hype. Sneak it in. Surprise me. Whatever you do, don't tell me what to feel, because then I feel nothing.

I think this is more of a language issue than anything else. All great games are emotional experiences, but the emotions that most mainstream games go for are excitement, satisfaction, catharsis, a sense of discovery, etc. I've sunk dozens(hundreds?) of hours into Nuclear Throne at this point and will continue to play it into the foreseeable future. Not many people would call this game "an emotional experience," but why would I keep going back to it if it didn't make me feel anything?

So, when people describe a game as an "emotional experience," what they usually mean is "It will make you cry." There's obviously some problems with this. First, there's this nasty habit of judging a piece of media solely on how many tears it can wrench from the audience, which diminishes the value of other emotional responses. The other problem is when artists describe their own work as an "emotional experience" it can't help but come off as cynical. It's really not that hard to emotionally manipulate your audience into being sad, but that certainly doesn't make a story good or meaningful.

I actually, once I got the hang of it, thought the Brother's control narrative worked pretty well. The story never went anywhere surprising, nor did it elicit any tears, but I appreciated what the game was trying to go for. And perhaps being a big brother myself, I could relate to some of the ways that whole symbiosis worked. I am 32 now and my brother is 28 and I can still feel as though I have to reach out to him and make sure he's doing ok. Even if I know he's making more money than me, has an active social life and doesn't necessarily need my help with anything. There's still an unmistaken unspoken bond. Which is why when the big brother makes his mistake (using the wrong brain) in that game, it broke my heart. I remember sitting there staring at the screen silently going "what the fuck are you doing you piece of shit?"

For me, the emotion that Brother's brought out in me was familiarity of family. The things we do for the ones we love and the moment to moment priorities that at times seem so important that we forget what's actually important. And judging by the age of the two brothers it's at an age where the older one is getting the sense of responsibility to be the man without actually having the experience of being that while the young one is still playful and the conflict that ensues because of that.

I don't have as much issues with someone describing their game as emotional, as vague as it might be, because it at least describes a bit of their intent. Sure, a lot of them use it as a way of saying "we're going to be a real downer" but that's probably also because the word emotional has become synonymous sad and introspective due to popular culture. Could people be more specific? Definitely. But I don't necessarily need to be told what specific emotion something elicits either, I would rather experience that on my own. Because as much as it would be disappointing to go into a game expecting it to be "emotional" and it isn't, it would probably be even worse going into it expecting a very specific emotion and not finding it or even finding something completely different. I don't feel like I need that expectation to color my perception. So in a way, I would rather opt for a catch all vague term than something very specific.

Though in all honesty, I think you could describe games without even bringing up that aspect at all and just describe the overall gameplay, story and setting without saying what type of reaction it's meant to give you.

Argument for nuance. Yes. Argument against reductionism. Yes! Telling David Cage to get the fuck outta here! YES!

Marry me.

Developers, publishers and reviewers alike – eschew this reductive language. Begin to develop a critical language that allows us to examine these emotions in depth, and why and how they are elicited from the player, rather than just stopping at the word ‘emotions’.

Damn it, I'm too strapped for time to go in depth with this but: I don't think most of the people whose job it is to examine the emotions in video game have enough confidence in their language to expand upon them. Which is to say they want to play it safe by just saying a game is emotional instead of delving into themselves to understand why they think the game is emotional and exposing that part of themselves to the reading public. Writing about emotional response is highly subjective, moreso than most game reviewers as game reviews are built upon making subjective statements that are relateable as true by the majority of the audience: "The graphics are bad", or "the excess of hollow side-quests can easily leave the player feeling that their time is being wasted by playing the game" are examples. It's subjective but there's something empirical to it.

To write about emotional responses to a game is a process requiring much more dedication and is arguably more taxing. Furthermore it's risky. You could write at length about your response to Journey, filling the piece with your personal response to the game based on the context of your personality, views, and experiences and this would surpass such basic language as calling the game "emotional" or some PR guy saying they feel players will be brought to tears. Steven Lynn's Texts and Contexts (I'm citing it because it's in arms reach, don't think of it as an authority.) would call this a reader-response criticism and while there are reviewers who take to that style of writing (On her blog, Cara Ellison has a guide to reviewing games that aligns closely to this idea.) it can lead to a backlash of alienated readers dismissing it if they come from a significantly different background (Look at the Gawker weekend essay comments and tell me I'm wrong.). So most of the time it's easier and more agreeable to write about the emotions of a game in a way that isn't heavily influenced by the context of the person writing it. This goes triply so for publishers and developers who must separate themselves heavily from their work. It sucks but not everyone in this or most industry is experienced with writing this way or feels safe exposing such an examination of themselves or they're feelings towards the game.

Damn good blog post you've written here. I'd say write more and do less videos but that's entirely me and my anti-video essay agenda.