Brenda Brathwaite has created something most of us find illusive, a board game that makes people cry. Train
changes the rules of gameplay, eliciting an emotional response while
causing players to try to change the design of the game while playing
it. It makes them uncomfortable, sad, and unwilling to win.
When
discussing emotive games, it's important to define the emotion one
wishes the player to feel and when we want them to feel that.
Certainly, we've all played games that cause us to feel something. A
game becomes interactive and "fun" when it elicits a positive response
such as laughter, satisfaction, or awe. Consider the last time you
caused a huge explosion in a game or laughed at a bit of dialogue.
Game designers put in elements to bring forth certain responses on purpose. Most players were touched by Aerith's death in Final Fantasy VII. Insomniac uses amusing quips to obtain giggles and smiles in the Ratchet & Clank series. I found the beggars in Assassin's Creed to be very annoying, while hitting them became very satisfying.
Meanwhile, Assassin's Creed touched on my fear of heights and, along with inFAMOUS,
created a small fear of water, at least during gameplay. Some games
create an unintended emotional response such as anger, annoyance, and
frustration. Therefore, for the purpose of this article, it's
important to define emotive games as those that involve a player's
emotions, in an intended way, even when they are no longer playing.
To
elicit an emotional response, the game must first be immersive.
Creating an immersive game is a huge subject by itself but, if elements
of the game are jarring players out of the experience, the required
interaction cannot be achieved. The player will not suspend disbelief
long enough to be affected by the game without being immersed in the
environment and story. It must touch them on a personal level and
stick with them after play is through.
Immersion is but a
small part of the challenge, however. In an age of internet guides and
forums, it's difficult to surprise players or sneak up on them. Players
don't need to choose whether or not to save the Little Sisters before
consulting the internet or guide to see the outcome of the decision.
Players hear about the treasure chest that voids the Ultimate Weapon
before the game is even in their hand. It would seem that touching a
player emotionally then resides in the story, but, it's almost too
difficult to avoid word-of-mouth.
One option is to take away player choice. Modern Warfare 2's
airport scene is appalling and 
disturbing. Players walk through a busy
airport, mowing down innocent, unarmed people. They can't run or rush
the scene. They don't choose the scene, it is given to them and they
must get through it. It haunts you long after playing.
This uncomfortable scene is a powerful example of what I'd hope to achieve in an emotional response. It doesn't allow player choice, while touching the player's emotions in an intended way once they are no longer playing.
It's only one scene, however. Re-creating this
response several times in a game would numb the player, dimming the
response. This is a fine example of emotive play, but not an emotive
game.
The next option involves creating ethical dilemmas in games. While I found Bioshock
to be one of the most immersive games I've ever played, choosing
whether or not to save the Little Sisters was not really an ethical
dilemma. It didn't change the game significantly and it actually
becomes a strategy for some. If you save them, you get the better
ending. If you harvest them, you get more weapons upgrades and more
trophies. Instead of being ethical, it simply becomes a matter of
what's important to the player.
Likewise, in inFAMOUS, being good or evil fails to significantly affect play or ending. It, more or less, changes the visuals of the game. Fable II, however, creates decision-making that does affect the game without the player being completely aware of the changes they are making. To get an emotional response from this device, then, the designer must design ethical dilemmas into the game that actually affect the gameplay and story.
The problem with this lies in the previously-mentioned word-of-mouth.
If we create decisions, how do we keep the player from looking up the
outcome prior to making the decision? And, how do we keep the player
from changing that decision when they get an unexpected response?
We
could make it a timed decision, but word-of-mouth means they'll know
about the choice before they get to it. We could take away decision,
but, we've already shown that, while this creates the intended response
in the short-term, it will ultimately fail to keep the player immersed
in the experience. We could make games that involve an ethical
decision which is merely the lesser of two evils. Again, though, the
guides and forums rear their ugly heads allowing players to make an
informed decision. Complicated, branching story lines involving many
decisions would seem the only, albeit expensive, option, then. In this
way, player choices would lead to other choices making them unsure of
the ultimate outcome.
In the final analysis, the answer would
seem to lie in creating a game that offers small ethical dilemmas. The
player should be making decisions with little thought to the outcome.
The decisions should seem so insignificant that they are invisible to
the player, making them unaware of how they are affecting the game.
And yet, the decisions should be significant enough to affect the
player in a small way even when making them.
Saves must be automatic
and seamless so that the player cannot undo a choice. The game must
be immersive and the outcome of the story should shock or surprise the
player in some way so that they become aware, in the end, that their
choices caused that outcome. Thus, the designer retains control of the
intended emotional response and outcome while giving the player the
illusion of control and decision-making. In this way, not only will
they be touched by the story and the game, but they will continue to
consider the choices they made long after they have finished playing.
Brenda Brathwaite created a game with all of these elements in Train.
Players make choices based on the rules of the game without being fully
aware of the outcome of those choices. When they suddenly become
aware, the game itself becomes an ethical dilemma that touches players
long after they have stopped playing.