I was reading this article (and the Shakesville post about this article)
So what does this have to do with video games? Well, some video games allow the player character to have sex with NPCs; even more allow the player to have romantic relationships with NPCs. What the vast majority of these games inevitably do is present relationship mechanics that distill the commodity model down to its essence—you talk to the NPC enough, and give them enough presents, and then they have sex with/marry you.
I've seen a lot of people getting up in arms about this, and I don't really see why. As far as I can tell, there's no way to model virtual sexual or romantic relationships in a video game* without falling back on some sort of relationship point system (as one of the commenters says, the AI can't gauge your heart and soul but it can track your responses to it). Even if you're just talking to the NPCs (as in Jade Empire or the Baldur's Gate series), the game is keeping score. In most cases, this "love-as-commodity-system" in games is used in an attempt to replicatethe development and progress of a real relationship in virtual form (for which all the presents and such basically serve as a metaphor of sorts). Such as in the Harvest Moon games, where you see the girl gradually go from being indifferent to you to friendly to loving you as her heart level increases. Or in innumerable dating sims and virtual novels where your choice determine which girl you end up with and/or what story path you follow.
Thing is, almost everything in games require a commodity model of behavior. That's the very nature of the medium. Few people will perform a task in a game if there's no reward for it (be it gold, experience, items, or even just advancing the story)...
Two relevant comments from the article:
The problem with videogames is that they cannot offer what is experienced and sought-after in real-life relationships (e.g. long-term companionship, moral supports, trusts, social partnerships) whenever players interact with NPCs, so they instead need to reward players with something more tangible and visible.
Perhaps tangible wasn't the right word-an obvious, apparent, or even implied reward is what the player should be presented with to work towards. And as you said, that can be something akin to Fable 2's incentive of a more intricate storyline.
However, romance in a RPG such as Fable is still a side-quest, and if the player is going to take part in a more deep and meaningful relationship within the game then the reward must be greater, as in wholesale changes to the main story based on your relationship, not just enhancements. And even then, it still can't deliver the benefits of a real relationship, so the relationship by itself as a reward is moot.
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. Treating sex as a commodity is wrong in the real world. But doing almost anything in the real world the way it's done in games would be...
I apologize if I'm rambling or being unclear, by the way. This has just been bothering me since reading the article...
*You can also incorporate a relationship into the story, which allows for a much deeper and more realistic portrayal but almost always removes all player choice from the equation (since this approach usually requires singling out one character as the Designated Love Interest). In the rare cases it doesn't, either the difference between options is mostly cosmetic (as in Dragon Quest V) or you're back to operating on a relationship point system where the game tracks your interactions with the NPCs to determine who you'll end up with...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: On Modeling Relationships in Video Games.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15804
The problem with modelling romantic interests in video games as vending machines is that this is not an alien concept in real life. Amanda over at Pandagon has extensively covered, for example, the PUA phenomenon, (most recently here: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/more_on_pick_up_artists_and_george_sodini/) in which men assume that if they perform the correct actions (be polite, pick up the tap, compliment their lady), they deserve sex. And when they don't get it, they're angry, because women are not human beings to them, with their own preferences and emotions. This led George Sodini to open fire on women he didn't even know.
And this isn't just the seedy underbelly of one minority group of men, but something that finds its way into common conversation (like the article you read pointed out) or even scientific study (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/all_monkey_ladies_are_prostitutes_who_get_paid_in_not_currency/). And while video games may not cause this attitude towards women, it certainly does not help. If programmers cannot come up with a more creative and realistic way to do relationships in video games, they can take them out.
I can see why you think this is a bit of a non-issue. Programmers may be unable to help it, and they may feel pressured to put sex in their games. But that is not how it comes off, when they create "Ladies' Man" achievements and the like. This is an extension of fratboy culture, not programmers with a gun to their heads about putting sex in the game. If this wasn't how many women are treated in real life, it may be a non-issue. But that is not the case.
I think a lot of people don't realize just how hard it is to model realistic romantic relationships in game. It's hard enough in prose or in film, where you have one set narrative path, but when you have to deal with a player, too, who has control over the narrative and is probably going to fuck it up in ways you can't even fathom, what do you do?
A lot of it also has to do with how programming works. The "commodity" system, like it or not, is fairly easy to program. It's much easier to just set a flag or counter for whether or not someone likes you than to dive into the mire of trying to fake AI (which we're a long way off from).
But I'm not going to discount the fact that most programmers are male and take their male privilege with them.
It may be true, as the writer says, that videogames "cannot offer what is experienced and sought-after in real-life relationships." But what videogames can offer is another place where people can experiment
freely with their identity. Please see the story "Virtual Switching, or Playing Games?" to read how sometimes gaming can be therapeutic.
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009summer/2009summer_Kral.php
Certainly simulating the experience of a real relationship is impossible. However one can have a series of optional scenes that may or may not influence the main storyline, and may or may not play out, or may play out different based on player actions.
Avoid a 'commodity' view in games would basically mean NOT making it into a side quest. The player would have the option of whether to ask out a NPC, or to talk to them more often then necessary, but there would be no specific quest to complete, or gift to buy, etc.
An example of this in Final Fantasy 7, where there are two female love interests, Aeris and Tifa. There are a number of dialogues between the player's character, Cloud, and them. These dialogues are unavoidable, but you can choose between a 'nice' and a 'mean' response. There is a scene with three different versions, if you're nice to both or just Aeris, you go out with Aeris, if you're just nice to Tifa, you go out with her, if you consistently choose just mean responses, you go out with Barrett, a gruff male character. There is no obvious indication that being nice or mean has any affect on the storyline, in fact you could play through without knowing of the alternate versions of the date scene. While there are MANY side quests one can engage in, none of them influence this. Also choosing either nice or mean always involves the same amount of effort. It all just comes down to how the player feels about the NPCs and how he feels like responding to them.