[MUD-Dev2] Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviewsand rants)

[John Buehler]

Raph Koster writes:

> John Buehler wrote:
> >
> > Raph Koster writes:
> >
> > > John Buehler wrote:
> > > > Typed speech is a crutch
> > > > until we can get voice working properly
>
> > > Typed speech is not a crutch; it's an alternate mode of expression.
>
> > Typed speech is, indeed, a crutch.  I know that because I cannot talk to
> > people when I want to talk to them.  I use text in those situations.
The
> > fact that text is a crutch for voice is not saying that text has no
value
> > at any time.  The very fact that we invented text as a medium after we
> > had voice suggests that voice is no panacea.
>
> Come on now, you're splitting hairs. The phrasing of your original
> commentwas that we use typed speech as a crutch because we cannot get
> voice workingproperly yet. And I am stating that there are things that
> voice will *never*"do properly" -- namely, those things at which text is
> better.

Right.  I'm underscoring the value of speech and you're underscoring the
value of text.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, and we're in violent
agreement on that.  I'm fairly certain we differ somewhat on our estimation
of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

> I think the whole debate would be better off reframe in terms of "what
> arethe strengths of text chat, voice chat, visual icons, auditory cues,
> andother interfaces."

Agreed.  I would not want to work with a computer that only talked to me and
only listened to my voice commands.  Ergo, voice is not a panacea of
interaction.

> For example, in terms of this emotes discussion, a huge benefit of voice
> isthat you do not need to create emotional puppeteering systems because
> voiceconveys emotion very well. A huge weakness of it is that
> emotionalpuppeteering with voice is also  difficult skill that actors
> train in foryears.

This is going back to the original points about emoting.  In typed chat,
players really don't care to expend the effort needed to compose full
sentences with correctly spelled words, punctuation and such.  It's far more
work than just saying what they have to say in real life.  They're used to
the effortlessness of voice, and aren't all that given to working hard at it
in a game.  This is partly reflected in constructs such as "r u going?"
Emotes are a level of effort beyond that, and I just don't believe that
players are all that inspired to include emotes - unless emoting is
inherently enjoyable to them.  I believe that it's not, except where emoting
produces the "toy effect" (/dance).  As a means of subtle communication?
No.

The same will be true with voice acting.  Players won't put much of anything
into that either, even though they're going to gain back much of the
effortless quality of speaking through voice.  I believe that the software
will have to do the work for the players.  That means voice morphing (13
year old girl sounding like a 130 year old male dwarf) and it will someday
mean puppeteering based on the player's spoken word.

This doesn't mean voice acting.  It means that the player's natural voice
inflection will carry through to his character according to his preferences.
He may always want his character to present a calm demeanor, so when the
player gets upset and is screaming through his microphone at Leroy, his
character is calmly saying the same thing in the game.  It may produce some
humorous results, but it'll all work out.  Well, in 20 or 30 years it will.
We clearly won't have that for many moons.

> When we debate whether emotes make sense or not in a
> game-drivenenvironment, we're actually talking matter of degree, and we
> shouldn'tforget that voice tone alone conveys more nuance than the
> entire emotesystem in a typical game.

I agree.

JB