- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
Something I've noticed
- Thread starter YM
- Start date
Caliostro
L6: Sharp Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 261
- 110
Which can also be accomplished by psychological traits. In fact, something that looks human and doesn't behave humanly is more likely to evoke repulse than empathy (QED the uncanny valley experiment).
They're humanoid for the same reason so many FPSs have a main character be a generic power armored space marine... Because it's easier.
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
The uncanny valley requires something to be very close to human but be off in some way that a person can't immediately put their finger on, but knows is wrong.
We're talking about things just being bipedal with two arms, a head on top, and eyes/nose/mouth generally arranged in the same configuration. That's not even close to the uncanny valley.
You're ascribing negative attributes and motives to a whole range of developers and artists without even so much as an interview to back your claim up. I think that's a pretty crappy way to look at the world!
We're talking about things just being bipedal with two arms, a head on top, and eyes/nose/mouth generally arranged in the same configuration. That's not even close to the uncanny valley.
You're ascribing negative attributes and motives to a whole range of developers and artists without even so much as an interview to back your claim up. I think that's a pretty crappy way to look at the world!
Caliostro
L6: Sharp Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 261
- 110
You mention sympathy towards characters. First, highly unaffected by physical traits, and mostly affected by psychological traits, but most importantly, to attain any kind of sympathy based on physical aspect you'd need the characters to look even remotely human. For instances, most of H.R. Gigger's Alien designs are bipedal, yet they generate no more empathy towards them then, say, something like this, this or even this.
In order to generate empathy through their physical appearance they'd have to be remarkably similar to humans, which brings us to the uncanny valley effect. And yes, I know what it was, the robot experience, but the important thing is the underlying concept they explained, the cognitive contrast effect.
That said, allow me to emphasize how unimportant physical appearance is:
Here's Shia LaBeouf portraying Transformers' protagonist Sam Witwicky, a perfectly average (by Hollywood standards) teenager. This is a character that physically, we can all relate to, some more than others, but nonetheless, he's a teenage human being with all the body parts we have. It's easier to empathize with a brick. He's shallower than a tea spoon, profoundly stupid, and... Just generally unlikable. The movie itself is one of the biggest pieces of crap Hollywood has ever produced, and that lead character is nothing if not the pivotal point of all the failure. There's absolutely no way to relate to him because despite looking perfectly human his behavior is ridiculous. Replace him with a cardboard cut out and NOTHING changes.
Cue Wall-E a CARTOON ROBOT THAT CAN'T EVEN TALK. Physically he's very "unrelatable" isn't he? He's made of metal, he has tank threads for legs, and... Well... He's a robot... Yet, he's an amazing character that very easily generates empathy. You'll finish the movie liking a silly cartoon robot more than the aforementioned perfectly human dickberk. Because of the way he behaves. He evokes and displays more real emotions in 10 minutes, by himself, without so much as a word, than Shia does throughout the entire Transformers abortion.
If you want another example look into Carl Fredericksen. A 76 year old cartoon man who is a better, more relatable and interest action hero, a better protagonist, than most action heroes to ever be created.
So no, physical aspect matters next to nothing towards creating empathy, it's the psychological aspects, the characterization, that matter. If the writing is good you'll empathize with the characters whether they're human, robots, aliens, or cardboard boxes. Call it what you will, but this is simply lazy art direction. Or lazy game design in general. Depends on who ordered who to do that.
I'm ascribing negative attributes and motives based on logical theories, based on empirical evidence and academical knowledge, as explained above. You're basing it on...?
Cheers.
Caliostro
L6: Sharp Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 261
- 110
Eheh, you missed the point.
Actually that's not true, you didn't miss the point, you pretended to miss the point. Or that's what I'm hoping at least.
Good writers vs. bad actor is more evidences towards behavior > physical aspect. Nice try though.
PS: Your evidence is non-existent. Mine trumps.
Sel
Banned
- Feb 18, 2009
- 1,239
- 2,570
What evidence?
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
This. Until you bring out either a) a published, peer-reviewed psychological study on the nature of empathy and human reaction specifically regarding humanoid vs nonhumanoid appearances or b) a collection of interviews with the writers and designers of various works of science-fiction (both interactive and noninteractive) with quotes regarding why they picked one kind of alien over another, you are cherry picking personal observations to rationalize your opinion.
That's not evidence. That's not logic. It comes right back down to what you want to believe about other people.
I don't have the kind of evidence I've mentioned above either. Could I find it? Maybe. Do I feel I need to? Not really. I fully recognize that my position is based on more on subjective opinion and not objective study or first-hand reporting. But I'm ok with that because my desire is to believe other people are smart, capable, creative, and any other positive adjective you can think of, until proven otherwise. Are you ok with having the opposite inclination?
Caliostro, your comparison is flawed in one important point. You are not comparing similar things. The whole point of Wall-e (and most of Pixar's stuff) is to create an emotional connection between the viewers and the character, they were trying something new with a silent protagonist that conveys everything through emotion and behavior.
On the other hand, you were never supposed to get attached to Sam Witwicky, they weren't trying to make you care about him, the point of the movie is WOOOO ROBOTS THAT TRANSFORM, ACTION, AND SPECIAL EFFECTS.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong (I really don't care about the discussion at hand) but the things you chose to back yourself up could have been better.
On the other hand, you were never supposed to get attached to Sam Witwicky, they weren't trying to make you care about him, the point of the movie is WOOOO ROBOTS THAT TRANSFORM, ACTION, AND SPECIAL EFFECTS.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong (I really don't care about the discussion at hand) but the things you chose to back yourself up could have been better.
Going back to before caliostro decided his opinion was final, what other fictional universes have used that idea? I personally don't like it because of how long it takes to evolve and how up until around 60 million years ago, that is after the mass extinction, there wasn't even any primates. I can't help but feel if our evolution had been 'seeded' by an ancient space faring race with intent to make us humanoid that it wouldn't have worked. we(along with every other mammalian life) were given the chance to excel as mammals because of the mass extinction and the removal of the larger predators that until then, kept mammals as a small part of the diverse array of life. billions of years evolution, and only in the final 60 million does anything look like the ancient space faring race that brought us here? I don't buy it.
I'm not holding back the possibility that the larger reptilian life wouldn't have evolved sentience and even ended up humanoid. I mean, four legs is common and some of them were even able to have the dual stance where they could walk upright on just two legs, if that species had continued to evolve it may have ended up closer to humanoid. but it may have totally not. There might even be no sentient life now if that extinction event hadn't happened.
not really, its one of the lesser off topic threads we've had, most are made, based around more of a spammy nature or are completely uninteresting matter to most users.
I'm not holding back the possibility that the larger reptilian life wouldn't have evolved sentience and even ended up humanoid. I mean, four legs is common and some of them were even able to have the dual stance where they could walk upright on just two legs, if that species had continued to evolve it may have ended up closer to humanoid. but it may have totally not. There might even be no sentient life now if that extinction event hadn't happened.
not really, its one of the lesser off topic threads we've had, most are made, based around more of a spammy nature or are completely uninteresting matter to most users.
- Apr 29, 2008
- 1,068
- 709
True, fair point. I kind of figured that the reasons for this phenomenon were quite straightforward, people identify more with bipeds and they're easier to animate or mocap, and hence switched off to this thread only to come back and see six pages. My bad.
I do agree that it would be cool to see more non bipedal aliens though, I'm struggling to think of any of note that actually have developed personalities, in film or games.
The non bipedal aliens in fiction always seem to be the bad guys because by their very nature they're alien to us.
Saying that, look at "Tin Man" from star trek. An empathic, psychic, organic, space faring mammal. Completely sentient, but nothing more than an egg shaped organic mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
In the narrative process it is hard to empathise with this creature. It boasts no familiar shape and so immediately we are uncomfortable with its presence.
“Certainly past experience, whether from first-hand or from secondary sources, is crucial to the attitude adopted towards, and the interpretation of, an existing sense.” (Pocock & Hudson, 1978, p. 21).
In Wall-e we relate to certain actions as we recognise them as virtuous, honourable, kind, or cruel. We are subtly lead that the computer is evil with dark colours and red lights. Additionally, the robots have faces. Which is incredibly important in the visual narrative process.
The "Tin Man" does not boast appendages or even a face of any kind. In order to empathise with it, the Betazoid "Tam" is used to relay certain emotions to us. He feels pain, and through Tam's emotions and our understanding that these emotions are being relayed from the Tin Man, we now empathise with this creature that is is old, lonely, and without purpose.
It is very much so that for story purposes, the human form is used for convinience if anything.
It reminds me of short circuit. Johnny 5, a self aware robot, is fitted with lense pieces that conviniently represent eyes, and shields that are used as eyebrows that translate emotions to us.
Anger is presented through lowered inner brows and squinted eyes.
Uncertainness and fear is demonstrated by "puppy dog eyes".
Curiosity is protrayed with a tilted head and lowered outter brows
All human based expressions. But what we're basically discussing here is "body language". Body language tells us a lot, and when we are presented with an alien form, it is much harder to relate to any emotion being portrayed. We simply don't understand.
edit: My favourite race is species 8472 from ster trek voyager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
In the narrative process it is hard to empathise with this creature. It boasts no familiar shape and so immediately we are uncomfortable with its presence.
“Certainly past experience, whether from first-hand or from secondary sources, is crucial to the attitude adopted towards, and the interpretation of, an existing sense.” (Pocock & Hudson, 1978, p. 21).
In Wall-e we relate to certain actions as we recognise them as virtuous, honourable, kind, or cruel. We are subtly lead that the computer is evil with dark colours and red lights. Additionally, the robots have faces. Which is incredibly important in the visual narrative process.
The "Tin Man" does not boast appendages or even a face of any kind. In order to empathise with it, the Betazoid "Tam" is used to relay certain emotions to us. He feels pain, and through Tam's emotions and our understanding that these emotions are being relayed from the Tin Man, we now empathise with this creature that is is old, lonely, and without purpose.
It is very much so that for story purposes, the human form is used for convinience if anything.
It reminds me of short circuit. Johnny 5, a self aware robot, is fitted with lense pieces that conviniently represent eyes, and shields that are used as eyebrows that translate emotions to us.
Anger is presented through lowered inner brows and squinted eyes.
Uncertainness and fear is demonstrated by "puppy dog eyes".
Curiosity is protrayed with a tilted head and lowered outter brows
All human based expressions. But what we're basically discussing here is "body language". Body language tells us a lot, and when we are presented with an alien form, it is much harder to relate to any emotion being portrayed. We simply don't understand.
edit: My favourite race is species 8472 from ster trek voyager.
Last edited:
Looking at a lot of animals you can see basic emotions in their faces, just look at Gromit - he's made of plasticine and only has eyebrows to convey facial emotion, jet he's probably the most emotive character in Wallace and Gromit.
Some form of face is basic for empathy. But it doesn't have to be limited to the structure of our own. Beyond an obvious 'face' (term used loosely, the structure+quantity of features doesn't matter so much) not much is needed for the audience to empathise with the creature, it just needs to be able to act. So if your game's engine isn't capable of half decent facial animations then it will be harder to empathise.
Some form of face is basic for empathy. But it doesn't have to be limited to the structure of our own. Beyond an obvious 'face' (term used loosely, the structure+quantity of features doesn't matter so much) not much is needed for the audience to empathise with the creature, it just needs to be able to act. So if your game's engine isn't capable of half decent facial animations then it will be harder to empathise.
The other interesting factor is that of the portrayal emotion.
All the emotions depicted in stuff like star trek, regardless of race, are human expressions.
I mean, look at our closest relative, the chimpanzee. A smile indicates a challenge, and aggression. A ":O" indicates happiness, a willingness to be social.
They are hardly alien, infact we are incredibly close geneticly. Yet expression of emotion is so contrasting.
All the emotions depicted in stuff like star trek, regardless of race, are human expressions.
I mean, look at our closest relative, the chimpanzee. A smile indicates a challenge, and aggression. A ":O" indicates happiness, a willingness to be social.
They are hardly alien, infact we are incredibly close geneticly. Yet expression of emotion is so contrasting.
Zwiffle
L6: Sharp Member
- Jun 24, 2008
- 269
- 161
Well I used to have the same concern, but then I got over it when I went to uni. Although it's considered lazy to make a lot of humanoids as the species, it's more efficient to adapt one style of armor/weapons/clothes/chairs/cars/elevators/etc to variations of the same basic body type instead of coming up with a brand new toilet for every unique species, etc.
I mean they're not just coming up with species, they also have to design associated things, worlds, vehicles, etc. They have to come up with a small universe to detail and create histories for, and to do that for every race would extend dev time by quite a bit.
It could also be argued that it would be just as creatively lazy to come up with some tentacled insect thing, label it intelligent, have it talk, and voila there you go - a sentient species capable of inter-stellar travel.
What I would consider to be a creative approach would be to come up with an evolutionary tree of every single transitional species in this particular specie's tree-branch all the way back to whatever primordial soup it had grown out of, with a detailed explanation of why evolution favored that particular species over another. Yeah, you get the point I think.
There are plenty of games where main characters aren't humanoid. Off the top of my head I could list Pokemon, a game that thrives on its variation of creatures, all of them seemingly intelligent to a degree, as well as fits in with that game's mythos at least. Spore is another one, although you might consider that debatable.
My ultimate point I think is this: There is more than enough inspiration for non-humanoid things out there, be it games, movies, whatever. Just look.
I mean they're not just coming up with species, they also have to design associated things, worlds, vehicles, etc. They have to come up with a small universe to detail and create histories for, and to do that for every race would extend dev time by quite a bit.
It could also be argued that it would be just as creatively lazy to come up with some tentacled insect thing, label it intelligent, have it talk, and voila there you go - a sentient species capable of inter-stellar travel.
What I would consider to be a creative approach would be to come up with an evolutionary tree of every single transitional species in this particular specie's tree-branch all the way back to whatever primordial soup it had grown out of, with a detailed explanation of why evolution favored that particular species over another. Yeah, you get the point I think.
There are plenty of games where main characters aren't humanoid. Off the top of my head I could list Pokemon, a game that thrives on its variation of creatures, all of them seemingly intelligent to a degree, as well as fits in with that game's mythos at least. Spore is another one, although you might consider that debatable.
My ultimate point I think is this: There is more than enough inspiration for non-humanoid things out there, be it games, movies, whatever. Just look.