Appendix - Game Sound Technology and Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments - page 421

basically he wanted to talk about the depth of
exploration one can get to in GTA (a game that,
as we all know, has had a reputation for being
gratuitously violent), how rich the environment
is, etc. He walked his character all the way away
from the city - saying that “it was too noisy and
busy” and into “Central Park” in order to “enjoy
some quiet nature sounds and peace of mind, away
from it all” - it just struck me as a most curious
simulacrum - finding the precious solace of “real-
ism”, of reprieve from a noisy environment in a
game - in the quiet natural soundscape of a game!

the traditional narrative, the fearful sound works
just because we have been “guided” toward it by
the linear storyline (and the sensory experiences
that accompany it, think “calm before the storm”).
In the perspective of an ad-hoc modification of
synthesis parameters it might well be that we
constantly reflect the fact that our behavior has
an impact on the events, which might make the
actual events much less interesting.

A second issue is to deal with the nuances in
perception, behavior, and the possible contrast
between measured states and felt states. Bio-
physical excitement might have different causes,
so altering the assumed cause might trigger the
wrong feedback loops... But that's a subject of a
lot of research anyway.

To me, that signifies one possible future for game
sound - it will be more and more the “real” envi-
ronment of young people as opposed to the real
soundscapes of the noisy, urban, overcrowded off-
line world. So design has to be conscious of that,
absolutely, how - I'm not sure...mimic closely and
thoroughly our surrounding acoustic soundcsape,
or foster completely imaginary worlds?

But I also see a huge chance for creative practice
in such technologies. However, this seems to re-
quire the invention of new game genres. I think
the traditional “narrative” approach to game de-
sign (more or less linear, storylines, quests) has
a few merits (subtly changing the sounds based
on player's states, as described), but it would not
be the most suitable approach to leverage the full
potential.

Grimshaw: I think foster completely imaginary
worlds. It's the 'otherness' of other environments
that captivates players and I for one would see no
reason to immerse myself in a world exactly the
same as this one.

The play with emotions in itself could become
part of the game, and the player would have to use
his self-control over emotional states for actively
controlling aspects of the game. Imagine you are
a virtual spy and have to trick a lie detector or an
investigative detective... Ok that's more traditional
narrative again, but what I want to say is: It might
be worthwhile not to try to hide the system, the
apparatus, from the player, but make it available
to them as tool for action.

Hug: Following up on the initial question (and
some related points made during the discussion)...
I agree with Grimshaw that there is a strong pos-
sibility biofeedback will be used in some form to
control game engine states, including real time
sound synthesis. However I am not convinced
that this will necessarily lead to improved player
experience. The problem is, that if players are
aware of these mechanisms (and they surely will
be, because advertisements, making-ofs and
magazines will make a rave about it) this will
already alter the way they approach the game.
Usually, once we are aware of a certain level of
control, we will try to subvert a given system. In

How this connects to sound? I strongly believe
that there is a big potential in the possibility of
linking a virtual sound world with the actions of
the player. This may be partially controlled by
biophysical monitoring systems, but I think at least