![]()
Avatar recently became the second highest grossing film of all time, bested only by James Cameron’s previous blockbuster, Titanic. I was skeptical at first when I saw the trailer, but the box office numbers pushed me over the edge and finally got me in the theater seats, and I was certainly not disappointed.
A film this successful accomplishes so much; whether you are a western anti-mainstream individualist or not, you must appreciate how difficult it is to make a single film that can touch the hearts of so many millions of viewers around the world. The special effects and artistry put into the world were of course breathtaking and the story…well, we’ll get to that in a minute.
Avatar offers some great lessons to game designers who are looking to reach a broad audience through an magnificent work of art. While there is much to learn from Cameron’s masterpiece, there are two main aspects that struck me as particularly timely to today’s game development landscape. Indie developers are especially encouraged to read on.
[Note that this post is full of spoilers. Proceed at your own risk if you haven't seen the film.]
You Don’t Have to Always Be Original
When I was younger and more foolish, I used to think that in order to create something great, to design a great game, to tell a great story, it had to be original. It had to be made up of things that no one had done before, all my own ideas. If everyone else was making first person shooters, I would make a 2D puzzle-adventure mash up. If the industry was telling stories about love, I would tell a story about existentialism. Go against the grain, as they say.
Avatar’s story, plot line, and characters are not very original. When I first heard about the film, I wasn’t interested in it at all, because it seemed so trite. Evil people want to steal resources from the pure and almost holy natives. War ensues, natives lose in the epic fight, then win, then lose, then barely win. Little romance story, betrayal, big bad boss character. Yay. Put Pocohontas and Fern Gully in the bibliography, please. And as I went to see the film, my expectations were matched. No plots twists blew my mind, no ideas made my head spin (other than the visual effects and realization of Pandora); the movie was entirely predictable.
However, and this is the difference, the movie was unoriginal but did it well. By hanging masterful directing on to popular themes, the film was able to reach into the hearts of millions of viewers, something that more niche or “original” themes would not have been able to do. The fact is that these archetypal themes are central to the human experience, which is why they show up so often in stories and in life. And it is because of these unoriginal, universal themes that the film was allowed to be so successful. In that sense, I prefer not say that it was unoriginal, but rather universal, a more positive connotation.
The moral: Let go of your ego. Stop being a slave to originality!
Needing to always be original is a poor strategy for two reasons. The first is that nothing is truly original; you can fight this idea but you will lose. Yes, there are ideas and concepts that you may have not heard of before or be familiar with, or ideas that the general public has forgotten, but everything is in some form based on something else. If it wasn’t, it would make no sense, because it would not be grounded in reality (which gets us into the ultra-original avante-garde). Themes and ideas that have come before you only add to your palette to design stories with.
Second, being original is an immature position. When people say they want to be original, what they’re saying is that they don’t want to do what everyone else is doing. They want to be different, the minority, eschew the majority’s lead. Ironically, demanding that you be original actually puts you in a position of control by the majority, albeit in an opposite sort of way. If everyone else zigs, then you need to zag. If the majority goes right, then you must go left. You have no free will or choice, you are still controlled.
Designers (or any artist, for that matter), do themselves a disservice by making themselves a slave to originality. Better to choose on a case by case basis whether your work should be original or universal than to do a disservice to your game’s Core Experience. Do you want your player to actually feel the turn of each doorknob as they walk through the building, thus implementing a heavy doorknob-turning Base Mechanic? Or should you just do what all other games do, and have them open the door automatically? Do you want the player to only have one chance to play your game, and after that it is over forever? This would be highly original, but it may also be frustrating or nerve racking. It might be better to implement a lives system, like many other games have done.
As you can see, enslaving yourself to originality can do a disservice to your game. Be brighter than that; choose the appropriate track: original or universal.
A Master Storyteller’s Take on Emotion
There are some incredibly emotional scenes in Avatar that pull at your heart strings. From the defiance of the researchers who sided with the natives to the wreckage on the face of Neytiri she realizes the Jake had ulterior motive for befriending her tribe, the characters on Pandora run the gamut of emotion. Love, hate, romance, fear, shock, horror. and joy.
How are these scenes made meaningful? Many game designers attempt to put in characters and scenes in their games that will pull at our heart strings in a similar way. These are elements of common storytelling, and Avatar in its 162 minute marathon hits all the highlights. So what are the keys?
First, the characters are developed. We learn their backgrounds and histories, their hopes and dreams. We spend time with them. This is incredibly important for a viewer of a movie or a player of a game to have time to form an emotional bond with a character. This doesn’t happen immediately. It takes time. Seemingly meaningless scenes are purposefully crafted to lure the viewer into the personalities of the characters, all for the ability to tug at your soul later on.
What happens when this basic rule of character development is ignored?
In the 2005 video game, Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit outside North America), at one point the player is asked to make a supposedly life-or-death choice. In summary, the player can save a young child from slipping and drowning in a frozen lake, exposing himself to enemies, or he can get away clean, letting the boy die. When I reached this point, I instantly ran away, choosing to let the boy drown while steering clear of the main character’s foes.
Was I callous in this choice? Perhaps, but I would guarantee that most players made the same choice. Why? Because of the way it was presented. The boy came out of nowhere; he was a stranger not only to the main character, but also to me the player. My character, Lucas Kane, however, had been thoroughly explored and developed. I had already spent several hours playing as him, learning his story, and growing attached to him. This uneven emotional scale made the choice a no brainer. Save an unknown stranger, or save the character that the game had taught me to love? My behavior was funneled towards only one option, whether the developers intended it or not.
In Avatar, we learn about the characters, their feelings and their emotions. We see them strive and fight and live. These foundational scenes are the building blocks of the later emotional triumphs and crises. And those building blocks pull the film up to heights of art and depth of feeling.
The moral: Don’t hand players some characters and ask them to cry. Develop a relationship that matters!
The second main lesson of the film’s raw passion is in the realism of the Na ‘vi. I, as were many other moviegoers, were struck by how the indigenous people of Pandora looked so believable, even though we knew they could not possibly be real. Usually attempts like this fail at the uncanny valley, a phrase for attempts at human realism that fail because of subtlety. Imitating human facial expression is a tricky business; even getting it 99% right is not enough and will cause revulsion in viewers.
![]()
James Cameron said that he had to wait for many years until the technology became available for him to achieve his vision for Avatar. And he certainly waited until the right time. The look in the eyes of the Na ‘vi as they watched their home tree fall to the ground was heart breaking. If they hadn’t looked so real, it would have had the emotional pull of a bad Disney movie.
While retro big pixels and cartoony art styles certainly have their place in game development, unfortunately developers will have a hard time getting players to relate to the characters as they relate to other humans. This is one of the reasons why players easily attach themselves to their family in The Sims but not to their creatures in Spore. Humans are designed to relate to other humans; everything else is a distant approximation. If your scenes are not lifelike enough, then the natural human gears and inner workings of emotions will not kick in.
This effect exists not just for character development, but for many types of engagement in general. Capcom understood this well when they launched the first Resident Evil game, one of the only titles at the time to recreate actual real-world scenes instead of a jagged polygonal approximation that was allowed at the time. By taking a clever route through painted, 2D scenes instead of half-witted 3D baby food of the 90′s, they were able to evoke real fear in players, who felt as they they really were walking down an alley, through a museum, and to their doom.
You would not have related to the Na’ vi if their faces looked like cartoons. You would not have cared when their trees were destroyed and their loved ones fell. It would have been sad, yes, but only on an intellectual level. To evoke the primal emotional in viewers and players, a degree of realism and human attachment is necessary.
How much realism is needed in a game to feel like a real human? That’s up to the developer to figure out. Facial cues, voice acting, or gestures are all a start, although perhaps out of the realm of possibility for indie developers. Realism is costly, as evidenced by Avatar’s $300+ million budget or the size of teams like Valve’s Half Life 2 team. But the results of a face or a shape that people can relate to can be astounding.
The moral: People don’t cry for cartoons. They cry for people. Give them real people as much as possible.


Really interestting article, even a bit philosophical.
It’s funny that you compared Avatar with Pocahontas because lately i saw this pretty funy comparison here:
http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
Ha! Yes, the Pocahontas comparison seems to be very common. Glad you enjoyed the article!
Pingback: The Sunday Papers | Rock, Paper, Shotgun
“People don’t cry for cartoons. They cry for people.”
I saw Up yesterday and I have to disagree! The first 15min are so unbelievably sad and it is very cartoonish. Or take WALL-E or Bambi. Humans do have empathy towards nonhumans and games/films can use that.
Nice post, and I agree with almost everything you said. a few random side-notes though:
- While the main characters were pretty well developed in Avatar, I actually felt it’s main flaw was that very few of the others were developed.
I loved the first half of the movie a lot more (which was just the two leads messing around and discovering the planet. But the final battle was strangely un-affecting because I didn’t care about any of the Navi, the marines, the scientists (who i knew nothing about) and the random pilot (who i knew nothing about). For example, I found the LOTR battles more emotionally moving because I cared more about those characters.
- I played Indigo Prophecy for the first time last week. I saved the kid from drowning. It never occurred to me to do otherwise. Didn’t hesitate.
- The navi were amazingly well done, and totally avoided the uncanny valley. Especially facial expressions. But, i don’t think it means that cartoon characters can’t be emotionally involving.
Some of the best examples of unreal characters i’ve become emotionally attached to and moved by include:
Any pixar character (wall-e, the fish in Nemo, Woody, etc..), the rabbits in Watership Down (cartoon) and the robot in Chrono Trigger. (which i played for the first time next year. he’s about 8-bits, and i felt really sad when the other robots bullied him.
Just a few thoughts, not disagreements. Avatar was such a weird movie in that i loved it, but i’ve now largely forgotten it.
I’m sorry, but saying that wanting to be original is immature feels wrong to me. I think I know what you’re saying, but I disagree.
Avatar’s plot might be universal, but it failed to establish relationships with the characters who died in the latter half of the movie.
Also, saying that the movie had a “universal” plot would put it on the same height as Shakespeare, of whom people also say that he had “universal” themes. Now Shakespeare gave us betrayal, anger, never a clear line of good and bad.
Avatar gave us great special effects, which theatre fails to do, but otherwise, I never felt for the characters because they were extremely cliche. There was the Evil American General, the Evil CEO, the Soldier Who Deserts, the Native Princess and the Native Who Does Not Like The Stranger. I did not care at all when the helicopter pilot or the fighter of the Na’vi died.
In season one of Farscape, there is an episode which has similar themes, but uses them in a much more believable, and much more morally ambiguous way.
I think there is a difference between “unoriginal” and “universal” which Avatar does not manage to overcome, and it doesn’t even need to. Because what game designers can learn from Avatar is that everything sells if it’s hyped enough and looks pretty – a lesson they should already have learned from Modern Warfare 2.
Sorry for the long rant, and of course you are completely free to disagree with me ;)
People cry for cartoons all the time. You could get someone to cry for jelly if it had the right sympathetic cues. Things like googly tear filled eyes, and a tragic backstory.
@t_m, well played, perhaps I was too presumptuous in assuming most other players would do the same. My newest article on Choice goes into other reasons why I was disappointed with that child saving scenario, if you’re interested.
@Labbes, of course there will be some people in the world who don’t like Avatar, but most people would claim they were attached to all the characters. I think it’s cynical to say that you can buy the kind of success that Avatar and MW2 have had with just hype and graphics — they are both incredibly high quality works of art. People are only sheep to a degree; they know BS when they see it.
@Calabi, good point, some types of people cry for cartoons, perhaps even most of the people you and I know. Many indie gamers who like emotional games rendered in big 80′s pixels fall into this category. I would fall into this category. But in looking across all ages and demographics, the majority of people in the world don’t care about cartoons.
Admittedly, at the end of the movie, I really did not want Jake or Neytiri to die. So the movie made me connect to them, up to a certain degree (it’s not a character study, and it shouldn’t be, really). The side characters are a different matter, however. It’s not just me, my friends as well did not care about them dying. The helicopter pilot, the brave warrior of the Na’Vi, and even Grace, the movie did not reach me at all when they died. I felt the movie put more emphasis on the big tree getting destroyed than on the side characters dying.
And of course you are right when you say that money and hype don’t make something successful, but looking at Twilight, it does not take skill to make something successful…but that’s kind of your point, I take it, that something which reaches out to a lot of people is a masterpiece in its own right, and I don’t agree with that.
PS: I also apologise for my horrible sentence structure, it’s getting late and my concentration wanes.
On the subject of “crying for cartoons,” people aren’t so shallow that they can’t emotionally relate to a character whose model can’t fully articulate realistic human expressions. This, however, requires that the character have enough substance that people’s feelings really will get tugged if something were to happen to them or their loved ones.
How realistic are character graphics in novels? And how many people actually cried for the Na’vi, anyway? Not everyone in the audience takes kindly to being condescended to by blue-skinned cartoon space cat-elves.
“You would not have related to the Na’ vi if their faces looked like cartoons.”
The fact that the Na’vi look very human-like is a bit of a red herring and doesn’t really back up your assertion that looking realistically human is essential. I think you get closer to the truth when you say:
“Facial cues, voice acting, or gestures are all a start”
I think it would be more accurate to say that a character needs to be or act human-like enough in order for you to empathise with it, the way they look being just one potential tool that can be used to help acheive this.
There are many anthropomorphic characters that you will have identified with and felt empathy for, none of which look human (but no doubt look, behave and sound human-like enough and find themselves in human-like story contexts).
In fact, I’m sure there are many anthropomorphic characters which you will have cared deeply for who don’t even have a look (other than the one you may have conjured up in your head) – surely you have at some point read a book with a talking animal, rock, tree or some other thing which is categorically not human.
The emphasis you put on “realism” and the expense of faking at the end of the article is therefore kinda misplaced; we’ve been faking it on the cheap for several thousand years.
Call me a cynic, but how much of Avatar’s success is down to their faces not looking like cartoons versus the estimated $150 million marketing spend?
“People don’t cry for cartoons. They cry for people.”
Watch “The Iron Giant” then we’ll see if you can write this statement again.
Avatar is just a plain movie with standard storytelling and interaction (it’s pure Vogler minute to minute) the only thing you could learn from it is the care for detail: everything in the movie is researched and “working” in it’s setting. This is good, but for the rest Avatar remains a very “standard” movie.
Just a small point on the crying for cartoons. Yes people attach themselves to other humans naturally, but they also can attach themselves to human surrogates. Wall-E is relatable, because he is cartoonish that it makes his human charateristics stand out. Bambi, though a deer, is relatable, because he displays human emotions. This is also part of the uncanny valley. Before the valley is a peak of relatablity and likeability. This is where creative endeavor and stylization reside. It’s not the visuals that matter so much as what they are evoking. Keanu Reeves is human, but I doubt he will be evoking any tears out of anyone anytime soon.
Also didn’t hesitate when saving the kid. Thing is later on in the game, if you turn on the TV it will be on the news, whether or not you saved him and will change your mood accordingly.
I found Avatar very boring and nothing new, it was like Pocahontas in the space, the only good character was the Colonel.
I agree with all these people…
I mean, Avatar was well done? Yes, it was… But the plot was a copy of Pocahontas, and the Art Direction look EXACTLY like the covers from Yes discs, if you search for art from the artist of Yes covers, you will see lots of stuff that are exactly like Avatar, including the flying creatures, the floating rocks, etc…
I too think that most of its sales came from Marketing, not actual skill (Altough, the people that worked where indeed skilled, it actually proves your point in the article, that orignality is not needed if you are good…)