Symbolic Language vs. Realism

[Yonjuro]

The recent topic on facial expressions made me think of something. Rather than hijack that thread, I'm starting this one.

 

It seems to me that one of the reasons why the IE games are as immersive as they are is because the graphics, voice snippets etc. work more like a symbolic language than a realistic portrayal. Other games with newer tech. have tried  to be more realistic depictions with facial expression, full voice acting, 3D scenes etc. but  they tend to be less immersive than the more tech. primitive IE games (at least, to me they are).

 

In other words, maybe the IE games take place in your brain and the newer 3D games take place on the screen?

 

Has anyone played Baldur's Gate Reloaded (the original BG content redone for the NWN2 engine)? The experiment we will never be able to do would be to get people who have never played BG and have half of them play the original and the other half to play BG Reloaded and see who is drawn into the story more.

 

If there is something to this symbolic vs. realistic dichotomy, what would a 3D game need to be more immersive:

--facial expressions derived in high res. from human actors and rendered better?

--crisper feeling navigation?

--other? 

or:

--more symbolic less realistic images? (are cartoonish 3D games more immersive than realistic 3d games?)

 

I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

[mcmanusaur]

I honestly have to say that for me this "less graphical fidelity is [somehow] more immersive" angle and even also some of the "uncanny valley" spiel doesn't ring true at all. I can see how sometimes highly stylized graphics can provide a more cohesively unique experience than incoherent attempts at photorealism (such as if the terrain had high quality textures but the character models were bad) can, but in such cases I wouldn't say that my immersion in particular is benefiting.

 

If what this post seems to suggest (that symbolic abstractions are more immersive than realistic simulations) is true, then are card games or board games the holy grail of immersion? There are probably some who would argue that they are, but I wouldn't agree with that. I suppose it comes down to defining immersion in a better way; I suppose I'd compare it to the difference between reading a book about something and watching a movie about something. I'd argue that watching the movie feels more directly immersive, but I've heard people make the case that when reading a book you have a bit more freedom in your mental representation of things. Let's say you want to imagine this character with one hairstyle for whatever reasion; it's relatively easy to ignore the one or two mentions of contradictory information in a book, but in a movie you're constantly subjected to seeing that character's "true" hair. Maybe that's something- which I myself would consider separate from immersion personally- that people value in more abstracted and stylized games as well.

 

While the progress of graphics has slowed down over time, I think that this is sort of a generational thing motivated by habit and nostalgia; an older generation of gamers might still find the 16-bit era "most immersive", whereas a newer generation might always find current-gen graphics "most immersive" even if the VR stuff continues to advance. I do believe that immersion is actually a thing, which is worth discussing, but sometimes it seems like there's a tendency to label anything that one finds pleasing in an interactive environment as "immersive".

Edited September 15, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Lephys]

There is something rather nice about descriptives and textual nuance. It's kinda like the difference between a book and a movie. Even if both are great, regarding the same story, you just don't get as much connection with what's going on inside the characters.

 

Or, think of it this way: In a book/text, you get very intuitive knowledge of the SOURCE of events and actions. You read how the character feels, and you understand exactly how they'd make a face, or perform a gesture based on that. You play out the results in your brain's visual imagination. In a film/3D graphics/audio, though, you only get the results, and work backwards from there. You see someone shake with anger, and lash out at someone else. You maybe hear them shout hysterically. But you don't get to see or hear what exactly drove that particular response. You don't know exactly WHY they're angry, or precisely what caused their self-restraint to break. Not as accurately as with descriptive text.

 

Obviously, there are pros and cons to both. There are times when it's extremely difficult to textually describe more precise actions and sounds, and there are times when hardly anything is visibly or audibly occurring, but all manner of thoughts and inner turmoil are occuring that provide insight for when something visual or audible DOES occur.

 

I don't think a game needs to be restricted to just one or the other. But, when they're both used, the trick is to focus on the appropriate thing at the appropriate time. If the source is clear, then detail the visual/audible event/action. If the actions are obvious, then it's more valuable to have the source described in great detail.

[Ffordesoon]

I don't think it has as much to do with the graphics as it does the coherence of the aesthetic used.

 

Mass Effect, with its swooping camera angles and close-ups of NPCs' faces, would need to be substantially redesigned to work as a text-based RPG, because its chief mode of storytelling is cinematic in nature. Watching the mouths of such hyperrealistic faces move up and down over and over again like a suffocating trout would look patently ridiculous.

 

By contrast, attempting to portray the vast concatenation of details that a single paragraph of description in Planescape: Torment communicates would break the rendering budget of a "cinematic" game ten times over, and you wouldn't get the lovely prose that went with it, either.

[AGX-17]

There's no distinction to be made between [airquotes] "symbolic vs realistic" [/airquotes]. It's entirely symbolic no matter what.

 

Everything that comprises the game is symbolic, even the code and the binary information that makes up its most basic foundations. The "characters" you see on the screen are symbolic representations of imaginary persons or creatures no matter how cartoonish or realistic their visual proportions. How does a "less realistic" aesthetic presentation comprise a "symbolic language"? Can you use Baldur's Gate as a system to effectively communicate with anyone who has learned Baldur's Gate?

 

Less sarcastic question relating to mental health: What, exactly, is "crisper feeling navigation"?

 

 

If the intent of the thread is the issue of aesthetic presentation (cartoonish/fantastic vs. "realistic,") it's rather pointless given these factors have already been more or less set as far as I've heard/read.

Edited September 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[PrimeJunta]

@AGX-17, communication theory makes pretty clear distinctions between symbols and representations (among other things). They're not the same thing, and realism of a representation does make a difference in the way in which it's experienced. The word "Gandalf" is not experienced the same way a painting of Gandalf by John Howe or Sir Ian McKellen playing Gandalf. All three are symbolic representations, but "Gandalf" is purely symbolic whereas the latter two are more and more representational.

 

Now, to your (rhetorical?) question. You can't use NetHack as a communication medium either, but its system of symbols is very much a symbolic language – an @ does not look much like a heroic swordsman, nor a ; like a deadly kraken that can drown you in one hit of a tentacle, but that's what they represent. You may not be able to communicate in NetHack, but NetHack is able to communicate with you, in its symbolic language, and to understand what it's saying, you have to learn that language.

 

Many of BG's symbols are more representational, to be sure, but still abstract enough that it matters, especially compared to games that strive for photorealism, like Skyrim for example. And of course the BG language has plenty of purely symbolic features; hit points and attributes for example.

 

Put another way, the OP's question is entirely legit and did not merit your sarcastic response.

 

Here's a thought: if you find a topic pointless, why not just stay out of it instead of trying to piss on it?

[Yonjuro]

 

 

I honestly have to say that for me this "less graphical fidelity is [somehow] more immersive" angle and even also some of the "uncanny valley" spiel doesn't ring true at all. I can see how sometimes highly stylized graphics can provide a more cohesively unique experience than incoherent attempts at photorealism (such as if the terrain had high quality textures but the character models were bad) can, but in such cases I wouldn't say that my immersion in particular is benefiting.

 

 

 So, if I'm getting your point, you seem to be saying that the IE games might work because they are cohesive rather than my 'symbol' hypothesis. (BTW, I don't know what you're referring to by  the  "uncanny valley" spiel).

 

 

 

 

If what this post seems to suggest (that symbolic abstractions are more immersive than realistic simulations) is true, then are card games or board games the holy grail of immersion? 

 

 

 One reason why it may not suggest that is that if you were to compare the IE games with the same stories played with pencil and paper where you were doing dice rolls and calculations yourself, the mechanics of playing could intrude on the story. Also, the voice and graphics of the IE games are adding something. My hypothesis is that they are adding  something like a symbolic language.  

 

 

 I'd argue that watching the movie feels more directly immersive, but I've heard people make the case that when reading a book you have a bit more freedom in your mental representation of things .... I do believe that immersion is actually a thing, which is worth discussing, but sometimes it seems like there's a tendency to label anything that one finds pleasing in an interactive environment as "immersive"..... but I've heard people make the case that when reading a book you have a bit more freedom in your mental representation of things. Let's say you want to imagine this character with one hairstyle for whatever reason; it's relatively easy to ignore the one or two mentions of contradictory information in a book, but in a movie you're constantly subjected to seeing that character's "true" hair. Maybe that's something- which I myself would consider separate from immersion personally- that people value in more abstracted and stylized games as well.

 

 

 

 Fair enough. Let's not use the word immersive. Suppose that for the sake of discussion, we say there is a 'book - movie contiuum'.

 

 I'll just throw this out there: The IE games might be closer to the book side where they succeed whereas many newer games have tried to put themselves on the movie side and failed. 

[Amberion]

The difference lies in how we treat the medium in our brains. Our minds fill in the blanks, and if there are many blanks, our minds work harder to fill them in. In some respects, our imaginations provide better graphics than the most sophisticated computer, simply because they're perfect, because we imagined them. We are incapable of being disappointed by the performance requirements of our own imagination, and the uncanny valley doesn't apply when we're furnishing the graphics ourselves.

[PrimeJunta]

FWIW re the actual topic, I'm very much in the "artistic coherence" camp. For example, Oblivion left me pretty much completely cold, whereas I enjoyed The Witcher a great deal. Both had similar levels of photorealism, but The Witcher had a compelling, internally consistent, and coherent artistic quality whereas Oblivion was generic, incoherent, repetitive, and bland.

 

This is one reason I'm such a Planescape: Torment fanboy by the way – few games have such magnificently coherent and consistent artistic qualities, where the visuals, the text, the music, and, um... significant parts of the gameplay reinforce each other and form aspects of the same vision.

 

So speaking for myself only, I don't think photorealism, lack thereof, or the uncanny valley have much do with whether a game snags my imagination or not. It does have an indirect impact, in that pulling off a coherent artistic vision in glorious photorealistic first-person 3D entails a great deal more work and expense than doing the same in sprites, let alone ASCII.

 

And yeah, I am looking forward to The Witcher 3, photorealism and all. My computer is from 2009 and about due for an upgrade, too...

[Yonjuro]

So we have two ideas floating around here (and nobody really buying my original hypothesis  ) :

 

First we have artistic coherence:

 

FWIW re the actual topic, I'm very much in the "artistic coherence" camp. For example, Oblivion left me pretty much completely cold, whereas I enjoyed The Witcher a great deal. Both had similar levels of photorealism, but The Witcher had a compelling, internally consistent, and coherent artistic quality whereas Oblivion was generic, incoherent, repetitive, and bland.

 

 

 

BTW, I agree on both Oblivion and P:T (though I've ranted elsewhere about some of the gameplay aspects of P:T)

 

I don't think it has as much to do with the graphics as it does the coherence of the aesthetic used.

Mass Effect, with its swooping camera angles and close-ups of NPCs' faces, would need to be substantially redesigned to work as a text-based RPG, because its chief mode of storytelling is cinematic in nature. Watching the mouths of such hyperrealistic faces move up and down over and over again like a suffocating trout would look patently ridiculous.
 

 

 

I see what you mean. Although, faces seem really hard to do well. Mass Effect may have worked better with less emphasis on the animated faces (I don't have a strong opinion about that since I didn't play it for very long (or maybe that means I DO have a strong opinion about the facial animations)).

 

And we have the book-like vs. movie-like experience:

 

 

The difference lies in how we treat the medium in our brains. Our minds fill in the blanks, and if there are many blanks, our minds work harder to fill them in. In some respects, our imaginations provide better graphics than the most sophisticated computer, simply because they're perfect, because we imagined them. We are incapable of being disappointed by the performance requirements of our own imagination, and the uncanny valley doesn't apply when we're furnishing the graphics ourselves.

 

 

There is something rather nice about descriptives and textual nuance. It's kinda like the difference between a book and a movie. Even if both are great, regarding the same story, you just don't get as much connection with what's going on inside the characters.
....
Obviously, there are pros and cons to both. There are times when it's extremely difficult to textually describe more precise actions and sounds, and there are times when hardly anything is visibly or audibly occurring, but all manner of thoughts and inner turmoil are occuring that provide insight for when something visual or audible DOES occur.

I don't think a game needs to be restricted to just one or the other. But, when they're both used, the trick is to focus on the appropriate thing at the appropriate time. If the source is clear, then detail the visual/audible event/action. If the actions are obvious, then it's more valuable to have the source described in great detail.

 

So, what we could be seeing with the IE games is a combination of good writing and a simple audio/visual representation (more symbolic than realistic, according to my way of thinking) that causes the brain of the user to process more of the story. I called this 'immersive' in my original post(, though not everyone agrees with that word choice).

[mcmanusaur]

I honestly have to say that for me this "less graphical fidelity is [somehow] more immersive" angle and even also some of the "uncanny valley" spiel doesn't ring true at all. I can see how sometimes highly stylized graphics can provide a more cohesively unique experience than incoherent attempts at photorealism (such as if the terrain had high quality textures but the character models were bad) can, but in such cases I wouldn't say that my immersion in particular is benefiting.

 

 So, if I'm getting your point, you seem to be saying that the IE games might work because they are cohesive rather than my 'symbol' hypothesis. (BTW, I don't know what you're referring to by  the  "uncanny valley" spiel).

 

If what this post seems to suggest (that symbolic abstractions are more immersive than realistic simulations) is true, then are card games or board games the holy grail of immersion? 

 

 One reason why it may not suggest that is that if you were to compare the IE games with the same stories played with pencil and paper where you were doing dice rolls and calculations yourself, the mechanics of playing could intrude on the story. Also, the voice and graphics of the IE games are adding something. My hypothesis is that they are adding  something like a symbolic language.  

 

 I'd argue that watching the movie feels more directly immersive, but I've heard people make the case that when reading a book you have a bit more freedom in your mental representation of things .... I do believe that immersion is actually a thing, which is worth discussing, but sometimes it seems like there's a tendency to label anything that one finds pleasing in an interactive environment as "immersive"..... but I've heard people make the case that when reading a book you have a bit more freedom in your mental representation of things. Let's say you want to imagine this character with one hairstyle for whatever reason; it's relatively easy to ignore the one or two mentions of contradictory information in a book, but in a movie you're constantly subjected to seeing that character's "true" hair. Maybe that's something- which I myself would consider separate from immersion personally- that people value in more abstracted and stylized games as well.

 

 Fair enough. Let's not use the word immersive. Suppose that for the sake of discussion, we say there is a 'book - movie contiuum'.

 

 I'll just throw this out there: The IE games might be closer to the book side where they succeed whereas many newer games have tried to put themselves on the movie side and failed. 

 

You could probably make the case that what I'm arguing about it being easier to entertain one's own idiosyncratic representations (such as the hair example) as being in general agreement with the "symbolic representations" idea that you propose. I am simply suggesting that it's the ability to personalize such symbols that is what lends them their attractive qualities, rather than a general quality of "immersion" inherent in symbols but not in realism.

[Yonjuro]

 

You could probably make the case that what I'm arguing about it being easier to entertain one's own idiosyncratic representations (such as the hair example) as being in general agreement with the "symbolic representations" idea that you propose. I am simply suggesting that it's the ability to personalize such symbols that is what lends them their attractive qualities, rather than a general quality of "immersion" inherent in symbols but not in realism.

 

 

 

Ok, I see what you mean. Sure, I agree there is nothing inherent in a more realistic game that should make it less immersive - quite the reverse; one would expect technology to improve the gaming experience.

 

 In fact, it's very surprising that BG2 is still one of the highest rated games of all time on Metacritic  (so is BG1 esp. based on user scores) considering how many games have been produced with the benefit of better technology (not to mention the much larger development budgets and the ability to learn from earlier games; imagine how much the industry has spent making things that are, deservedly, much further down that list).  Yet here we all are salivating over P:E.

 

 So, I guess I could rephrase my original post as something like, do the IE games work as well as they do because it is easier to make an immersive experience when you use a more symbolic less realistic representation?

[Lephys]

^ I think the short answer is "it depends on what you're representing."

 

It's kind of like asking, "Which is better; graphite, or ink?" If you're trying to draw a shaded sphere, graphite's probably going to work best. If you're trying to draw a sharp silhouette against a bright light, ink's going to work really well there.

 

Text will generally represent considerable/interpretable things much better than audio-visuals will. But simulationy, realistic audio-visuals will represent visceral things much better. The look of anger on someone's face, for example, is better represented with an actual depiction. You don't really study that with much thought. It just visually registers. But, someone's inner turmoil in making a decision would come across much more weakly in only visuals than it would with their actual thoughts in text form.

 

Textual descriptive presentation allows us to connect with the mind of another thinking being in experiencing something, while audio-visuals simply present us with raw stimulus and let our own brain go from there. Sometimes, the raw stimulus is much more potent/effective than any amount of thought-time on the matter, and sometimes a paragraph of text is far more beneficial than even realer-than-life graphics and sound could ever be. It really depends on the situation/goal at any given time.

 

Imagine if, in the BG games, instead of attack animations, text merely described each of your attacks while you stared at a lifeless figure on-screen. That would be less efficient at representing the sheer motion involved with an attack (and registering what's going on) than even the most rudimentary attack animations. Or, the critical hit animations in Fallout. When someone's arm explodes, you're well aware of the full extent of your hit, in relation to lesser hits.

 

Of course, these are still supported by text, in these examples. But, I was using them to make the point of the comparison between hypothetically doing the same thing but only using one or the other.

 

Also, you've got things like the Bastion narration. It's voice, but it's functionally the same thing as descriptive text. It's intangible thoughts and notions BEHIND what's going on on in "reality" (of the game world), being conveyed to the player as the action is actually taking place, so that he can understand things about the events and situation that would go otherwise missed.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Lephys

[Yonjuro]

^ I think the short answer is "it depends on what you're representing."

 

It's kind of like asking, "Which is better; graphite, or ink?" If you're trying to draw a shaded sphere, graphite's probably going to work best. If you're trying to draw a sharp silhouette against a bright light, ink's going to work really well there.

 

.....

 

 

Fair enough. Here's where I'm coming from:

 

 Let's look at BG1 as a specific example that (according to me) works well as a game. It is kind of minimalist, but it works the way that a good novel works (using our terminology from earlier in the thread). What I mean is that, by the end of the game, I cared what happened to the characters in my party. I lost two of my party members in the final fight, and it was a bit like when a sympathetic character dies in a novel or movie (the two were Khalid and Dynaheir so, in hindsight, it wasn't really a big problem  ).

 

 My installation of BG1 is using Tutu, the banter pack etc.( a 'modern' install of the game). I'm still surprised at how  well it worked for me as a game. I don't say this out of nostalgia for my youth because I didn't play it in my youth, I played it a year or two ago as an 'old'.  I also say it as someone who hasn't played many games (and who has finished almost none of them). When something starts to feel like sitting at a computer poking keys and doing mouse clicks (i.e., not immersive), I declare it unfun and stop playing it (these include NWN, Oblivion, KOTOR etc.; games that have the benefit of better tech. but didn't work for me as games).

 

So, instead of my original general question: Why does BG1 work as well as it does (for the subset of us that think that it works)? Is it the story? (hmm, maybe, but the story is pretty standard stuff.) The character development ? (errr, even with the banter pack, you have a few tens of character interactions ...) The pretty backgrounds and music? (well, they are kind of nice, but....). The comic relief? (ok, Albert and Rufie were funny and all, but you need to have comic relief from something for it to be comic relief).

 

I think people have had some good insights in this thread already, but there is a fine line between a game that works (for me) and the other 99.99% percent of them (that I won't bother with for long). (Obviously, I'm hoping that P:E will be on the good list.)

 

Of course, the symbolic vs. realistic angle is certainly not the whole story: e.g. IWD didn't work for me; I think because the story is too sequential and rolling a full party isn't as much fun as recruiting, say, Minsc; so story and characters matter.

 

 So, I started this thread because it occurred to me that a game like BG1 works because by representing the story the way that it does, it causes the player to think about it in a different way (and maybe it hands you enough detail to construct the world in your head instead of constructing it for you out of not quite good enough 3D graphics??). 

[Lephys]

I'm not against anything you're saying. I think the fact that so much of BG was symbolic language representation/context helped the game tremendously. I mean, a hi-res, Unreal-4-engine, top-o-of-the-line-tech 1st-person game with full voice-acting obviously benefits a lot more from visceral representation than symbolic descriptions, in general, but they also tend to cut out almost ALL of the latter and rely solely on the former, and I think this hurts them (relative to how effective they could be overall, as an entire game).

 

Yet, there are still plenty of things in BG that are served well by audio-visual representation. Like the spell-casting. Some text elaborately describing the sounds and gestures coming from my character, and the behavior of the spell (colors, lights, sounds, projectile shape/appearance/speed/movement/collision, etc.) just wouldn't be nearly as effective as having the actual sounds and gestures, then watching the spell do its thing. But then, the text description comes in handy in the combat log, where it provides the details of smaller-scale things (like exact effects such as stun, daze, disarm, etc.).

 

*shrug*... I just, I don't know what to say other than "it depends on what you're representing." I think that, in general, isometric cRPGs benefit more from the symbolic language overall, because of the style of the visuals and such and because the focus of the whole game is more on the details and context of what's going on, rather than on simple actions and events themselves. But, it's more of a ratio thing. That doesn't mean "realistically" represented visuals are rendered moot or anything. It's just more of a 70/30 thing than a 50/50. At times, the sights-and-sounds depiction of an ability or event or action might be of the utmost importance, with descriptives providing almost no purpose. But, most of the time, the accuracy of the perceivable representation takes a backseat to the richness of the symbolic language at work.

[Yonjuro]

I'm not against anything you're saying. I think the fact that so much of BG was symbolic language representation/context helped the game tremendously.

 

 

Sure, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here either 

 

 

 

I mean, a hi-res, Unreal-4-engine, top-o-of-the-line-tech 1st-person game with full voice-acting obviously benefits a lot more from visceral representation than symbolic descriptions, in general, but they also tend to cut out almost ALL of the latter and rely solely on the former, and I think this hurts them (relative to how effective they could be overall, as an entire game).

 

 

Right, "we're spending XXmillion dollars to make this game - what? 10k for writers, that's crazy, get someone cheaper!!!'

 

 

 

 

Yet, there are still plenty of things in BG that are served well by audio-visual representation. Like the spell-casting. Some text elaborately describing the sounds and gestures coming from my character, and the behavior of the spell (colors, lights, sounds, projectile shape/appearance/speed/movement/collision, etc.) just wouldn't be nearly as effective as having the actual sounds and gestures, then watching the spell do its thing. But then, the text description comes in handy in the combat log, where it provides the details of smaller-scale things (like exact effects such as stun, daze, disarm, etc.).

 

 

 I see what you mean now. We have talking past each other a little bit. When I said symbolic representation, I was including the visual parts as well. The spell casting animation may be functioning as a an element of a visual language of sorts. If this is true, then making the visuals 3D and more realistic could detract from the experience, or at best, not do anything. That is what I was getting at when I mentioned BG Reloaded vs. original Baldur's Gate - I don't know if that is true or not since I haven't played BG Reloaded (BTW, in any case, I am impressed by the level of effort that went into that mod). 

 

 TLDR; Another way to say this hypothesis is: Making a game 3D and more realistic might make it function less well as a visual language while falling short as a fully realistic representation. 

[Lephys]

Sure, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here either 

I didn't mean to suggest that. I wasn't meaning to be defensive. Only to clarify.

 

I see what you mean now. We have talking past each other a little bit.

Yes. That. I couldn't think of the appropriate phrase, but "talking past each other" is quite apt a description, .

 

When I said symbolic representation, I was including the visual parts as well. The spell casting animation may be functioning as a an element of a visual language of sorts. If this is true, then making the visuals 3D and more realistic could detract from the experience, or at best, not do anything. That is what I was getting at when I mentioned BG Reloaded vs. original Baldur's Gate - I don't know if that is true or not since I haven't played BG Reloaded (BTW, in any case, I am impressed by the level of effort that went into that mod).

See, I interpreted your use of "symbolic representation" a bit inaccurately. I was thinking that, since it was "vs realistic representation," symbolic was to mean the use of language symbols (characters and words in various languages) to represent things, again, with "realistic" being the actual "This guy's sad, so we're gonna show him frowning, rather than symbolically describing his thoughts and sadness, even though you just see a little character on the screen and cannot see a face that grows sad."

 

*nod*. For lack of a better phrasing, it's sometimes much more useful to perceive the imperceptible ("see" into someone's mind, or know things that only the near-omniscient "narrator" knows) and deduce the realistic er... perceivable events from that (whether they're at all perceptibly represented or not). And vice versa; sometimes it's more useful to simply perceive an action/event, in detail, and deduce the imperceptible factors involved with it.

 

If someone witnesses something that causes them to mentally snap, for example, I don't think any amount of textual description of what's going on in their mind is going to be as effective as a visual and audible representation of them ferociously throwing themselves at another person with sheer vengeance as their only focus, with their responses of "I'LL KILL YOU" interrupting any and all other words. At that point, we can relate that state of mind to the actions and the emotional response much more intuitively than we can with a calm, written description of that narrow-minded rage and almost involuntary compulsion.

 

TLDR; Another way to say this hypothesis is: Making a game 3D and more realistic might make it function less well as a visual language while falling short as a fully realistic representation.

Agreed. No matter what, the player is a 3rd party, spectating on the action (to a degree). Perfect realism wouldn't even be achievable unless we were somehow fed the character's neural impulses and thoughts straight to our brain, regardless of the level of accuracy in the graphics and audio. In that regard, book-like text depictions have the advantage, and provide great benefit.