To Walk Among Giants: Empowering a Play To Make Them Feel Strong

             I'm back from NYC and since we discussed the magic of how to make a player feel weak and helpless last time, through disempowerment, let's talk about the opposite this time.  Empowerment is pretty easy to understand on a lot of levels.  People like to feel strong, to feel capable.  Often, they aren't strong or able to feel proud of themselves due to illness or circumstance in real life, but a game can give them that feeling.  It can make them feel good about themselves.

It would feel good to be Kenshiro, punching a tank to death...games can give you that awesome feeling.

            Sadly, while it is easy to understand why empowering someone is so enchanting, it is often botched by those who attempt it.  See, there are a number of ways to empower a player and give them that feeling of strength and pride in themselves.  However many game designers fall prey to cliche or the idea that by simply making a player hard to kill or a game easy that it will have the same effect.  This is far from true, because hollow empowerment, an experience which tries to empower but which is plainly false and not convincing, is even worse than disempowerment.  It doesn't just make you realize your own situation.  It makes you feel like a sham for trying to be strong.  Real empowerment doesn't make you feel ashamed for trying or hollow or empty because it doesn't live up to the experience promised.  It gives you a real feeling of weight behind your actions and the play you make.

A shell of empowerment will only make you feel a shell of yourself...it will make you feel weak, not strong.  That must be avoided at all costs in games meant to empower.

            There are a number of very good ways to empower a player.  In fact, many games ramp up the difficulty for the sole purpose of this, as struggle and a little bit of disempowerment make an eventual victory even sweeter.  Dark Souls 1 and 2 are games that have the potential to be very frustrating, but the difficulty actually makes the victories you have very satisfying.  You start out at a decent power level.  You're not naked, unless you choose to be, and can fend for yourself.  However, the bosses and many enemies you face will be better equipped or just massive.  You will feel small and weak in comparison, but the game is built in such a way that you can win, no matter how weak you are, if you are able to recognize patterns or train yourself up.  It feels AMAZING to down a demon that can one shot you and which is 2-4 times your size.  So, while it can be disempowering to come across such challenges, building a game that is challenging, but balanced enough so that you can overcome it, makes victory feel all the more sweet.

This thing is just huge...downing it for the first time, I felt like such a bad ass.

            Personally, my favorite method of empowering a player is through sensory feedback.  Obviously, games cannot cater to all five senses, but sight, sound, and even touch can be catered to in video games and if they are sufficiently satisfied, then the player will actually feel closer to the character onscreen or more engaged in the action.  This will make their power feel all the more real, all the closer to home.  Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is a great example of sensory feedback.  The actions on screen are all beautifully animated and make the player feel strong, showing the overwhelming strength of the space marine you control compared the hordes you are fighting.  However, I would argue that sound design is where this game really shines.  You see, the standard weapons are bolters.  They are guns which have explosive shells and whenever one is fired, the sound is very satisfying.  It doesn't sound like a tiny pistol or even the insubstantial racket of a machine gun, it feels very solid and strong.  It's a nice blunt burst, followed by a tiny explosions to remind you of the power of the gun.  In fact, at once point, you get a machine gun version of the bolter called a twin combi-bolter, which doesn't sound like a machine gun at all...it sounds like something more akin to a minigun coupled with a rocket launcher.  Ironically, it's pretty weak compared to the other weapons later on.  However, I stuck with it for a while because the sound was so satisfying and it just felt good, hearing it whenever I fired it off in rapid succession.  With a rumble controller, games like Space Marine or other titles can even give you a touch sensation feedback.  It can help the game give you a real feeling of the weight of your actions.  This kind of sensory feedback can help you to feel strong and empowered because it is both satisfying, making the actions on screen resonate with the players, and it is also able to give them a feeling of importance through the sheer force of the senses.

The look, the sounds...everything in this game assaults the senses...and it feels good.

            A sense of realism is not necessarily needed when trying to empower a player.  Yes, I've talked about making the player feel more in tune with their game avatar through the senses, however that doesn't need to be grounded in reality...and indeed, most games feature physics or players wielding weapons that would be impossible to use normally.  However, there needs to be a feeling of weight behind the weapon.  Not heavy weight necessarily, but some weight.  For example, one of the satisfying things to do in Devil May Cry is to juggle an enemy with your guns.  To hold him up in the air and keep him there with gunfire.  If you took this out, the guns would have almost no weight, because they don't stagger enemies who are standing and if they couldn't hold an enemy in the air, they would have no power behind them.  They'd still do damage, but they would feel weak and would not empower the player.  Likewise, any game where you hit something?  There needs to be a feeling of weight behind each attack.  Light attacks can be somewhat weightless, since they are meant to be quick, glancing blows, but if a player throws a heavy attack it doesn't feel like it does anything, then you've done something wrong in designing the game.  One reason Dark Souls is so deep is because each weapon has weight behind it.  A different weight.  So, some attacks will be slow, laborious affairs that will shake the ground or stagger an enemy when they hit.  This gives them a feeling of weight that makes each action meaningful and allows the player to feel as if they are stronger than they are.  Sadly, Splatterhouse doesn't always do this.  I love the game, but the fists feel a bit pointless...weapons and the super form are a bit slower in their swings and do more damage/stagger the enemy and they feel satisfying because of it, however the regular fists are a bit unsatisfying.

Imagine how much less bad ass you'd feel if your guns couldn't do this...the weight of those attacks matters.

            I would even go so far to say that this does not just extend to games where you fight.  A game like Harvest Moon or Rune Factory can give meaning to your farming by making the swing of your hoe feel heavy or the flow of your fishing line light because it's only a bit of wood with twine attached to it.  These different feelings of weight add, not necessarily a sense of reality, but a sense of value to the actions.  A player who feels their actions have value is a player who feels empowered.  It makes them feel strong because what they are doing has meaning in the world of the game.

If each swing of the hoe has meaning and value, then the game will make you feel good.

            Another important thing to think about is challenge.  Now, I've already talked about how disempowering a player only to have them rise from the ashes stronger than before can be a great way of empowering them, however challenge as a whole is a very important aspect of game design to consider.  Many game developers think it's fine to just let players follow a linear, easy path to the end, leading them by the nose so that they can see the sights and be done with it.  However, without challenge, without a feeling of resistance by the game, then the victory feels meaningless.  It is hollow.  I don't think a game should be so brutal that players cannot win, like say Ghouls and Goblins or Silver Surfer on the NES, because those games are so unfair in their design that it feels almost pointless to try, because without hours of work, you can't even advance past the third or fourth level.  However, don't make it so easy that the players feel like they're being given a win.  They have to earn it on some level, otherwise it won't be empowering.  Tiny Barbarian DX is, in my opinion, a decent balance in this regard.  The game gives you infinite lives, so you don't get kicked back to the beginning arbitrarily, however when you die it puts you back to the start of that particular section.  You still have to win each boss battle with no more than six pieces of health and each section is still a platforming and combat based challenge.  It requires skill and work to get through, but it's not necessarily hard, because you can try as often as you want.  I think this balance is important in making a game both empowering but also accessible to players who may not be the best in terms of skill.

Tiny Barbarian DX may not be hard, but it ain't easy.  This game strikes a nice balance.

            Choice is another aspect of game design that allows for a player to be empowered.  I am NOT talking about arbitrary choice.  Not talking about a button at the end of the game which gives you either ending A or ending B.  I'm talking about meaningful choice.  Doing something that feels like it matters.  Sometimes these choices can be organic.  Demon's Crest lets players go to levels in whatever order they choose.  Some of these levels will be impossibly hard than others, because you won't have the skills you need, however the choice, where you can go and the ability to not just stick with it, but change it, is powerful.  It lets a player feel in control.  This is why sandbox games are so popular these days.  Because while you will have a story based mission, the plethora of side missions and open world interaction, organic interaction like driving a cab or an ambulance in Grand Theft Auto, allow you to play your way and gives the player the feeling that they are in control of their own destiny.  That feeling of choice and power over how they play in a game like Skyrim can be very empowering, because they are not restricted, like they might be in real life.  In real life, we need to work, sleep, go to school, do assignments, whatever.  In a game, being able to choose not to sleep, or choose to go against the beaten path or the established formula...it feels refreshing, because it gives us a feeling of freedom we don't get in normal life.  And that's why choice is so empowering.  It gives us the power to do what we cannot in normal life.

Choose your own path, be it the path of the crook or the path of the savior.

            Now, I have given several examples of ways to empower players.  The feeling of weight behind actions, choice, sensory impact, disempowerment peppered with hope for the future, challenge, etc.  But don't try and shoehorn everything into one game.  These are ways of empowering a player, not a checklist.  Every game needs to try and do it in its own way and sometimes that way may be derivative or even completely unique from these examples I'm given.  They don't all need to be included, but I'd say that at least one or two couldn't hurt.  Because, for the player to feel empowered when that is the game's intent?  That's important...not just for the designer, but for the player as well.  It can help them face the demons they're dealing with in their life by giving them an outlet where they can build confidence and be strong.  The most important thing a developer can do, is play a game and ask if they feel strong while playing it.  Not, is the story good, or is the music beautiful, or are the graphics AAA.  Ask if you feel powerful while playing it.

If you feel powerful, you'll be less afraid of the demons, real and make believe, that assail you.

            I recently bought a game called Risk of Rain for the PC and for a while, I just felt weak playing it.  However, it had many different characters with different play styles to choose from and eventually I found one I liked.  A poison beast called Acrid who had to fight up close so enemies could easily wail on him, but he could destroy great swathes of them if he poisoned them, since the poison was strong.  Now, this mixed both a feeling of challenge, choice, and something I can't quite put my finger on to make me feel tough.  I was well aware the enemies could kill me easily, and I did die, but I walked through them like a giant, laying waste to all in my path for a while, even the large bosses.  It just felt good.  And if a developer can play a game and say, I feel good...I feel strong...then they know they've got a winner on their hands.

I may be small, but my poison is fierce >:)

            Empowering a player may seem like a no brainer, but making it feel genuine is actually pretty tough.  It's something I encourage not just developers, but players to think about.  Because we all need that boost to feel powerful sometimes and nothing is more pitiable than trying to unwind and feel strong with a game, only to feel cheated, frustrated, and weak by the end.

            I enjoy games that can genuinely make me feel powerful, because many games will actually go that extra mile to not only make you feel strong while playing, but to make you feel strong even after you stop.  By making a hard choice or doing something challenging, you can feel the empowerment of your game and avatar even after you've stopped playing and it can help you through your trials.

We all need to feel powerful sometime.  Confidence will help us survive the trials ahead...so empower through gaming.

            Disempowerment has its uses, for story, to teach us about fear so we are ready when life throws challenges our way, or just because we want to feel low for a bit...but empowerment, I believe is just as if not more important, because it helps us with living our lives.

            I hope you've enjoyed this discussion on power fantasy, both disempowerment and empowerment.  Next week, I believe we'll go back to a creator spotlight, like I promised so long ago, however I have to say that alongside writing for my other blog, I'm also preparing to go to China soon.  So...my updates may be a tad sporadic.  Sorry if that's inconvenient, but it is what it is.  I have my priorities after all.  I don't intend to stop, but if I need to take time to get done what needs doing, I will.

            Thanks to everyone who continues reading this silly little blog of mine, even now.

Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying

NO!  I'm not dead...but I have been very busy.  My attempts to keep two blogs, a job, school, and my personal work going, as well as finding time to unwind has been...difficult.  So, expect slower updates on this blog in the coming months, at least until I finish with my classes.  For now though, I do have a long update for people.  So, let's look into Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying.

            Something that a lot of developers seem to have trouble with is the idea of companionship in video games.  A lot of them want to make a deep, meaningful connection between two characters, so they tend to put them together so a bond can develop.  Problem.  Without another human brain, you run the risk of completely ruining this experience.  See, unless you or someone else can control another character, quite often they will become more of a burden than a friend or a lover or what have you.  The AI in video games, or even the circumstances surrounding another character, are often too weak to force that kind of bond.  So, that brings up a few interesting arguments on companionship.  How do you make a character endearing, when there isn't another human behind the steering wheel?  How do you avoid making them a burden or an annoyance?  Well, let's take a look at a few prominent games based around a system of companionship and see different approaches taken in the past, both good and bad.

Good game design and narrative can even make two silent robots endearing.

            Probably the most famous, and yet the most esoteric, companionship in past years has been Ico and Yorda from the game Ico.  Yorda is the very definition of what can be called a burden.  You die if she gets too far away from you, she can do nothing for herself, you literally have to hold her hand through most of the game, and she speaks very little.  Yet, people often cite Yorda as one of the great gaming companions of recent memory.  Why is this?  I tend to believe it is because of the circumstances.  You see, the world of Ico is bleak, lifeless, cold, and lonely.  Ico the character is hated by his fellow villagers and attacked by monsters within the castle.  Yet Yorda is not afraid of him.  She speaks very little, but does not abuse Ico, does not hate him, and is comfortable enough around him to let him guide her and to rest with him on a bench when saving the game.  Yorda seems like a burden, however the way the game is designed, burden or not, Yorda is all you've got.  Yorda is the one ray of light in the darkness.  Because of this, it feels almost like a fairytale, where a prince and a princess must escape an evil witch.  And all of this is conveyed through art and mechanics rather than through a lot of text or narrative.  Despite not having very good AI and being largely dependent on you, Yorda forms that meaningful bond of companionship by being the only hope you have for the future in a world that hates you.

The image of Ico and Yorda holding hands is immortal in gaming.  Two lost souls who depend on one another not just for puzzles or mechanics, but for the hope to keep going.

            Conversely, let's look at Resident Evil 4 and Ashley Graham.  Ashley is an attractive young woman in a cute sweater and a miniskirt.  She is often useful for puzzles and her death, like Yorda's, spells the end for you.  However, Ashley is looked upon in a far less kindly manner.  The circumstances surrounding Leon Kennedy, the main character in Resident Evil 4, are, arguably, far more hostile than in Ico, but a good deal less bleak.  Leon is taunted by his enemies, he is encouraged by allies and uncertain elements, he is frequently talked to and is far less feeble and helpless than Ico.  Leon is also far more well liked, as his allies care for him and his enemies even respect him somewhat.  In this situation, companionship is not something novel.  It is not a single ray of light in the darkness.  And because Ashley is not all that you have, because you meet other people, are able to talk with others, etc. her significance as an endearing companion is diminished and she just becomes annoying.  She becomes a weight around the player's neck because they know they're not alone, or hated, or reliant on Ashley for any other reason than the game says so.

Sums up the problems with Ashley in a single sentence.

            From these two cases, the importance of tone and circumstances is emphasized.  Ashley and Yorda play very similar roles in their respective games, but one is well liked and considered a true companion while the other is a weight around your neck.  At a very basic level, this is a good way to define endearing vs annoying.  Do you want to be with them.  Yorda, while frustrating at times to have due to the instant death one can suffer from her, is all the comfort you have in the game.  You want to be with her, just to relieve the crippling loneliness and feel like you are wanted or needed.  Ashely is not all you have.  You have Ada Wong, Ingrid Hunnigan, or even the villains who taunt you, like Ramon Salazar or Krauser.  Leon is not alone.  Beyond that, he also has other comforts, such as a feeling of superiority in besting enemies with various weapons.  Ashley, therefore, is more frustrating than comforting.  Rather than being endearing, she is annoying.

"Lonely?  Nah, I'm too busy fighting zombies with cool weapons to be lonely?  What was I doing, again?  Oh, right...President's daughter.  Ah, well, that can wait till after my knife fight with my rival."

            Now, with these concepts laid out, let's examine some ways around the Ashley scenario that don't rely so heavily on the bleak circumstances of Ico.  Ways to try and create an endearing companionship while avoiding the burdensome behavior we have seen in the past.  Silent Hill 2 and 4 have tried two different approaches at this.  At various times in the game, you will be forced to have a companion.  In Silent Hill 2, it is the character Maria.  Maria is not really a weight around your neck because she is not necessarily reliant on you.  She dies several times in the game as is, so her protection is not really the player's problem.  She will follow you regardless.  However, the problem with this is that the companionship itself is relatively pointless...she is a comfort in the horrors of Silent Hill, true, but outside of cut scenes, she does very little, so her presence could, in theory be excised without loosing much impact.  Silent Hill 4 takes a different approach, where you have a character who follows you, but her death means your death, like with Ashley, and if she takes too much damage, it will adversely affect the ending.  This encourages players to look after her, but begrudgingly at best.  There are attempts to make her feel necessary, by giving her the ability to wield weapons or make comments about the world around her, however the weaponry takes up precious spaces in your inventory and the comments are easy to miss.  Ultimately, Silent Hill 4's approach is a step in the right direction...but still more frustrating than the consequence free companionship of Silent Hill 2.

Let's go, woman crippled by a beating from a serial killer, with your help we can kill those monsters!  Seriously, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but she does at least try to be useful...that's more than I can say for Ashley Graham.

            Resident Evil 5 actually comes relatively close to making a companion feel both necessary, useful, and even comforting.  The character Sheva wields weapons, just like Chris Redfield, the main character, and is capable not only of looking after herself, but also of protecting the player and assisting them with boss battles.  She can heal Chris or herself, give ammo, and offers both colorful commentary and a feeling of not being alone in a tough situation.  Yet, Sheva is also heavily criticized.  She does not always use the best weapon for the best situation, even if she has it in her possession.  She can waste healing items on minor wounds.  And Sheva also falls under the problematic approach of, if she dies, you die.  While useful and even at times enjoyable to have around, due to her beauty and her useful abilities, Sheva is still a problematic and at times annoying companion.  Sheva is a perfect example of good intentions limited by artificial intelligence.  She tries to act with prudency and humanity, but is limited by the designer's foresight.

Sassy, sultry, capable, and heavily armed...the perfect companion, right?  Err...right?

            I think this is a good time to mention that pretty much every companion I have mentioned is a female.  This is a rather sad trope in companionship in gaming.  Because the popular perception, which is flawed might I add, that most games are played by men, they think that a woman as a companion creates an instant endearment, either for sexual reasons or for reasons of chivalry.  This is, however, a rather pitiful attempt to make a character endearing without giving them any real substance.  Neverdead, for example, has what can only be described as a lascivious young woman accompanying the male character, who can fight and use guns, but still needs to be kept alive...the reason players are supposed to care for her is her looks.  This does not work.  She is frequently a burden and not well liked, due in part to her personality and her voice acting, and in part to the instant death which surrounds her.

Why are we supposed to care again?  Oh, right!  Cleavage!

            There are a few examples of male companions, such as in war games like Resistance: Fall of man, the warrior, dwarf, or wizard characters in Dragon's Crown, male body guards in Skyrim, etc. however they fall prey to a combination of the Silent Hill 2 and the Silent Hill 4 problem.  While they can be useful and helpful for clearing a level by attacking enemies, ala Silent Hill 4, we have no real reason to care, as they have almost no real personality and their deaths mean nothing to us.  This negates any possibility for companionship.  The one time I have seen male companionship done well is in Gears of War, where it is necessary to keep the male characters alive, but they do not die right away...they can bleed out and you can save them, giving you a bit of a buffer.  And likewise, not only do they fight with you, but they can also save you.  It is a nice feeling of camaraderie, only hindered by the generally weak character developments beyond the grizzled soldier stereotype.

Despite the grizzled soldier stereotype, Dom is pretty endearing, due to the brother's in arms-esque nature of Gears of War.

            Probably the best example of a companion character that I have ever seen does still have flaws.  Elizabeth in Bioshock Infinite is an interesting, attractive young lady who frequently gives you money, ammo, weapons, and can create new areas for you to use as cover or to restock your supplies or attack enemies using her unique powers.  The enemies never attack her because of the very good excuse that she is seen as something of a messiah and is respected, so they want to kill you and take her back unharmed.  She frequently talks to the main character, Booker Dewitt, and her absence is felt whenever she is not with you, because she is both a voice of innocence and idealism in a world that is very harsh.  What's more, not only is Elizabeth not a burden on you, but she can also save you from almost certain death.  And this gets into the biggest problem with Elizabeth.  While a beautifully fleshed out character, very useful, and one you do gain a genuine emotional attachment too, she does somewhat cripple the game.  When there is no fear of death, save for the loss of a few coins, it does not encourage the player to get better, nor does it afford the level of challenge one might want in such a game.  In trying to make an endearing companion that is not a burden, the game designers sacrificed challenge and, to a degree, balance.

Sweet and idealistic, helpful and likeable, beautiful and charming, Elizabeth is a great ally...pity she makes the game so blatantly easy.

            So, what do we do to resolve this dilemma?  Well, as far as I can tell, there are three ways to make characters endearing rather than annoying.  The first is circumstance.  Like with Yorda or Elizabeth, use the circumstances of the world to try and make them more endearing.  Yorda is your hope and the only compassion in a cruel world, so you care for her, while Elizabeth is fully fleshed out and is not an over glorified escort mission, due to the fact that she is meant to be captured and not harmed in the context of the game's story.  The second option is much more difficult, as it requires maintaining a balance between usefulness, emotional attachment, and frustration.  This option is to incorporate most of what we have previously discussed into a single character with the caveat that, while she cannot be killed to give you a game over, letting her get hurt will make you feel so bad that you will WANT to protect her.  Perhaps having a character collapse and softly weep in the background for a few minutes, like until you hug her or help her up, might be the needed balance between an escort quest and a genuine companionship story.  However, this requires a high level of polish, both in the AI and in the game design.  Pathfinding issues, idiotic choices, or overuse of said weeping or incapacitation mechanics could cripple it.  Most developers are unwilling to try and work that hard for the endearment.  The third option is the easiest and does not necessarily have to remove endearment from a game.  That option is to not require the character to be a part of battle.  Oh, certainly give them their own personality, their own AI, and things to do, but keep them in a strictly residential district.

Companionship is a delicate balance in gaming between circumstances, game design, and AI.  Sometimes, it's easier to say, "Wait for me, I'll be back" to your friends...it makes the game play better and doesn't sacrifice character development.

            A few might cry sexism, as this is essentially saying that women need to be kept in the home, or what have you, but hear me out.  It's used to great effect in games like Rune Factory Frontier or Pandora's Tower where you have characters important to you and to the plot.  You have companions who do their own thing.  However, they don't need to be in battle.  Their personality, their contributions to you, and their story is what makes them endearing, rather than gameplay mechanics.  In Rune Factory Frontier, the character Mist is very strange, a bit silly, but also very likable.  She will give you gifts, but does not hang around her house.  She goes for errands in the village, tends to her flowers, follows a schedule, etc.  You don't need to worry about her, but at the same time when she gets kidnapped, you want to save her because...the world's just not the same without her.  Elena from Pandora's Tower is another example of this, where her presence is reassuring, she does a huge amount of things for the player, and while she isn't essential, when she is gone, her presence is missed.  This does fall apart a little since players are on a timer with Elena's life on the line, but in concept, it is a good idea.  And it does not have to be limited to domestic or female roles either.  In the early parts of Shining Force 2, characters are accompanied by their mentor, Sir Astral who is purely an adviser and does not take place in battle.  Then, he leaves the party and you spend several hours without him.  Once he rejoins the team, it feels...right, you might say.  You missed the character, even without him having participated in battle because his actions and his role in the story make players care.

Keep calm and eat turnips.  Seriously, without Mist, Rune Factory just isn't Rune Factory.  That's how endearing she is, even outside of battle.

            Ultimately, it is my belief that developers need to ask the Q&A testers one big question when designing a partner in either capacity.  "Does this improve the game?"  With Elizabeth, it does.  Bioshock Infinite would be very different, almost impossible, without her presence.  The same goes for Yorda.  However, think about Ashley Graham...if she was kidnapped and managed to either hide or escape, only reappearing in cut scenes, would that have been such a huge loss?  I'm not so sure, myself.  Developers are going to have to, at times, make compromises when trying to make endearing characters due to time or limitations on hardware, experience, or even by publisher mandate.  However, they can still make the experience enjoyable.  Is Sheva a problem in RE5?  Well, she has her flaws, but the game wouldn't be what it is without her.  And I dare say it might even be a little bit boring.  So, Sheva, despite being flawed is a decent partner.  Same for Dom in Gears of War, as he not only supports you, but can save you, just as you can save him.  Perfect?  No.  But still a part of the game that makes it special and, dare I say it, enjoyable.

A little bit of common sense in game design goes a long way when designing companionship.  Characters can't speak?  Well, let their actions speak louder than words.  Whatever you do, though, make sure it improves the game.

            Common sense is good here...it's great to make a game you love, but also think about who else you're making it for before you make partner death an instant game over, give them a bad personality, or hire an actress to voice them who just doesn't fit.

            Alot of the time, it's not endearing vs annoying.  It's which do we have more of?  Endearing or annoying?  The best most of us can do is try to tip the scale in favor of endearing, because no matter how hard you try, there is not going to be a character for everyone.  So, do your best to make them more fun or meaningful than they are tiresome or troubling.