Why is Killing a Fundamental Game Mechanic? | Game/Show | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateGAME
Tweet at us! / pbsgameshow
Follow us on Facebook / gameshowpbs
Email us! pbsgameshow [at] gmail [dot] com
Follow us on Reddit / pbsgameshow
Violence and death pervade video games in a way that is atypical of most other forms of media, but why? Outside of the act of just shooting a gun or swinging a sword, the smallest moments of "winning" or "overcoming" in a game are marked by forms of violence and aggression - even Kirby is known to swallow enemies whole. But is it something deeper than just game designers that have a propensity towards violence? Maybe the system, or more specifically computers, favor violent acts at their most elementary building blocks? Join Jamin on this week's episode of Game/Show and find out!
ASSET LINKS:
1:50 Kid destroys XBOX 360 Over Black Ops
• Kid destroys Xbox 360 ...
1:51 Shakespeare's Globe Theater Doc
• Shakespeare's Globe Mi...
2:35 Space Invaders Pinball Machine
• Space Invaders pinball...
2:37 Classic Game Room -- Pac Man
• Classic Game Room - PA...
2:42 Super Mario Bros. Mushroom World Pinball Machine
• Super Mario Bros. Mush...
4:15 Aspiring Game Programmer -- Motivational Video
• Aspiring Game Programm...
COMMENTS:
Rockmandash12
• How Minecraft Generate...
Terminal Hunter
• How Minecraft Generate...
ashkuigp
• How Minecraft Generate...
ArchMageOmega
• How Minecraft Generate...
MUSIC:
"Oh Damn!" by CJVSO
/ cj. .
"Digital Sonar" by Brink
"Mindphuck" by Known To Be Lethal
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-cyr...
"After Hours"
"Lakes" by Chooga
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8hns...
"Beautiful Days" by Extan
/ beaut. .
"Spectrum Subdiffusion Mix" by Foniqz
/ f. .
"Good Way Song" by Electronic Rescue
"Alice y Bob" by Javier Rubio and Parsec
archive.org/details/escala19_...
"Sleet" by Kubbi
/ kubbi-sleet
"Toaster" by Kubbi
/ toaster
"Patriotic Songs of America" by New York Military Band and the American Quartet
freemusicarchive.org/music/New...
"Lets Go Back To The Rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Run" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Fame" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
"Freedom Weekends" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hosted by Jamin Warren (@jaminwar)
See more on games and culture on his site: www.killscreendaily.com
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
And regarding my glasses:
• Has League of Legends ...
Games don't make people violent, lag does. Just saying.
+Jespah Cropley genius comment
it's tru tho
I'm tired of games about killing. I want more games that are about working together towards a positive goal.
As was pointed out: if there is no conflict, there is no story. If you just want a sandbox to play in, that's fine, but there's no...emotion to it, no drive. It is, to me, a hollow experience, ultimately just a time waster and I feel no investment. Narrative and character move me, drive me, push me to do or want more, to see something through to the end. There needs to be a goal, and for a goal to have any sort of weight or meaning, there needs to be a challenge ahead of it, and that challenge is most easily fulfilled by conflict.
How about these games: Kerbal Space Program, Minecraft, most racing games, most sports games, most simulator games like SimCity, Farming Simulator, Flight Simulators.
What about them? They exist.
These games exist. Just look around and you'll find plenty of them.
InternetReviewerGuy Positive goal: work together to kill the things!
"Blunt," "Direct," "Fundamental," "Shorthand," "Basic" -- the words that you use to describe the purpose and appeal of violence in video games also shows their artistic limits. The problem with violence in video games seems to be that it's a stand-in for real complexity, deep feeling, or substantive narrative or meaning. Sure, Shakespeare and Sophocles may be violent too. But it is the purpose of tragedy to get you to think about and register the *awfulness* of killing; video games built upon violence are about the *awesomeness* and comparative cheap thrill of killing. Shakespeare, even with the death of a "bad" character, wants to you say, "NO!" Skill-based violent video games want you to say "YES!"
That's not to say that they're not fun -- just dumb. Great dumb fun.
So, you shot Lee in the face without a second thought then?
Lit Crit This is a good comment. I like this comment.
I shot Lee so that he wouldn't come back like Clementine's parents did.
I didn't shoot him because no child should have to do that
Goomba Pie Thanks!
I love randomly checking channels and being super early on videos
Just a discussion, I'd like not to talk about any particular celebrity activists or hashtag groups. But do you think that, assuming the statement in the video is correct, If depicting acts of violence in video games within the player's control doesn't cause violence, does depicting acts of sexism in video games within the player's control cause sexism?
Chad Tindale That's a good question. I don't think it's a cause/effect sort of thing. But I do think that context matters in which you're consuming or creating said thing. So, no, I don't think there's a 1:1 correlation between violence and videogames IRL nor sexism in videogames IRL. That's too neat a connection and frankly something for sociologists to continue to study.
BUT media is absolutely used to reinforce societal values. So for example, if you're a really violent person, then it's perfectly reasonable to think that playing violent videogames are an outlet for something that's already there, just as if you're a chauvinist, then sexist videogames are going to be an outlet for that. *The BIG difference is that violence in real life will get you thrown in jail; sexism in real life often will not.* Hitting a woman on the street is crime; cat-calling is the status quo. So the nature of the problems is different.
Besides, let's be honest if you're tolerance for sexism or violence is very low, it strikes me as highly unlikely that you would continue to play something that offends you.
In either case, I didn't make moral judgements in the episode and I was really just talking about killing as an abstraction. But I do believe that videogames have abused the artistic right of violence and have been very irresponsible in the portrayal of women. In both cases, those abuses absolutely reinforce problematic realities outside of games, but I wouldn't go as far to say that they cause them.
That is a strong question, and perhaps we're hardwired to be misogynistic, just as we're hard wired for self preservation- it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for something better. For example- we're all okay with COD in here, but I'm sure most of us are against Hatred. Why? They're both games about killing others who the character feels deserve it. Now, I'm against Hatred as much as the next guy (don't think it should be pulled, good on Steam), because even though I can acknowledge that stimuli is real, I would never imagine celebrating them.
Murder can be justified in a game, because it's ultimately a digital playground and the story makes my feel fearful for my safety. Sexism lacks the same problem, because like Hatred, sexism in games is usually on par with a mass-murder simulator. They unneeded and lack any subtext. It's just female fighters wearing a two piece while all the other 'real warriors' wear full armor.
If sexism is used in a game to promote a character type, or to drive a plot, I can be down with that. Sully from Uncharted is a prime example of a character we can roll our eyes at, and not take too seriously because the other characters give him real world reactions. Sure, he's sexist, but he's other things too- It's why you don't hear about him. You do hear about terms like 'Girlfriend Mode' though, outside of those digital worlds.
Trevor Anderson
Maybe *you're* "hardwired" to be misogynistic, or maybe you are, like so many do these days, using that word in a trivialising way, but speak for yourself when you describe inherent bigotry and negative discrimination on the sole basis of physical attribute.
PBS Game/Show
Do you think that media outlets, such as news channels or RUclips, ever use the idea of sexism and bigotry to deflect scrutiny and criticism of their establishments?
PBS Game/Show nice response! Spot on with your assessment.
The kill or be killed environment is in games simply because its the easiest way to give the player both a feeling of urgency and engagement at the same time. I also feel that, like most things in games, it gives us the feeling of doing something we normally can't and wouldn't want to do. Killing provides the majority of what is wanted in games all in one go.
What game comes to mind in this topic is Deus Ex: Human Revolution. In that game you could choose to go all out guns blazing and neck breaking, or you could use non-lethal takedowns and weapons. I found when the choice was possible I would do so I would often take it. Although some games create ways to circumvent killing, often the awards from killing far out way being a pacifist. Games will make you level up and get stronger from killing, you level up combat strength from killing but often little benefit of letting others live.
It is not like there are no games where being merciful and solving a situation without killing them is a thing. I personally Really liked how I could get special dialogue in Fallout games or Mass Effect where I could avoid conflict. Sure Killing a mindless creature out to eat me or whatever is still a big part, but it is not the only thing I want to do things. Even in Shadow of Mordor I found myself choosing more to brainwash and send an Orc out rather than kill, in my mind it was one more ally out there, there was an option to spare a life, and when I did have to kill it was cool to find that I had an army of allies ready to give me a hand.
I agree...and actually the game rewarded you with MERCIFUL SOUL for sparing them and also gave a better ending...I finished that game killing about as many people on both my hands...so about less than 10, maybe a little more. And really it was the last part where Malik crashed and you have to save her before *bad outcome here* so I didn't take my time being non-lethal there.
Dishonored is the same way. Sure you can kill and watch the gory executions but it will cause a "darker outcome." Encouraging Corvo to preserve life instead of take it away, despite his vengeful reasons.
Imfamous is also like this. You kill. You Become evil. You Spare life and capture the bad guys. You become a hero.
I can't help but think of Undertale watching this. I swear Toby watched this video during development.
Asking if games will "evolve" beyond blood and guts is like asking the same thing of movies, books, and other media. Sure games like Journey get a lot of praise for being innovative and unique but the audience for such games isn't really strong. It's like the indie movie scene where someone makes something really good that it grabs the mainstream attention but afterwords people go back to their action packed blockbusters.
I think the real question should be why is this even considered a problem? Life and Death are part of what it means to be alive. It's also perfectly natural to feel angry and aggressive. It's what you do with that aggression that matters. Some people engage in physical sports like soccer, football, hockey, and etc. So why is it a problem that people release their tension in a virtual space instead?
When I was a kid I got a Nintendo 64 with a game called 007. It was a James Bond FPS. It was my first experience with an FPS, prior to that I only played sports games like basketball, football, hockey and soccer. No other games interested me. But that James Bond game made me a lover of FPS games. They're just fun to play, especially with other people (the James Bind game had a 4-way split screen feature where you can 3 friends can gun each other down). It's the competition and making it life or death heightens the stakes, making the game more intense.
Yeah! GoldenEye (and Perfect Dark its spiritual successor) were basically my babysitter. It was like hide and go seek but with guns. Its just bare bones fun as in the end no one is hurt but you still get to feel good knowing you outsmarted your friends right in front of them.
The Dynast Queen I loved that game. I used to pick up the body armor and plant a proximity mine right where the body armor was sitting. When the body armor respawned it would hide the proximity mine so whenever someone went to grab it they'd explode.
Nice argument Jamin! I think that self determination is a big key in the reason why killing is such a pronounced gameplay mechanic in so many games today but I do feel like the advancement of video games has come farther because of killing. The fact that we can safely simulate killing with ease leads to more conscious thoughts on the death of others and the scenarios we put ourselves and others in that beg these consequences. We can find new ways to solve simple problems without risking the lives of others, like (my favorite love story of all time) Source Code with Jake Gyllanhal. Video games just give average people (and some extraordinary people) the ability to not only make these decisions and solve these problems, but do it with a story that justifies the reason we do it without saying "murder is okiedoky!" We strive for completion and death and murder in video games allows us the contextual closure we need. Please excuse my spelling mistakes as I am on an iPhone and thank you so much for reading this comment.
And now there's Undertale. A game that makes you fell guilty for killing everyone, even random encounters.
If you liked this video I highly recommend you also check out Errant signal's video on violence in games.
FISSION MAILED!
I'm sad to see that Metal Gear Solid wasn't shown in the clips! There's obviously a lot of killing in it, but what I love about the series is you're forced to go through these ordeals while constantly being told that war is awful, killing makes you evil, etc etc. In mgs4, if you kill too many people in a short time frame, Snake becomes physically ill and vomits, hearing his brother's voice say "You enjoy killing!"
Of course, in the games that followed mgs1 you had a tranquilliser gun which was a great way to avoid killing, but still neutralise enemies. Games like MGS actually reward you if you compete the game without killing! But ultimately the choice is up to you.
I hope there's an mgs episode of some kind in the future!
I would like to counter the idea that conflict is required for plot. Kishotenketsu stories from eastern narratives do not require conflict to drive their plot, relying instead of contrasts within the story or twists through the plot to create the interest in the story, rather than conflict. I still think conflict is important to many stories, but I'd love to see other forms of plot explored more in the west. I would especially love to see the immersive nature of games explore the ways we could tell Kishotenketsu stories.
I wouldn't say it's fundamental, but the reasons why it's so prevalent is because it works, plain and simple. It's easy and effective to use that as a mechanic in the game because it the stakes of life and death appeal to so many people and it's pretty easy to implement. In a world of rising production costs for game development developers and publishers want to appeal to as many people as they can so they can make money and keep running. There are other games that don't have that as a main mechanic, but many of them deal with economics instead like the Roller Coaster Tycoon games or Game Dev Tycoon and are much smaller operations.
I'd like to see more games that are about a fusion of strategy and social interaction. Like an RPG set during a war where you play a politician planning and negotiating your way to either conquest or peace, or maybe something where you play as a detective unraveling a complex mystery that can include a battle of wits between you and the culprit.
So, video games don't cause real world violence? Well, then do they cause real world sexism? These questions cannot have opposite answers. In order for one to be affirmative, the other must follow suit. Which is why I'm curious as to how you can make the argument you've made here while also supporting Anita Sarkeesian's brand of sensationalist feminism. She's gone on record saying that video games cause real world sexism, so if you agree with that, then you have to concede that video games cause real world violence. If you're smart and know that's nonsense, why have you not addressed the factual and scientific inaccuracies in Anita's claims?
don't you know silly, disagreeing with a woman is the height of misogyny. its not about facts its about feelings and Jamin feels that sexism is wrong therefore we must fight it where ever it is even if video games only feel sexist
"These questions cannot have opposite answers."
Why not? Media can absolutely affect the way society feels about something without causing them to become violent. To use a non-video game example, the recent movie American Sniper caused a lot of issues. Just as the movie became very popular, the real life trial of the real man who murdered Chris Kyle (the protagonist of American sniper) began. It became really difficult to have an unbiased jury, and the media's objectivity was definitely affected by the movie as well. To say that the movie had an effect on real people's attitudes is undeniable, whether in a positive or negative way. But to say that people would go out and start killing as a result of the violent movie, even if they had no predisposition to violence beforehand is such a bigger leap.
Are you really arguing that media can never affect people mentally? Why would political ads exist? Why would people bother to make documentaries or write books to cause social change?
Avrenim075 Except that Chris Kyle scenario is based on actual events. There are no trials based on video games. There is no bias presented that could affect the outcome of anything in such a way.
There is no evidence to suggest that video games promote sexism or perpetuate it. There is no basis for that argument. It simply doesn't exist. All of Anita's arguments hinge on cherry picking things that are true for both sexes, but ignoring that that is true.
"Oh, you can run women over in cars, how sexist."
Leaving out the fact of course that it's GTA and you can run over literally anybody. Non-gamers do not know that. Non gamers fall for her context absent arguments.
If an argument has no evidence to support it, it should not be heralded, awarded, uncritically accepted, and universally praised like Anita's work is. It's disingenuous for PBS to support such nonsense while still backing the scientific research that they clearly are aware of here.
"So, video games don't cause real world violence? Well, then do they cause real world sexism? These questions cannot have opposite answers. In order for one to be affirmative, the other must follow suit."
Well, that depends on how you define _sexism_. Always make sure you know what the other person is talking about when he/she use this term (or _racist_, for that matter).
_"Sexism is an impersonal bias against the competence and influence of women, and impersonal is easily and far too often confused with being rational/logical/scientific/common-sense. Thus impersonal sexism has been reflexively institutionalised in society so that it has a huge impact on large numbers of women and girls as a class e.g. ideas such as girls don’t need an education because they’re only going to get married, or girls aren’t good at maths/science, or women are happier running a home than competing in the workforce etc etc."_
Video games can influence subconscious modes of thinking, like all media. That doesn't mean they cause people to act out sexism.
I halfway agree other than I would replace the word "cause" with the word "reinforce". I don't think video games cause sexism or violence but I do think they reinforce people that have tendency towards these things to do them.
The best way I have defended this view in the past is as follows.
Can someone do something positive because of a song?
Haile Gebrselassie says that the reason why he can run as fast as he can is because of scatman and keeping with the pace of the song and keeping it in his head energies him. Many psychological studies have proven introducing music to mos activities change the cognitive functions in peoples minds and can change outcomes drastically. If this is true then why can't someone use a song as inspiration to perform some other action that you don't agree with.
Just replace song with video games in the above and it fits just the same.
Reading some of the comments, I had a thought. What about the games that don't require killing, but involve it? What comes to mind is Dishonored. If you're playing a No Kill or Ghost playthrough, your entire goal is to solve the problems in the city without actually killing anyone. You also have the option of killing everyone, or only killing some people. Is the mechanic still the same? They still have that binary distinction of the NPCs: They are alive and a threat, or they are unconscious (as opposed to dead) and not a threat. They still involve that a sort of conflict that occurs in a combat situation: him vs me.
Now, I do think that games will "evolve" past violence, but just like movies and novels, they won't eliminate them. I feel we'd see more games in the coming years with an emphasis on creating (and sharing those creations), and the best executed of them will have their moment to shine. I also don't think I have my thoughts fully formed on the matter, so I suppose time and games will bring me more information that I can work with.
It's fun to get the upper hand on another player while knowing full well that you are risking yourself at the same time. Getting a headshot isn't even so much an act of violence as it is an act of skill. You might even applaud the other player's skill while bemoaning your own loss. Life and death raises the stakes in a game and makes it more exciting. Sure, there are other game mechanics, but this is a longstanding "gut punch" approach that offers a clear win/loss outcome that's hard to beat.
Aside from the fact that it's kind of part of our history and nature to hunt and fight (often to the death), it is also just very simple as a game mechanic. You overcome obstacles in games, and just having one or two would probably not be very easy to do in a fun way, so throwing things at the player that they, in turn, have to destroy (which then can be deleted from the game world to not flood the level with lifeless objects or creatures). You basically clean up the level from dirt, in form of enemies that you kill. Because that dirt is coming at you and tries to destroy you, that's one of the most simple ways to create a challenge. And that dirt, to make it very easy to identify, is display in the form of creatures or people that you have to kill.
Even peaceful things like Tetris are about cleaning up by destroying/deleting things. So are match-3 games. Just that, in those cases, they are simply bricks, or gems, or... tetrominos. Which wouldn't be very easily identified or even intimidating in anything that's not a puzzle game.
I wouldn't say that killing is a fundamental game mechanic, but competition at its source is. Racing and fighting games are the first that come to mind that involve competition without explicit murder, (although earlier Burnout games and Mortal Kombat games may stray slightly from this trend) and even action adventure games where there isn't a direct AI or player controlled enemy tend to throw the player into competition against some warlord. Platforming games give the player gravity to battle with and so on. Dara Ó Briain mentioned it in one of his live shows; video games are the only form of media where you have to have skill to be allowed to experience them (and then he goes on to talk about his experience with Metal Gear Solid, it's really worth a watch). Imagine getting halfway through a book and then being forced to crack a cypher so you could read the next half of the book, you'd most likely give up or look online because that would be absurd "You want me to crack a cypher to read your dumb book?? I paid for this book!". While I understand that a lot of the fun I get out of video games can be derived from this competition, sometimes I just wanna chill out, and when I want to chill I'm less likely to play a game, and more likely to pick up a book. To each their own of course
I think that killing is not needed in games, but instead developers are being blinded by all the recent success of shooting based games, and instead of making an original and engaging game, about shooting or otherwise, they want to steal some of the fame and make their money. The best example I can give for this is the feeling you get when playing the mobile game "Game Dev Story." The game is almost too fast paced and you get in money pinches quite often. This really makes you contemplate making games the same genre and style as successful games, to try to pull in those extra bucks. What developers don't realize is that the gaming community is yearning for something new and engaging, and not the same ol Call of Duty or Battlefield games every year. I would love to hear what you think on the subject.
Yeah... I guess videogame consumers in general as a collective definitely need to start "talking with our wallets" as well and purchase less of the generic soldier/warrior games, or the major developers will never change what they're doing.
Its not needed, but its also pretty hard to come up with situations that don't involve combat of some kind. You have to explain what happens to the enemy somehow, be it they're "sent back home" a la Rune Factory or its an "act" like in Mario games.Portal was a good example of "combat" that isn't really violent with the portal gun. There's also Splatoon, which is basically a cross between paintball, squirt guns fights, and capture the flag.As for military-style shooters being the industry's bread and butter, its just the current popular genre, just like bullet-hell shooters, platformers, and JRPGs before them. _Eventually_ people will grow tired of it.
Exactly my point guys. This is the cream of the crop, and has been for about a decade. All I'm saying is that I think it's time to have another "revolution" per say. More creativity and originality in a style of game other than FPS. I originally thought Minecraft would brake the barrier, for being a original game, and as you can see by the RUclips seen and sales, it's been very successful. I say, bring on the new games!
***** it's called stealth-based and racing games, for starters. Then there's strategy games - when's the last time you had to kill someone in a board game (yes I know there's combat-based board games too, just saying it isn't a required mechanic)? You can even have shooter-type games that don't involve killing - there is an entire arsenal of prototype and theoretical distance weapons that only subdue/stun/incapacitate the target, something some of us have been screaming need development IRL so people don't have to rely only on bullets or tasers for personal defense.
But video games have no such limitation and should go wild. They can start with the sonic pulse guns and sick sticks we saw in Minority Report - both of which are based on real-life theoretical weapons, BTW. The pulse gun's holdback for now is the complete impracticality of its projector module and power supply. But it's possible. :D
***** Agreed. And I wasn't saying racing/stealth games don't ever include violence but rather, just like the board games, violence wasn't as necessary a component. In fact there's been a few lately where you lose points for killing targets, encouraging the player to avoid detection and minimize conflict.
Not that every game has to be what way, I enjoy a good shooter myself too. But not every game has to be a blood-and-guts shooter, either. I'm just expressing my support for the development of good solid games that use something other than death to engage us as players. We need a wider variety.
Bioshock: Infinite got a large amount of flack for featuring so much violence and gore, but a lot of people looked at said violence and gore on a purely superficial level.
The graphic violence and gore of Infinite is extremely important, it's a physical manifestation of the horrible violence and cruelty it took to build Columbia. The entire city was build on the backs of black and Irish slaves. It's a world that when looked at through a window is so unbelievably beautiful and pristine. The beginning captures that so much. When you first step foot into the city of Columbia it's awe inspiring, it's so beautiful. You walk around the streets, explore the shops, listen to the conversations of the various citizens. As you go along it only gets better, then you reach the section with the raffle, and things very quickly take a turn for the horrific. You are given the choice to throw a ball at a black woman or an Irish man that dared to be together. Instantly this idyllic painting is stripped away and you're given your first glimpse of the real Columbia.
From then on the game becomes more and more ugly, the color pallet starts to fade, the lighting becomes darker, and the violence is amped up. It's amped up because you cannot have a city built on the blood of oppressed people and expect it to be pleasant forever. A revolt will occur, and when it does it's graphic. I will defend forever the importance of Infinites violence.
Yeah, I love this shocker in --I swear there was no pun intended-- Bioshock Infinite.
However, I do feel it was a lazy mechanic at some point. You're supposed to be fighting this twisted civilization, but something feels off after you make your 1000th kill.
3:28 - this is a key point and makes the whole video worth saving
I think killing in video games is common because there are few other obstacles that you can place frequently in games. Yes, you can have a story centred around showing the main villain the error of their ways and reforming them, but you can't have that be a mechanic for every person. Video games are similar to stories in that most of them are centred around overcoming an obstacles, though in video games you need much more obstacles to keep the player engaged. I think until another fun alternative to 'kill bad guy' is discovered, killing is going to be the norm. I can think of a few games where you can arrest the enemies instead of killing them, but those eventually become repetitive as you do the same thing with the same animation over and over again, while shooting someone has much more room for variety.
What is shown in the top left at 2:20?
Even though violence in video games has not been shown to cause more violent acts directly, it does contribute to a broad cultural acceptance of violence as a means to an end. If you continually see violence as the tool to accomplish a goal than you would more than likely be willing to accept something like a real life war because like in video games, you are able to sit on your couch and not experience the direct consequences of the violence. This is why game developers must begin to frame violence in a humanizing way so that culture can see it for what it is rather than gloss it over. Tactics like making enemies masked unfeeling male NPC's contribute to a cultural acceptance of violence. This is the same phenomenon we see with all mediums as well as things like sexism and racism. Games like The Last of Us are leading the way in making violence hurt the player emotionally (though the MP experience sort of ruined that). So the answer is no, violence is not a fundamental part of game mechanic, but it can be used either a culturally responsible or irresponsible way.
I think life and death situations in videogames, from squashing a goomba in Mario or fighting a boss in Zelda, creates conflict, and conflict resolution is one of the basis of engaging narratives. Most books and films have some sort of conflict to resolve which moves the plot and engages the viewer and reader. In games this translates to a interactive plain field were the player is directly dealing with conflict and directly has to resolve it. I do believe killing enemies in games, from the gory to the cartoonish will continue to be a trait, even if the genre matures. The important part is that it serves as a basis for a more complex structure designers will built upon.
I use to play video games as a primary form of entertainment but over the last year I have migrated to board games and find I am enjoying the change more than expected. One of the main reasons I migrated was the repeat theme in video games where it always feels like the same thing just in a new place. Watching this video I tried to think of the last game I played where there was no killing of any sort in it and it didn't come down to the the last game but any game at all I have played that didn't having killing of some sort. What I came up with was EQ landmark before they added combat, and sim city which is arguable because you have to consider the people that die in the game.
In my transition to board games I have noticed a distinct lack of killing in them. There are plenty of games that have killing but there are tons and tons that don't. For example when I tried to think of the last games that did not have killing in board games I easily came up with a large list. Targi, Courtier, Lords of waterdeep, Splendor, Pandemic, Concept, Camel Cup, Carcassone, Valley of the kings, Ticket to ride, and Timeline are just ones I could think of I played this month. Another interesting thing I noticed is a lot of the games that have killing as a mechanic I found I liked less in board gaming.
This overall I think shows a few interesting things.
Killing is not required for a game to be competitive and good, but it is a lot easier to make a game based on killing than to think up something new. This shows a distinct lack of creativity in the industry and a lot of lazy designers putting a new sheen on an old theme.
This might have been what ended up getting me to transition out of video games and into board games. I kept looking for something new in games and felt like all games where generally the same with better graphics or slightly different game play. The general same might be this killing, I might have been just tired of having to push 2, X or A to do the same thing in every game with a new graphical overlay or viewpoint.
This is more esoteric but I find interesting, the primitive aspects of humanity might be coming out. I think this killing and hunt or be hunted aspect might come from something in evolution that has not fallen off yet and may never. Retaining that aspect of being cavemen on the planes that must kill or be killed. Something might be stimulated in our mind that leads us to like to pretend to be like this again. Something we don't need anymore but seem to want to embrace. That is something I would like to see studied by some sociologist, psychologist, and anthropologist.
Finally I would like to encourage other people to enter a true 3D gaming world where you can feel the game with realistic 3D graphics. Board games are really fun and I have really enjoyed the transition.
There are games about other things than killing: the Sim City series is completely unviolent and the Ace Attourney series basically is a game about talking. Then, there also are a bazillion puzzle games and quite a few rhytm games. The persistance of killing as a theme comes from video games being games focused around movement. In its most basic form, a game is a setting with obtacle to overome. Why would people want that? There are three general motifs which motivate people: people want to master skills, have power over other people and be connected with other people. The virtual power to "kill" an opponent plays to the motif of power. Those three motifs also correspond to the three styles of play: Co-op, PvP and singleplayer PvE.
Another reason is that our game technology is best at two things: managing huge spreadsheets and movement. The simulation of conversations, on the other hand, is very limited. Since all good narratives are woven around conflicts, and since a major alternative to violence for resolving conflicts is hard to simulate,
These things are hard to overcome, but that's not really a problem. There alway have been games without a focus to violence (like Pong, Tetris or Mokey Island).
Conflict & competition is such an intrinsic part of nature, and killing is just one form of them.
Even non-violent games embody conflict, even if killing is not involved, as conflict can take an innumerable amount of different forms.
Particularly well written and most interesting this week. Kudos. :)
You could relate video games to books. The young children's books are focused on happiness and learning, which is similar to puzzle games and ones like Oregon Trail, which teaches history as well.
Children's books are more active, engaging, and can have minor conflict. Games like that could be Pac-Man, Sim Ants, Pokemon, Candy Saga, etc.
Comics and adolescent books have more conflict and competition, and a more engaging story. The Legend of Zelda series could be related to comics, especially with how the stories vary between lighter and very serious.
Finally, you get the adult fiction and games, which have varying intensities. A great example here is the Quantic Dream games. They focus on intense stories with a great conflict behind them. The way they outshine books is how you can make choices which change what happens and how the story ends.
I have found that designing a videogame that revolves around violence is far less difficult that one that doesnt. The reson for this, I dont know.
It could be that since I have played and seen far more violent videogames I have a bigger pool of examples that help me came up with ideas. It could also be that violent conflict tends to be straight fordward and easy to teach.
What game is shown between 4:53 and 4:55?
A friend of mine and I have playfully had this discussion. He loved to play video games, especially military ones (given he's ex-army) and there's a lot of killing in that. I'm not much of a video game person but I love horror movies.
He asked me once about all the murder in horror movies and I turned it around on him about his games pointing out that, in his games, he's the one doing the killings rather than, in movies, you're just seeing it so there's a layer between the viewer and the characters.
That's kind of where it stopped. :)
I prefer video games that do have violence in them, even if it's not all that much, but I still do enjoy the occasional artsy, exploration, telltale game. I mean, the Total War series is one of my favorite game series of all time, I own every single one including the original Shogun and Medieval, nothing for me beats the sight of two enormous armies clashing with one another on a dusty plain at dawn. I don't think violence is a fundamental part of video games. Video games, just like any other art, literature or film alike, can be anything they want to be, every game is different in some way, nothing is fundamental to video games, sure games have and will evolve, but it shouldn't be forced to, they shouldn't be censored, any and all games should exist.
I am so thankful someone has finally brought this up. I'm a long time gamer who can't find pleasure in them anymore because I've grown beyond the need to kill things for satisfaction. In my opinion, either games will evolve, or people will evolve to learn to enjoy and take pleasure in the world outside of a computer monitor / television screen.
Thanks for subtitles.
The Extra Credits group did a video about this and talked about the fact that there's a lot of destruction and killing in games simply due to the fact that this was easier to program. This isn't the only reason but a lot of games started off like this for this reason (for example, space invaders). To add information is harder than subtracting it... And it made it easier to code (most early games were developed by a few programmers who also took care of the aesthetics and story). This then became the norm.
That's very true. I'm always frustrated with games which have "kill or be killed" situations with characters that don't really want to kill each other. You can either do what the developer wants or...stop playing?
As games get more complex and making a game becomes easier, we'll see more choices and even subtlety (maybe a kill-or-be-killed battle can turn into a "neutralize the enemy", like in MGS3, or an "almost kill the enemy").
Great point, software limitations have determined the binary approach.
You mention Journey in your talk, which actually reminded me of the post-mortem from GDC by Jenova Chen a couple years ago. During his talk, he explains how he makes interaction more positive and anti-violent and how... unbelievably tough it was.
Link: www.gdcvault.com/play/1017700/Designing
"we wanted to have a game that makes you feel somewhat lonely and somewhat small." to try and attract you to other players. They had to do a bunch of prototyping to really push for it.
They started prototyping with co-op to try and make characters collaborate. There were a lot of cases where you'd have cases of 'us vs them' when you had more than 2 players. When there was any situation where there were objects that caused damage were in the area, players would kill their allies for fun. After talking for a while with a friend of his, he came up with this:
When people play games, they are like babies. They don't bring their morals in with them, they just seek feedback when they interact with things. With killing, there's damage, there's blood, there's animations, the player is rewarded with something more interesting than when they help their ally."
That is why there's no damage or killing in journey for cooperative. You don't get anything out of it. They focused on making the reward the journey itself. (and a fancy white coat for gathering all the glowy things)
We need to think about when we're rewarded in games. Are you just as likely to get the same or a better reward when you kill a guy as opposed to just stopping him and restraining him? They do this a lot with vigilante characters... give the same or better rewards for morally opposing concepts. How big of a deal is it if that NPC dies? Do they even care if you save them?
That's what needs to be thought about with designing games without killing.
It's fairly important in multiplayer games due to the competitive nature. It's allows us to use our avatars to directly influence another persons avatar without holding back, which allows the medium to be much more flexible than standard sports or similar games. There's also simulation of danger, which can give the player a kick and in some cases even allows them to perform better in the game.
I would like to point out, my favorite game has no killing, that game is Portal. Not to mention Professor Layton, and there are others still.
+CraftedFire Remember when Glados tried to incinerate you? Intoxicate you? Shot rockets at you? Remember when you threw Glados' Core into an incinerator? No killing eh?
Timbo Jones You never kill a soul, GLaDOS is simply a robot who appears to have a mind, and besides, she does not even die. And I was saying that as the player, killing is not a mechanic.
+CraftedFire being dead it didn't take but that really doesn't change the fact that you as a player is actively trying to terminate her life
Some of my absolute favorite games ever include Portal, Bayonetta, Pokemon, Machinarium, Zelda, Mass Effect, LIMBO, and Okami. These all have very varying levels of violence in them.
The games that push you towards violence less than your common shooter are the ones I tend to grow to have a greater sense of respect for (respect being distinct from other forms of fondness), I end up respecting them more on an intellectual and artistic level. And if our goal is to see videogames become more often viewed and treated as art-entertainment instead of simply toy-entertainment (which in my opinion it is definitely a goal), then providing quality non-violent videogames is an important part of that.
Conflict is necessary, but probably doesn't need to so constantly or consistently hinge almost entirely upon physical mortality as a result of interpersonal violence.
Violence can feel empowering, and that's a big motivation for the player in lots of videogames, but is it necessary for an engaging and high-quality videogame? I personally hope not: it would say something very pessimistic and unfortunate about human psychology.
Specific examples on my mind:
I tried to play a pacifist female orc character in Skyrim and was still disappointed how often violence was in fact necessary to complete quests where in the quest info text it didn't mention you'd need to kill anyone at all, because it's so inherently assumed that you're perfectly fine with murdering people that they didn't even bother to mention it as necessary. One quest in particular for example only asked only that I retrieve an item from someone, so I stealth'd my way to them and then used my amazing pickpocketing skills to take it from them... the quest refused refused to acknowledge that I had what I needed because the person still stood there, breathing and healthy.
The Uncharted series is another wonderful series, it's an Indiana Jones for a new generation and even my mother loves the series, but it really is just another good example (one example of many many many) of a videogame that strikes my irritation with creating a character who is very narratively heroic and likable and yet in the mechanics of the gameplay is consistently killing hundreds of people. Yes, often in self-defense, I suppose, but also often not -- and even so, it's still being written in and programmed in to be set up that way when it doesn't need to be.
Games are definitely evolving. Killing will always be there, but now the field is far more diversified in beautiful ways that allow different people with different goals and dreams to play their way through. Eloquent discussions on this channel. I'm subscribing.
From the outset, videogames were going to be inclined towards violence because the initial rudimentary input systems we had were all binary. A keystroke or button press is simply too easy to analogize to a trigger pull... than to simulate the subtleties of dialogue and negotiation or even the nuance of something as elemental as swinging a baseball bat (in a game, it's swing or don't... but anyone who has actually connected with a ball with intention can tell you, there's so much more subtle nuance to it; thus, why golf is even a sport).
If you consider that pong (or tennis for two) started out using analog controls to simulate the subtlety of varying degrees of speed and movement beyond just up-and-down, had gaming input and controls started out as analog (economically) then we very well may have followed down a path of more sports, driving, and other non-violent simulation. However, because a trigger-pull is so perfectly simulated by a cheap binary button, savvy designers took advantage of that immersive analogy.
It's not for a lack of trying. Certainly adventure games and RPGs offer greater choice and the ability to turn the click of a menu into a much greater dynamic range of choices... but you correspondingly lose real-time responsiveness.
The first versions of Street Fighter attempted to allow for analog buttons that could sense varying pressure to change the power of a strike, but inevitably that led to players damaging the machines by striking them harder and harder. So Street Fighter relented on having one button with varying degrees of pressure, by splitting punch and kick into three buttons... each representing a varying degree of pressure. Thus giving the player a ton of "gaming verbs" at their finger-tips at any given time (much more than your typical two-button platformer). That breath and depth of simulation led to emergent gameplay (like the combo system) and is why the genre is compelling to this day.
But back to analog controls... as soon as the fidelity and analogy of analog became more prevalent, suddenly developers could genuinely explore gametypes less reliant on trigger-pulls and violence. When the Wii made somewhat faithful motion control a household thing, we gained an explosion of simulation games trying to capture the nuance of sports, cooking, dancing, and other non-violent activities and competitions.
As interfaces improve, get cheaper, and more prevalent, we'll see violence less as a necessary game mechanic... with dialog and negotiation as a milestone we may one day reach!
I've made a couple simple games to share with my friends (sorry, not online anytime soon). One of them is a sliding box puzzle game, so no killing. The other, an exploration platformer, is mostly about dodging hazards and collecting stuff, and has only one enemy you fight, the boss at the end, and you mainly attack him by rerouting his attacks back at him (clearly self defense).
Also, I'm surprised that on the procedural generation topic, nobody mentioned Dwarf Fortress. The game procedurally generates almost everything, even down to histories and cultures. Recently, the game even generates art forms, such as bizarre forms of poetry and music and even the instruments used to play the music. It generates them through text alone, but the fact that it simulates events that contribute to a culture is absolutely fascinating, and it gets better and better over time. The developer talks many times how he's pleasantly surprised by how well some things work and how they often *don't* work but to amusing results--sometimes he keeps those "mistakes" in because they allowed for more interesting scenarios than his original plan. It's an incredibly ambitious game, looking to eventually become a full-fledged "fantasy adventure simulator," and was one of the core inspirations for Minecraft, according to Notch. I realize the game is super niche, especially given its "couldn't care less" graphic style, but to me it seems as natural a topic as Minecraft when talking about procedural generation.
Men have always enjoyed "controlled violence" since the dawn of time. Before videogames it was stuff like fencing, duels, boxing, war reenactments. Now videogames are here and we're able to satiate our primal urges in the most tame and safe way possible. Human history is a bloodbath and I think we needed to learn to enjoy a part of it to make it this far.
I'm not sure that Journey winning game of the year is really evidence that we're "hungry" for non violent games. All it indicates is that Journey itself was a fantastic game. In order to qualify your statement, I would think we'd need to see a few, at least, of this nature of game.
There are a few indie games with no killing- or at least, no killing done by the player, like Papers, Please. And a lot of puzzle games like the Witness. And simulators can sometimes not have violence. And those walking simulators. Oh, not to mention sports games and racing games
Dark wood is a procedurally generated plot basted game with each new map having different layouts. It is a great example of unique generation of worlds telling great narrative stories but making each players play through totally unique and fun.
My favorite game is Portal1/2 and there's no killing there at all. I love how chill it is and how I need to use my brain and feel badass with my portal gun.
I watched this video after playing hotline miami 2, lol
The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that you need conflict for all stories. I ran across a post talking about kishotenketsu -- an old Japanese literary theory. It's similar to the four-act structure we're used to (exposition, rising action, climax, resolution), except the climax is replaced by a 'twist' instead of a triumph. The twist shifts the perspective of the work in such a way that you learn something that you didn't know that you didn't know. Thus, there's no conflict about "I didn't know this thing," no triumph in learning it. It breaks away entirely.
Wikipedia lists one example of an argument constructed through this format. The issue is introduced: " In old times, copying information by hand was necessary. Some mistakes were made." They expand upon that information: "Copying machines made it possible to make quick and accurate copies." Then, the twist: "Traveling by car saves time, but you don't get much impression of the local beauty. Walking makes it a lot easier to appreciate nature close up." With this twist in mind, we find resolution in a new point of view: "Although photocopying is easier, copying by hand is sometimes better, because the information stays in your memory longer and can be used later."
If you think about it, a lot of our lives are spent more in this manner than in terms of conflict. We make friends who change how we go about our days. Some of them become mortally important to us and change our outlook on life. Rather than a conflict, where one idea tears down another, we grow as our ideas band together. So many of life's stories are told in kishotenketsu, and these may be the so-called 'boring parts,' but that all depends on where you direct your focus. If you want to see how a person's heart changes, the little things are often more fascinating than any search for some huge tragedy or final battle.
I think this has implications in gaming too. We are so used to the idea that stories must have conflict, so ours reflect that. But if we took on this new view, then we might practice new ways to demonstrate the 'twist' in a medium that allows us to _feel it_ firsthand.
I read the title and immediately thought of UnderTale, which is based around this exact question. It's still in development, but you'll be able to go through the entire game by peacefully reasoning with your enemies (or killing them if you want).
I'm soooo bored of this debate. I play lots of games where there's no killing. Harvest moon anyone? And even in it's sister game, Rune Factory you don't kill the monsters. You knock them out with your "magic" weapon and send them to a place called "forest of beginnings". Think of it like the place in Digimon where all Digimon are reborn as eggs. There are Digimon games so yes I'm gonna take that as an example.
From my Steam Wishlist of 43 games, 13 games don't necessarily have "killing" for main mechanic (including 4 puzzle games). From my library, 26 games out 62 of which aren't based on killing or destroying some form of enemy.
So, I think that indeed it's possible to come up with even more novel mechanics which don't involve the demise of some adversary character even for first-person action/adventure games.
My take on this is: Violence in games, be it on the psyche or on the digital flesh, dulls us to violence. It makes us less sensitive to it, it makes us practice not having empathy (and shooting). We know its not real, but it still has effects. Later on we may not notice how it affects the way we feel and act. In some cases it might even help some people to see these types of events as a game (one special forces guy I knew who always played war games as a kid told me he sort of saw it that way, though he was troubled by having to have killed a buddy they were leaving behind to otherwise die of his wounds).
The most component in video games is player agency. In order to have agency, they have to be able to affect the world they are in. It is a lot easier to program and intuitive for a player to delete something present in the game than to add something that isn't there. That's why deletion (I use this deliberately to include things like asteroids) is such a common mechanic. There are other options but they must be more sophisticated to seem as intuitive.
This is currently at the forefront of my mind because I'm playing through Papo and Yo. Spoilers follow if you haven't played it.
So, there is violence in Papo and Yo, but the way it's used is very interesting to me. If you didn't know, the creator of the game has states in interviews, and in a dedication at the beginning of the game, that it's a way for him to explore his childhood with his alcoholic and abusive father.
There's not much violence in the game, and what there is never results in a "game over" status, making the violence something necessary to confront and absorb as part of the story (consumption of the addictive substance turns your gentle monster friend who protects you into a raging beast who attacks you single-mindedly. Anyone who has lived with an abusive person struggling with substance abuse can relate to this, I feel.) while also serving to raise the stakes.
However, as Monster attacks Quico, he only hurts and tosses him aside. He never kills him. Falls don't kill him either. If you fail that game it's because you need to take a break from the platformer-puzzles. And you can always come back to it. It's incredibly forgiving in that way, but the way it blends its puzzles with its beautiful, beautiful backgrounds is particularly inspiring to me.
There is a moment where a character is "killed" in Papo and Yo. Lula, your awesome robot, is killed, and you are tasked with taking her to the Shaman- something you can only achieve with monster- to help her.
This loss is emotionally painful, but the game mechanics also reflect how particularly helpless you the player can feel without Lula and her exceptionally helpful hover-jump. On the one hand, you're sad because Quico is sad, and he's a child who still has to depend on this abusive-parent-figure to make it through the world, and on the other hand you are specifically hampered as a player by the loss of the character, making the death doubly meaningful to both the narrative and the design.
I don't know that violence needs to never occur in games, but I do think that more games could stand to look at violence as more than a mechanic, more than a way to up the narrative stakes, and instead treat it as an experience we haven't much explored in games. We've touched the surface of violence, the action movie surface, but there's deeper art to be understood. Games that explore loss and trauma in respectful, beautiful ways I think will be an important evolution in the medium.
I think it is important to distinguish between deaths in single player and competitive multi-player games. The latter is obviously different than "killing" because the characters come back (e.g., respawn). It is closer to schoolyard Tag, with longer reach.
Single player games, where lots of NPCs get killed, is closer to what society would call "killing" (and I personally find more unsettling).
This video and the one about permadeath really go hand in hand, I feel like death isn't the main mechanic in games but more a cover for failure with killing being success. In racing games this can be seen with coming first or not qualifying and with puzzles either solving it or running out of time but I think that the death theme take on this theme of success and failure to the next level as we can all sympathise with the constant threat of death and the success of avoiding it whereas few people can really feel immersed under the threat of losing a street race.
You didn't mention Extra Credits' video on the subject (Non-Combat Gaming). Actually, it's interesting the variety of games we're getting lately where combat is not the primary mechanic or, in many cases, even a mechanic at all. Most of these games are simulator types but still.
I've been working on a story that might end up in the format of a game -- seems to fit it best, really -- which'd be no combat, no minigames, no point-and-click search-this-room-for-the-right-pixels or combine-these-items puzzles, just a person raising nonphysical stats to open up locations and chat options, befriending a variety of characters and through those friendships unlocking secrets of their pasts that link (directly or symbolically) with her own, forcing her to deal with things she's been avoiding.
The major mechanic will be chat choices, far more complex than any chat system I've ever seen. As I put it while discussing my ideas, if you help your neighbor cook dinner, you won't be playing a minigame to chop onions while talking happens, you'll be choosing chat options to move the conversation in different directions while chopping happens. (By the by, any suggestions of chat-heavy games -- not monologues but being able to strongly affect the direction of chat -- would be appreciated.)
***** Hmmm...may you tell me this story? Cuz I think we may be able to work this into a game that people would love to play, when I read what you said, I thought that it sounded like a mystery game, like L.A Noire, only minus the violence, sexual content, etc.
Not all games have a lot of killing, opponents faint in Pokemon, enemies in EarthBound usually "stop moving", "turn back to normal" or "return to the dust of the earth" and of course, various sports, puzzle and racing games.
There's a very strong game design reason for killing in games: killing as a primary mechanic keeps a game linear, keeps the designer in control, and let's you interact with other characters.
For a player, dying simply means restarting at a checkpoint, so there's not much choice there. Killing an NPC is also not usually a choice: they kill you so you restart, or you kill them and move on. You have had a meaningful interaction with an AI but the AI is effectively removed from the game, unable to affect it.
This is very powerful for game designers, who can control the possibilities in a game based on your choices by ensuring your choices aren't really meaningful. They can add story and a variety of other things. Having an NPC stay alive and still be meaningful is a huge burden on the game developer. Look at the effort taken for Bioshock Infinite's Elizabeth, and note that *she actually can't die in the game*.
In conclusion: the reason we kill so much in games is because it's the only way to have meaningful interaction with an AI in a non-game-breaking way.
The Batman Arkham games and the latest Deus Ex are great for the fact that you can pacify your enemies rather than taking their lives. And it can be just as fun too, maybe even more fun. Playing them got me thinking about what's justified and what's unreasonable in many aspects of gaming. There should be a lot more of these kind of titles.
I think one really fundamental reason that video games have involved killing is for plain simple programming reasons: Back in the days when an entire game had to be squeezed into 4 kilobytes of storage, 'killing' an enemy was a nice easy way to keep the memory usage to a minimum. You'd shoot/stomp on the enemy, they would flash and disappear freeing up precious memory.
For the most part, I think conflict and overcoming opposition/enemies is a pretty fundamental part of many games. This can be depicted in a more subtle way like Mario or Space Invaders, or in full blood-and-guts glory. This basic mechanic will always be around in my opinion (perhaps in different forms like Call of Duty or chess) and probably a fairly dominant type of game. But there are some newer games that do not use this mechanic and are very successful, such as Monument Valley.
The question of whether or not all the violence and killing in video games causes violence is actually a very interesting and complex question. As mentioned in the video, overall violent crime rates have been dropping for a long time, but that doesn't necessarily mean media violence doesn't contribute to real life violence at all because in the real world there are always confounding variables. In most studies I've read on the subject, playing violent video games does increase aggression in the short term, and those who regularly play video games tend to grow up to be significantly more aggressive than those who don't. However, it's also true that the type of violence and the type of person can influence this. People who are averse to violence tend to become less aggressive after exposure, for instance, and violence which focuses on the pain of the victim rather than the glory of the perpetrator also tends to reduce aggression. Same with sexual violence and sexism in media.
What I have noticed in most FPS games is the lack of contrast in the singleplayer narrative, multiplayer does not count on the fact of its just a collection of team games and if your not on one side you are on the other, but the lack of contrast is quite clear in most games, "you are super shooter man X and you are here to save your country from it's deemed enemies great jorb", there is no conflict of interest or different view point put in place it is just a "Go country, kill those evildoers" kind of game, with the exception of "spec ops: the line" and the tragically canceled "Rainbow six: Patriots" (I was really hoping for that one, I wanted to see how they would pose a moral dilemma) there is no choice on who you fight for or what, giving the genre names like "glorified solider trainer" and "Military kid training programs", there are even rumors that most FPS games that deal with military premises have to be run through agency like the pentagon, DOD, and other war making propaganda slinging outfits, my wish is that there would be more games that focus more on this moral dilemma, most likely it would be pushed into some RPG kind of scenario which is awesome as well, FPS games need to focus more on different things than the latest piece of kit, country "X" vs. country "Y", and how pretty it looks if it wants to survive and thrive, bring some mental conflict into the game, make people question why they are killing, which side to follow, and focus on damn teamwork for once!! Squad based shooters like "Ghost recon: future soldier" and "republic commando" always felt more satisfying than the latest inbred version of COD and sadly Battlefield went the same way, releasing BF4 so soon after BF3, such a money grab.
Just pointing out that soccer fields actually do vary in size. The international rules specify limits to the variation. For example, it made possible to organize the FIFA World Cup in the US.
Cool video. But are you actually wearing lens-less glasses?
It may be different for other people, but for me I usually don't think of killing in most games as killing. I consider shooting people in a game like Call of Duty more like shooting at moving targets at a gun range. Killing in games is simply a test of skill for for me, how many targets can I hit while running a gantlet of bullets? At the same time though it does make me wish that some games had more options, CoD is basically just a target range that shoots back, but more story based games would benefit from having more options. For example, GTA IV let you decide the fate of people in a few places but it never really had much of an impact later on. What if letting a person live meant they might show up as an enemy later in the game? I have also thought it would be nice if shooters made the distinction between killing an enemy and just wounding them, maybe allow you to take prisoners too.
I don't think every game should do this kind of thing, as I've stated, I rather like the mindless shooting galleries many games are, but it would be cool to see this kind of stuff more often.
Yeah, as somebody else said, this is due to the early limitations in memory for games. We could make games with more choices at this point.
I agree, I'd really like to see those implications in some games and be able to choose if I kill or just wound a target.
I could even be more meaningful: Imagine you wound enemies throughout the game and then kill that last son of a turkey who was responsible for all the chaos. Or kill all except a certain kind of enemies...what would that mean?
In any case, I agree: Not every game needs to be like this, but we could produce more varied games, and come up with more gems, if we stopped being limited to this resolution.
One can also consider the processing alleviation that "killing" can provide on that actual performance of a game. Let's say I'm playing a game and I engage with a target, thus ridding it of it's relevance to the system. If a new target appears and the old one remains, there are now 2 targets at play, while only one is relevant. In the combat situations portrayed by games, leaving too many objects piling up without clearing them out via destruction or death will eventually start to slow down the computer and make the game unplayable. Some engines are better at dealing with this than others, but there is little practical sense in not using death or disintegration as a narrative or thematic excuse for the object's disappearance. This doesn't detract from the reality that we don't need to choose games that involve these themes to begin with, but I think it's worthwhile to consider some of the "logistical" benefits of death in games.
Living and killing as a main mechanics is actually pretty natural here on Earth. One being is both prey and predator, and kills to live.
Killing may even be considered a form of validation as a living being: the character you play as is stronger, the ones killed are weaker, and therefore stack up as "proof of living strong".
Free mention of _Master Reboot_, a game that has a story centered around death, but does not have "killing" as a mechanic, at all. Except maybe for the ending, but I'm not sure what happened.
I may be opening myself up to a "Chicken or the Egg" argument here, but I've always assumed the status of "dead" was more of an after thought. Mechanically, once you've defeated an opponent (whether that be an insurgent in COD or a line of blocks in Tetris) it makes an intuitive kind of sense in games to want to remove the sprite or character from the field. I imagine that this desire to save or clean playspace is really more of a desire to maintain the flow of the game, and the moniker of "dead" was added in after fridge logic kicked in.
I just saw a clip of Superhot from March 2015. Must have been a very early release.
Great video, and awesome discussion. I'll throw my hat into the equation, even though I'm sure it's been said before:
* We're a society of competition. Sports... Business... Games... even life to some extent
* It's in our PRIMAL nature to be competitive, and attempt to 'win at everything' ALONE...
* But, it's in our SOCIETAL, more intelligent nature to work together--as a team... to accomplish objectives. Legit ones.
* On the concept of how games & sports enter the equation... the video said it best, but... yes... humans CAN indeed "play"--and even play "violently" without crossing the line into becoming murderous and psychopathic.
Just look at football or how about something more violent like MMA or boxing? The thing is... these things TAKE LEGIT SKILLS, years of training, a sharp mind, and people devote their lives to them.
I think there is NOTHING wrong with games that contain weapons and "eliminating the enemy", since... this is just like football or MMA or basketball or chess.
The problem (I feel)... is the PURPOSE and lessons / objectives behind it all... seems to be getting lost / dulled / subdued.
That is to say... I remember in old games like "Metroid" and "Super Metroid" (just for examples)... you had to use your brain. Solve tough puzzles of where to go... how to get there... how to survive... and yet your long-term goal was apparent.
Even in OLDER games like "Ultima V" (one of my all time favorites, along with Ultima IV, which didn't even HAVE a "main bad guy")... had to use brain... solve puzzles... travel/where to go... survive... and long-term goal was there!
In some games of today... it's just MINDLESS GRAPHICS & KILLING. Again... in SOME games. In some cases... EPIC graphics, yes... but mindless just the same.
Apparently, the new SW Battlefront EA (lol) game is an example. Sad! :(
I'm writing a book and on a later book a single character fights 100,000 soldiers and only 3,000 soldiers survive. But the character who fought lost his left arm, lost most of his blood, went blind and died in the battle.
that's the kind of content I expect from a show called "Game/Show" :)
When games became graphics based one of the simplest things a programmer could write was a code which added or removed an image or animation. So to me it makes sense that fundamental to traditional programming is the notion that games are completely designed levels in which removing game objects is the key to success. But that's not to say we couldn't do things differently. If we continue to imagine the binary opposition, games could as easily start with nothing and be about adding more game objects, but where would the challenge lie?
My theory is that games are fundamentally about training a skill or set of skills, storytelling is a secondary and optional feature. But training a skill, that's what gameplay is, and the game is nothing without gameplay.
To train it has to be a challenge (even if you don't notice that it's a challenge) and a good way to get that is through having opponents, either as other players or as the game itself being your opponent. And whether we like it or not killing is a fundamental part of life.
Games without death seem to be less popular simulators for e.g. the most popular simulator "The Sims" has the feature you can kill your Sims.
I think it may just be that we all have a morbid obsession with death.
Death is also an easy way to indicate win/lose as you say, so it would be interesting to see some serious games with no win/lose scenarios in them at all. But then without a real goal can it count as a game.
Journey is an experience, although it is amazing. What makes it so great is how unique of a feeling it gave.
I don't think that it would be right to consume many games in that genre because by doing so, surely you will dilute the memory of the first experience.
Killing is a mainstay in games because of the in built need to protect life. We can accept the rules and become part of a system that has a clear life/death feedback faster than games that are either non-avatar based or flexible abstractions of a system like Thurn and Taxis or Carcassone. In those games you may have the agency of some team progress but when you can identify with the character it is easier for other thematic mechanisms to be meaningful.
I do not think that killing is fundamental to video games. Even shooter games. Elimination of obstacles is fundamental. How they are eliminated is based on the narrative. In Pokemon, they "faint". In GTA, they are "killed". In the Sims, they are "appeased". And so on. But is narratives requiring obstacles to be killed more rampant than it should be? Yes. And we love it.
While eventually there will be more games that develop a sense of not having a do or die situation with enemies, the challenge of making them fun will be there.
Bejeweled and bejeweled-like games are great. There isn't really a method of having to kill or die. However if you look at Puzzle Quest where they add enemies and a leveling up system using the Bejeweled match-3 system. Then the game gains a sense of fun i put hundreds of hours into Marvel Puzzle Quest, I spent hundreds of bucks on it too.
Look at Rayman Legends, yes you 'kill' enemies. However you aren't really punished for dying. Some of their latter levels are fun and challenging however after you realize you aren't punished for dying since there's 5-8 checkpoints a level you don't really have that extra sense of challenge. If you remove the enemies (Which wouldn't be that different since they are just there to either bounce off of or just punch for lumes) then you will have a platformer where death isn't punished and there is no enemies to distract you.
You have to find 'The Right Game' in order to achieve the combination of challenge without enemies and keep it fun.
As you said, killing is an easy way to present conflict in a mechanical form. It's taken because it is often the easiest option. Making an engaging mechanic is MUCH harder to achieve when it doesn't involve killing or another direct conflict. Only the really good games that don't involve killing get to see the light of fame, while a pretty generic shooter can be enjoyed at least to a small extent.
Not mentioned in the notes, but still noteworthy is a book about self determination theory as it applies to games. It's called Glued to Games and I highly recommend it.
love that SUPER HOT gameplay clip you showed. more people should play that game
That mass killing is an easy tool for making familiar interactivity.
You can make a really clever twist, and make something like Offworld Trading Company, instead of the typical "kill the enemy base" RTS formula. The core formula is the same, but the interaction involves zero killing.
I always thought this idea that video games are inherently violent was strange. I got into Harvest Moon as a child, and still enjoy the games to this day, and they aren't about killing. A lot of games I do enjoy do have combat however, but I think that games, like any other medium, always had a vast amount of genres. I don't think we need to "move past" violence, but rather allow people to be more aware that there are tons of good nonviolent games out there.
Its the easiest method of permanently getting rid of a character so that you can spawn another one. However in games like Chess where you want to bring back pieces, you call it "captured." Or Pokemon calls it "fainted."
I like the bit about Pinball players having "lives". It shows how we like to describe any failstate, in the sense of "being taken out of the game", as "death", simply because no one would want an endless discussion about how to classify some specific kind of failstate. Asking the original question again with this new vocabulary: "Why is Killing a Fundamental Game Mechanic?", I would say: What a stupid question.
Different categories of games have different goals. Races for example end when a player has reached a certain goal, in other games one has to manipulate an object to win, like in football or CTF and again other games are based on elimination and/or last-man-standing scenarios. That includes preventing your balls (I'm not even gonna try to rephrase that) from falling down the hole in Pinball, making your opponents go bankrupt in Monopoly or landing a nutshot in games of paintball.
Let's suppose my list is somewhat representative, it shouldn't be too farfetched to describe Metal Gear Solid (which you have to be 18 y.o. in Germany to play) is a race to the end of the story in which NPC enemies act as obstacles that can take you out of the game and which you can take out of the game in return as well, if you wanted to (pretty much like every platformer game). CTF is a ball game in which the tackling and passing mechanics are replaced by taking someone out of the game, most probably because of techincal limitations. In these games you will be saying 'I'm dead' or 'I killed him' a lot, but it's obviously not a fundamental mechanic, instead it's just a way to spice things up.
Pacifist collectathons simply don't have any challenge to them, straight up racing games are not for everybody and therefore you will see many games adding elimination mechanics next to their main goal, just for the added challenge and the stuff and emotions that come with it.
I don't wanna hear about "failstates should be less brutal" because in all realistic scenarios death is the only reliable failstate that doesn't come with questions like "what then?" and "well what was the motivation to capture him alive" blah blah.
Lastly, to have mentioned it: Story based games are a nice thing to become more popular these last few years, but if people want to see nice pictures and be told good stories, it is much more reliable to go to the forms of media that have been doing that for us for centuries now. Gameplay mechanics on the other hand cannot be adapted by other media and we should therefore cherish them and hold them dear, as none of the generations before us could spend their afternoon with "mindless killing". Storytelling will eventually become good and unique enough in video games so that they can be the part of one or the other genre of game, but it'd be inexcusable to let games "(de)evolve past the blood and guts".
Life itself isn't a story happening in front of us, it is an experience with its very own multitude of mechanics and failstates. That's why we play games in the first place.
"if people want to see nice pictures and be told good stories, it is much more reliable to go to the forms of media that have been doing that for us for centuries now."
Those other mediums don't offer any interactivity though (except choose your own adventure books, I guess). Even if a game is basically a visual novel with only three choices, it's still three huge decisions that a novel with the same story would lack.
That's what I mean. Video games have inertactive mechanics that other media lack. The question could therefore aswell be: "Why are decisions a fundamental mechanic of video games".
Having a story and scenery in a game is a wonderful thing, but saying that story driven games will become the true artform of video games is stupid, since that is exactly NOT, what makes video games their own thing different in the first place.
If one of those three choices in that visual novel would lead to one of your character's deaths or maybe to the death of all of your characters, how would that make "deaths" and other mechanics of that kind stupid and not worthy of true art?
Just like you, I think that that's exactly what makes a game something different or even more than a movie or a novel. Therefore any game specific feature should be kept in games, if it's failstates, competition or whatever. Taking away even one of those would simply take away from the medium's possibilities.
The "Multiplayer Cooperative" game is the highest form of human entertainment as there is the possibility of no human-v-human conflict component (hence no drive to strife and war), and I do hope that the human desire for actual human pain in entertainment does not does not snuff out the development of this very useful mechanism for peace in the real world.
The killing is beside the point, apart from being an indicator of lack of imagination.
This was an amazing video. I specially like your concluding comments that games are still in the Greek Tragedy phase, although I would argue that with Jenova Chen's work, games like Gone Home and To The Moon, and even with violent games exploring things like racism, PTSD, and surveillance, games are closer to the renaissance. I would point out tho, that Journey does have conflict. It's just that the conflict is not person vs person as much as it is person vs. world. I would love to see a game that's person vs. self.
the way mechanics and motives are so similar in different pieces of media can be in some ways considered lazy writing. the do or die mindset, the idea of saving a loved one or taking some sort of vengeance, being some sort of grand protector of society, and other similar tropes are very familiar ways of creating motives for the charters. this familiarity makes them easy to pull off, and so they are to a certain extent over used. the reason a game like journey would win game of the year is because it is much more creative by simply not incorporating these tropes of character motivation, but still managing to make the player feel motivated. however, these sparks of originality are rare, which is why we fall back on to the same old tropes.
I definitely think that while killing will stay around, with the rise of the "indie" game, we will see more experimentation in the mechanics of games. I'll be happy to this. While I don't mind killing (because I'm so used to it), after noticing how fundamental killing seems to games I really do want to see different things. One of the reasons why I like the "indie" genre is because of the amount of experimentation I see. (By indie I mean that sort of "indie" feel, not so much about the actual company making the game, which I understand is a very vague definition)
Killing is fundamental to certain types of games, but is not absolutely necessary. I don't want to see it go away, because defeating strong enemies in games is way too much fun. At the same time, though, there are other forms of game play. A good example would be games like Harvest Moon or Trauma Team where there are certain mechanics that can involve killing things, but for the most part the game play focuses on other aspects.