Disclaimer: when I say ?we,? I'm referring to the average college-age gamer, not too hardcore and not too casual.
We live in an era of gaming where the act of taking a life in a game has become simple, easy, and isolated. We have more than likely killed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of other human beings apiece. Between all of us, I'm sure we have killed off the entire human race more times that we could care to count. We've done all this with (rightly) little regard for the lines of code and polygons that we had just spewed particle effects at, and no real emotion other than an occasional ?Finally, he's dead, now I can move on to the next bit.?
The point I am dancing laboriously about is that we don't care who we're killing, as long as they're some faceless enemy, typically monsters (Locust), aliens (Covenant), or Nazis (Nazis). We don't instinctively want convincing enemies with almost-compelling causes, we want evil scientists, corrupt governments or corporations, and mindlessly violent soldiers. When we're sitting down to play a game, we don't want to feel our resolve waver as the soldiers wife watches us slaughter her husband, or to hesitate before we execute the kneeling, broken man in front of us. We just want something to hate, something unerringly ?bad,? and this can be an obstacle to games' capability for inducing emotion and provoking thought.
When someone is killed in real life, their family grieves, and must learn to survive with only one working adult that must then explain to their children that daddy won't ever be coming home, their extended family plans a funeral, their children have to grow up missing a parent... the list goes on of consequences of someone's death, especially when the person is killed by violence rather than natural causes. These consequences are often completely ignored by video games, because it would most likely take a lot of fun out of war games, among many others wherein violence is a major theme.
When Prototype's absorb-someone's-memories mechanic was announced, I was intrigued. I know it won't be used for anything but plot revelation, but it made me think that perhaps the results of someone's death in a game could mean more than just grabbing a new clip of ammo off his body. It's a rudimentary idea, but perhaps a protagonist with time-viewing abilities or some such, who will always see every result of every action. This could be implemented in gameplay as a time-control mechanic, but every time you kill an enemy, flashes of their mourning family/their funeral and whatnot would start showing up on the screen, or something to that extent. It couldn't be a cutscene, just flashes over the screen.
This would be night-impossible to pull off, as each enemy would need an entire life created for them, including unique families and experiences. Another great obstacle is breaking the mental barrier of many-an entertainment-searching gamer in order to change their mindset from ?I'm looking to have fun blowing things to little bits? to ?This is a somewhat serious subject and I am being shown something about it.? The goal of the game would be to challenge gamers to start taking violence seriously, if only within the context of that game.
Like I said, it's not a very thought-out concept as of right now ? in fact it's pretty terrible at the moment, but I think there is a way to make killing something with some gravity; actually ending someone's existence rather than removing an obstacle. It'd probably only work if the enemies were compelling and realistic, rather than the traditional Locust-types. Then along shambles the problem that the game probably wouldn't be any fun. Few people would actually want to go on realistic, depressing, emotive killing sprees wherein every kill is another layer of guilt. The other side of the spectrum is if the mechanic was poorly executed it would feel shallow and corny, like an 80's B movie.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the more entertainment-oriented games immensely. Most of my collection consists of shooters. I like chainsawing someone in half now and then, or blowing up a few buildings. It can be quite relaxing and makes a great distraction, but I feel like most games are lacking in any real substance.
In conclusion, I think that games' unique aspect ? interactivity ? could be exploited in many different ways to invoke emotive and immersive situations and stories. Violent games, however, still have their place as great ways to spend an hour or two with your friends, but they're usually not sophisticated artistic works. The fact that killing has become so simple could become a large impediment to games' opportunities as an artistic medium..
Well, there's my little rant. So do you (mostly) good folks think killing is too easy in video games? Should killing someone have realistic consequences? Should games start adopting consequences for violence, or if these ideas are implemented, should they stay in a separate genre of "serious" games, and leave the normal games the way they are? Are ultra-violent games actually something of a blight on the industry, or are they just harmless fun? Should game developers seek to advance the medium, or is gaming going to remain a pastime rather than art? Can games be artistic and fun at the same time, or must simple enjoyment be sacrificed for artistry?
Do the discussing.
We live in an era of gaming where the act of taking a life in a game has become simple, easy, and isolated. We have more than likely killed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of other human beings apiece. Between all of us, I'm sure we have killed off the entire human race more times that we could care to count. We've done all this with (rightly) little regard for the lines of code and polygons that we had just spewed particle effects at, and no real emotion other than an occasional ?Finally, he's dead, now I can move on to the next bit.?
The point I am dancing laboriously about is that we don't care who we're killing, as long as they're some faceless enemy, typically monsters (Locust), aliens (Covenant), or Nazis (Nazis). We don't instinctively want convincing enemies with almost-compelling causes, we want evil scientists, corrupt governments or corporations, and mindlessly violent soldiers. When we're sitting down to play a game, we don't want to feel our resolve waver as the soldiers wife watches us slaughter her husband, or to hesitate before we execute the kneeling, broken man in front of us. We just want something to hate, something unerringly ?bad,? and this can be an obstacle to games' capability for inducing emotion and provoking thought.
When someone is killed in real life, their family grieves, and must learn to survive with only one working adult that must then explain to their children that daddy won't ever be coming home, their extended family plans a funeral, their children have to grow up missing a parent... the list goes on of consequences of someone's death, especially when the person is killed by violence rather than natural causes. These consequences are often completely ignored by video games, because it would most likely take a lot of fun out of war games, among many others wherein violence is a major theme.
When Prototype's absorb-someone's-memories mechanic was announced, I was intrigued. I know it won't be used for anything but plot revelation, but it made me think that perhaps the results of someone's death in a game could mean more than just grabbing a new clip of ammo off his body. It's a rudimentary idea, but perhaps a protagonist with time-viewing abilities or some such, who will always see every result of every action. This could be implemented in gameplay as a time-control mechanic, but every time you kill an enemy, flashes of their mourning family/their funeral and whatnot would start showing up on the screen, or something to that extent. It couldn't be a cutscene, just flashes over the screen.
This would be night-impossible to pull off, as each enemy would need an entire life created for them, including unique families and experiences. Another great obstacle is breaking the mental barrier of many-an entertainment-searching gamer in order to change their mindset from ?I'm looking to have fun blowing things to little bits? to ?This is a somewhat serious subject and I am being shown something about it.? The goal of the game would be to challenge gamers to start taking violence seriously, if only within the context of that game.
Like I said, it's not a very thought-out concept as of right now ? in fact it's pretty terrible at the moment, but I think there is a way to make killing something with some gravity; actually ending someone's existence rather than removing an obstacle. It'd probably only work if the enemies were compelling and realistic, rather than the traditional Locust-types. Then along shambles the problem that the game probably wouldn't be any fun. Few people would actually want to go on realistic, depressing, emotive killing sprees wherein every kill is another layer of guilt. The other side of the spectrum is if the mechanic was poorly executed it would feel shallow and corny, like an 80's B movie.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the more entertainment-oriented games immensely. Most of my collection consists of shooters. I like chainsawing someone in half now and then, or blowing up a few buildings. It can be quite relaxing and makes a great distraction, but I feel like most games are lacking in any real substance.
In conclusion, I think that games' unique aspect ? interactivity ? could be exploited in many different ways to invoke emotive and immersive situations and stories. Violent games, however, still have their place as great ways to spend an hour or two with your friends, but they're usually not sophisticated artistic works. The fact that killing has become so simple could become a large impediment to games' opportunities as an artistic medium..
Well, there's my little rant. So do you (mostly) good folks think killing is too easy in video games? Should killing someone have realistic consequences? Should games start adopting consequences for violence, or if these ideas are implemented, should they stay in a separate genre of "serious" games, and leave the normal games the way they are? Are ultra-violent games actually something of a blight on the industry, or are they just harmless fun? Should game developers seek to advance the medium, or is gaming going to remain a pastime rather than art? Can games be artistic and fun at the same time, or must simple enjoyment be sacrificed for artistry?
Do the discussing.
