GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Sledgehammer Games / Activision
Level Designer (Temporary)
 
High Moon / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
spacer
Blogs

  Why Killing Is Awesome
by John Rose on 07/21/11 05:39:00 pm   Featured Blogs
14 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

In the world of games, violence tends to be our focus. Of course not every title relies on it – there are plenty of non-violent products that are equally fun.  But there’s just something about violence, specifically killing, that appeals to developers and players alike. Is it because we’re bloodthirsty and ethically bankrupt, or is there a more reasonable answer?  Not surprisingly, I think there are several advantages to featuring killing in a game. While I should mention that I don’t advocate violence in general, here are a few ideas why I think in-game killing is here to stay.

1. Killing is basic

We want our games to play with emotions, right? What better way to toy with our players’ feelings than by harnessing deep-seeded reactions? Everyone feels fear; everyone is hard-wired with the need to survive. Even in the false setting of a game, it’s not difficult to make people respond to mortality. Along with survival we have inherited the abilities to hunt and defend ourselves. Even killing an NPC triggers something guilty in our reptile brain. It all adds up to a set of anxieties and desires based around killing. These emotional hooks transcend cultural and genre boundaries, which makes them a perfect addition to many games.

2. Killing is important to other media

Probably because killing is so basic to the human experience, it pervades other media. We have a rich history of killing in non-fiction (war is a continual focal point for history). Fiction is even more flamboyant with ways to kill. You could say that artists have been exploring the act of killing for thousands of years, which has made it an important part of our culture. We’re so surrounded by it that we can be desensitized to the thought of killing, if not by the act itself. People are used to plot points and stories revolving around violence and death, so games are no big leap.

3. Killing is diverse

Novelty is important to games – players are always looking for something new. Luckily(?) for us, there are a million ways to kill someone. Developers create some pretty epic weapons and hazards, and it’s not hard to make them believable parts of the game’s fiction. In this way we can vary the gameplay by merely changing the ways we murder enemies. We can keep this goal the same and still add infinite flavors of killing. As mentioned above, developers easily poach material from non-interactive media, taking their ideas and injecting them with interactive fun.

4. Killing is rich in audiovisual feedback

It’s easy to make destruction seem fun. Even a simple kill can bombard the player with particles and sounds, fully engaging his senses. This kind of feedback is easy to make a small reward. Because we inherently like to see things go boom or splat, the chain of fight-kill-fight-kill is more enjoyable because of these sensory hooks. This feedback only gets better with new hardware and software, and killing improves with it. There are few in-game actions as extreme as killing, especially at the epic scale that a game can create.

5. Killing is symmetrical

Killing can be valuable to gameplay because it is usually symmetrical. Players are often trying to kill AI or other players, just as these enemies are trying to kill them. This basic symmetry provides a simple behavioral model – players immediately understand their goals and the goals of their opponents. A baseline framework like this is a foundation; tactics, weapons, and teamwork can add complexity. It’s also incredibly valuable because, since they share the same basic goals, players can learn from their opponents’ behavior.

6. Killing neutralizes threat

Another gameplay benefit to killing is its natural progression from threat to resolution. An enemy encounter makes for a good struggle, which usually ramps up as more enemies appear. If enemies are threatening when they’re alive, they’re not when they’re dead. Killing each enemy removes their threat, and thereby lessens the player’s tension relative to his effort. The threat inherently disappears after all enemies are killed, creating a satisfying intensity curve. Pacing relies on this, so well-conceived killing can naturally provide a more polished user experience.

7. Killing is based on movement and direction

Given their input devices, most games are based on movement and direction. Joysticks and mice excel at small changes to a player’s movement and direction. First- and third-person cameras accentuate a player’s movement and direction. It follows that the mastery of in-game killing, which is also based on those criteria, should flourish in games. Skills like precision, reaction time, evasion, surprise, and predicting enemy behavior are all part of killing. Not only are fundamentally fun to improve, but they rely on a game’s strengths of movement and direction. If games evolve away from conventional controllers, it’s very possible that other types of actions besides killing will become more satisfying.

If you have any more ideas, I'd love to hear more reasons why killing fits games so well, or where it falls apart.

 
 
Comments

Prash Nelson-Smythe
profile image
To expand on your point 1, killing is built into our behaviour through evolution:



Young animals playfight as practice for self-defense and hunting. Humans are animals. Children playfight and pretend to kill each other. Violence is a big aspect of play for living things. Games are a form of play so it's not surprising that games tend to have violence as a theme.



Destruction is fun because we're rarely allowed to do it. We all have to suppress our destructive impulses to be cooperative members of society and it's satisfying to play it out in fantasy. When I watch a character in a film lose their temper and throw furniture around a room I envy them. It would be so satisfying to completely trash a shop floor or smash all the windows of a car with a crowbar, but I'm not sure why.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
I was going to say the same you did in point 6: Killing neutralized threat. Fixes problem. That's something about gaming that, if you design for a game around killing opponents, you accomplish without even knowing why.



In point 5: Killing is symmetrical, it can both good, and not-so-good. Asymmetrical became one of my most analised design resource for a while, but still, killing is symmetrical.



7. Killing is based on movement and direction. It's more prevalent as to why I'd say, shooters are so popular. Simply because it naturally gives lot's of great mechanics for a design, making it hard to make something really bad if it's about shooting. It takes hard work and a lot of non-sense to kill a helpful concept. It also correlates the level of abstraction closer to the action, what is not the same in pre-kinnect/move/etc melee confrontation.



The best point about your analisys is: by deconstructing the reasons why killing makes for good mechanics, you help who's looking for non-violent gameplay, to find the solutions, and everything comes to the basics at the end.



The "Killing neutralizes threat" statement means: Player's are given a clear problem. Player's are given action. Player's action changes state.



State: Problem -> Player Action -> State: Problem solved.



Now, bring more problems I can solve with the same tools or course of action...



The first 4 points, about killing and getting killed and all that, *might* be the reason the Mature rating doesn't really mean "mature", and mostly teenage boys enjoy these games, and mostly "mature" people will dismiss the real, great mechanics killing (and shooting) makes for, just because there's something in the theme poking on their shall-not-be-"immature" self image. There's no argument agaist the fact killing can and does have those past-good-mechanics effects. In that aspect, killing/violence can be both negative and positive.



EDIT: Prash's comment above tells the good and appealing aspects of it, if the players is willing to allow himself having that fun, and see's the line in "destruction is fun because we're rarely allowed to do it", not taking it as not allowed to enjoy it in gaming too.

Tynan Sylvester
profile image
Killing means short lifespans. Short lifespans mean you don't have to simulate much behavior.



Characters who live longer look dumber and dumber as they fail to interact properly, go to the bathroom, eat, have proper emotional reactions and arcs, and understand what's going on around them.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
This. It's actually kind of baffling that the Skaarj from the original Unreal or the marines from the first Half-Life have better (or at least obviously better) AI than most modern shooter enemies... simply because the average encounter with said enemies is likely to be over in two or three seconds. I mean, why spend time creating decent enemies to fight when you can just fill up a corridor with fifty turrets dressed up as Arab people?

Sting Newman
profile image
Doing good NPC's right is a lot of hard work for little payoff, every enemy you add multiplies the work by voice overs, any special animations/moves unit has, etc, etc.



That and the complexity of having NPC's be more real is hard since cinematics are specifically cut in movies for the most entertaining, interesting and emotionally engaging portions. Games have something similar where you try to keep too much boring filler from creating boredom.



Games are special in that you want to keep the pace of the game moving along and therefore must edit it appropriately. The desire to SIMULATE everything has a big downside for entertainment medium - that is BOREDOM.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
Arguably, killing isn't symmetrical in games because, over the course of actually completing a game, the player never dies. If the player "dies" she reloads a save or returns to a checkpoint or restarts the game. In other words, the whole point of death, the permanence of it, is negated by alterations in the stream of game experience such that the contiguous experience of a successful play through involves no player death.



"Killing" works in games for the same reason that "three strikes and you're out" works in baseball. The game mechanic referred to as "killing" in games is so far removed from any real meaningful "killing" that it can hardly be referred to as such. In an RPG, for example, the goal is to reduce the enemy's points to zero while preventing the enemy from reducing your points to zero. Decisions are made through the course of combat that influence the two points, with the goal of making choices both before the encounter and during the encounter that result in the player winning. That the ultimate outcome of the battle is referred to as "death" is no more meaningful than referring to it as "loss".

John Martins
profile image
I'm pretty sure the symmetry is purely in reference to the objective, rather than the final outcome; exactly the same way as it is in sport. You have two teams in football, both with the same objective, but in order to succeed the other team must fail. Perhaps it works a little more in multiplayer games than single player as you're far more likely to see a battle end in a negative way.

Bryan Melanson
profile image
#4 is a big one, I don't know if anything is pushing technology in attention-getting ways as much as kill games. I think sports games are looking jaw dropping lately, but in more subtle ways. Kill games have loud flashy emotional moments, they're great for tech demos and capturing an audience, and they make the player feel powerful and special in some gratifying way.



I don't know if anything can compete with that quick, flashy ego gratification for the game audience

Bart Stewart
profile image
I'd recast it slightly: the gameplay in question isn't so much "killing" (which would be boring) as a "kill-or-be-killed" scenario.



That phrasing sums up this type of pleasure as a combination of personal danger (to try to make the player feel an emotional stake in the action) and symmetry (which brings in rules of play that make the whole process gamelike). In particular, there's some part of the human brain that enjoys tactical challenges. Kill-or-be-killed games, where the targets in a functionally rich environment can also kill your character, scratch that itch.



Here's my question: If the point of in-game killing is not to create interesting tactical challenges, what's left? Just shooting human figures repeatedly for no reason? Isn't that exactly what anti-game commentators like to characterize as a "murder simulator?"

Brad Borne
profile image
Maybe killing is just the natural result of pointing something at something else and creating an action?



I mean, what else would a human hitbox do when you pointed and clicked on it?

Adam Bishop
profile image
I think killing as a gameplay feature primarily appeals to a specific kind of hardcore gamer who is looking for game where their reflexes will be challenged. While there is the odd game that provides that kind of challenge without violence (like Rock Band), for the most part there are two kinds of reflex-testing games - violent action games, and sports games. Highly physical activities simply lend themselves well to testing reflexes, and most highly physical activities carry some degree of violence.



I would suggest that, for people who are looking for something other than a test of reflexes out of video games, they tend to prefer games where killing is *not* the central element. That could be anything from the sneaking and AI manipulation in Metal Gear Solid to the logic puzzles in Professor Layton to the platform jumping in Little Big Planet. I think it's really about whether you want an action-packed game, which by definition likely involves violence, or whether you want a more tactical or relaxing game, in which case violence is unlikely to be at the core of gameplay.

Brad Borne
profile image
Pointless, the player could be armed with a dart gun and could be after elongated moving targets.



Killing in video games is as much 'killing' as knocking down pins in bowling.

Kain Shin
profile image
So true, this article is.

I have often felt that the two paths of Agency are Creation and Destruction.... and Destruction is so much easier.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
The one point this article fails to touch on is that killing in games is, for the most part, meaningless. We attach value to characters, to stories, to objects and items that are integral to our success... and then we make games where, rather than test the player's relationship with those valued things, we instead fill them up with a bunch of fodder for the player to butcher. There are few games, even in story-heavy genres, that feel like they truly derive meaning from the act of killing, that make players think about it. When the industry is dominated by shooters, however, a genre where the player's default mode of interaction with the world is literally to destroy it, and his or her hand a gun, well, let's just say I don't hold out much hope for games that begin to attach significance to the act. And no, cheap moralising and navel-gazing about how bad war is, or what road led us down this path of violence doesn't count.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech