|
Why are there so many violent videogames out there? I mean everything from Dead Space to Bejeweled involves the wanton destruction of innocent avatars created for the sole purpose of being crushed under the thumb of the player. Right? What’s that you say? Bejeweled not violent? Hmmmhmmmm? Puzzle game? Hmmmm.
When designing a game, at its core, almost every game is violent. Creation and destruction are the fundamental binary states of the universe. Of the two, destruction is the simpler to deal with. It has fewer states to define, even the animations are simpler to get looking right. Entropy is inevitable (well, until the guys and gals at CalTech get their butts in gear at any rate) and destruction, whether it be the removal of an obstacle or the crushing of a zombie corpse seems to be the simpler, and more universally understood process to follow.
I have students every turn who come to me with golden dreams of “non-violent” games, games that will be good for the world, that people will play because they are “good” and true and right. But sooner or later, that element of destruction comes into play. In order to progress you have to defeat an opponent, destroy a game piece, remove some sort of obstacle that stands in your way. So the social meme of violence, of a simple destructive solution is still there. They just removed the explosions and arterial spray. Is turning cute fuzzy creatures into bubbles any less destructive than unleasing the venerable BFG on a roomfull of imps? Not really. You’ve just substitued bubbles for smoke and fire. It’s an art-swap, not a fundamental change in the gameplay
|
I also think that non-violent games do exist. It would be pretty difficult to find a convincing way to describe Myst as violent. Or Gran Turismo. Or Audiosurf. Civilization can involve violence if the player chooses, but it can also be completed non-violently. Indigo Prophecy throws in some ham-fisted violence towards the end, but the vast majority of the game is non-violent. Katamari Damacy is only violent in an rather ambiguous way. And so on and so forth.
Well, back to _Okami_ and turning imps into flowers. Nice post.
Percival :D I'd argue that racing games certainly have their elements of conflict, a certain portion of the strategy in racing games involves aggressive actions towards the other races (even ignoring games that have a deliberate "crash" element). I think you are right with the dating simulators, I neglected to consider those (although I might argue they could *drive* one to violence :D :D )
Thank you all for your insightful comments! :D
I'd also echo Percival's comments about many, many Japanese adventures, visual novels, and simulation games. This is precisely why I prefer Japanese storytelling more often than Western storytelling. Of course, this is due to my psychology, too, but I'm certainly not unique in this regard.
In fact, the question of violence is a matter of semantics. The perception of violence varies with culture and perhaps even with each individual. This is why Street Fighter II and its sequels became popular around the world but the franchise is not really considered violent in Japan even though it is elsewhere. Conversely, Mortal Kombat was a failure when it was taken to Japan because it was considered to be needlessly, gratuitously violent. Some cultures view competition as a positive element of life but not when the competition results in serious harm or death of the combatants. Such outcomes are viewed as very antisocial in nature, and cultures that stress social harmony as an overriding concern tend to reject such entertainment.
Of course, other forms of very violent content in works that are clearly fictional may be accepted even in such cultures. Works like Zero / Fatal Frame, Silent Hill, and many others from Japan have extremely violent content but are clearly not taking place in reality. Their content is viewed as metaphorical rather than literal.