InsaneBear

Feature: What lies beyond violence?

So the intricacies of the universe have recently come together to get me thinking about the role violence plays in video games. Mostly, the fact that virtually every mission in Mass Effect 2 forces me into combat even when I want to be diplomatic and an article I recently read on Kotaku have presented this question to me. Amidst the incoherent rambling of said Kotaku article, there was a choice quote that stuck out to me:

People compare games to films all the time. They talk about how game don’t have a “Citizen Kane”, or how films don’t have a Super Mario Bros., or whatever. I would also like to note that films don’t have a “Ben-Hur,” and they don’t have a “Casablanca.” Well, games have plenty of “Die Hard 2″‘s. I guess that’s one way of approaching the “problem” of entertaining the masses. We’re not going to ask the hyper-naive question “Does entertainment have to be a problem?” Instead, we will only touch briefly on the question of whether or not violence is the only thing that can possibly be fun in a video game: Probably not. Recently, I was playing Super Mario Sunshine with my friend Doug Jones’ five-year-old daughter. We were passing the controller back and forth. The cause for her passing the controller to me wasn’t player death — it was when she exited the hub world and entered an action stage. She called them “The enemy places.” Basically, she only wanted to play in the hub world, because there, she could jump, swim, climb, and be free. “In the enemy place, you have to be scared, because you might lose,” she said. At any rate, this isn’t nearly a question of violence’s inherence in video game design: It’s a question of freedom, of scope. It’s less a question of “do games have to be violent in order to be successful?” or a question of “do games have to be connected to some existing franchise in order to be successful?” and more a question of “do games have to be exactly like other games to be successful?” In the past, we had dozens of great films, and also dozens of duds. We had “Casablanca,” though we also had some other shit that no one remembers because it wasn’t as good as “Casablanca.” These days, no one’s taking the risks necessary to birth the “Casablanca”s. It used to be, with entertainment, you’d eat Arby’s five times a week and then you’d get a filet mignon; now, it’s like, six meals a day, you get this vitamin / protein-injected cotton candy, and it only comes in one of three flavors: Sweet, spicy, and not-sweet.

Spelling and logic errors aside, I think the author brings up some interesting points. But what interests me the most is the little girl’s interpretation of the game and its various activities. Could it be that there are actually people in the world who don’t want to kill everything in sight when they play a game? Do gamers’ personalities actually extend beyond “12-year-old boy”? Or more broadly, do games have to center around violent conflict?

Before I go making any brash conclusions, I figure it’s probably a good idea to take stock of what I like to do in video games. Being the FPS fan that I am, I obviously like shooting things. But I have just as much fun navigating dialogue trees as I do exploding heads. I love deciphering the logic behind a good puzzle. I’m a devilish fiend when it comes to exploration. I like leveling up, whether it be traditional stats in an RPG or buying better parts for my car in a racer. I love seeing how my decisions affect the world around me and the story at large. And I’m a sucker for a good story that draws you in with its mystery and blows your mind with the answers.

As I’m writing these things I can’t help but think of the problems I have with Mass Effect 2. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fun game, but BioWare went and simplified it into a shooter. The most fun I have with the game is when I’m exploring my party members’ pasts in dialogue trees or scheming the right things to say to NPCs who have something I need. I can remember quests in Knights of the Old Republic where the central focus was on soliciting information from various NPCs and putting the pieces of the puzzle together to solve a mystery. Combat need not apply. But Mass Effect 2‘s conversations are typically just a means of figuring out where to go to shoot the next bad guy.

I went on to write about 300 more words on my problems with Mass Effect 2 before realizing that they have nothing to do with the point of this feature. Plus, they made it sound like I really hate the game, and I don’t. So I deleted them. And here we are, looking at the realization that, for me at least, dialogue and puzzles and so on can be just as fun as defeating enemies. Maybe I’m alone in this. If I am, God save the world. If I’m not, then someone needs to save the gaming industry. We’re so used to playing games about armed conflict that developers don’t think it’s possible to make any other kind of game now. Maybe that’s not true, but publishers definitely don’t think they can make a profit on a game about jumping, swimming, climbing, and being free. And I just don’t believe that.

Let me be clear here. I’m not really advocating the type of game that would satisfy that 5-year-old girl, although I’m certainly not opposed to that. But if you’re looking for that sort of thing you should probably just go buy Flower. She desires a gaming world where she doesn’t have to be scared about losing. I, on the other hand, want the challenge of overcoming defeat. So I suppose conflict is inherent to my idea, but it doesn’t have to involve unleashing direct violence on openly hostile enemies.

In fact, if we run with this concept of “being scared,” it seems a very unwise decision to give the player the sense of control and power that comes with an “attack” button. What I’m envisioning right now is a survival-horror game that doesn’t star a boulder-punching super-agent. After all, if the player’s character isn’t terrified to be there, it probably shouldn’t be considered a horror game. Instead, I see a game where we play as a typical, non-monster-slaying person who’s simply trying to get to safety. Instead of fighting your enemies, you run from them.

This concept presents an intriguing situation. If the player’s only means of progressing are running and hiding, what happens when there’s nowhere to run or hide. Well, what if we actually use those brains that the zombies so desperately crave for once? Instead of big shoot-outs and boss fights, this game could force the player to solve complex environmental puzzles if they wish to survive. The gameplay would be just as intense, what with carnivorous monsters chasing you about as you scramble to analyze the environment and find the right item for the right purpose before time runs out.

It also puts a daring spin on exploration–this time around there’s a real price for venturing into the unknown. Do you risk running into some vile beast in order to investigate some dark path that’s out of your way? What if your daring brings you to some priceless resource, such as a tank of gas that could speed up your escape or even open up a new story branch?

But most interestingly, dialogue trees and party-recruitment could play a big role in the game. In a world that’s gone to hell in a hand-basket, any survivors the player runs into would likely be weary of you and possibly dangerous. This would make every conversation a puzzle in itself–carefully navigating sentences that could potentially result in your death or a great ally. And if you manage to get information out of an NPC or even recruit them in your quest to escape, there’d be a trust factor that’s just as scary as any physical monster. Did that guy just lie to you and send you into a trap so he could scavenge your corpse? How trustworthy is your new ally? Is the gun he wields worth his hot-head?

This sense of unease in the presence of “friends” would truly make for a horrific atmosphere. It would make every decision a meaningful puzzle. The player’s choices would also affect the world and people around them, making every play-through a fresh experience. Perhaps a vital piece of information you gained from an exploratory side-quest grants you a powerful ally down the road your first time around, but on your second play-through, you forgo that information and run into dire trouble when confronted with said NPC.

And of course, any survival-horror game that goes beyond the cliched zombie epidemic has the potential for memorably startling and atmospheric story-telling. The NPC interactions would add even more depth with a human-element in an inhuman world. And all the while, the weight behind every game-mechanic makes the action just as intense as your standard firefight.

So maybe the game I just thought up isn’t the best poster-child for non-violent games. Sure, some undead monsters are great guys, but most are intent on devouring your innards. But the angle I’m getting at is that all video games don’t need to task the player with directly fighting enemies. Frankly, it’s too simple a thing to do with a medium so full of interactive potential. I love shooters, but I just can’t bare to see them take over the industry like they are. I want to play games that don’t star fearless desperados who make foes bow to their will. I want to solve things in non-violent ways, using brains over brawn. I want non-linear games that let me approach problems from more angles than the barrel of a gun in a tight corridor. I want games that remove control and make me feel scared of losing. Oh, and some games where I jump, swim, climb, and be free would be cool too.

Author: Cody

Tags: feature, mass effect 2, survival-horror, tim rogers, violence in games