Post-Memorial Day Thoughts on Fake Guns, Using Them

Image courtesy of Wikipedia Commons User Duffman

Let’s start by observing two important and (hopefully) relevant things.

1) Recently, we celebrated Memorial Day here in this lifelong party we like to call America.  

That means that “The Troops” are on everybody’s mind, a fact which I am not at all lamenting.  Rather, I am harnessing it, taking that thought by the hand and saying, “follow me, new friend, to a group of people that might want to get to know you a bit better.”

2) There are a lot of violent video games.

Some attempt to address violence in sophisticated ways, some in straightforward ways, some in intentionally troubling ways, and others in unabashedly unempathetic ways.  The majority of video games don’t really even “deal” with the topic, at least not nearly so much as they simply feature violent action as a narrative impetus.

These two observations combine to form a brainchild in my brainwomb.  I think interactive experiences that feature violence as a central mechanic are an incredibly unique chance for us to think deeply about violence itself, especially when those experiences come in a virtual manner.

Watching films that feature violence — or reading a book that does the same, as long as the media is passive — is a somewhat legitimate way to encounter violence, and sometimes even brutal displays on screens are enough to push one’s tolerance.  At best, a non-interactive piece of media displays some horror, and causes you to feel some sympathy and — if it’s quite well-done — empathy along with it.  A non-interactive story can display something tragic in an emotional fashion, and make you think about the effects of those tragic acts.

I’m not saying static stories can’t be dramatically effective.  Books like The Yellow Birds and films likeThe Hurt Locker have dramatically changed the way I think about war.  I’m saying that Mass Effect 3made me think about violent conflict — and mortality itself — in a more profound and personal way.

Image courtesy of Flickr User JBLivin

Games are experiences that require agency within a set of rules.  They are active moments in our lives, not passive ones.  Many games — even thematically “violent” games like Risk — require conflict, competition, and confrontation.  Whenever I play Risk, I want to win it by “killing” the overwhelming opposition.  But “killing” those armies gives me the same feeling as taking virtual people’s virtual currency in Online Poker.  I never feel as though I’ve committed something violent; I’ve simply committed an act that granted me superiority.  I’ve won.

When the subject matter is on-screen, violent, and interactive, things get hairy.  When you have to make a decision between two groups of virtual beings, killing one cluster and saving the other, you have the opportunity to put yourself in the shoes of the imaginary humans that would make those choices.  If you choose to sacrifice the one important gun to save a thousand children and risk losing the war because of that decision, you have to at least rationalize a bit, since you are stepping into a role.  Likewise, if you choose to save the gun and sacrifice the babies, you’ll have to rationalize all that blood on your hands.  When a decision like this is presented to me — and it’s a common one, at least in essence — I rationalize both, as I can only assume at least a decent amount of people do.  I weigh pros and cons.  I picture future strategies.  And yes, I “gamify” the decision, since I am actively gaming.

However, the grim reality of these decisions — and how difficult they are to make — is accentuated in the right interactive moments, especially those that involve horrific acts of violence.  Don’t get me wrong, here.  I am absolutely not saying that games in which you get to pull people’s spines out are good games because they are games in which you can pull people’s spines out.  Rather, making ME do the spine-pulling is really what has the potential to teach me about the horrors of violence, either in an illustration of desensitization or an induction of squeamishness.  For me, Telltale’s The Walking Dead was filled with the latter.

If a piece of media makes me make the decision, I’m more likely to be able to see both sides.  

If a piece of media makes me commit the violence, I’m more likely to be disturbed by it.

If a piece of media makes me walk through a bunch of bodies that I chose to set ablaze, I’m infinitely more likely to feel personal regret.

Of course, none of these things even come close to teaching me about the reality of human violence.  I will never assume that.  Virtual interactivity is just another way that we can grow towards appreciating / appropriately fearing the human animal.  So, next Memorial Day, I want you to sit down, play a violent video game, and think.

[This post was originally published on Plus10Damage May 28, 2013.]

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Hatm0nster says:

    It’s interesting how violent acts in games can hit so close to home if you actually stop to think about it (something I do far too infrequently I’m afraid). The more trimmings you take away (stuff like enemies disappearing upon death and cartoony/ other-worldly graphics) the more disturbing the fact becomes that you’re doing these things, even enjoying them to a degree.

    Somethings that immediately come to mind are the Skyhook executions from BioShock Infinite and the eye-poking from KillZone 3.

    I went through Bioshock:Infinite without ever using the Skyhook as a weapon and wasn’t particularly disturbed by the combat. It was just typical shooting mixed with fun powers, but next time through I discovered you could perform all kinds of nasty takedowns with the thing. Unlike the shooting, this felt dirty, brutal, and even cruel and it the fact that I triggered it rather than it being something scripted.
    Then there was the eye-poking…well you can imagine how that went.

    And yet I still enjoy a good round of Halo every few nights. Same thing just a few steps removed from the visceral portrayal seen in other games.

    I agree with you that games are a way to get a better idea of what the consequences of violence are. Do they promote it? Maybe, maybe not. I think seeing those consequences deters more than promotes it.

    Like

    1. duckofindeed says:

      I agree that this violence in games can actually deter such actions. If I feel disturbed hurting someone or something in a game, I certainly couldn’t hurt a real person, now could I? I actually feel pretty guilty attacking the boars and pheasants in “Muramasa”. You attack them for cooking supplies, and I do it, but I feel bad about it. Poor innocent, fictional animal.

      When playing “Halo 4”, I eventually stopped to think about my actions. I suddenly noticed I was actually going out of my way to hunt down every alien, even when so few remained, I could easily progress farther into the game without killing them. And it bothered me. They may be bad, but must I kill them when there is no need?

      Like

  2. renxkyoko says:

    My LIKE button doesn’t work. So, I’ll just write it down LIKED

    Like

Add to the Discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s