Game Over? Games and the New Literacies

Violence has always been a touchy subject for any expressive medium, always being kept under close watch by rating boards and other such moderators, games especially so. But despite this viewpoint, games have also begun to enter a more accepted status in modern society. The controversy is not completely absolved, but it is not the only entity that surrounds games today. Along with this progression, games have also been evolving along with other technologies as they advance and increase sometimes making use of these technologies in order to assist their development and to discuss its controversies.

The one technology that has a strong relationship with games is the new literacy of social media both positive and negative. Social media like Facebook and Twitter have gained a vast following as they have grown over the years, becoming two of the most viewed sites in the entire online world. With this reputation, many people will flock to these places in order to meet new people, share ideas, and many other things. YouTube is another recent example of efficient file sharing; a great bulk of my own resources for this blog have come from there. With Twitter and Facebook now being used by businesses and more professional users, game developers have the opportunity to promote and discuss their projects with their audience. Through this connection, developers can form a more personal relationship with their consumers which both elevates potential sales as well as establish a form of fan base or group surrounding the project by the developers releasing online trailers or peeks at certain elements, just as an example.

While staying true to its original purpose, these social media can also be a grounds for voice and opinion, games being socially reviewed and critiqued, shared amongst a group of people.With the accessibility and popularity of citizen journalism, where the user and producer are no longer separate entities, anyone can post what they wish. Conflicts or controversial topics that a game contains can be broadcasted and spread rapidly, sometimes unintentionally while other times it seeks to be subject to viral marketing, using the game's infamy to advertise itself. 

Considering the scope of social media, I find it an effective grounds to discuss and analyze the topic of violence in video games among other issues people have with the medium. By having a plethora of varying perspectives pooling into one subject, people have the opportunity to view both sides of the argument, the anonymity of the web keeping people free from fear of rejection or social exile based on their viewpoint. This also provides the chance for people to see and understand why others believe in the side that they do, and compromises can form, or at the very least there can be a mutual respect of beliefs. With all of this talk of preference and opinion, developers as well as those aspiring to be developers should embrace this external social aspect of their industry. They should take these perspectives into account when designing their game to please, as well as educate people on a message they seek to portray. Even if they are designing for the sake of entertainment, they will understand the limits they should place and keep in mind any resistance to their topic should it be more loaded than most. I find it imperative that developers stay on this communicative level with consumers, because this relationship shows that they are listening to people's views and show a form of respect for their players and critics, that they are entitled to their freedoms as are the developers themselves.

In this present day, are video games using this violence for a message more than for a thrill? Well that's just it, games are such a diverse medium and have numerous entries under several categories containing vastly contrasting content. Violence will still exist in games until the medium dies out. Just as film and literature both still implement some form of it, whether for being informative or thrilling, just as games do. Media such as these seek to target multiple audiences, attempting to appeal to as much of a populace as possible, and this is why we have our underground independent art house and our Hollywood mainstream bestsellers. It is up to the discretion and intent of the game creators to decide whether they want to include violence in their game, what its purpose is, and the degree to which they choose to showcase it. And just as violence will continue on, so too will the controversies, but as mediums have shown us, over the years attitudes take on a more progressive outlook on a work or piece, and boundaries broaden slightly as these behaviours shift. All works are interpretative, people choose to see what they will themselves to see, so just like developers, the player also has their own discretion to account for when deciding about a game's legitimacy.

So all in all, the game isn't quite over yet. Society and its experience with both violence and controversy as a whole, as well as some of games ideas show us that there are still a few continues left to use.

Genre-Specific Violence: Occasionally OK?

I've talked about the social potential of violence in games as well as the social controversy. Now with both a positive and negative perspective covered, I'd like to take the chance to discuss where violence and graphic imagery can be used effectively in establishing atmosphere and tone. Seeing as some video games are pushing for their medium to be seen as an art form, developers seek to include elements most commonly associated with what other mediums consider artistic, such as the aforementioned tone and atmosphere. For this case I wish to tackle games' take on the horror genre, seeing as the genre has a distinct notoriety for its inclusion of gore and other violent imagery. To relate atmosphere and tone being represented in video games I use the example of a popular game series known as Silent Hill (Konami, 1999-present).

Silent Hill was developed by Team Silent, a small company working under game publisher Konami. The first game having been released in 1999, the games did not follow a violent agenda, the player was not forced to enact in any form of combat with the enemies and could avoid them altogether save for the few boss battles that occasionally appeared. While the violence mostly takes a backseat during the gameplay, the graphic visuals and sound take the helm in its stead, from the creatures to the environment, Silent Hill is coated with a grotesque aesthetic that sets out to both unnerve and scare the player, enhancing the overall atmosphere and tone.

The first game's goal is simple, find your daughter after she went missing after you crashed your car, ending up in a ghost town by the name of Silent Hill, infested with horrible monsters and creations of unknown origin. The game's intent is to put off players with visuals that go beyond their current understanding as they play though the game, making it all the more unsettling, keeping the players on edge. This is the mandate that each game goes on, and the one that I feel performs the best at this is Silent Hill 3 (Konami, 2003) which entails the events of Heather Mason, the lead character, who encounters horrors of this nature through circumstances later revealed in the game.

This whole presentation of the visuals without explanation invoke a trepidation within the player, gnawing at their fear of the unknown. These designs are only made more effective by the excellent sound direction and "music" (2010) (I use quotations because some of the featured tracks are not composed of traditional instruments) which are equally as disturbing in nature, the noises that emerge from these visual nightmares evoking strange guttural and industrial reverberations. These induce a panic in the player, having them desire escape from whatever peril the music or sounds imply they are about to face. There are brief moments where the noises have a distinct human voice to them, contributing to the disturbing style and keeping players on edge through the constant shift between what they perceive as natural and unnatural. 

These effects are what propel Silent Hill to the forefront of the horror genre, not just in games, but in all mediums as well. It includes several designs that follow the concept of the Uncanny Valley, some figures appearing almost human in external shape, but the physical properties are still vastly different, adding to the uneasiness that Silent Hill employs. And by playing with the general human phobia of the unknown, Silent Hill successfully shocks and disturbs the player without the player having to enact any violent deed themselves. By serving as the game's main source of progression, the player must face these scenarios, in order to complete the game, which is why such emotionally fueled genres like horror are so much more intense in a game format. And that is a truly plausible feat, in my opinion.

This also goes for games that contain violence in general, the impact being felt on a much deeper level than when one would merely watch or read something occurring on a screen or on a page. It is through such input that games can generate such a jarring emotional reaction, and deserve artistic recognition for its efforts.

Sensitivity Through Intensity

For most of these posts, games have utilized violence for the sake of shock and sick thrill, the only redeemable times where they display some form of credible effort being when they simulate real events and even those sometimes fail through misrepresentation. And even when they succeed, they are based upon fragile contexts, very susceptible to protest and argument, rather than a general acceptance. Aside from these examples, there are some games that seek to portray messages to an audience through a fictitious set of events, to lessen the viewpoint that game makers have an alleged insensitivity towards heavy subjects. One exemplar in particular goes against the conformity of most entries in its genre, providing a unique and critical experience to players. 

Spec Ops: The Line is the latest entry in a long running third-person shooter game series. Released in 2012, it follows the escapades of Captain Walker and his two subordinates as they traverse the city of Dubai on a rescue mission. They soon discover that everything is not as it seems and are soon roped into a conspiracy that has them combating their own forces as they seek to find answers to why their own soldiers have turned rogue (Yager Development, 2012).

Right away this game breaks away from the mold. Most shooters nowadays are criticized heavily for their dehumanizing of foreign armed forces, demonizing them by serving as the only enemy targets in the game and essentially seeking to destroy the home country of the main character (almost always America). The players are tasked with protecting this home country, praised for their efforts when they succeed. Shooters never truly raise bigger questions and seek to justify their violence through the excuse of the player "keeping their country safe from threats". Keeping in mind that the majority of enemies in modern shooters consist primarily of Russian and Middle Eastern peoples, these games send out alarming messages to players, ethics being put by the wayside in favour of mere entertainment.

What Spec Ops does so well is that it criticizes the tropes that have been plaguing shooters for years by commenting on them and asking the player to think about the dilemmas that emerge. The game does not skimp on its violence, but in this case it is displayed for the sake of reinforcing the message, very much like Sandy Hook or Six Days. By having American soldiers be the main targets of the game, Spec Ops brings up the haunting idea that no one is truly innocent and not all soldiers (especially from America) are all these individual heroes of grandeur but are in fact capable of very villainous and very real things.

At various points in the game the player is forced into situations where they are told that they have a choice and the option is left to the player to decide what it is they feel they need to do. The repercussions of your actions are always addressed and the player is then left to assess the situation themselves; was their choice truly the best one? These scenarios base themselves on the instincts that players have gained from playing these shooters that Spec Ops so heavily criticizes. The game instructs players to take an outside perspective on the subject at hand. It assumes that players choose to experience shooters for the thrill of being the hero, of living this power fantasy of being in control and dominating over everything in sight. By the end of Spec Ops, Captain Walker is a broken man, unsure of whether he stands on a moral ground or a tarnished reputation for the acts he's committed. He looks at all the accumulated damage he's done and assesses just how good of a human being he truly is for doing all of this, just as the player does. This synchronicity drives the game's point home, which makes it stand out amongst all other kinds within its genre and serves as a must-play for both game enthusiast and skeptic alike.

Extra Credits once again does an excellent job in analyzing the issues that are brought forth in this game and also go even more in depth with the themes and composition of the game (Extra Credits, 2012). I highly recommend viewing both parts of this analysis for additional information.

The Pinnacle of Violent Games?

While the Manhunt games inhibited quite a violent nature, there was still a reason for it, a goal to achieve. It included character motivations: the desire of survival in the most extreme of cases. While receiving heaps of controversy over its creation, the developers were still able to have it released, censorship aside, because it had that rationale, it had a reason for the violence that was being committed, albeit a superficial one.

Hatred, on the other hand, is not one such example. Hatred is a game being developed by Destructive Creations, that is due to be released sometime this year, but from just its announcement trailer alone, it has already been faced with extreme protest, the game itself already having undergone several bans and rating changes (as I believe, the game is still rated an AO for adults only). In this trailer, the lead character, a large tall man with long black hair, is depicted loading several weapons, proclaiming how he despises the world and all its inhabitants and seeks to destroy all of them. The trailer then continues on to show the man storming out of his house and proceeding to shoot every person in sight as it goes through a montage of helpless innocents being murdered by this one man (GamersPrey HD, 2014).

Unlike its counterpart, Manhunt appears to be less gratuitous by appearance and most of this is due in part to the motive. Hatred has no motive other than to kill for the sake of killing, reversing everything that games have attempted to change about the preconceptions thrown in their direction. Hatred has no intent but to offend or to appeal to that morbid curiosity that I mentioned in my last post, and by gaining the controversy and online media attention, it succeeded in just that. The game is almost a hyperbole in itself, the violence portrayed in such an extreme and incredulous degree that the tone is almost abandons the darker tones that games like Manhunt portrayed, to a more hyperactive and borderline humourous one.

Hatred was submitted to a program known as Steam Greenlight, where games made by lesser known companies attempt to get their project attention and votes for Steam to grant it a place in their long list of games to be sold to users. Upon submitting their game for approval, the game was hastily removed due to its content (Matulef, 2014). However, the game was to be reinstated due to the social outcry of some Steam users claiming it had a right to be made.

With such a heavy inclusion of violence being carried out through irrational and vague reasoning, it's easy to understand the want to remove the game from production and stop it from being exposed to players. Such violence only serves as a poor influence, but I feel the need to recall the article I linked in my first post, stating that aggressive attitudes are not caused by games, at least not primarily. Hatred's only real blight is that it muddies the waters that games have traversed in order to become recognized as a genuine art form and a basis for experiential learning through its graphic depictions of senseless murder.

Now do I feel that due to its design, it is eligible for removal? Absolutely not, and there's two reasons for this. One of the most important factors a budding medium must experience is controversy and progressing past that controversy in order to flourish and develop, just like their neighbouring mediums of film and literature had to do decades and centuries ago. Second, and most important of all, I feel that games are entitled to freedom of expression. Film and literature have both experienced controversy from some of their works, from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1931) to Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971), now considered classics, but at the time were censored and heavily criticized for their content. Now I'm not placing Hatred on the same pedestal as these works, far from it, I only mean to stress that games deserve the same freedoms. This team went through the effort to create something to share with the world to experience, for better or for worse. The content is irrelevant in this respect, a work of art or a simple production from any medium deserves to be expressed because that is its purpose. Without a purpose, any film, novel, or game becomes lifeless and void of any real reason of being.

Viewer Discretion REALLY Advised

Shifting focus to the more graphic and gratuitous side of video game violence, I’d like to take a look at a game series entitled Manhunt. The first game was developed by Rockstar in 2004 with its sequel released in 2007 (IGN, 2015). The core basis of these games is that players are trapped in a form of snuff film directed by an unseen antagonist and in order to escape and avoid being killed, they must kill every person in sight. This killing is done through “executions” where the character kills a person (who may or may not be a victim like the lead character) in an immensely brutal and graphic way. The player’s only option, in order to progress and complete the game, is to kill off each person in an area, the only choice being how badly they wish to kill that specific target, relative to how long they hold down the execution button. 

Given that the games are played completely seriously, containing no humour or lighthearted moments, the game appears to serve as the quintessential example that the public would use when discussing violence and games. The plot achieves nothing, only to provide sick thrills to the player and almost serves as a challenge, asking how far the player is willing to go just to have fun or be entertained. And it is through this blatant shock value that I feel both creates sales due to buyers’ morbid curiosity and the demand for games to undergo heavy censorship. Manhunt’s premise alone invites players to discover what it has to offer and gives them the answer to “Is it really as bad as everyone says?” Manhunt itself has already faced heavy censorship (Manhunt 2 having to blur some scenes to be released in the US,getting an uncensored version later) (Totilo, 2007) and was the first game to be banned in New Zealand for these graphic depictions of violence (Thorsen, 2003). The first game itself caused a stir amongst the developers as some felt slightly uncomfortable with the subject matter that they were designing (Cundy, 2007). Anything that is banned or has had controversy boiling over it is sure to get potential buyers riled at the prospect and whether or not that’s what Rockstar had wanted to do, it was effective, as the first game alone has sold over 1 million copies (T2, 2008).

One could potentially view Manhunt as a satire on the seemingly pointless amounts of violence that some games have in their composition, through its equally questionable excuse for a premise being the punchline. Though judging by the controversy and developer issues surrounding the games, I believe that if it is considered a satire, it would be through unintentional means. 

All of this aside, the game still manages to set up an end that gives a justification (though quite superficial) to such violent means. What I feel is most important to take away from this is that these types of games will be made, just as controversial films and book have existed and continue to do so today. People will always have that curiosity to experiment and dabble in something that is labelled as taboo, it’s in our nature and I see it only as a natural part of a medium’s progression as it grows and develops.

Too Brutal For School

Going off of the last post, violence in games packs a much heavier punch when it emerges from scenarios based on real world events. Staying true with what I've said, I do believe these instances can prove beneficial, if it is implemented properly. Last post I discussed how violence in games can be used to document or simulate historical events through the example of Six Days in Fallujah. Now, I'm going to look at how a simulated learning experience or testament to a particular event can be effectively used as well as misused through games using two examples orbiting the same concept: school shootings.

These events have an enormous significance as to how they are portrayed in various media and it is games that receive the most flak for their attempts at representing them. The subject matter of these happenings are extremely sensitive and any misstep or slight item that is misrepresented induces an enormous reaction, which is doubled in the case of games.

Out of the two examples I wish to provide, one has been done relatively well in what it tries to do, while the other is done less so and its message is marred because of this. The two games I am discussing are The Slaying of Sandy Hook Elementary (Lambourn, 2013) and the more widely known Super Columbine Massacre RPG (Ledonne, 2005).

Right at first glance, the titles reveal the approach each game takes and give off initial impressions by the titles alone. Sandy Hook appears similar to a documentary, treating it more as the event itself while Columbine adds the word "Super and RPG" giving it a more game-like and fictitious label. This distinction is further exemplified by the gameplay itself, which I recommend playing only to get the full scope of how each event is represented.

Sandy Hook has a very grim aesthetic, the shooter being represented by an anonymous black figure, whose appearance is very grungy and disgusting as opposed to the more cleaner anonymous black figures representing teachers and students.The game has the player equip their weapon, and are given a time limit until the police arrive where the game inevitably ends, the killer committing suicide. The game is kept mostly quiet throughout, save for a low bass sound building up near the end, into a full blown song. Despite this, the song does contain themes similar to the events that are playing out. The game also keeps track of those the player has killed through a percentage value. However, after playing through one time, the player is given another mode, Gun Control, where the player is forced to only use melee weapons such as knives and swords, and completing that unlocks Eagletears, where the teachers are also armed. It is important to note that in any of these modes the player is not forced to kill, the game can be beaten without anyone dying save for the shooter in the end.

Super Columbine Massacre RPG however, reverses these completely. Having been made in RPG Maker, the program only allows the creator to borrow art that it provides, everything has a very classic 16-bit design to it, making it appear more like a game, which can detract from what's trying to be said. Names of people and places are provided, and dialogue is even exchanged between the two shooters through text boxes. The music also suffers from being too game-like, as it covers songs from the time the event happened remixed from the sounds available from the program. The victims at the school, unlike the shooters, are given stereotypical labels such as "Preppy Girl" and "Jock Type" making them appear more as targets than people. As the game progresses, and the full events unfold, the two shooters are then transported to Hell, where they fight through demons from there to the end of the game.

I find that Sandy Hook follows more of a Six Days formula in that it tries to portray the tragedy of Sandy Hook in a sensitive manner. Treating it for the tragedy it was by keeping the violence very dark and real. It does not beat messages over the player's head, but shows them the consequences for their actions (if they choose to take any) through a haunting silence, showing them the results of taking violent action. By keeping names anonymous and identities concealed through the silhouette art design, the game approaches the tragedy without disrespecting any victims of the event and I feel it provides a way for anyone to project themselves onto to any of the characters in the game. Sandy Hook treats its violence very seriously and does not wish to glorify it in any way, and places itself on a more ethical and informative path.

Columbine RPG dehumanizes its victims through the use of defacing labels, transforming them into generic school archetypes. The music and visuals have a much more game-like feel and distract players and the serious tone and weight of the game is lost. The violence is carried out in a traditional RPG style fashion, ruining any sense of realism and disrespects the gravity of actually committing murder. The creator should have taken into account the implications of making the game in such a program. Columbine RPG is a gamification of a tragedy that distastefully attempts to retell the events. The entire inclusion of the Hell area only serves as the game's undoing as no one can take its violence seriously or learn anything from it.

For games to be able to represent violence to tell a message there needs to be a level of innovation on the creators part. They must abandon more game-like stereotypes and explore new avenues in how an issue as fragile as this can be represented. By introducing new methods of representation through gameplay that gets away from generic and pre-established combat systems, games can be seen as a new outlet for informing youth and general audiences about the horrors and implications of violence, without the added "fun" elements from previous examples in the medium. Columbine RPG may be a step back, but I believe that in some form, The Slaying of Sandy Hook is a step forward.

Mirroring Reality

Back in 2011 there was a game that had undergone development by Atomic Games entitled, Six Days in Fallujah. The game was to document the events of an army battalion that had returned from Iraq after having previously been working with Atomic on creating training tools for their games. After they had returned, the battalion requested that Atomic create a game based around their experiences while in Iraq as a virtual retelling of what had happened there to which Atomic had complied. After the game had been announced, it was met with heavy throes of backlash, people stating it was soiling the true experiences of the soldiers there and demanded that the studio cancel all production immediately, which they inevitably had to do after major publishers backed out of the project (Parker, 2012).

First person shooters are generally no strangers to controversy or backlash, they are the primary example people put forth when discussing violence and bad influences that exist in games. People state that these shooters sensationalize war and violence, congratulating players for killing numerous amounts of people, some of these accusations, in some cases, being true. Games occasionally need to add an element of fun to their make-up to keep players motivated to continue on doing just that, playing. Though that wasn't what Six Days was trying to accomplish. It wished to tell the experiences of the soldiers so players could simulate almost exactly what soldiers going overseas must deal with and the trials they must endure. If anything, it was defaming violence in that respect, painting the horrors that a real-life soldier must face, as it was told from a battalion's own personal experiences.

I personally do not believe that Six Days is completely pure and free of any negative qualities, the idea itself is quite the controversial subject and a studio must gauge public reception towards their game before releasing it. Those who did lose family and friends in the battle that the game was simulating are completely justified where they felt uncomfortable seeing what could have been their loved ones being killed onscreen. Despite this, I do think that this can still serve as an example of a useful learning tool to both young and old generations. No other medium can effectively capture the horror of the event in the same way games can, through a simulated experience. By showing the raw and gritty nature of war without giving a positive feedback to the player, a game (Six Days especially) can leave a heavy impact, and make them think differently on war as a whole.

Games that represent events based in the real world are always going to outweigh those based on fictitious scenarios due to the content being too close to reality for anyone's comfort, and considering that games are still a juvenile medium as compared to others, people will lash out and argue it's not an appropriate choice. But by using this towards a more educational and positively influential means, games can inform players of the horrors of violence through such simulations and deter them from any potential influence they are claimed to undergo when playing these games.

Extra Credits, an online game theory and analysis series, discusses Six Days more in-depth and also discusses how games can overcome the controversy they are normally plagued with and enter into a more well-respected spotlight (Extra Credits, 2012).