Happiness is a Warm Gun

    Games in all forms have since inception been viewed as intellectually degrading, which is irrational (Johann Huizinga - play anthropologist) games are central to the formation of culture, we learn everything vital to being a person as a child through play. An example of this is God of War. Throughout the game we’re taught a rather twisted version of ancient Greek mythology but it has a basis in ‘real’ mythology and since mythology isn’t really real anyway what does it matter if it’s altered or not? Play is essential to civilised society. It’s a social pleasure and it mediates social interaction, but what if games could mediate or incite crime like the facebook riots?

We don’t really want to kill real people in games, that’s why they look so computerised (people in games don’t look like people in the real world usually but they’re starting to) or wear masks or are just plain reprehensible (Inhumane actions result in a character becoming less human), we dehumanize them, separate them, they become the faceless ‘other’.

Still the subject fascinates us as most taboo subjects do and video games allow us a neutral non-judgemental environment to play with these ideas of murder, crime and revenge. In that respect gamers are more like sense explorers, than children playing. They are the philosophers of the 21^stcentury; they sample a variety of emotions and sensations that not everyone can or is willing to experience, everything from fear and loathing to love and lust as well as pure child-like wonder.

The obvious worry is that people will learn or develop violent behaviour from playing games. In reality a video game has no more power of an individual than a film or a book, it’s just information, holding a gun or a knife and a controller are so far removed it’s laughable. Obviously it’s beside the point, erections don’t rape people, people rape people.

“The fighting game, like fighting itself, will always be popular “(Poole 2000). Sadly people are savage in nature, every art form we have originates from that savagery before the television we had public executions and the coliseum and still the most popular forms of media are those that glorify violence, but what’s wrong with that? If mindless violence is not entertainment, then what is?

Although we've had light guns for a long time in arcades that emulate the look and feel of real guns, reason dictates that one day there may be a game that could in some way teach you something be it combat or cooking but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Knowledge is without agency, although it is said to be power knowledge has no will of its own it’s what is done with that power that is paramount and that is up to the individual.

That being said although the subject matter of most games may centre around murder, games are actually more like sport. In a game the goal is not actually to kill but to win, killing is just the means to an end it’s not an end in itself. So although in the game Hitman you are a professional assassin and the objectives of the game are to kill people the pleasure doesn’t come solely from the act of killing (admittedly some of it does) the joy of the game comes from the journey and the eventual conquering of the game, saving the world/princess/Holy Grail whatever it is.

 Killing is just a minor part of whole game, it can never be the main focus. If there was such a game just about killing you could put all the names of the people buying it on a register because the only people that would play it would be undoubtedly insane and it would probably never make it onto the shelves anyway. If you say video games are violent in the sense that they train someone to be more effective at killing or increase aggressive tendencies then martial arts, body building, fencing, shooting, paint balling etc. should also be suspect.

Even if video games did increase the ability to kill they don’t necessarily increase the drive to. The drive to kill is down to the person playing. Just because you play manhunt carve out a niche in virtual butchery doesn't necessarily mean you would turn those new found skills to actual murder, the two are not in the same ball park, they’re not even the same sport. The game Madworld is a good example actually because although it’s a game about a murder game show your actual objectives are not to kill but to win the game show and you have this overarching story where you’re a government agent sent into to stop the game show.

Another example of this is Manhunt a very controversial game by those lovely people at Rockstar who brought us Grand Theft Auto, that amoral classic. Manhunt is a game about making a snuff film but that’s the goal of your captor not your character, the characters goal is just to survive and get out of this maze of death and kill the director and stop the snuff film. So as a player you sort of a play a rival director following the snuff film directors orders for the time being so as to get closer to him and put a stop to him.

The bottom line is that actually it makes no difference because there is nothing to kill in the first place because it’s just a fantasy, the people aren't real, all the meaning and the consequence of their lives were imagined and taking their lives has no permanence because you can select ‘new game’ and do it all again.

Sophisticated Illusion

“The future game player might be an actor in a drama over which he has no control” that’s what makes a drama dramatic (Poole 2000). To be realistic a game should be more like life in the respect that you only have a facile amount of control over a situation. If you’re all powerful in a game and control and change all outcomes, the game is less immersive less dramatic because you are in a sense omnipotent. Loss of control is more engaging more realistic more dramatic, something beyond your control happens and your choices revolve around how you deal with that. The walking dead game is a good example of this, you steer the story but can’t predict the future; therefore you have no control over the outcomes you've orchestrated.  It allows you to feel the illusion of control and then reminds you that some time shit happens and there’s nothing you can do but pick up the pieces.

A game is a subtle blend of tempos, games have to create extreme anxiety in the player for them to be engaging but also have to give some level of breathing room, they can’t be relentless. Games have to flow, getting this flow right is an art. Also if too much breathing room is given we lose a sense of immediate danger that you might get in a game like Silent Hill, where there's danger everywhere and your only option really is to run. Also a game has to be cleverly laced with an increasing array of challenges and rewards to keep the player interested and entertained and more importantly keep them playing. 

Decision making has become a very important process in games these days but to a degree it destroys storytelling. You can listen to a story and then decides how it develops on top of that; having your cake and eating it. You should be at the mercy of the story. In reality you don't construct the story of your own life, you have control to some degree but that control is an illusion because anything could happen to us at any moment that could change the story dramatically in a way we have no control of.

One crucial difference between film and games is that film actors are chosen but game characters are made (That’s not necessarily true any more a la L.A Noire). So this character is designed to make you feel a certain way and although speech in games is always limited to a set number of responses. If you create a large enough number of responses that can create the illusion of intelligence and the player fills in the blanks because of their love of characters. Anything more than that would require the computer to able to think for itself and understand what you’re saying.

It’s an odd phenomenon but I find it harder to watch a likeable character die, their life has meaning purely because they’re liked. They are constructs but you want them to succeed. This protectiveness creates a kill or be killed sort of scenario which can lead to horrific violence like in Manhunt, you’d rather kill and mutilate to progress than let Cash die and be done with it.

However realistic characters are in a way undesirable because they’re everywhere. In real life you can’t date an alien or a robot, fight zombies or ninjas... or zombie ninjas, but you can in video games. So maybe making them real people is taking a step too far, because real people are boring.

Games are a kinetic art form, every frame of movement in a video game is painstakingly crafted by gifted people working very hard just to create a particular string of emotions in people all over the world how is that not art? Really games have to be played to be understood, it’s like when you see a picture of someone as opposed to actually meeting them. People on the outside just see it as lights and noise and violence for the sake of it, they don’t understand because they refuse to suspend their disbelief.

 Playing a game is like religion; deep down you know its nonsense and atheists like me mock the idea of believing something without evidence, but to people on the inside it offers a feeling of fellowship and satisfaction that can be likened to playing a game or taking a drug. That’s because they've chosen to believe it, when you walk into the cinema or a church you hang up your common sense at the door and you prepare yourself to believe baseless fantasy because that’s a fun way to spend a few hours. The only difference is at the end of the film or the game you put your common sense hat back on. We understand that's it's only an illusion but we want to be taken in by it even if it's just to forget about our daily lives for a few hours.