You know what’s wrong with violence? It’s too easy. Sure, violence solves problems. But not in an interesting way.
Hobby boardgames are a great source of game design ideas. That’s because you can see just how the rules fit together to create interesting gameplay. And the very best hobby boardgames come out of Germany – classics like Adel Verpflichtet (rivalry and theft in the antique-collecting world), Intrigue (Renaissance courtiers) and Settlers of Catan (colonists).
What these great games have in common, apart from the meticulous logic of the Teutonic mind, is that none of them is based on violence.
There’s a good reason for that, of course. Modern Germans are not as a rule very fond of games of war. Consequently, designers of hobby boardgames in Germany have been denied the easy solution of violence. So they have been forced to make their gameplay really good instead.
Think about how that might work in computer games design. First-person shooters, say. There have been plenty of excellent, innovative FPSs, but the core factor in almost all is still violence. You run around and you aim to snipe away the other guy’s hit points without losing your own. But what if you had to design a first-person shooter without the shooting? There are plenty of themes to choose from. Let’s think about a Swinging Sixties paparazzi FPS where you have to scoot around town getting snapshots of all the celebrities.
In the absence of violence, we’d need to find other factors to make the game interesting. What are the resources? You can’t be everywhere at once, so time is an obvious one. Another is film. Maybe I need to get my scoop in for the late edition in order to pick up another roll of film. So do I go back for another roll, or delay until I get one more shot? Should I develop my film (pre-digital, remember) in a back alley, risking sabotage from other paparazzi, or do I take it safely to the lab?
Okay, I don’t doubt you can come up with a dozen better ideas than this. The point is that, if you can’t fall back on violence, whether in a videogame or a gamebook, you will be devising choices that have to be really rewarding in their own right. Afterwards, if you like, you can plug the violence back in. But not because you need it for easy gameplay, only because it’s fun.
I think a great example of this in modern computer games is Alien: Isolation. Mostly you are hiding and sneaking about trying to avoid the hideous alien that is hunting you. A terrifying stealth game. There is some violence in it in fact, but they're generally the tedious bits. It's one of the best games I've ever played.
ReplyDeleteYep, that's a game where you really want to avoid getting mixed up in the violence if at all possible :-) Also The Talos Principle - that's got tension and mystery, but no violence at all.
DeleteAnd while we're on that tack, Alone in the Dark (the original one) deserves an honourable mention. Scary as hell, but I think you only get to shoot a gun once in the whole game - and that for not a lot of effect.
DeleteDeus Ex - the first one (I didn't play the others) is an example of a game design where you have the freedom to choose if you play a violent game or a purely stealth-based one (though you have to stun or otherwise knock out the opponents sometimes) - much more thrilling and satisfying btw. The game design encourages pacifist play - at moments, you get to overhear the "baddies" talking to each other about mundane things, like their work or life... and it's much harder to just pounce on them and shoot them. It's quite an old game (15 years or so), but I still love to play it.
ReplyDeleteAnother fine example of unconventional FP(S) game design most know is Portal - not only because of the idea that you can take a FPS engine and use it for puzzles, but also because of the creepy, eerie, oppressive atmosphere of the whole game that the designers have succeeded to create without any violence.
Talking of German board games - do you know Carcassonne? If you don't I highly recommend you check it out - that's a really well designed game...
ReplyDeleteI know it well. A modern classic.
DeleteLooking forward to Dragon Mediators : Alternative Dispute Resolution !
ReplyDeleteBut on a serious note, great article, and have enjoyed many Christmas evenings playing Carcassone
Funny you should say that, John. My roleplaying group's current campaign is set in 1890 (run by the awesomely inventive Mr Tim Savin) and this week, after over a dozen sessions, was the first time we experienced an actual combat. Instead we're used to resolving situations with Fast Talk, Diplomacy, Savoir Faire, Stealth, etc.
DeleteCarcass one is a good choice for Christmas, I agree.
Carcassone, that is. Darn autocorrect!
Deletehm, so now I'm really curious to hear your opinion on Sunset... and on the Tale of Tales catalogue in its entirety?
ReplyDeleteI haven't played any of them, but this review sounds very like the kind of reaction I'd have:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DXYAp9Dbeo
Yes, 'Carcass one' would probably be more of a war game !
ReplyDelete1890 sounds interesting- can I ask is that straight 1890s or with a fantasy/ steampunk mixer ?
Oh, straight 1890s. It's too interesting a period to muck up like that.
DeleteSo Hobsbawm not Hobbiton ? Could you give us a short summary of the scenario/ set up because it does sound interesting
DeleteI should probably do a post about it at some stage. In brief: the characters are all in their early 20s and are mostly members of the minor gentry (sons of barons, that sort of thing). The nominal "plot" thrust is investigative - so far we've thwarted an attempt on Henry Morton Stanley's life and looked into a series of murders in London - but much of the game is social. You can get a little of the flavour from an earlier post:
Deletehttp://fabledlands.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/ties-that-bind.html
Incidentally I've scheduled a post in the New Year that deals with social class in games, so you'll get some more flavour of our 1890s campaign therein.
DeleteMeh. I'm not bothered at all by the amount of violence in games, video or otherwise. In fact, I'd say that it is, to a great extent, the raison d'etre of the vast majority of them. Ancient games like chess or checkers (i.e., petteia) are nothing but abstracted combat, and other games (e.g., card games) are often abstracted combats with cards. The reason why is simple: combat is a time-honored and exciting way of resolving human disputes. In a modern setting, video games slake an instinctual urge for combat and bloodlust. Few things stimulate the interest of people like a good fight; little wonder that it should be the case in games, especially video games.
ReplyDeleteThat violence doesn’t solve things in an interesting way is up to the game designer. “Fast talk,” solving puzzles, and stealth can also be fatuous in their own way. But if the game designer is making a product of public consumption – as nearly all are – he is bound to use the method that captures the attention of the greatest market share. And that will be via combat. Sure, some games have jejune and repetitive combat. But that’s what makes a bad game, not the combat itself.
Your example of a paparazzi FPS shows just why combat is so much more effective. If a paparazzo doesn’t take a picture to the celebrity, what’s the result? That he doesn’t earn a publisher’s pay for a measly picture? And if he doesn’t get the picture, doesn’t he live many other days to take pictures of many other celebrities? How boring. It would be much more exciting to be locked in life and death struggles with dangerous foes, with the fate of the protagonist or even the world hanging in the balance. The latter strikes me as inherently much more interesting than the former.
I'm just considering here how few great stories hinge on the resolution by violence of a situation where life and death are in the balance. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but there are many other ways to compel a reader's or viewer's attention. Games can grow up too.
DeleteHow few? Really? Just off the top of my head - Zeus and family vs. the Titans, Zeus and family vs. the Giants, Achilles vs. Hector (and Hector vs. Patroclus), Odysseus vs. Polyphemus, Odysseus vs. the suitors, Hercules vs. pretty much every one he comes across, Aeneas vs. Turnus, David vs. Goliath, Beowulf vs. Grendel (and family), Everyone vs. everyone in the Nibelunglied, Brutus v. Caesar, everyone vs. everyone in horrific ways in Titus Andronicus... I could go on and on and on.
DeleteAnd yes, I know about Aristotle’s prohibition of showing violence in drama. Three observations: 1) the prohibition only applies to drama (not, obviously, to epic), 2) though violence wasn’t directly shown, it was very strongly implied/described (e.g., Clytemnestra and Agamemnon or Medea and her children), 3) this was out the window by modern times (cf., much of Jacobean drama).
The presence of violence and life and death struggles is not a sign that a work is immature and not "grown up." I would argue that no author today is the equal of Virgil...yet what is the last book of the Aeneid? One extended action sequence, ending with the villain being killed by the hero. The difference between this and some Hollywood schlock is that Virgil expresses himself in expertly crafted dactylic hexameter, while the B-movie has the hero saying something like "Sayonara" followed by an explosion.
I'm not against showing extreme violence in fiction or games. My point here is that when the conflict is resolved by a fight, that's not usually very interesting. When Walt has to decide whether to kill the gangster in Jesse's basement, that's utterly gripping. If he'd sorted out in a fistfight, Captain Kirk style, not so much.
DeleteI haven't seen the movie (I assume it's a movie) that you're describing. Perhaps I would find it interesting...but I also find fights to be interesting, and there are a fair number of authors I could point to that seem to agree. I went ahead and looked up the number of violent deaths in the Illiad - 252. Some of my favorites:
Delete4. Antiphus (Trojan) kills Leucus (Greek) (speared in the groin) (4.569)
12. Meriones (Greek) kills Phereclus (Trojan) (spear in the buttock) (5.66)
23. Diomedes (Greek) kills Pandarus (Trojan) (spear in the nose) (5.346)
29. Antilochus (Greek) kills Mydon (Trojan), sword in the head, stomped by his horses (5.680)
88. Agamemnon (Greek) kills Hippolochus (Trojan), sword cuts off his head (11.165)
121. Polypoetes (Greek) kills Damasus (Trojan), spear through the cheek (12.190);
148. Meriones (Greek) kills Harpalion (Trojan), arrow in the buttock (13.776)
209. Meriones (Greek) kills Laogonus (Trojan), spear in the jaw (16.702)
252. Achilles (Greek) kills Hector (Trojan), spear through the throat (22.410)
Ouch!
It's Breaking Bad - TV drama, not a movie. Today's shared mythology, or so I thought :-)
DeleteNow, since we're talking about the Trojan Wars, here's a good example of what I'm talking about. Suppose that instead of being finally resolved by trickery, Homer had it all come down to a pitched battle that the Greeks just won. Not so satisfying, right? That's because a writer can always say, well, this guy wins because he's a better fighter than the other guy. But as readers (or listeners, or viewers) we need to be convinced. When we're presented with a ploy like a big wooden horse or electrocuting a chap through the razor-sharp steel rim of his bowler, we have to allow that if we didn't see it coming, it counts as a legitimate victory. That's why writers prefer the clever hero to the one who's all brawn.
But Achilles beats Hector by chasing him down and spearing him through the throat. Aeneas beats Turnus through brute force. No deceptions there. Homer never described the ruse of the Trojan Horse directly, though he did mention it (briefly) in the Odyssey.
DeleteFights can be depicted in hackneyed, boring ways. But so can pretty much any human interaction. Saying that depicting conflict or plot resolution through a straight-up fight is "too easy" or not "grown up" is far too simplistic.
Even I have been known to enjoy a Jason Statham movie in my time. It's a similar pleasure to watching a graceful dance or a great boxing match. Usually in a story (even a martial arts movie) when everything hinges on a fight, there'll be some stratagem involved. When Conan faces the best swordsman in Aquilonia, he douses the only light, that kind of thing - assuming the writer is willing to do the work.
DeleteIlle, oculis postquam saevi monimenta doloris
Deleteexuviasque hausit, furiis accensus et ira
terribilis: 'tune hinc spoliis indute meorum
eripiare mihi? Pallas te hoc vulnere, Pallas
immolat et poenam scelerato ex sanguine sumit.'
hoc dicens ferrum adverso sub pectore condit
fervidus; ast illi solvuntur frigore membra
vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras.
Vae victis.
Btw I'm talking of course about when the fight is the linchpin of the plot. It would be lame if Shakespeare just made Macduff a better fighter than Macbeth. But it's okay that Leone has Blondie simply outdraw Angel Eyes, because it's what comes after the duel that matters.
DeleteWell yes - a lot of literary classics are full of violent deaths, but it's not the reason why they are classics. Ilias is a good example - compare it to the movie "Troy". What remains in the film are the gory deaths, but gone is the beauty of Homer's language, the tragedy and intrigue of the relations between gods and men.
DeletePlus - in a FPS game the disturbing part is (when you pause to think about) that you are not a protagonist in a story where there's a lot of killing. You actually *are* doing the killing. That's why I like FP games where you have an option not to (without failing to win the game - see Deus Ex).
I don’t know what you mean by “linchpin of the plot.” If you’re saying that you’re condemning stories where the climax of the story or the resolution of the conflict is through violence, I still disagree.
DeleteLots of conflicts in stories are resolved ultimately by fights – I’ve given many examples, and can give lots more. That’s not to say that the fight is the only thing of interest in the story, or that the fight qua fight makes a story good. How the author describes the setting, the poetical devices used, the alteration of meter to fit the action – these are all things that make a poem art (if we’re talking about poetry). But let’s not fool ourselves in to how the conflict is resolved – it’s violence. Perseus has to jump through all these hoops and get all this great gear to defeat Medusa. But what’s the climax of that particular adventure? When he chops her head off. What’s the climax of David and Goliath? When he knocks Goliath in the head with a sling stone. Violence is wonderfully suited for climaxes and resolving tension.
What you originally wrote seemed to condemn all violence as a cheap trick – well, in the process you’re condemning much of classic literature not only in the West, but in the world (what’s the climax of the Ramayana? Oh yeah, that giant battle between Rama and Ravana). Mentioning things like Captain Kirk fist fights is setting up a strawman…Violence can be done poorly, but so can love stories, dialogue, pacing, and characterization. If you want to see an analysis of how to do all these things poorly, look at Red Letter Media’s dissection of the Star Wars prequels.
Miko - yep, good points.
DeleteAnonymous - I could keep citing examples, but it's telling not showing. Why not try writing a story where the resolution hinges on a fight? I think then you'll see what I'm talking about.
I don't have to, as my writing is irrelevant to the point. Many writers much greater than all of us here already have done that.
DeleteIt's true that the the great classics resolve key fights with a clever tactic, though. For example Yoshitsune bringing his cavalry down an "impossible" slope to surprise the superior force of Taira troops. Another is Zhuge Liang in Romance of the Three Kingdoms using the ploy of barges filled with straw to get the enemy to donate the arrows his side needed.
DeleteYes, but violence with deception is still violence. When the Greeks snuck into Troy via the Trojan Horse, that wasn't the end of the story. All types of horrific violence followed - Neoptolemus kills the suppliant Priam, Astyanax gets thrown to his death, Polyxena's sacrificed at the tomb of Achilles...and on and on.
DeleteSame for the Odyssey - When Odysseus tosses off his disguise, it's not as if the suitors shrug their shoulders and go home. No - Homer goes into quite some detail about how Odysseus and Telemachus slaughter all the suitors in fairly graphic ways.
On reflection I can see the validity of miko's point, videlicet that once you remove the elegance of Homer's poetry the underlying narrative only comprises a succession of incidents in which one fighter beats another fighter, as evidenced in the cinematic adaptation of he poiesis Ilias. To avoid the outcome of each fight being transparently at the whim of the author, it is necessary for there to be an element of ingenuity by which victory is earned. Mutatis mutandis et parva componere magnis, Kirk originally defeats Khan because he outthinks him, which is dramatically satisfying, whereas in the more recent version the denoument is merely decided by whether Khan or Spock is stronger.
DeleteYour idea for a Weegee game makes me think of classic films like Blow-Up and The Conversation. There's a definite threat of violence there (personal and political -> physical and emotional) but it would be boring if it was all resolved by a punch up. Still, although cinema and role playing allow for interesting, non-violent ways to solve problems, it's not so easy to do that in a computer game.
ReplyDeleteThe movie that springs most obviously to mind is The Public Eye, in which Joe Pesci plays a fictionalized version of Weegee. There is love, betrayal, danger and death - but no fisticuffs, and I don't think Joe even pulls a gun, much less shoot anybody's toe off, which must make it unique in his filmography.
Delete