I was talking on a recent Double Jump podcast with Michael Abbot, Carter Dotson, and Trina Schwimmer about the violence in games like Modern Warfare 2, and how the level of realism brought the violent nature of the game home to me in a way many other violent games didn’t. One comment stuck in my head during that discussion. Michael noted that as a species, we’ve been playing games that simulate war from the very beginning of gaming. As I think back on all the games I’ve played in my lifetime, from board games to schoolyard games to video games, I’m also struck by how much they simulate violence. Are we, as human beings, using games to express the violent natures within us? In other words, if violence is a very human thing to express, do we use games as a way to explore violence, and therefore learn about ourselves? I’m going to spend the rest of this essay positing that yes, we do indeed. I welcome all your comments below, and appreciate true, respectful discussion as well.
It seems fairly clear that Chess and Go, two of the oldest board games known, simulate some sort of war game. Chess, which originated in India as a game pitting two teams of different divisions of military units, requires military and tactical thought, and can be seen as a way to train players to think strategically for real world battles. Checkers goes back even further into prehistory, with variants being found from 3000 BC in Ur. Roman variants of the game, also called Draughts in modern England, were known as latrunculi, or the game of the Little Soldiers. While there are other competing theories about the nature of Go, a game that originated in ancient China, one theory is that it was a game derived from the planning and mapping strategies of warlords and generals.
Board games of modern stripe can be argued to have come into vogue in the early 20th century, with the creation, and subsequent patent in 1935, of Monopoly. While it’s categorized as a “roll and move” game, I believe it can be seen as a rarified form of battle, in that players all vie to control resources and ultimately bankrupt their opponents to win. Later in the century, games like Risk and Stratego — explicit war themed board games, became immensely popular.
Sports are war-like. Teams of players, or battalions, go head to head in games, or battles, on the courts and playing fields of the world. Rabid fans scream with bloodlust when their teams are involved in highly pitched competitions. Violence is explicit or implicit, direct or indirect, but it’s there, and it’s real. Sports are such a massive part of our modern culture that it seems too obvious to even put into words.
Early video games such as Pac Man and Frogger also imply violence. Donkey Kong and Galaga, Space Invaders and Asteroids. Videogames have had implicit and explicit violence since the very beginning: players have “lives” that are spent chasing or avoiding “enemies” and losing a “life” is actually called “dying.” Violent videogames is almost a redundant term. Why is it that current videogames are expected to be anything but?
Halo, Gears of War, Dragon Age. No More Heroes, Call of Duty, Borderlands. All violent. All using the latest of graphic and audio technology to create as realistic an experience as possible. Blood spatters, body parts explode, dying enemies and comrades scream their pain when injured or killed. Why? Even games like Flower or World Of Goo, it could be argued, use violence as a metaphor in their innovative games. Flower involves players in the un-death of the in-game environment, placing them in between dark and light, death and life. World of Goo encourages players to overcome obstacles that can dismember and kill the little anthropomorphized goo balls in all sorts of, admittedly, comedic ways. Another “funny” violent game is Pain – players catapult avatars of people and animals across various landscapes, gaining higher and higher points for the most amount of pain and destruction possible. Violent, right?
It’s my firm belief that our media reflects us as a culture. It also helps shape that culture in turn. Our humanity involves violence, as shown by thousands and thousands of years of history. We crave peace while preparing for war. It’s a very human dichotomy. Why, then, wouldn’t our most popular pastime involve the same dichotomy? We crave innovation, yet still seek out the experiential violence that we crave as a species. I’ll also argue that it’s far better to allow ourselves to shoot each other online in virtual worlds than it is to do so in real life. Instead of banning violence in videogames, why not use them as critical pieces in understanding what it’s like to be human?
In my own exploration of video gaming as a cultural phenomenon, I’ve found that every player experiences games differently. My own non-violent tendencies color my perception of games that are explicit in their themes of war and violence and cruelty. That’s not to say that I don’t see the value in such games, especially when taking the temperature of the current culture. Written media, novels, and film have all been excellent gauges of how societies view and express themselves about war, life, death, and what it means to be human. Video games are no different. They are reaching a certain critical mass, in technological ability and thematic scope that, I believe, will rival the scope and influence of film and books in a very short time.
Here’s to hoping that as videogames mature into their full potential as media, that they begin to take on other themes and topics. Love, and family, and working together in society is as much a part of being human as war and violence. When we see the same number of top-tier videogames take advantage of these themes and related genres (romantic comedy video game, anyone?), then I believe they will have come into their own as a fully flourishing expression of the human condition.
There are several different modes of play available to you. First and foremost there is the “Super Fun Classic” mode. In this mode you can play with up to four people and you have to spot the differences between two very similar photos. Playing with just my wife and I we were able to roll through the ten pictures that were given to us rather quickly. Having four different sets of eyes would make this game go by in almost a blur. You are given a time limit and each player has a certain number of mistakes they can make before they are locked out and can no longer guess. Pretty straight forward and simple.
Anyway the game is pretty fun for a lazy day and you don’t feel like using your brain much. A few of the photos stumped my wife and I and we either had to let the time run out or use a hint to help us. There is plenty of re-playability here because I am sure that there are PLENTY of photos to go through. At a cost of 500 “Wii Points” I guess it would be up to you to decide if it is worth your time and/or money. It’s a fun little diversion from “hardcore” games, and something that is pretty fun to just pass the time with. If that sounds like your kind of game, go grab this one off the Wii Store right away!
