Non-Violent Does Not Mean Non-Good

For those of you who don't know, which I'm sure is not many of you, the Supreme Court -- like really, the Supreme Court -- has been hearing arguments on violent video games.  Strangely, this case started in California, one of the most liberal, free-thinking states out there.  Think about it.  Where do you go if you want to escape being persecuted for your crazy-ass lifestyle?  California.  More specifically, maybe San Francisco.  That's the reputation we have at least.  Anyway, I am more than confident this case will come out with gaming on top.  The courts have always sided with free speech, so if they started censorship with videogames, it wouldn't make much (any) sense.  With that being said, I am not here to talk about violence in videogames.  That's been done.  I am here to talk about games that don't have violence at all.  Games that have a protagonist, in some form to be sure since someone must be controlling something, but do not seem to have any antagonist.

Now, truthfully, an argument can be made for a protagonist and antagonist in every game.  Tetris: the player vs. whoever sends you down blocks; Flower: nature vs. pollution/industrialization; Sim City: the city vs. the world.  There are games that are more directly concerned with the hero defeating the villain, but, as you can see, there are also games that feature conceptual enemies.  Games where you may even hesitate to call them enemies.  Would it be a bad idea to have more games like these?  These games are more than one person defeating several armies worth of minions; they force you to attempt to understand something more complex than "bullet goes into head, I win."  Ok, maybe not Tetris.  That one is in a whole other genre with games that are more puzzles than anything else, like Peggle or Monopoly.  I would venture to say that these are all great games.  You may balk at Monopoly, but how many times have you played it?  How many years has it been around?  The answer to both of those question is "a sh*tload."

This is so exciting! I LOVE games without any action!

I would like to see more of these games.  Games like World of Goo, Braid, or flOw should fill the stores, both real and online.  I've gotten tired of games where I can mindlessly defeat mindless hordes of poor-operating AI.  Sure they can still be fun, but less often intriguing and rarely original.  Maybe that's because I am not an FPS gamer.  I prefer games like Mario or Zelda to Halo or Call of Duty.  "Adventure" just has a much nicer ring to it than "First Person Shooter."  I own a Wii, but I do not own The Conduit and I will not own Conduit 2.  There is no appeal for me in these games.  Surely, those shooters are the only kinds of games that would be under scrutiny if videogames lose the aforementioned case.  I guess my gaming tastes would still be satisfied if this happens, despite my moral outrage.  Good-ish news for me then.

Everyone else who has different views than me, however, will still be at a loss, right?  Not necessarily.  Perhaps this would give them the perfect chance to broaden their gaming experiences.  I know two people who live together and both have Xbox360s; between them, there is not one non-FPS title.  This disgusts me.  I cannot go to their house and watch them play anything because it's all the same, whether they're shooting aliens or terrorists.  If you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that these games are too similar, think about the controller set-up.  Is the right trigger always shoot?  Is A always action and B always melee attack?  It's the standard control scheme now in place for most shooters.  One could seamlessly switch between several games and not lose a step.  But to go from Flower to Sim City or from Peggle to Minecraft?  Who will see any connection between those games?  As a side note, Minecraft can be switched to "peaceful" if you just want to build without any annoying enemies sneaking up on you in the dark.  Maybe it's not possible anymore to have such variation in FPS games.

Oh Man! This game is WAY better than that other, generic shooter we just beat!

The point here, if you haven't picked up on it already, is that you don't need violence to make a game good.  You don't even need to have a strong antagonist.  If the title has innovative gameplay, addicting mechanics, and/or a fascinating experience, that's more than enough to make an enjoyable game.  People who can't get enough of gunning down endless enemies should be aware that there are other games, most of which are rare gems in the gaming universe.  It's not often one will find something like Flower or Minecraft, but it seems games like Halo have become a dime a dozen.  Whether that's something that needs to change in game developers or something in the gaming community, I cannot say.

Video Games Made Me Do It

By now, we've all heard about the latest crime that has some connection to videogames. We, as a community of gamers, all have our own opinions on violent games. There are questions every gamer should ask themselves: does realistic violence make a game better? Should there be any limit to the violence in games? Does the violence in games affect anyone in real life? These questions are not easy. One must take into account various games and even companies that seem to pride themselves on being violent. More than that, what about those of us who play games and sometimes think to ourselves, "this game would be a lot cooler if i could kill these people"?

I'm not about to start a holy war against violent videogames (after all, my favorite one ends with the hero stabbing someone in the face). Nor am I going to assault the companies that create these games or the gamers who love them. People with a sane and sensible mind know that each person's actions are their own. Some things are just that obvious. Can any game legitimately be called a "murder simulator" for real life? Of course not. No more than Monopoly being able to be called a "business simulator". Will that stop people from claiming such absurdities? Of course not. What's important is that we all see games for what they are at their core: entertainment.

That may sound like I'm lowering the very essence of gaming down to the depths of reality television, but I assure you it's quite the opposite. Like many other gamers, I feel there is no reason not to put games into the same category as "art". But there is no game whose purpose is "to be art". Games are meant to affect us in some way and usually meant to be enjoyed. Same thing can be said with cinema and, frankly, most of what's considered art. This is a slight digression, but I want to be clear: Video games can no more inspire these horrific acts of violence than cinema, literature, or even paintings. Was anyone murdered after watching Leon The Professional? Did anyone go insane after reading Poe? Does anyone dream of what haunts the person in Edvard Munch's "Scream"? Should having a bad diet also be reason enough to commit murder?

The gaming community is not a group to be generalized on account of the few people who commit violent crimes and also play videogames. I often use the word community when referring to gamers as a group because... well, that's just the best word to describe us. Anyone who's ever been to a LAN party -- hell, anyone who's ever even played multiplayer (on the couch or online) can see why the word "community" is especially fitting. We gamers play well together. It's to the point now where even the lack of co-op or online play makes the game's overall score worse. Gaming is getting more and more mainstream, and the community expects developers to know we have friends, and we want to play some videogames with them. Personally, I even thoroughly enjoy watching other people play. I know when I invite some pretty ladies over for a game of Mariokart, I want them to have fun. I, like the designers of these games, want the people who play them to enjoy the experience.

There is no question as to whether or not videogames can influence people. This blog and countless others are testaments to that. If games had zero influence, there wouldn't be anyone trying to get into the videogame industry. No designers, no programmers, no critics. I'd be out of luck. Will people be more likely to break the law if exposed to violent games? I would whole-heartedly say No. Almost every game has a protagonist fighting against the antagonist (Tetris just squeaks by on that), and most games in general have someone or something dying (getting killed) or have the protagonist finding items lying around, often in someone's house, which means that they're stealing from helpless NPC innocents. If games made the morals of gamers fall away, then, with the gaming community as large as it is, I'm shocked more and more people aren't becoming vigilantes. ...Oh. Shit. Nevermind.