By my estimation Twitter, the Grand Pooh-Bah of the 140 character micro thought, everyday produces 8,167 times more text than the world record holder for longest novel (Proust’s In Search of Lost Time). This seems to me a pretty fine argument that people really hate to write more than a few words (hell Proust didn’t even finish In Search of Lost Time). Similarly, I’m also forced to deduce that people hate to read, as evidenced by the fact that my in-law’s friends think I’m working on a game without violence.
Let me explain. A couple of days ago I wrote an article for games blog Rock, Paper, Shotgun about game violence. Specifically I talked about two things:
- That acts of game violence alone are too abstract to make a person more or less violent in the real world.
- That games with broader player choice have a stronger chance of evoking enough emotional response to educate gamers socially and morally.
(But don’t take my word for it, read the whole article. I’ll just leave it right here and you do whatever. No judgement.)
On that same day I also launched a Kickstarter for Unwritten, the first game from my indie team Roxlou Games.
The response to the article was fantastic in that it sparked debate without defensive name calling and arbitrary side-taking, a credit to the article’s readers. It also prompted non-gamer acquaintances of mine to skim the article and the pitch for Unwritten, and then congratulate me on deciding to make a game that “wasn’t one of those horrible violent things”.
So here’s the problem. In the Kickstarter video for Unwritten, a man with a 5 foot sword decapitates a llama in a single stroke, prompting a dehydrated elderly man to drink the blood as it arcs across the sky. So why the praise from the “violence equals bad” crowd (which is incidentally exactly the opposite of point number 1 from my article)? Maybe we’d best examine the scene in question. Those with delicate dispositions are advised to turn away.

OH…

…THE…

…HUMANITY!
For those that don’t know what they’re looking at, Unwritten has storytelling tableaus enacted with shadow puppets, mimicking Balinese traditions. In the early prototype shown above the blood is represented by ribbons tied to sticks (watch the whole video here for additional context).
But that guy really is decapitating a llama and an old man really is drinking the blood. And the little guy on the left? That’s the old man’s son. He was just sold into slavery. For blood.

I know, right?
Now I wouldn’t categorize Unwritten as non-violent. And I’d also just written an article that said that shying away from game violence won’t help us to address society’s issues in the real world. It would instead only soothe the fears of those that balk after seeing their very first headshot, appalled at what is essentially presentation. So the pleasant reaction of my distant Facebook pseudo-friends puzzled me but also got me thinking.
Lee (Roxlou Games‘ artist) and I had gone with the shadow puppets for a number of reasons, the most convincing of which was that it was eerie and awesome. But had we stumbled onto a perfect balance of benign presentation and gritty subject matter? Most games have gritty presentation but essentially shallow subject themes with limited player choice. By inverting that formula did we now have carte blanche to explore mature, challenging themes without offending my parent’s friends from church?
I decided that the answer was “no”, they probably just weren’t paying very close attention, and it was Little Red Riding Hood that convinced me that violence in all forms would probably still piss them off. Again I should explain. Below is the ending from an early version of Little Red Riding Hood.
“Grandmother, what big teeth you have got!”
“All the better to eat you up with.”
And, saying these words, this wicked wolf fell upon Little Red Riding Hood, and ate her all up.
THE END
If you’re waiting for the woodsman to bust in, with his musky woodsman ways and totally non-phallic long handled axe, go ahead and stop holding your breath. He interferes with the moral of the story, which is “stay on the straight and narrow or get devoured by wolves”. Which is really a more charitable read than the moral that the author actually wrote down, which basically says that the wolf is a metaphor for being raped at home (no really).

So… why is she in bed with the wolf?
The point is that fairy tales and fables nearly all have their origins in cautionary tales, and the plot of these early stories are fed on a steady diet of violence. This is because many evolved during medieval times, when they were educating children and adults alike about matters of life and death. Cinderella’s step sisters cut off parts of their feet to make the slippers fit (before eventually being blinded by birds), and even Rapunzel’s prince is blinded himself by razor sharp thorns.

And all I did was kill a llama
Over the last few hundred years these stories have had much of the violence sanitized from them, getting mostly cleaned with the Brothers Grimm adaptations, and the last gasp being squeezed out in an effort to make a Disney movie.
I find this telling. Although these changes were made under the pretense that the stories were being shifted to an audience of exclusively children, the implication is that our culture has become increasingly unwilling to even acknowledge violence, no matter how abstract. And if a storybook can’t get away with artfully severing a spinster’s toe or heel, I’m certain that my shadow puppets won’t pass closer scrutiny.
Of course, I’m going to go right ahead cutting the heads off of things and spilling ribbon blood all over the place (provided we meet our funding goal). This whole series of events has made me realize that Unwritten is basically an old school fairy tale for adults, and maybe we need a bit of that tough love back in the world. While it’s easy to be appalled by violence, removing it from the dialog entirely is a major step backwards. There is a reason that those simple, old morality lessons penned examples of violence for audiences of adults and children, and it’s not because of ancient barbarism. It’s because the potential for violence is a part of our world, and only by discussing it do we stand a chance of understanding and avoiding it.
Stories of all kinds are the foundation of understanding morality and consequence, especially to people of the modern age when personal experience is usually found second or third hand. In this same way our games have the potential to intelligently explore adult themes that may have passed us by in our childhood. Of course games as an interactive medium set themselves apart by being an experience that engages and, if it so chooses, instructs with potent ability.
In my book this is an intensely exciting prospect, and after all a pretty fair prize for the low cost of one sacrificial digital goat.

Provided you’re not the goat.
I’m very interested in your statement:
“That acts of game violence alone are too abstract to make a person more or less violent in the real world.”
I agree with this.
I’ve also been involved in extremely physical (and some would label violent) martial arts training for a number of years… in the course of practicing (ie pretending as best we can safely do) I have been “killing” and “injuring” and have been “killed” and “injured” by my training friends dozens if not hundreds of times a week for 20 years.
The net result is that I am *less* violent and far less likely to use violence in the real world. I know how easy it is to trip and smash your head on the curb and die. I know how easy it is to break someone’s fingers. I know how easy it is to get surprised by a punch and knocked out and kicked in the face.
Whenever possible, I don’t want anything to do with real world violence.
The ‘pretend’ violence of martial arts training that I’m engaged in make me a far better person. After each class I’m less aggravated with the world and I can usually pursue my work and personal objectives more clearly.
Even if video games became less abstract in the years to come, (ie Kinect 4.0 where you’re standing in a holodeck and actually thinking you are holding a sword and slicing off a head or knifing an orc in the guts) I *still* don’t think that they would make a person more violent in the real world.
I suspect that for the overwhelming majority of normally adjusted people – it would prove to be the same catharsis I find in martial arts training, and it might even be of MORE benefit to society to allow them to engage in the less abstract violence.
Especially if all the violent games aren’t always set to “Easy Mode” and you can experience (in the safe confines of the future game) the humbling reality of someone faster stronger and more aggressive than you.
@Mike, thanks for your comment. It sounds like your experience with martial arts is really applicable to the debate, and it’s not a perspective I’d thought of.
It seems like the martial arts community in general is a good example of participating in the conversation in order to guide it. Most any type of martial arts I’ve heard of is about teaching responsibility and control to its students, and the enthusiasts I’ve met are the last ones looking to throw a punch. Well unless you include that dojo full of assholes from “The Karate Kid”.
I dearly hope funding for your game floods in during the next two weeks! Yours is a perspective too considerate of both extremes in the game-violence debate to go unheard…