This piece on salon.com by Kevin Wong examines the alleged lack of morality in video games. I liked how it starts by talking about the “uncanny valley” effect where developers need to make sure that their characters are not so “realistic” looking that it unnerves the player. It’s undeniable that games have become much more realistic looking in recent years – a comparison of Doom from 1994:

Source: Wikipedia

and the MotionScan facial capture technology used in LA Noire, which places the actor’s face directly into the game, a practice that has gradually become a more widespread practice in game development:

MotionScan capturing Aaron Staton, who played the lead role Cole Phelps. Source: LA Noire Wikia

Yet, many popular games still retain their own distinctive artistic style to temper, or even avoid “realistic” appearances. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was widely praised for its futuristic cityscapes and black/gold colour scheme.

Source: Deus Ex: Human Revolution official site

Elder Scrolls: Skyrim is full of beautiful vistas and fantastical inhabitants.

Skyrim offical screenshot

Then of course, there’s Mario.

Games can push the boundaries of realistic appearances as much as any film, for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution can be compared to the likes of Blade Runner. In many cases, the look of games can be highly stylised, but different levels of realistic behaviour in games can become unsettling. Kevin Wong’s article points towards concern about the relationship between realistic games and violence, however I find myself disagreeing with many of his conclusions. I’ll then talk about my own opinions on the matter.

As is typical with the media, he starts with an extreme example of violence in games, namely Manhunt 2. It courted controversy in 2007 when its violent, snuff film approach saw the BBFC refuse to rate the game for sale on two occasions, which led to a high court challenge by its developers Rockstar. For the game to be released, the judgement was made that certain changes were needed for it to be rated 18. Much was made of this in the media at the time, especially around the risks to children. However, the gaming press was equally ambivalent about Manhunt 2, with many critics expressing concern at the level of violence with no ethical or moral dimension. This translated into poor reviews, and poor sales of the game, which amounted to 1.5 million copies sold globally across all of the formats it was available in.  I can only assume that Wong expresses concern that such a game can be made, but he takes a woefully reductionist view of the agency of players. Helen Thornham‘s research points to the need to move beyond examining what games do to players, since gamers are not just passive receivers of messages from games. When playing, the majority are actively engaged in playing, rather than just sitting there on the receiving end of violent imagery. While Wong praises the approach of Quantic Dream in their games, such as Heavy Rain, he wrongly makes it sound as if these are the only games to work in this manner. I’ll now try to broaden this out in relation to other games.

Quantic dream have a reputation for creating thoughtful, narrative-driven games, however violent content can be used to make ethical points in games. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2‘s now infamous “airport” level is an interesting case. It is widely perceived as a violent bloodbath, in which the player participates in a terrorist attack, where everyone in an airport is gunned down. The level was made optional because of its extreme nature. The premise is that the player is a covert CIA agent infiltrating a Russian nationalist terrorist group who are responsible for the atrocity, though the player does not need to kill anyone. However, the leader of the terrorist group guesses that the player is a CIA agent and kills him on the airport runway. The discovery of the dead CIA agent leads the Russian government to hold the Americans responsible and sparks a Russian invasion of America. Some critics wondered if the scene had been belatedly inserted to create outrage to attract attention to the game. Others have compared the scene to the opening of Saving Private Ryan, which shows the arrival of troops on Omaha beach and the ensuing bloodbath, and had been depicted in the previous CoD: Modern Warfare game. Many players talked about the effect of the scene, with many left feeling sick and mulling over the consequences. Charlie Brooker‘s review of the game summed it up as follows:

“Modern Warfare 2’s big attention-grabbing setpiece is a terrorist atrocity in an airport in which the player (taking the role of an undercover agent) reluctantly takes part. It’s upsetting, chilling and horrifying. You’re supposed to be upset and chilled and horrified, of course – so on that level it succeeds… Don’t worry. It won’t turn anyone a killer. But it is a strange and misjudged lapse into tastelessness that would actually be less offensive if played for laughs – and an easy target for reactionary kneejerk critics of videogames.”

The scene also challenges the player to examine the ethical aspects of warfare and how wars are started. It is intended to shock and disarm the player who has become used to playing first person shooter games, which tend to follow a particular theme of good guys who kill the bad guys in various ways. Most enemies who can be killed are other soldiers framed as the bad guys, rather than the victims of the airport scene, who are largely civilians. In a previous blog, I discussed how women are rarely featured as enemies that can be killed in games, unless they are made monstrous. With call of duty, men’s (soldier) bodies are normally framed as disposable in contrast to civilians.

In the last decade, there has been a rise in the number of games that are more narratively-driven and pose a number of choices for the player to make, which is sometimes referred to as ludonarrative. In some instances, this relates purely to the game’s narrative such as in the Mass Effect trilogy. Decisions made by the player as the lead Commander Shepherd over the course of each game affect how the rest of the games turn out – characters who are killed in the first game never come back, as well as how Shepherd resolves situations on missions. These can have repercussions across all of the games as a whole, whether it be saving a space colony, or choosing to kill or save certain individuals. Shepherd’s abilities are partly hindered by the emphasis on combat. While key decisions are left up to the player, Shepherd is framed as a soldier and must frequently battle his or her way across the galaxy.

Other games actively encourage the player to make decisions on how they approach the game as well. Deus Ex: Human Revolution (DX:HR) is the latest in the Deus Ex series, which have always emphasised the agency of the player in shaping the game. It is possible for the player to experience DX:HR without killing anyone, since the game enables a range of different play styles, including stealth, full-on action, or somewhere in-between. The game often rewards a stealthier, non-lethal tactic, in fact, where the player is encouraged not to be seen even. The story of DX:HR also offers a complex narrative based around notions of the post-human. Set in 2027, augmentation of the body is becoming increasingly common, whether through minor self-improvement, built-in computers in the skull, or even full-scale limb replacements for the able-bodied. Part of the narrative considers a range of moral and ethical questions over the advancing technology, and what it is to be human. Some believe that the body is sacred and that human enhancement technologies violate religious beliefs. Supporters of such technology are often framed as seeking to control evolution. Yet, the game succeeds in posing more practical questions too, since augmented people are left reliant on a drug called Neuropozyne, an anti-rejection drug, without which the body rejects any implants. The game depicts situations in which back-alley surgeries have taken place, leaving a person reliant on the black market for Neuropozyne if they lack the money to buy it legally. In some instances, it is suggested that augmentation remains the preserve of the wealthy, who are able to control their own bodies and destinies, while the poor are left further and further behind. Then there are also enhanced super-soldiers, who no longer even seem human given their abilities. In some ways, the game raises interesting sociological questions about human enhancement, in addition to the morality tales. A series of videos that appeared in the build-up to the game’s release probably belabour these points a little, but are worth pointing out for an interesting overview of the game’s narrative.

In some respects, I agree with Wong’s statement that some games need to grow up, from the perspective that most gamers are adults and want more interesting games to be released. While the media continues to largely focus on the risk of games to children, adults are by and large the main consumer of games. To some extent, the game industry is reaching this conclusion too, with many studios offering a range of titles that appeal across a fairly broad spectrum of people. Nevertheless, big-budget games, often called AAA titles, still use shocking scenes to partly promote the product, much like certain big budget films, or when bands deliberately court controversy. To open up an effective debate around violence in games, it seems important to not focus so much on extreme examples, and to look at a much broader spectrum of not only games, other aspects of popular culture too.