Jamie Antonisse

Vioence is the funnest thing ever. I love violence in games. The more the merrier. My favorite games consistently revolve around beating/killing/mauling things up. Which is no surprise because it's most of the market, but even if it wasn't I would still choose it. I like being in the thick of a war, or gangland violence, or any other type of grit. I think having characters that could help you in different ways would be cool, but I'm never going to get into crap like Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon. Anyways, I feel games like Halo 3 and Gears of War have your buddies laying themselves on the line for you. I think there is a recent understanding that you should not be alone in shooters. Everything that is going online is a testament to exactly what you're talking about. I think as we move along we're going to continue to get away from NPC's anyways. Your interactions with PC's will be much more dynamic anyways. Back to the dish though... Recently I've been playing Crackdown, and essentially it is an extremely well updated version of Smash TV... in terms of killing a retarded amount of things coming at you from all sides. My head can't "look" in every direction at once. All of a sudden I attain blissful catharsis. In every sense of the term games are exactly cathartic to me. I use them specifically to eliminate the noise and stress of the day. Not to say I don't enjoy it immensely, but it tunes everything else out. All I have to do is dim the lights, turn on some candles, heat up my favorite pudding, and live the dream.

Did you write this on weed?

I have been playing a lot of Civ 4, and let me tell you, nothing is more satisfying than seeing you have destroyed another civilization. I mean what is more dynamic than destroying 15 enemy units, sacking their cities, and enslaving their people to build your war machine. I am a pacifist everywhere accept in game. Killing gives me the sense of power and dominance I often miss IRL. Its all in the Bible, Old Testiment Style.

I guess I'm confused as to the general purpose of this essay. It would appear that you're trying to encourage growth and development of NPC's and systems in video game development, but then make a comment like the following:

"Once the adolescents realize there's no spoon, and these are empty animations they're pretending to kill, over and over, how much longer will we keep their attention in *single player experiences*?" (asterisks for emphasis)

Followed by:

"For instance, if "talking" to an NPC made them fly into the sky and sprinkle fireballs across the battlefield, hurting you OR *others*, you'd have a reason to consider a conversation instead of taking out your shiv and collecting three gold coins off a corpse." (again, added asterisks for emphasis on a word)

Couple of things here...who are others? Are we still talking about a single player experience, or did we segue over to online gaming somewhere? If we're dealing with the former then what you're describing is an NPC used to facilitate and "flesh out" the destruction of other "enemies" in a non-traditional fashion. This wouldn't be something new, it's already done in many games.

But if we're dealing with the latter, then we're not talking about a single player experience at all. This becomes multiplayer, and most of the enjoyment isn't from interacting with NPCs, but the impact that your avatar has on everyone else on the other end of the intarwebs(we're talking about a series of tubes, here!).

Also, in regards to your comment about adolescents discovering there is no spoon...this would seem to allude to some sort of revelation that gamers go through when they get older. That they discover the sprites they've been killing since they were but a babe aren't really a part of "the real world". Well, sure, we all go through a phase when we're momentarily disillusioned with games, and question whether our investment of time in them is a valid pursuit; but most of us come back to the same button-mashing, sprite nuking, model shattering repetition we love. Why? Because more than a catharsis, more than a release, it's a separation of oneself from the "real world".

I can't walk up to my boss and kick him in the face without some kind of repercussion. I can't buy a gun and open fire on police officers in broad daylight without a very real consequence. I think that more than anything, video games offer us a way to dissociate ourselves from the mundane...and what better way to do that than to go to an underwater city and kill genetic mutants? Could a similar separation from reality be gained without violence? Well, perhaps. But Myst and Riven didn't sell all THAT well.

I think the point he's making is that violence in video games is not necesarily a bad thing; it just shouldn’t be the only thing driving the most interesting games.

Think of it like this: what if all movies were gangster movies, westerns, noirs, war movies, and kung fu movies. I love all those genres, and some of my all time favorite movies are in those genres, but those aren't the only movies I want to see and the only movies that should be made. Almost all successful video games fall into those genres…

If you think about it, he's suggesting that video games, as a creative form, are in need of maturation. The same way movies matured in the late 60's and 70’s (I’m talking about content here, not technique).

Video games are capable of becoming deeper, more interesting, and more artistic. You just have to think of them on a grander, interactive environment level, rather than confining them to their current market.

Theres a huge difference in content between the Terminator and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest - but I've still seen and enjoyed both. Right now, video games seem to be focused mainly on making new versions of the Terminator. I think that should change...

Just to play devil's advocate, oestepura, I'd like to point out that there are a number of genre's that video games can fall into as well. There are games with comedic value (anything from developer Tell Tale Games would fall into that category, as well as the early Lucas Art's Maniac Mansion titles), games that give a sense of adventure like Drake's Fortune, games that advance a mystery like Indigo Prophecy, roleplaying games of all shapes and colors, and of course run n gun shoot-em-up FPS type games.

Now what defines maturity? In my opinion games have matured a great deal and continue to do so by creating an emotional bond between the player and their avatar. I have to say that Bioshock is one of the first games in a long loooong time (since FFVII I think) that really made me feel for the protagonist. I honestly got a lil misty when I got the "good" ending. It's one of the first games that I've played that I would be willing to consider "art", and I'm pretty cynical in that debate.

Another thing to consider is that movies and games will never be an exact parallel. One is an interactive medium designed to take one out of reality for an extended period of time, the other you sit through while twiddling your thumbs, being spoon fed a plot you have no control over. But this isn't to say that I believe there's no room for improvement in video games...

One thing I would really like to see is more interactivity in an environment. More than just "OMG I can break everything!!1!", I would like to see something to the effect of a dynamic, changing world in an MMO where players -truly- have an impact on the game's story. I'd like to see immersive environments that literally take my breath away. And more than anything, I want to see developers that truly care about where the industry is going, and want to have a hand in actively improving the genre. I think we're starting to see that more today.

Allright, it's time to answer some of this mail.

First off, FW Chris, you made a few really good points that I agree with... first of all, about multiplayer experiences. I actually had a sentence about multiplayer in there, but I took it out because things were getting too muddled already. Second, I agree with you COMPLETELY about interactivity in environment. It's gonna take time, because its a tough design problem... but I think we'll see more of that in the next few years. Third, my example of an "interesting interaction" was not very well-developed or well-explained, and as someone who's paying a lot of loan money to think about these things, I shouldn't be let off the hook for that.

I was talking about a player-vs-environment example, and the example was NOT meant to break the paradigm of violent games. I was saying that, GIVEN a game routed in conflict, you can create situations in which a killable character is more interesting to interact with if kept alive. A better example would be "leading" such a character around, and letting him interact with the local environment, potentially helping you/killing enemies in unexpected ways. Such a character, even if killable, might make an implicit argument for his own life because he is, in fact, more INTERESTING alive (which most game NPC's aren't).

You guys, I'm NOT against violence in games. Oestepura said it best, but I've got to pipe in on this. There are MANY violent games that I love. But arguing that games' main purpose are as an outlet for violence is, to my ears, EXACTLY like arguing that movies are only worthwhile because they sell sex. I mean, its perfect... movies allow you to ogle gorgeous people without feeling self-conscious. There are movies WITHOUT beautiful, scantily clad women in them... but clearly these movies missed the point of what movies do well. Selling sex is something that movies do really well, just as allowing violent catharsis is something games excel at. But do you really think that's the whole point? I know you don't... you're both filmmakers, and you have not yet made a hardcore porn between you (though I can't speak for Vic). I'm just claiming that human-computer interactions can take many forms... and right now, in first-or-third person narrative experiences at least, they usually boil down to the same simplistic stuff. I think we can do better.