A reader explores what levels of violence he’s personally okay with in video games, and how he rationalises killing some enemies but not others.
I thought it was about time I visited the subject of violence in games, but not in the way you might expect. I want to talk about my own, quite bizarre, measure of what I enjoy and don’t enjoy about violence in games.
I will jump straight in and say that I dislike the campaigns in most first person shooters such as Call Of Duty and Battlefield because I find the endless killing unpalatable, but give me some Covenant scum from Halo and I will knock ‘em down like skittles.
Recently I was asked why I enjoyed games like Splinter Cell: Conviction and Halo when they’re just as violent as their counterparts and I came to the conclusion that my enjoyment is increased when I have the freedom to choose whether to attack my enemy or use stealth and subterfuge. Furthermore, the context of the violence and the biological make up of my enemy is really important to me.
When I play first person shooters I am happy to kill my enemy if it’s an alien, monstrous creature or a zombie but not if it’s human. Battlefield, Call Of Duty, and BioShock Infinite thrust the player into the head of a character and I guess that is the point. I just didn’t believe that Booker Dewitt would be so horrifyingly brutal with the Skyhook in BioShock Infinite.
I find it uncomfortable to watch that level of violence so I avoided use of one of the most powerful attacks in the game. In the games I mentioned above I had no choice as to how I managed my progress other than through choosing which weapon I wanted to use in my murderous sprees.
I know that the soldiers, insurgents, police officers and so on are just a collection of polygons, textures and artificial intelligence but the themes and archetypes they represent in Battlefield and BioShock still cause an emotional response when I have no choice but to shoot them in the face.
When I am Sam Fisher I am able to ask myself what he would do in any given situation because the game affords me that freedom. I frequently persuade him to use a non-lethal approach but if that’s not an option I tell him to do what is necessary and I watch dispassionately as he does.
As Sam I am more than happy to attack enemies indiscriminately if I need to or if the idea suddenly appeals to me. If that means luring them into a darkened room before knocking them out; using them as a human shield (a last resort) or throwing them over a railing (not a very high one) then so be it. In fact, I laugh when I am so smart that I disable everyone without them even knowing I’m there. Is that the joy of mastering the game or of inflicting violence?
I’m absolutely certain that for me it is the joy of mastering the game and becoming skilful which is something I touched upon in a previous Reader’s Feature. I don’t know if it is right to disconnect myself from the violence on screen just because I’m killing zombies, made up aliens in Halo, or bad guys, but that’s how I rationalise it.
As I finish writing this I wonder whether other players rationalise their choices in games in a similar way. With Grand Theft Auto V round the corner I’m already thinking whether anyone else avoids violence in GTA except when a mission requires it? I would be really pleased to hear some of your views.
By reader Big Lizafish (gamertag)
The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk.
