I want to write about the topic of a conversation I had with TeeGee, another indie developer friend.
The question was whether people have the right (through games, for instance) of trying to take people outside of their comfort zones -- to get them to think harder about things, to get them more aware of the world, to do things unexpected, to do things that they might not enjoy at first but might find memorable or valuable later, and so on, or whether games should focus just on giving people want they want: entertainment, fun, relaxation, since that itself can be valuable to people.
One of his points was that we can't be sure that games which provoke thought will always have good effects; conceivably they could have negative as well as positive effects. For instance, some art has been known to provoke people into suicide. My response to that was that it's better to focus on doing good than avoiding bad, and that I'd rather take the chance and try to do good, even if it means some bad might happen as well, and that it's superior to avoiding doing anything significant, and that most people are happy and content as they are and don't need to be changed.
His main point though was that we don't have the right to change others or to get them to think differently. I didn't think it was a matter of right, it was more a matter of duty: I believe we've a duty to do good, like if we see someone dying on the street we've a duty to help them. Similarly, if we see someone asleep so to speak it'd be cruel to leave them in that state when we could enrich their life, and that they'd appreciate it much more later on, more than if we had just given them what they wanted with no surprises, something that amused them for a time but didn't impact their lives significantly one way or the other besides bringing temporary pleasure.
Another point of his is that it's annoying when someone tries to get others to think the way they do. I agreed, but said that the goal wasn't to change people's thoughts in that way, but to just provoke thought, not to get them aware of any particular things or get them on any side, but just to increase their awareness as a whole.
My point was that it is crucial to improve people's awareness, because most of the problems in the world come from a lack of reflection or forethought, and that anything that can make people live less on automatic pilot, like sleepwalkers, and more on manual pilot, more appreciative of the beauty of reality, is a good thing and good for the world, even if doing it causes temporary discomfort and and even some terribly bad effects here and there. That's my main motivation for making games.
I'm not trying to totally dismiss his point. To be fair, it's an understandable position that we shouldn't have the right to change the way other people think, that a game has no right to give anyone anything that they don't expect or desire, and that we should just meet their expectancies and desires rather than experimenting on them, and that to make entertaining games is just a service we were providing for people on demand, and to go beyond that is to violate that relationship. So in a sense I agree that it's rude to do otherwise, and it's reasonable to dislike someone who tries that on you. But I think it's important to do anyway.
I think it's important because the world is already oversaturated with anaesthetic media: mainstream movies which always have happy endings, music which doesn't break any conventions or harmonies, in general media which doesn't require much thought to interpret, because it's designed to fit into someone's worldview without stretching it very much. I view such media as forms of thought control, and I think that such things perform a disservice toward mankind, because we are not fundamentally thoughtless beings driven by automatic impulses, we have consciousness and curiosity about the world, and culture should foster that essentially human element rather than suppress it, and that to create games which just give people entertainment without giving them anything of greater value than that is a form of suppression of those important human qualities, and just adding to all the other information that has the same goal. And that, especially with indie games, we have the freedom to create works which make people more wise and more human rather than less, and it'd be a pity if indie games just became budget or "lite" versions of mainstream games instead.
TeeGee's response to reading this entry:
"My point wasn't that games shouldn't change the way people think. I think they should, but I also think the people should be the ones to make the choice if they want entertainment or enlightment.
The discussion was spawned by speculations if a casual game should feature death and other heavy topics that might be unpleasent but ultimately thought-provoking. I claim that people should be able to just have fun if they want to.
"One of the analogies I used, was that if in the Indiana Jones movie Indy would suddenly die during a chase, people would feel cheated, unhappy and guilty about enjoying the chase scene. And all they wanted was to spend a nice evening.
"Though, I also believe people should be able to pick Bergman's Seventh Seal over Indiana Jones. Thought provoking art should definitely be there, but I feel no one has the right to impose it on people who just want to have fun. Enjoyment, in my opinion, is equally important and a value in itself.
"So yeah, please, do bring more Psychosomniums and Graveyards. Just don't make my Kratos or Bejewelled diamonds suddenly preach me about the meaning of life."
TeeGee's argument is
TeeGee's argument is interesting, but it can also be used for the other side. I find games (and other art) that make me think about things and feel intense emotion rather than just "this is fun" to be more pleasurable than games that only provide entertainment. It's not just that I recognize that they benefit me, it's that I enjoy that experience more. So for me, if I played a game expecting a meaningful, thoughtful experience but didn't get that, I'd feel just as cheated as the people in his Indiana Jones example.
I actually agree with you
I actually agree with you there. It's not like every entertainment has to be shallow to be enjoyable.
Dither here.
I've given this topic a lot of thought, but I started off by asking myself a different question. Namely, why do people like myself, who believe that violence is both immoral and self-defeating as a response to evil, still enjoy playing violent video games?
One answer that people often give to this question is as follows: "We just want to experiment, or explore our emotions, by doing something we would never do in real life."
I have to reject this answer, because the depiction of violence in games is never realistic. It might be fairly realistic in terms of the physical aspect, the blood and guts. But it is never realistic in its consequences, to the player himself (or his avatar) and the game world.
In games, you can tear a million men and women to pieces, and you've just saved the world and everything is wonderful. Or, even if it's not — even if you're penalized in some way — you don't feel bad about it. You know the characters aren't real, don't have families, etc. They're just chunks of memory set aside by a program.
So, after giving this some thought, I arrived at the distinction between "imagination" and "fantasy". Instead of imagining ourselves in violent scenarios, with all the attendant consequences of violence, we fantasize about violent scenarios in which there are no consequences. The fantasy, or creation of a false reality, is what makes the enjoyment of violence possible and even admirable.
There's a parallel here with the war propaganda put out by all governments when they make war, as well as the indoctrination of soldiers that is a fundamental part of their training. In both activities, the "enemy" is portrayed as sub-human, thoroughly evil, a thing to be killed without remorse. You aren't supposed to stop and think that the enemy was born of a mother who loved him, has a family of his own, enjoys music and the company of friends, etc. None of that. In other words, a fantasy is created, in which there are no consequences for killing other human beings.
This fantasy if very powerful, because very few people, in the United States for instance, think about the victims of U.S. foreign policy. They are conditioned to think only about "how well the war effort is going". How many "enemies" did we kill today? How many of "our guys" died in glorious combat? This is not real life. It's more like a typical video game, isn't it?
My conclusion: To the extent that games obscure truth, and present a false reality in its stead, they are doing harm to humanity. To the extent that they open the eyes of the player to truth, they benefit humanity.
That's not to say that all games should be "realistic" in the usual sense, nor should they be depressing. They can be whimsical, imaginative and even fantastical in ways that clarify truth, or at least don't prop up falsehoods. In other words, they can still relax and entertain the player without numbing his conscience or fogging his brain.
This is a great post,
This is a great post, although not essentially related to what I was talking about. As an aside, my next game is almost totally non-violent, and I think the approach I take there is pretty interesting. I don't want to reveal too much about it yet, but basically it involves zelda-style "action" but without violence. I don't mean in the way Super Smash Brothers did it (hitting and people flying away), I mean not even violence in that sense. I wonder if people will find it as satisfying.
Thanks. I see what you mean
Thanks. I see what you mean about my post not being entirely related. I think I made the connection because of what you described as getting players to move "outside their comfort zone", and trying to have a positive effect on them.
I think the "comfort zone" often takes the form of simulated homicide, which reinforces a de facto falsehood, namely, that there is nothing to feel bad about in killing other people -- on the contrary, it's fun, and salvific to boot. Thus, opening the eyes of players to this falsehood, which is so ingrained in the culture, would be a way to do good.
I might write about this topic at greater length in the future, if I ever start a blog.
In any case, I'm looking forward to trying out your game when it's finished. I do believe it's possible to create a compelling game that presents violence without glorifying it. People respond to truth when they encounter it. The response at first might be to reject it, because the falsehood to which they are accustomed seems to them more comfortable, or because acceptance of the truth might require them to change their lives dramatically.
But a seed is planted just the same. Eventually, the contradictions that result from following a lie make happiness impossible.
Post new comment