A new approach, your input is requested: not a debate about whether videogames make people go out and kill; not a debate about whether videogames should be censored, or whether they are art, or any of the same old pointless, polarized debates. Instead, a search for new ideas for ways that game developers can play a more constructive role in society through our game designs - specifically to reduce gun violence in the US. As a start, there are two, mutually compatible ways to think about this: 1) designing games specifically to address the issue; 2) being conscious and deliberate in the design choices we make for games regardless of their subject matter. For example, providing alternative ways to resolve conflict besides with a BFG.

Here is an article in Gamasutra that explores violence in games in an unusually thoughtful way, with the provocative title: Power in Games: Why Game Violence is a Red Herring, by Taekwan Kim (who I have just invited to join this discussion): gamasutra.com

One of my thoughts is to look at the hidden assumptions in the challenges we present players, and in the affordances we provide to resolve those challenges. In teaching nonviolent conflict resolution, one of the most effective ways to help people internalize practices is through role play, where they actually experience, albeit in a "pretend" scenario, making choices and using techniques to resolve conflict.

When I look at game mechanics, even including more recent, innovative indie games, I still see limited options for resolution -and, I see the initial conflicts portrayed in stark, black and white in the first place. Puzzle or exploration games still don't offer constructive, nonviolent conflict resolution alternatives.

Thoughts?

I also find both pathways in your initial post, David, to be how I can see this kind of contribution happening from gamemakers, plausibly and viably.

Some of the most important concepts and arenas of action seem to be in exactly what Taekwan Kim drills down to in his blog post: how it's about power. The media we are using and the dynamics they tap into within us are crucially connected in many ways to what power means, when it's well applied and when it's not, in ourselves, in our media, in our world.

A lot of that comes down to maturation, I find best describing what's needed. Or evolution, strengthening, empowerment, whatever term works for whomever. We need to progress from where people and culture are on through to where we could be.

To do this I think yes we need to expose and consciously utilize the assumptions we make in games both as makers and as players, and try out changes with this kind of progression in mind.

That can mean many things.

If we change everything about what's expected, we need to realize what that will take, from building to marketing/promoting etc. Not just ignore the dynamics of what is currently the state of games, of course. But certainly that approach is possible, done wisely.

Or change only some aspects...conscious of those same dynamics and assumptions, so that we can justify using something that may seem to perpetuate old less mature/evolved models (i.e. where conflict still plays a role, just not the only one or a central one).

Many indie games change everything, turn all upside down. The scope for innovation and expression in this field is immense, in some senses (at least potentially) infinite, after all. But these are little known, outside the industry, if even there.

So it comes down to what will actually reach people, and who, and with what result. I.e., so people actually play. And that play actually succeeds, to empower, to provision for maturation of knowledge, understanding, and awareness.

I'm interested in finding the ways to make sure the Mayans were right about the end of the world this week, in the sense of any and all culture that perpetuates humans sacrificing each other, in whatever ways. Expiration date solidly passed on that, I say.

To more specifics then, one example sparked by following up on the blog post linked above could be something that leverages existing interest and even fetishism of realistic weaponry and violence and anatomy in games. But takes it further, like the further referenced exploration of how guns in games are like firing off a magic wand, making the actual difficulty and feel of it more real. Like QWOP for gun handling.

Yes it would be a challenge to make that kind of thing work with actual dynamics of engagement and enjoyment. But that's what all this research into psychology and technique of games and gameplay is for, in my opinion -- not to increase profits at the expense of all else, but to make better games, both playwise and meaningwise.

An extension (or root) of that mechanic and more important would be the dynamics of how an entire game of such heightened realism experience treated the entire act of firearm use. Yes even more viscerally, even more authentically, even more disgustingly and sickeningly than what's already out there. But with the focus being on the real impact in more ways than just points, more downsides than just demonstrating you failed skillwise (like the mention of friendly fire only being punished in that regard).

That takes the power of storytelling and characterization that is coming through more in games. But in some respects so far has been done well in drama and prose on stage, screen, or page, from Enemy Mine to Grendel as off the cuff examples.

But something that made the emotional impact part of the experience, and the social connection work for or against behaviors in and around gun use. Back to the issue mentioned in the blogpost links: even where the gun is pointed. That kind of thing is treated at least in beginning ways in a game like Fable, but it could be done way more powerfully even.

So with some experience gamewise that builds on the traditional and well established tropes of FPSs and action genre literacy prevalent, any number of mini game aspects could be introduced to actually make the impact of actions around guns tangible and real to the player. Including of course more authentic impacts anatomy wise, what it takes to fire, and what it takes away.

And so on.

But more deeply the philosophy of such a game shifted to being about helping the understanding and respect of the player mature for what is going on when they are wielding a firearm, or a weapon of any kind, or choosing conflict versus other options for solving problems.

Starting from where players are, and moving toward where they could be.

There is absolutely no reason such a thing (as again just one example) couldn't be done, with such wide experimentation in potentials out there in the indie sphere, from Judith to Facade to Octodad to Proteus or Journey, to boatloads of IF and visual novels to PBIRC/PBEM/PBetc roleplaying all portable into complex 3D RTISs with HUDs and chat channels etc.

Nike's slogan isn't enough, but it's a start.

(btw I realize I probably should limit longer expressions like both the above 3-post and 4-post max-outs of character limits to being posted elsewhere probably and just linked here...not meaning to dominate the even just-beginning conversation here, and if it comes across that way will be sure to do otherwise in future...but for now just getting used to Branch and putting out there at least a couple more complete thought expressions, one more general and the second more specific, to get a start here, both in this venue and on this topic hard to break into and get solid handles on without some "just doing it" going on in whatever mode possible)

I'll try to keep this point more limited in my expression of it, for now, but in regard to the alternative of changing everything up about what's done with a game, there's at least a couple factors worth at least bringing up in comparison to the above sample ideastorm (in the realm of starting what what everyone's familiar with).

On the one hand yes it would take a lot more care and wisdom going into designing, building, testing and revising and so on, if it's about really breaking away from what's established, or more importantly toward what really works (i.e. translating conflict resolution, using roleplay and otherwise, truly into game dynamics and mechanics).

On the other hand, what's truly new rocks. Potentials to go viral are huge.

Later if and when possible and/or appropriate for unfolding exchanges further here, I'll go into specifics on that alternative "completely upending" direction of pulling together gamemaking's demonstrated power and possibilites, which I think on the original post's discussion starting pathway split falls most practically in the realm of what would be worth investigating and working on as #1 of those two (games directly to address the issue of reducing gun violence).

For now I'll just point out too that I do find there are examples that can be pulled from some (perhaps even lesser known) indie games, art games, simulations, and the huge pool of games traditions offline, as well as some above in context of modifying more established design.

David Payne has touched on a wide range of interesting possibilities. I am also interested in drilling down to the very basic mechanics of gameplay, understanding how our unconscious, habitual assumptions about what games are and how they are structured, and exploring how the notion of "videogame" can be rebuilt, from the ground up, with a conscious and deliberate intent to incorporate nonviolent conflict resolution into the very DNA of mainstream commercial games. That is, in addition to building alternative, "art" games that provide examples of expanded emotional palettes, to see what it would take to create, for example, a successful, commercially viable MMO that had nonviolent conflict resolution as its core dynamic.

BTW, I'm not interested in sanitizing games or eliminating violence or guns from then entirely; I'm just interested in creating gameplay that does not have violent conflict resolution as its core, default, primary or even sole mechanic - but that still has mass market potential and broad appeal.

I remember when socially responsible investment, or "impact investment, as it's called nowadays, was a tough sell, because the doctrine was that, to make a good investment, it has to be "pure" and untainted by extraneous considerations like social value. Today, knowing that taking into account social costs doesn't harm and can even enhance the bottom line, more investment cos incorporate social responsibility into everything they do. So, games.

Anyone else who has been invited wish to contribute any ideas, thoughts or questions?

As a mid-30s female who grew up gaming I would love to simply see a reduction in the reliance on gun violence in games. I'm not saying that would reduce gun violence overall, but that it would provide an alternative to the current overemphasis on a single style of gaming. Women are the largest population of online gamers right now, but not in MMOGs. Maybe it's because of a lack of variety. Personally I've been looking for a good game to play for over a year and everything disappoints. Why are the "hot" games all shooter/violent games? Strong stories, challenges/rewards, and adventure do not depend on violence. Being aware of the messages that are shared through the story and actions in a game is definitely a move in the right direction.

As a media and community psychologist who began by studying sense of community in World of Warcraft guilds, I can say that there are many aspects of games other than guns and violence that draw in and retain players. The WoW guild members in my study felt a stronger sense of community in their guilds than in their home neighborhoods. We play online to socialize as much as to achieve things or escape. Our morals and beliefs outside the game have an influence on in-game actions, but so do game settings. There are some WoW players who are pacifists, leveling completely through non-violent achievements. But it's difficult in that system. I would challenge developers who want change to create games that break out of that standard system.

I'm finding angles emerging on this in terms of a kind of framework that's being pointed to by concepts raised and repeated here, particularly "the very DNA of mainstream games" and then the ready go-to example of what I'd wager to say we'd all like to see changed and improved upon, the MMOG, with WoW epitomizing both complexity and success in the market. Such complexity that it exhibits such clear potential for being an entirely different animal, so to speak, or entity evolving and emerging and progressing with properties of living systems within ecosystems. And such success that the scale of its influence is undeniable, while the quality and kind of influence surpasses what the game title denotes. So in an evolution and history frame...

...it seems to me games have indeed developed the DNA they have such that it is resistant to change, without forces perceived relevant by those thriving off that code, both gamemakers and gamers. (Obviously the biology metaphor bends a bit here being it's manmade, consciously or not, so the history aspect in the mix.) So changing things down to that core DNA is just as clearly not as simple as wanting to change it for some external purpose, however vital and undeniable the value of that purpose is. To get to something that can be as complex as WoW in its immersiveness (i.e., like a novel in games compared to say an episodic sitcom or skit or brief tale), and as influential because people truly love it, flock to it or consume it in droves...

...So I think it's crucial if we want to change the course of this huge whatever-it-is, we do have to dig as deeply as possible into the theory, the elements, and the history and the lifecycles and growth and change that games evidence. So things like Lazarro's 4 keys to fun and LeBlanc's 8 kinds of fun trying to map out what's emerging. But also innovation in art and invention does stand on giants' shoulders, so there are reasons everything's gone how it has, from Pong and Colossal Cave to Pacman and Zork, D&D and MUDs, Doom and Diablo, UO and EQ and AC to DaOC and NWN, to WoW and every clone since. Action FPSs whether Halo or GTA only a different genre strain of the same ancestry, I'd say, same conflict basis, more directly guns based...

...Ultimately what I'm seeing and saying here then is I too see the potential in Facade, The Marriage, other emotional palette expanding examples, in Judith or Train et al, with deep story and theme nevertheless centered still around conflict and even horrific violence. But grafting those into what's popularly successful in the evolutionary/historical mainstream, that takes truly understanding what's going on in that mainstream, what is of value and what isn't, and how. And in anything creative (art or tech) my experience includes both impossibility of forcing the river and crucialness of the underlying paradox that what's on the surface isn't what's underneath, and that's maybe the deepest essence of the fun. Story lies, with truth within.

Game is unnecessary, with neededness within. Drama and music and fine art and poetry are so much worthless fluff practically speaking on the surface, with so much greater concentration of essential worth exhibited and influential and crystalizable catalytic meaning within than anything else we ever manage to do as a species (other than living our entire lives as creatively and meaningfully as we can) that it takes generations in a given family to truly evolve to appreciate it, much more so to create it. So a game like WoW has what story has, what game has, what culture has. But to get at the essence of its DNA we need to be able to dissect it (or vivisect it noninvasively? better yet study it in life) we can't toss baby out with bathwater.

So one key assertion I'd make is that yes we need to expand games successfully to a vastly broader palette emotionally and contentwise and setting and characterwise and relationships, but we do need to do so recognizing that pretty much across the board, the violence is the lie to the story of games. The truth underneath is there in the excitement and joy and thrill and fiero and naches that go back to conflict and horror and suspense and success in pong, pacman, Wolfenstein and Elite, Doom and yes even GTA or Halo. So yes the disgustingness is in gun violence in games, but people's revelling in it isn't actually revelling in that, unless they're the sociopathic minority tiny in size. None of this is to hijack this in any way, but rather...

...get to the heart of one big obstacle that I think can get in the way of truly grafting viable biology and future progress onto a past that's only (or primarily only on large scale and successful both financially and popularity wise) explored the change that all art and tech can be about within the paradigm of their essence (change) staying stuck in their earliest and least mature and capable beginnings, which is what I see conflict is, be it in story or drama or games. Specifically I would reference again the article you shared elsewhere, David Galiel, kotaku.com -- with the specific realization soon after first skim when I had the chance to read it fully that I answer yes to Cara Ellison's question a little past halfway in:...

"...why do you think that most people endlessly praise how good digital murder feels? Are they actually talking about something else they enjoyed with the game without realizing it?" I say yes to this because of all of the above described basis I'm saying we need to build change in games upon. In art, and story, and games, "digital murder" here is the unworthiness, the lie, the unnecessariness underneath which worth, truth, and need lie carefully and crucially ensconced...even perhaps as the most basic root DNA of not only games but everything creative. I say this not having played *that* game, but having enjoyed shooting arrows in WoW, or more so when it takes more skill elsewhere, enjoying it because it is to me as shooting basketballs.

So this is to clarify that reducing gun violence in games and most crucially in life is utterly without question a top priority. But I would assert no one, you, me, or any we it would take to truly take this on, can do so by holding up a wall of blindness to what is actually going on in the thriving life of what's gone before. Even if that blindness is understandable, whether due to the horror of the real life analogs or due to lack of direct experience with the unreal life expressions in games. I think Brenda Brathwaite is dealing directly with and toward both blindness causes in her Mechanic is the Message series, in a different alt/arts/nondistributed context because she can, having her name in big games established already. And so...

...I suppose this is kind of monopolizing for this morning anyway, but since this topic is so important, and takes unfolding when and where and how whoever can, and as this point I'm making I think is crucial, both for original poster (given other recent explorations elsewhere) and also anyone approaching this, no apologies. I think it's vital to bridge viably to what the games field needs but doesn't have yet, be that conflict resolution, far more of the POV of the gender still so underrepresented, further ethnic cultural knowledge and background than so far has defined gaming's DNA, or any other potential pools for maturing from "DNA's" so far mainly not driving games, or at least not video games, big hits, MMOs, worldshaping. To change!

trilliontomorrows.wordpress.com