Okay, fine, I’ll bite: Let’s talk about violent video games

This was written by Gabe, one of our summer interns. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of Civitas other than respect for the value of open dialogue.

Content warning: gun violence (not until a little later, but you’ll know it when you see it.)

Here we go again… Something tragic, violent, tragically violent has happened in the world (America in particular) and everyone is freaking out about what the hell it means and how no one bothered to prevent it at all and how there must be some way to stop this! And no one has the humility or the foresight to look at themselves and say wait a minute, I did this or wait a minute, I supported this or wait a minute, I could’ve done more. 

But egos are large and no one wants to admit their own faults, but someone (or something) was in the wrong, because of course, we live in a world of cause and effect, things don’t just happen! So, blame gets thrown like spaghetti to a wall: 

ISIS! No, he wasn’t Muslim 

MS-13! No, he wasn’t Mexican 

WHITE SUPREMACY! Well, he didn’t have any Klan robes! 

MENTAL HEALTH? Perfect! Just vague enough to spin it whatever way you please, but that doesn’t work anymore. It hasn’t worked since Columbine. 

But we NEED something to blame, because it sure as hell wasn’t our fault. And then, like a shining beacon of hope in darkness, across the field of anguish, it stands, a monolithic, widespread force, vague enough to cover just about anything: Video Games! 

Now, there’s no doubt in my mind that there are violent video games. The ESRB exists for a reason, and violence is absolutely a thread in numerous series. But there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the video game as an artform and storytelling mechanic underlying that argument. In general, there are two types of games: big budget AAA releases, and effectively everything else. I’m going to talk about the big budget AAA games because that’s what the wide audience consumes, and it’s what most people think of when they think “viddy game.” 

Big budget AAA = Mainstream Hollywood. It’s a business more than a storytelling device (unfortunately, I admit.) And those games are driven by the market, and there is a huge market for violence. Why? Well, I don’t know: maybe it’s because the most well known event in human history is a world war; maybe it’s because one of the biggest single markets on earth is in a nation founded by war; maybe it’s because apocalypse fiction is such a big market; in the end, it doesn’t matter, because people are making games about war and more people are buying games about war. And it is valid to critique games of war. There comes a point where they devolve into military porn that surrenders the joys of interactive narratives to scenes of massive bravado and impressive tech demonstrations. 

At the core, all video games are stories though, and you need to ask what story a game is trying to tell. Sometimes, the story is straightforward: camaraderie and brotherhood fighting against the nazis in world war II. Sometimes, it’s less so: Surviving and thriving in the post-apocalypse, trying to figure out who you are. And the truth is, sometimes you need that violence, because it’s an excellent narrative tool when done correctly. One of the most heartbreaking moments in Call of Duty: World at War comes when your small band of Russian fighters is taking a break after a major battle, and all seems calm, when suddenly one of the privates is shot and killed by a far-off sniper. It’s a brutal moment you wouldn’t expect from a cutscene, but that’s the whole point. 

In general, most games about war really hinge on the fact that war sucks. You’re not supposed to play Call of Duty and be pro-war. You’re running around killing people watching all your friends get killed. Gamifying that doesn’t change what you’re doing, it just makes it more bearable. 

I still remember the first time I played the mission “No Russian” from Modern Warfare 2. In the level, the player controls Joseph Allen, an undercover CIA agent who participates in a mass shooting at a Moscow airport to gain the trust of a Russian terrorist group. The leader of the terrorists, Vladimir Makarov, tells his co-conspirators, “Remember, no Russian”, implying that speaking Russian would reveal their ethnic origins and affiliation to the Russian ultranationalists. At the end of the level, the group’s leader kills Allen and reveals that he intended for Russian officials to find Allen’s body and believe that the attack was instigated by the United States. You’re given a M240 Light Machine Gun and a M4A1 with a grenade launcher attached. The level drummed controversy that didn’t really exist in the game industry beforehand. Lead writer Jesse Stern defended the level, saying, “These are human beings who perpetrate these acts, so you don’t really want to turn a blind eye to it. You want to take it apart and figure out how that happened and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it. Ultimately, our intention was to put you as close as possible to atrocity.”

And you know what? They succeeded. Obviously, it wasn’t the most subtle way to achieve their goal, but they got folks talking. Why did this level need to exist? Makarov (the leader of the Russian terrorist group) was already branded as a madman, why did we need to go along with him? Why did we need to kill and airport full of innocent people? To get closer to Makarov? Espionage? 

There is a problem with war in games, but it’s not what people think it is. The problem with war in video games is that people think it’s the only option. Now admittedly, in the Call of Duty series, it is the only option, because those are games about being in war. But in games like Fallout or Civilization or Hearts of Iron, warfare is a secondary option. Is it the easiest option? Oh absolutely. Why trade Slovakia for the Danzig when you can just seize Poland in war? Why sneak into the enemy base when you can just launch a couple missiles and waltz right in? Even the Call of Duty games will give you options on how to progress in a level now, guns blazing like a madman is not your only option. 

Games have faults, absolutely. But violent video games do not breed violence. Violence breeds violent video games. At worst, a violent video game will desensitize you. At best, it will make you consider if war really is the best option.