Intensity of Conflict

Conflict is carried out with varying degrees of intensity. It's easiest to think of conflict resolution as a process that requires a given amount of conflict. That conflict can be concentrated into a short time, in which case the conflict is intense, or it can be spread out over a longer time, in which case it is less intense. This distinction directly bears on the design of your game. Intense conflict necessitates a short game; a longer game requires less intensity. Many designers fail to grasp this simple concept; they create games of long-duration intensity. The monsters just keep coming, the killing is non-stop, and the player is exhausted when the game finally ends. While less experienced players revel in such intensity, it is in general not a good idea, as I will explain in the next section. A well-paced game design will rely on more indirect, less intense forms of conflict if it is to last a long time.

Violence

We are now in a position to address one of the most vexing problems facing the computer games industry: violence in games. The industry's response to the accusations leveled against it (that computer games are too violent) has disappointed me. For the most part, people in the industry circle the wagons and deny the problem. They denigrate their accusers, wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and close their minds to all arguments. This saddens me because all this ruckus is so avoidable. Game designers cling to violence only because they cannot imagine other forms of conflict.

Consider violence in terms of the three elements I have just presented: dimension, directness, and intensity. Violence is the most intense, direct, physical form of conflict. What strikes me is the industry's obsession with the most extreme manifestations of these elements. Conflict in many games is about as physical as it can get; recall Mortal Kombat's crowning moment, when the player has overcome his opponent, and the words "Finish him!" appear on the screen, at which point the player rips out his opponent's head and spine. Directness is another overdone element; why do so many games put the player in close proximity to his opponents? Why do violent games so rarely place the violent act outside the view of the player? And of course, the kill-or-be-killed approach of many games is far and away the most intense expression of conflict. As the character Quark once said on the television show Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Why do we have to kill so many? Couldn't we just wound some?" Not in many games, apparently.

Thus, violence in games represents the most extreme form of conflict: gorily physical, utterly direct, and maximally intense. My objection to this is not so much moral as aesthetic: Do we have do use a bludgeon when we design? Violence in games is like Wagner played for 18 hours with the bass turned up. It's like chocolate cereal in chocolate milk with chocolate sprinkles and chocolate fudge on top. It's like a newsgroup correspondent whose vocabulary is dominated by "fuck," "shit," and "crap." It's overdone. It's so much of the same thing that it's distasteful.