A common criticism of the games industry - from both within and without - is that many games are focused too heavily on violence, and rarely offer non-violent solutions to conflicts and challenges that arise within the gameplay. Typically, games involve one of three types of challenges: overt combat, contests (such as races or scoring competitions), and puzzles.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of games lack any significant portrayal of deep interpersonal conflict, or conflict internal to the characters. Although such conflicts can be difficult to portray, there are techniques for doing so (such as those demonstrated in Mark Travis's superb session).
A common question at the roundtable was "If other media can show deep conflicts, and resolve them without violence, why can't games?" While there doesn't seem to be any single answer, a few possible complicating factors were identified. For one, the history of the games industry has, by and large, trained gamers to expect that games involve violent conflict. The stereotype of games as a stress release for violent urges is a strong one - and it doesn't help that the image is reinforced at every opportunity by the mainstream media. Another issue is that many games are technology-driven, and for the most part, non-violent gameplay diminishes the potential for flashy eye candy.
Some Solutions
Develop types of conflict that are not geospatial. For example, rather than physically fighting over a piece of territory or some prized object, struggle over values, beliefs, feelings, and so on. The essence of conflict is simply the struggle against obstacles that prevent a character from reaching his objectives. Traditional storytelling media are replete with innumerable excellent examples of such forms of conflict which involve little or no physical violence.
Almost universally, we make death the "highest stakes" in our games: there is nothing worse than to lose one's (simulated) life. This is one of the single biggest obstacles to creating deeper games that escape violence as a necessary game mechanic; if death is the worst possible outcome, escalation of any conflict will inevitably lead to violence or the threat of violence. By making dishonor, betrayal, loss of property, or other similar outcomes "worse than death" within a game, we can provide incentives for players to explore non-violent solutions.
Options are critical. Gender differences should be taken into account, for example. To abuse a cliche, guys just like to blow shit up; women may prefer to explore more cooperative options. Male players may not find a negotiation segment of a game nearly as compelling as female players; whereas stories abound from the casual gaming world of female gamers circumventing combat mechanics by working out their own treaties and agreements outside the game itself. Maintaining as many available options as possible for every play style is important.
Games are fundamentally wish fulfillment mechanisms. Through games, we can become astronauts, marines, pirates, test pilots, race car drivers, magically powerful knights, or any other of a myriad different roles. The trick is to fulfill the right wishes. It is doubtful that many players really dream of a game that simulates flipping burgers for minimum wage. Therefore, it is important when designing game mechanics that they not be tedious, laborious, or uninteresting. A common failure of non-combat gameplay options is that they fail to be nearly as compelling as the violent alternatives.
Consider designing conflicts so that they have no element of finality. This returns to the idea of death being the ultimate highest outcome at stake in most game designs. If every conflict comes with a built in chance to try again, players no longer feel the stigma of "losing." Moreover, a player can try many different strategies to see which has the best outcome, without feeling like he is wasting his time.
Some Open Questions
How can we require players to have skill in order to be successful with game dialogue? Shooters require skill in aiming, dodging, and so forth; but very little (if any) skill is required to pick one of a handful of canned dialogue options.
A participant observed that, like Hitchcock, we seek to produce "real life with the dull bits cut out." The question is, what bits are actually dull, and which ones can be turned into compelling gameplay mechanics?
As a counterpoint, much of great art "simply" highlights deep truths about real life. If we wish to make games with significant cultural impact, we must master this skill as an industry.
How do we make non-combat options in general both accessible and challenging, both attractive and rewarding?
Final Takeaway Clearly, there is still much to be learned and discovered in the realm of game design. Many options are still unexplored, and the room for innovation and creativity in the realm of non-violent gameplay is vast. While few participants at the roundtable agreed on just precisely how to go about improving the state of affairs, everyone is unanimously looking forward to seeing the next stage of development and ingenuity.
Southwest Gaming Expo
