Here's an idea.
"Undertale" could be one of the most violent games
to come out in the last year.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Today, we are going to talk about to "Undertale,"
a crazy successful and much beloved recent RPG
developed and released by indie developer Toby Fox.
For those of you who don't know, the basic premise
is that you are a small child trapped
in an underground monster kingdom.
And in the process of escaping, you
must, as is generally the case in RPGs, fight monsters.
In "Undertale," however, as is not generally the case in RPGs,
you don't have to kill or even harm those monsters to progress
through the game.
In the game's verbiage, you're able to show
them mercy, or not.
The game's outcome depends primarily
on how dedicated you are to sparing or killing
the various creatures that you encounter.
So what I'm curious about is how "Undertale" treats violence
as a game mechanic and thus distinguishes itself
as a unique game, which I think it's very fair to say it does.
The way "Undertale" treats violence
has made me question my reflexes going into other video games.
In certainly not all, but countless other games,
you the player are dropped into a situation
where you must defeat, often by shooting, an aggressor.
And I wonder if this has become my reflexive attitude
when playing a new game to shoot the aggressor.
Is it also a reflexive attitude in making games?
And if so, does that mean that those games are stuck?
That development-wise, mechanics-wise, there
is some kind of roadblock on innovation highway because
of an expectation or assumption that players will or must
engage in violence directed at opponents.
To talk about this, we have to be
extra clear about two things.
First, what games are we talking about?
Mike, you're saying there are scads of non-violent games.
"Katamari," [INAUDIBLE], "Sims," "Candy Crush Saga,"
and to this I will say, yes.
You are right.
But the games that I want to talk about
are maybe the ones that are labeled AAA.
But even that label is murky.
Is a AAA game made or distributed
by certain companies?
Does it have a certain budget or deal
with specific subject matter?
Well then, which companies?
What budget?
And what subject matter?
And how fuzzy is the line that determines those things?
The AAA genre is complicated, because the best way
to pin it down is by comparing games to games.
AAA games look like AAA games.
What does a AAA game look like?
It looks like these other AAA games.
So what I can say is this.
There's often a discussion of whether things
like "Katamari" or the "Sims" count
as video games or even games, given
their respective platforms, win-lose conditions, skill
requirements, or lack thereof.
Mostly games with the AAA designation
count the most strongly as both video games and good video
games.
So that's why I want to talk about them.
And in comparison "Undertale" specifically,
because one need only see the response
to "Undertale's" winning GameFAQs' Best Game
Ever 2015 bracket to see that there is some tension here.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I might say that what we are talking about
isn't violent video games so much as the degree
to which certain video games, and as Jamon points out
on "Game/Show," games in general support
and respond to violent actions by their players,
and even sometimes enact violence on them.
Before on "Idea Channel," we've defined violence
as the potentially aggressive removal of an actor's choice
in a situation.
Actual physical violence is a subset of this,
but since it doesn't really come into game play
unless we're talking about, like,
football, either American or actual, what
we're talking about is occasionally
metaphorical narrative violence.
One game piece harms another.
And structural violence, the inability for game pieces,
and players, for that matter, to choose
to do something besides harm other game pieces.
In other words, narrative violence
is harm caused to some set of on-screen pixels,
whereas structural violence is the set of walls and borders
keeping you on rails.
Not having the option to say what you mean in a dialogue
tree, not being able to get through a game
without killing or maiming someone if you would
prefer not to.
I also want to be super clear that we
are about to get critical of violence,
but not because it's (GARBLED VOICE)
distorting the moral fabric of society.
I'm not about to argue that "Just Medal of Duty Cause
Far Calling Cry 4 Modern Borderlands"
is minting literal killers.
As Dan points out on "Extra Credits," the very foundation
of the Western tradition is built
on work which depicts and questions the place of violence
in functioning society.
In the same way "The Odyssey" did not turn people
into killers, neither did video games,
and here are some studies if you want to read them.
But I do think it's worth asking, if we want games
to be that perfect mix of easy to play,
exciting, cinematic, and realistic,
why have we ultimately decided that shooting at things
is the way that we want to do that?
Chris Franklin, aka Campster, aka Errant Signal,
talks about video games as spatial simulations.
One plays a form in space taking actions.
And though we've learned that this type of simulation
can depict basically anything,
Chris talks about how it's actually
a rather limited system when it comes to doing stuff.
Maybe we shoot from behind the gun
or maybe we watch from above.
Maybe it's spells or pu-pus, or maybe it's not shooting,
but bopping, whacking, or capturing.
However it's done, our current popular gaming tradition
has determined that this is our analog for progress.
There's a threat which is active.
We need a way to deactivate the threat
to move beyond it to the next threat.
This is why games, which allow pacifist runs, where
no threats are deactivated via death
are rare, and depending upon your tastes, interesting.
"Mirror's Edge," the "Metal Gear"
games, sort of, sometimes.
"Fallout 3," unless you count the roach
that you have to shoot with a BB gun, "Dishonored,"
"Thief," and very few others.
Often, getting to the end of a game
without resorting to violence is a feat
of skill comparable to speed runs
or absurd difficulty settings.
Because remember, one, though you can do it
doesn't mean that the game encourages you to.
And two, often games even discourage you.
This is arguably why "Undertale's" decision
to not only support but encourage and have
the game respond to a pacifist run is such a big deal.
In the game, one confronts monsters
by playing a small arcade style bullet-held game which
then unlocks options for fight, act, item, or mercy.
The right string of actions, which
can include expressing empathy to your aggressor
or sometimes just waiting, will provide the mercy option.
You earn some gold maybe, but no XP, and everyone
goes on their merry, living, breathing way.
Overall, "Undertale" asks some easily
stated but nearly impossible to answer questions
like, is the world created differently
when we act differently in it?
When would change the course of things
by taking actions, what happens to the possible worlds
described by the actions we didn't take?
How actively do we shape our world and its future?
Within most game worlds, for all other technological capability,
we as players effect staggeringly
little appreciable change within them.
The choices made are illusory.
Decisions can be made, but you're really
only ever headed to one place.
Maybe one or two different places or different
colored explosions.
Often this is an effect of the fact
that in a much grander sense, many games provide players
with zero choice in how to act within their worlds.
Player is hero, opponents are other.
Defeat the other.
Narrative violence set within structural violence.
So far, one solution to the problem of shaping the gaming
world is to allow players to wander around
off the rails inside of it.
But as Patricia Hernandez points out, talking about "Fallout 4,"
such open world games still miss the mark
if the game assumes that all you're ever going to want to do
is fight.
Which often, if not mostly, they do.
Because I mean, see all of the reasons
we've been talking about.
A world may be relatively open, but the set
of actions and attitudes toward situations and NPCs
remains restrictive.
This hamster maze may be huge and brightly colored,
but it's still just a Sisyphean, Mobius strip
of tubes and sawdust.
"Undertale" forgoes an open world for a more classically
linear experience.
But even so, there's a sense that you're
choosing between paths, and each path will have consequences,
that the world of the game will be actually,
meaningfully different because of them.
Each encounter, battle or otherwise,
is a choice, a real one to reaffirm your commitment,
or to start down a new path and thus, create a new world.
For all of the restriction that it places on movement in space,
"Undertale" to me still feels like a more open game
than, say, "Witcher 3" or "Fallout 4."
"Undertale" may exhibit a fair amount of structural violence
where the world map is concerned,
but it doesn't force the player's hand
in navigating combat or NPC interaction.
Its structural violence is not used in service
of narrative violence.
I'm not like, hoy, violence shouldn't ever
be an option for responding to in-game threats.
But rather that if it's not the only option,
certain games may become more interesting,
both mechanically and narratively.
Would a gunless "Borderlands" make sense?
Probably not.
But would I play a version of "Mass Effect" completable
entirely via resource mining, space travel, and diplomacy?
Hell yes I would, chancellor.
I hope the council will forgive my outburst.
"Undertale" as a game is great.
It's fun to play, pacifist or genocide
run, whichever you choose.
It's just that the pacifist run may cause one
to notice a conspicuous absence in other video games.
The ability to have varied interactions
with NPCs and the situations that we find them in.
The ability to have a meaningful impact on a narrative which
is considered set in stone.
Hard coded, so to speak.
"Undertale's" narrative is not.
Or at least, it plays as though it's not.
So that when one engages in violence in "Undertale,"
it's more meaningful.
Perhaps more violent for the simple fact
that it is a choice.
When one kills, the player does so knowing full well
and having been encouraged in not subtle ways
that they need not in order to progress.
Narrative violence, in the absence of structural violence,
requiring it.
Which is, perhaps, exactly what you're after.
Reigning your vengeance upon the monster world.
Is that bad?
No.
Games, like all other forms of media, are about affect,
and that always will be.
Violence delivers that in the fistfulls.
I'm simply curious about the other possible worlds
where our choices didn't lead to a gaming tradition that
links narrative and structural violence so mercilessly.
What do you guys think?
Can you see how "Undertale" is maybe
one of the more violent games to come out in the last year?
Except it's not really the game itself.
It's more like how it allows itself to be played.
And can you imagine a gaming tradition
that doesn't link narrative and structural violence so
intimately and popularly?
And if so, what does it look like?
Let us know in the comments, and I will respond to some of them
in next week's comment response video.
In this week's comment response video,
we talked about your thoughts regarding Area 51
and the belief in aliens.
If you want to watch that one, you can click right here
or find a link in the doobly-doo.
This week's episode is brought to you
by the hard work of these merciful wanderers.
We have a Facebook and IRC and the Subreddit links
in the doobly-doo.
And the tweet of the week comes from Sam Bacchus, who
was answering a question that I asked on Twitter about how best
to understand sneaker culture, which
is a thing that I know regrettably little about,
and am really interested in.
And Sam sent me towards a "Planet Money"
podcast about the secondary market for Nike shoes.
Blown my mind.
Super interesting.
[MUSIC PLAYING]