From the start, all interactivity in MOST video-games is designed with hostility between interactees as a main mechanic.
This intention by the designer(s) may not even be a conscious one.
But whether leveling-up in Phantasy Star 2 or Pokemon Blue, as a player, we are only given hostile options for progression in the game's story.
Sure, you might be able to "play" a portion of the game without fighting anything, but the pre-supposed sequence dictates that your adventure will never explore later stages, nor witness any plot development.
Ultimately, the core of the actual game-mechanics is combative.
A player in most games will never get to solve problems non-violently.
The only interaction between the player & the computer-controlled characters is selecting abilities to utilize for offense....
....and even if some abilities are supportive/defensive/restorative, the confrontations as programmed will never conclude if you don't utilize offense-based choices.....
Another example would be trying to play a "healer class" in PSO.
The game allows you to not murder things directly.... since you could level-up in co-op/online mode by "tagging" enemies with Jellen or Zalure and just heal your allies while they do the actual killing of said foes.... but the game will never allow you to HEAL THE ENEMIES!
To calm THEIR rage!
To cure THEIR mutation!
To purify THEIR demon-possession!
If the game was advanced enough, perhaps even use COMMUNICATION to talk out the issue and resolve things peacefully!
This stuff is simply not even given a consideration in action-oriented games.
(Y'know, the ones most people actually find to be fast-paced fun.)
Maybe the problem starts with a competitive mindset programming the games.
Hence everything being alike chess, with the players (whether human or computer) directly facing off to outwit one another.
I use chess as an example of how the very idea of a "game" is so rooted in "defeating" someone.
(The two players' Queens don't get to interact together in any non-hostile manner during the "game".)
And that then extends on up to the complex games, where massively-multiplayer communities have the opportunity to unite everybody in a mutual activity for their simultaneous enjoyment....
....but those MMORPGs often use abbreviated-terms like PvP or PvE to distinguish their focus, but the commonality between all variants is the "versus" part.
Which squanders so much potential.
Instead of confrontation, we COULD have collaboration.
To use PSO again, our player-characters could be SAVING the enemies, rather than killing them!
I could even dare say that instead of "twitch-oriented" gameplay that actually fosters impulsiveness, games could endeavour towards peaceful solutions to conflict and actually enrich players' real-lives by making them better communicators by reinforcing the actual person's capacity for patience & understanding.
This stuff could be innovative on a whole new level.
Way beyond the small-minded ambitions of developers preying on the addictive nature of what they create.
Game-designers could set literal ENLIGHTENMENT as the core intention behind the interactions that players get to engage in, whether engaging real people or computers.
We all know that what humans spend their time doing over & over & over, has a lasting effect on them.
It's like if a person practices playing the guitar whenver they have time, that person's mind will accustom itself to thinking about new sequences of notes and all sorts of possibilities for songs.
It doesn't matter whether those songs are judged as "good" or not, because the simple fact would be that songs came into existence.
So, the potential to bring MORE GOOD into the world is worth the effort of sweeping aside conventional assumptions that underlie what we could create....
....and with a lucid mind, CHOOSE to create things that LUBRICATES doing good in all ways.
Which certainly includes all the ways we interact within the pre-programmed confines of a video-game.
Connect With Us