A few weeks ago, I had an interesting and lengthy discussion about an important topic in today's gaming industry, one that has been on my mind quite a lot over the past several months. This guy had a dilemma of sorts: He's been a fan of Splinter Cell for a long time now, but, with the fifth entry's overwhelming emphasis on violence and brutality, he's just about lost hope in gaming and is about ready to pack up his console and quit playing games altogether. I as well am concerned about the upcoming release of Conviction. A franchise which once went against the flow of the river with its active and thorough discouragement against coming into any form of contact with the enemy, whether that be fatal or otherwise, Splinter Cell's dynamic new approach to stealth now proudly boasts Sam Fisher as a relentless and brutal rogue agent. And, for better or worse, this is the entry that has caught on with the mainstream crowd, more than its predecessors ever did. Is this really what people want in their games? Is the best way to sell more copies simply to add more killing, more explosions, and super cool knife fights?

Before I even begin, I'd like to make clear that I can and do appreciate the occasional battle against endless alien onslaughts. But as I look around at the different games that populate store shelves and my own library, it's uncommon that I find one where the theme and overall focus of the game is something other than violence. Maybe it's because I'm not looking hard enough, or it could be due to my complete lack of exposure to the Nintendo market since before the days of the Gamecube, but I do know that the increasing number of games which focus solely on violence and killing is a tad bit alarming. It's an extremely controversial subject that has been passionately debated back and forth by politicians, professors, market researchers, and even one Buddhist monk. Some might question the harm in a virtual killing spree. The same people will probably argue that this can be a stress reliever and even a calming experience. And heck, I agree with these points for the most part. It's not the harm that I'm concerned about, but it's just not a good theme to be stuck on.

Germany has been in the news lately for its stance towards violence, and it's gotten to the point that they're considering criminalizing the creation and distribution of video games with a focus on violence. Honestly I'm shocked at the level of action they're considering, but I'm even more shocked with developer Crytek's response: "If the German creative community can't effectively participate in one of the most important cultural mediums of our future, we will be forced to relocate to other countries." It's beyond me how they can acknowledge gaming as 'one of the most important cultural mediums of our future,' and yet ironically they won't recognize the potential negative effect that violence could indeed have. They would rather go so far as to make the costly move to another country in order to continue making violent games than realize that Germany may have a point, even if their level of action may be extreme and unfair.

I don't think violence in games should be criminalized. Rather, I simply think games should be better about it. While it may not be fresh, a common approach is to include robots as enemies. The recent Mini Ninjas, which I just played, uses this general concept quite well. All the enemies in the game are actually little forest friends magically turned into samurai and under the control of the Evil Samurai Warlord, and, upon defeat, they will once again turn back into the animals that they are. There's no killing. This idea is not only creative and original, but it's also useful. Our main ninja, Hiro, can pass into spirit form and borrow the body of any animal he comes across, including the ones that he has broken the spell over, in order to sneak around more easily. IO Interactive, in the process of making an innocent alternative to death, created something that added to the stealth mechanic as well as to the story. And considering their mature history with Hitman, I think the entire industry could learn from their willingness to focus less on violence.

However, sometimes there isn't an adorable alternative or any other way around the maturity of the matter. Death, violence, and killing are a part of life, sometimes they need to be taken a little more seriously than they are, and this is where I believe the industry as a whole is in dire need of improvement. Killing has been depicted in every medium to date, including music, movies, books, television, paintings, grandma's quilts, and video games. So why don't, say, books and movies fall under the same criticisms as video games? It's because they take the matter much more seriously, in my honest opinion. In my short time, I have noticed that books and movies will often go out of their way to depict the humanity and emotion behind this cold action, whereas video games most often turn it into a monotonous, desensitizing, and dehumanizing experience. The humanity and emotion in the experience risk being lost completely when an entire game's foundation and structure is built around killing as an essential mechanic.

While there are many games built around killing which I think could be better about it, there are, however, two recent games I feel have taken two very important steps towards treating the matter seriously.

The first is Mirror's Edge, a game which has a very similar structure to the likes of Halo, and yet its focus is entirely the opposite. The player is given the choice, the power, and the capability to acquire weapons and use them against the police, but everything within the game from the characters to the loading screens creates an influence to not do so. In the training grounds and the first chapter, Faith's handler, Merc, reminds her that fighting doesn't have to be the solution. He reminds her that she's not a fighter and that she's not a killer. And as easily unnoticeable and, perhaps, forgettable as that one reminder in your ear may be throughout the rest of the game, it made a significant impact in how I played.

What is the important step that this game takes? It briefly talks about fighting; it brings awareness to the players about their actions and informs them that they have other options. And as small and subtle as that is, it's more than some other games have done. In countless other games, ranging from Call of Duty to Goldeneye, where killing is the only mechanic used to progress, I can't recall a single moment in all of my experiences when the subject is even brought up. Of course the player is already aware that they are, in representation, taking another human's life, but even something as small as that can go a long way towards preventing desensitization.

The second is Assassin's Creed, a game with a strong emphasis on story and dialogue. And when that story is almost only about the deaths of nine men, the discussion of death is inevitable. Over the course of the game, the master assassin Altair is tasked with taking the lives of nine key figures in a dangerous conspiracy, and as each man falls, Altair is there to ease their passing. These moments offer short glimpses behind the veil of the underlying plot, but they also breathe humanity into Altair's character. He pities them, respects them, at times questions himself for killing them, and even comforts one of them as the man is terrified of dying. These moments show him not as a killer but as a man. And nearing the climax, he has a conversation with the Assassin scholar of Acre which I believe is extremely important in revealing Altair's character: He's confused about his actions and fearful of his own emotions, and the rafiq's words of wisdom tell Altair that he should embrace his feelings because they're what keep him human. So what's the step taken here? It includes emotion as an essential part of the experience.

I wanted perspectives other than my own on the matter, and ultimately that desire had me knocking on Ubisoft's door. And, by George, credit it to their awesomeness that even though they're less than a month away from one of the year's most anticipated titles, community developer Azaizia "Atmon" Aymar and script writer Corey May took some time to answer a few questions for a fan about Assassin's Creed and the upcoming Assassin's Creed II.

When asked about Altair's various conversations and the meanings behind them, Corey had this to say: "The conversations Altair had with his victims were primarily designed to show that the Templars weren't necessarily evil, and their goals were actually similar to those of the Assassins. It was the way in which they went about achieving them that caused conflict. The biggest difference between the two groups is that the Templars view free will as an obstacle to peace, stability, and progress while the Assassins see free will as critical to achieving these things.

"When we established the tenets of the Creed we made the first pillar reflect the serious nature of murder: No harm should ever come to innocents. This is why the game would punish the killing of civilians. Assassinations were highly targeted, served a specific purpose, and were not about creating high body counts. However, at the end of the day, the game is called Assassin's Creed - and killing is an integral part of being an assassin. So we have to measure just how much we punish the player for buying a game that sells itself as allowing you to step into the shoes of a professional killer.

"I don't want to spoil much, but when you play through AC2, you'll eventually come across a short bit of writing that discusses 'the three great ironies of the Assassin Order.' I think it speaks a bit to what I noted above about the contradiction between claiming to be a force for peace and also being a professional killer. You'll have to let me know what you think when you reach that part of the game..."

I commented on the first game's use of combat as a means of accomplishing goals and the sequel's improvements that allow the player more subtle options. I asked if these were done with the intention of making Assassin's Creed II more about adventure and exploration and less about violence and death, and the response was, "it was important for us to give players more ways to accomplish their goals. As you noted, AC1 often saw players falling back on combat to complete missions - stealth approaches were difficult - and once you were discovered, recovery was virtually impossible. I don't want to say we've switched focuses - merely increased options. For those who prefer stealth, they have more tools at their disposal which will hopefully make it easier for them to play the game the way they want to. Assassin's Creed is many different things to many different people and rather than tell people what the game must be to them, we're trying to give them the ability to shape the experience and make it their own."

Furthermore on that point, I commented on the sequel's more challenging combat and inquired about if it was designed this way with the intention of discouraging the player from resorting to violence when that may be unnecessary, or to encourage the player to look at the number of other options at their disposal, and Corey replied, "again, I don't think combat was designed to encourage or discourage a certain type of behavior (outside of once again steering the players away from killing civilians). We did, however, attempt to address specific faults found in the first game. By moving towards a more traditional health system, it's harder for the player to turn into a one man army - they have to think more strategically. Smoke bombs, poison, courtesans, and thieves all give players more stealth-flavored toys to play with. Assassins are not meant to be tanks. That said, many players enjoy the game's combat system - so in many ways it's been enhanced. Finishing moves are more varied (and some more brutal) - you have several new weapons and techniques at your disposal, and you can even hire mercenary groups to fight alongside you. They say you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I actually think our system is evolving and becoming flexible enough that while maybe we won't please all of the people - we're going to please a lot of them.

"As an aside - and this may speak more directly to what your questions are aiming at - I did at one point propose a feature where we'd create a few dozen quick 'vignettes' that would play randomly during the game - attached to the deaths of guards and targets. During these quick scenes (which would never repeat), we would show a quick recap of what would happen after Ezio has killed someone. A little bit like the flash forwards in Run Lola Run. A reminder that the archer you just tossed from the roof was another human being and he was just patrolling the rooftops to pay the bills. We hinted at this kind of thing with the white rooms in AC1 (even if that wasn't their main focus). I snuck in a little bit of that with AC2's main targets. Ezio will occasionally come across letters written either to or by his targets. They help flesh them out a bit. And if the player should feel a bit of guilt or remorse for having taken a life, that's alright by me. Killing isn't meant to be easy or uncomplicated. Eventually we couldn't find a way to make it work inside the framework of the Animus, but I haven't given up on it. I'm sure there's a way to do it. Perhaps in the future!"

So there you have it: A little bit of insight into the weight and consideration put into Assassin's Creed and its sequel.

The two games mentioned above are but a few of the games out there that treat violence and death seriously and with respect. Metal Gear Solid, I think, is also notable for it, but unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the franchise so I chose not to talk about it. And the several other games I've mentioned, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Halo, Call of Duty, and also developer Crytek, are by no means bad. They all have their own qualities and values other than the ones I've talked about. Still, I believe that the steps that Mirror's Edge and Assassin's Creed have taken, while in some ways simple and even obvious, are of unparalleled importance if video games are ever to be taken seriously as an important medium of entertainment, culture, and art.

In conclusion, developers are responsible for the contents of a game, but they will make whatever you want. And while I'd love for this blog to make a huge impact so that someday, some developer will look back and say, "hey, everybody, that's the kid that made video games better," really, that's not my aim. You guys are the most important part of what goes into a game. So I ask: What do you, the gamer, want in your video game industry's future? Do you want games to move on from violence and be viewed as works of art, do you like violence in games because it allows you to play pretend and do some crazy things that you would never do in real life, or do you just want them to be as fun as they've always been regardless of what direction they head in? I've voiced my opinion extensively here, so now it's your turn to voice yours.