Violence as the main theme

michalk · 2014-01-27 10:50:01

First things first. I applaud the ingenuity of this game. The mechanics are certainly fun and deep, allowing for a multitude of variations. Multiplayer nature of the game makes it even more interesting. I feel like it could be the first MMO I may really get into...

But. I really can't play it because of the main theme of the game. Even tough mechanically the game is fulfilling and intriguing I cannot get past the surface: that's it a game about robbing, killing and devising new ways of tricking other people, so they can die, and I can profit from their death.

Take a look at this:

Dancing

For me it's heartbreaking. He killed them with a club and danced on their bodies. Why would I want to play this and expose myself to that?

I loved Passage. I can play through it over and over again simply because it's such a calm and poignant experience. I can show it to others and they can relate. But I would never show The Castle Doctrine to them. It's too disturbing. It's fun in its mechanics but totally un-fun in its theme. A sad contradiction.

I'm sorry for rambling too much. I just wanted to ask Jason one question: why? Why make a serious game about violence? There are so many violent games nowadays, even if they don't treat the topic seriously, but rather as a plaything or visual gimmick (which makes them so much more horrible). The same mechanics you've implemented here could be used in a more uplifting game instead. Why make a game that evokes so many negative feelings (hopelessness, frustration, sadness, anger)? Is there a point I am missing here?

Or maybe this game is not for everyone? Just for people who have the stomach and can get past the pixelated killing of little children?

I understand this is a busy time before the Steam release, so Jason may not be able to respond. I've posted this here because I'm also interested in opinions of the players. Why do you play it, and does morality affect your decision in the game? Do you ever kill the children? Do you treat the game as a challenge and simply ignore the violent theme?

iceman · 2014-01-27 11:02:39

I'm just going to answer the question of whether the violence changes the way I play the game - most definitely. I've promised myself never to kill the family - even when it's just a starter house, that killing the wife isn't going to affect the other player at all but will give me a free $800- I just don't want to do it. The only time I've killed a family was after I died with a fairly good house, near the beginning of when I played - I snapped, went to a random house, and clubbed the whole family in anger before robbing the safe. Thinking about that has made me feel almost sick a couple of times, and I'm definitely disappointed in myself because of it.

Blip · 2014-01-27 11:04:48

One thing about The Castle Doctrine and how it handles violence is shown incredibly well in your post. The way the game is designed makes each life and its taking an incredibly important and truly weighty thing; while other games have players killing mindlessly, the Castle Doctrine has that sense of regret, remorse, and sadness that really should be associated with the taking of human lives. Every time you kill somebody's wife or child, you have to realize the the same thing could happen to yours. This makes it relatable; everybody, at least in-game, has or had their own wife and children. And then morality does come into play. I rarely kill wives, and only have killed a child once. And it was a horrible experience; I actually felt true guilt for murdering a small collection of colored pixels named Timmy.

I wouldn't say that the Castle Doctrine handles death in a "nice" way, but it does handle it in a mature one. Death is a horrible thing, both in game and in the real world that it emulates. However, there will always be people out there who claim "oh, it just a game" and go murdering all the children they see. Most of us, however, aren't part of that group, and see death in the game as it was meant to be seen - a statement about the morality of killing the family of others when they could also come and kill yours.

gyuri · 2014-01-27 11:06:14

You might (or might not) wanna read this:

http://thecastledoctrine.net/forums/vie … php?id=417

SnakeAes · 2014-01-27 11:17:30

The Castle Doctrine, is, in my eyes, a kind of real-world parallel. Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Rich prey on the poor, and the poor prey on each other.

In a sense the game is kind of a social commentary on the cruelty of the world we live in. The idea of "keeping up with the Joneses" in that you and your neighbors are constantly competing, is put into almost literal context in the game. In many ways, I think the game is INTENDED to make you feel these emotions. Sadness, anger, frustration. The more complex the game becomes, the more infuriating mistakes become because you could lose everything so quickly.

In an age where most MMO games reward your time spent on the game, TCD actually kind of punishes it. The longer you've played, the more you have to lose. The more you have to lose, the more people will come after you. And eventually, one of them will be successful. That prospect is scary because players have to face the very real possibility that everything they've done could be lost.

That said, Julius Dwayne Palacios (the player who robbed you) wasn't the first and certainly won't be the last. But look at it this way. He did not have the tools to get past your electric floor. He was going to lose everything once he stepped out of the house (you lose your inventory when you abandon a job), so, being the utilitarian he is, he decided to at least use up his inventory and wreak some havoc.

If you are upset about the nature of this game though, how could you not be upset about other more mainstream games that depict violence in a much more graphic nature? Payday 2 which came out several months ago has a similar premise, but in first-person shooter style, where players heist banks and jewelry stores and relentlessly kill dozens of police officers without batting an eye.

The fact is that violence is commonplace in video games nowadays, but I think TCD actually applies it with great care and taste. The game is not overly bloody, but uses it to prove a point and to elicit a response.

Looks like it succeeded.

michalk · 2014-01-27 11:43:17

Thank you all for answering so far.

I have to rephrase my question to all of you a bit: why do you still play it? It's this contradiction I was talking about before: on one hand it's an interesting puzzle-like game that is made super-deep because of the multiplayer. Yet it's a game that makes you feel bad. Even if you personally don't kill in the game other people will do this to you. With the Steam release at hand it's probably gonna be a majority now. Why still play it? Does the good parts (puzzle solving and feeling of mastery) outweigh the bad parts (sadness and regret)?

It's great that this game treats violence seriously. I feel enriched after playing it. The problem is I played it, I got something out of it, but I don't want to play anymore. OTOH other people still play it and enjoy it, so that is interesting to me. Why?

In a way it feels like the game is shooting itself in the foot (so to speak) by wanting to be MMO: a multiplayer game that repulses the players. Yet Jason chose the topic well since the community around this game seems to grow.

@gyuri I'm definitely gonna read the self defence topic, thanks for linking that!

@SnakeAes Can't say about Payday 2, haven't played it. For all games it comes down to this: I can either continue playing or stop. Do I want to continue devising traps that other people are going to fall into and die, then go into their houses, wreck havok and steal from them? Or do I want to stop? In other words: if we all agree that TCD correctly depicts violence in all its glory, why continue to do this violence? Because it's fun? To quote another game: "Do you feel like a hero yet?"

DethBringa · 2014-01-27 12:35:23

TBH I have played A LOT of MMO's and they seem to have the whole "instant gratification" theme. It gets old quite fast. I do X so I should be rewarded for doing it. This game however is the opposite and that's the appeal. The longer you play the harder it gets. I can rob blah blah's house and get lots of money.. but then I have more money and more people will rob me for it. Also the more money I have the better equipped people will be when they come to my house. To me it almost plays out like a tower defence game. See how many "waves" you can last before you lose. I really like the idea behind the game. Death is extremely painful. The feelings of loss, frustration and anger when you die reminds me of the days of cartridge gaming. There was no save feature, if you died you died. You start all over again from the start. However in those games if you had a power cut or the cat ripped a cable out of the dog stood on the power button or something you could very well have to start from scratch. This game you can exit and come back.

As for the violence, its a very real situation if you live in a big city. However the traps you can deploy in this game can't be used irl so it almost turns to a fantasy game as well. The defence of your money and your safe is quite a good idea however, this plays into the whole capitalism where your money is more valuable than your family. Many people feel like this, but then there are those of us that feel the opposite and we have the harder job of defending the family... that is until someone brutally murders them. Violence in games goes back a long time, even if you look at Wolfenstein. That was a long time ago and that brought about all other FPS games. Killing is not a big thing in many games and genres.
FPS like Call of Duty or Battlefield.
RTS like Command and Conquer or Company of Heroes.
Puzzle games like the millions of Tower defence games.
Racing games like Carmageddon or Twisted Metal.
RPG's like Skyrim or Fable
3rd Person games like GTA series, Dynasty warriors.

It's portrayed as no big deal to take someone's life. This game however is the opposite and even tho violence is portrayed and allowed, its a closer to home feeling than these others.

At the end of the day everyone is different and if you feel its too graphic or wrong in any way then that is your choice on whether to play or not. I'm not trying to be condescending or sarcastic in any way, sometimes it can be hard to read peoples intentions behind text.

I play it because I like the idea of the puzzle/building aspect. I know everyone will rise and fall including myself. But that's part of the appeal.

gyuri · 2014-01-27 13:50:29

michalk wrote:

Do I want to continue devising traps that other people are going to fall into and die

You could try to design a house that won't kill people but just lead them back to the entrance instead. No violence, no death, no bounty and therefore no problem with your house getting more valuable.

DethBringa · 2014-01-27 13:52:32

That would be REALLY hard. Some people die in the most stupid unintended ways.
Hmmmm clear path to exit VS open pit.... think I'll jump in the pit.

Nilyari · 2014-01-27 13:58:00

It is common to say but I don't know how much hypothetically better a person you are if you kill the wife only. Other games pretty much avoid the concept of collateral damage entirely. Playing Call of Duty or GTA and being in a firefight inside a town without civilians is completely unrealistic. More people die from motor vehicle accidents, but I don't think I've heard people refer to car racing games as violent. But by ignoring the topic, does that actually dull the feeling of the consequences?

I would say the only strange part about hurting the family is the lack of consequence (other than the owner trying your house, which may not be feasible if the thief cleans the owner out or subsequently dies in another house) and, perhaps sadly, if you want people to react when consequences are possible, you need to make it a mechanic (say, armed police start arriving after X number of moves, where X decreases after each incident) and people would probably act different.

No matter what the narrative, people will probably react based on gameplay elements when presented with them. I've used tools when I am stuck when I can because it benefits the other player more if I just give up. Most people will probably hit the wife if it's feasible for financial gain, but might not equip to go after them specifically. I don't know how many people would ignore them. However, I am sure you can design a trap where you present the thief with an obvious chance to kill the kid before making it much worse on the thief. There are ways of making the choice obvious through room presentation. While most people would probably ignore the kid 99% of the time, what do they do once it is a clear game element? What does it say about the person providing the obvious scenario?

I think when you read the developer's story that was posted, the reason for the narrative is clear from the standpoint of the home defender, but the attacker's side was needed to create a complete game. You can play without doing that but it's a lot slower (since you need to wait for people to die to your house to provide income) so even most people who would not be the aggressor end up doing it. Maybe there just isn't enough of a penalty for attacking someone's family. Your bounty increases, but the benefactor is the person who gets them (with the exception of if they die to their own house). You can not collect on that unless perhaps they come to your house after the chill expires thinking you are an easy target and you change your traps. You get to know who did it, but getting revenge may rely on how much money you have left and whether or not they are even still alive. I imagine most people who would waste resources on children are reckless. You could implement a narrative where the more devious you are, the quicker an "armed" response by police would come. Right now there is a time limit, but maybe that limit can be reduced, or maybe create a counter where armed police would come after a certain time or move limit that would be reduced. Right now, there's not much of a penalty on the person being naughty when most houses are difficult to win on ordinary circumstances. But gameplay elements in a game like this are hard to introduce without causing more trouble they inteded to "fix (not to mention time just to make it a buggy-less game).

tayfun · 2014-01-27 14:12:56

In my opinion, even though TCD makes you act immoral at times, takes the graphics back to Atari 2600 era, in which we never cared about those pixel guys we have brutally killed.

Therefore I don't understand how it's a big deal now. It's just bunch of pixels. They don't have a soul, they don't even represent any human being, just NPC.

jasonrohrer · 2014-01-27 15:35:14

Michalk, I appreciate hearing that from you.

This game was inspired by one of the worst experiences of my life: when my pregnant wife and children were subjected to a violent attack. I've written many articles about the thematic underpinnings of this game. One of the articles is linked above. The rest are on the "news" page of the main website, if you scroll to the bottom.

It is a dark, disturbing game inspired by dark, disturbing things. There are no two ways about it.

It may be the first video game where you can kill children. It doesn't sugar coat or elevate violence. It doesn't even animate the violence, which in my view makes it all that more disturbing (you imagine the violence instead).

As for why people keep playing, I think it has something to do with human nature, which is part of what this game is exploring. We have such a desire for security that we become obsessed with it. Our fears become inflated way beyond reality. Entire human industries thrive on this part of human nature. There are many people who wake up in the middle of the night to check their house in the game. There are many people who wake up in the middle of the night to check that their doors are locked in real life.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Though I'm proud of the thematic impact that this game has---the artistic payload---I also have a VERY dark sense of humor. I'm not sure why... maybe it's my way of dealing with the absurdity of death and all the other things we cannot control. Maybe I'm just laughing at the absurdity of human dignity as it succumbs to these things. Human dignity while sitting on the porcelain throne.

As horrible as my family's attack was, there are some things about it that are hilarious, particularly some of the things I said and did during the aftermath of the attack. I did some really foolish things! I sprayed myself in the face with pepper spray!

So, this game is not all piercing violins... it's like a twisted, absurdist reflection of security run amok.

While I'm having my balls frisked at the airport, and while not a single child plays in the street, and while people are being mauled to death by their own guard dogs, and while others are being shot by their own guns, we're actually having one of the safest years on record here in the US! The crime rate is less than half of what it was back in 1991.

So, I'm guessing that some people keep playing it because of how funny it is. Watching the security tapes is nothing if not funny.

Booby traps are funny. Getting killed in your own booby traps is even funnier.

And that is part of the artistic payload too.

joshwithguitar · 2014-01-27 21:43:15

jasonrohrer wrote:

It may be the first video game where you can kill children.

It is by no means the first. Fallout (1997) and Fallout 2 both had children in them that could be killed and there was even a reputation title called "Child killer" that you gain if you kill children - http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Childkiller. I also remember in Commander Keen 2 & 3 (1990) being able to kill children of an intelligent and civilised alien race.

It does seem to be a "no-go" with modern games though, with some obvious exceptions (Bioshock?).

joshwithguitar · 2014-01-27 22:02:29

Oh, and as far as indie games go, I completely forgot about "Super Columbine Massacre RPG".

largestherb · 2014-01-28 00:03:56

hehe, the EU release for Fallout 2 actually had the child killing disabled.

well.. the children's sprites were just removed from the game so you couldn't target them. they still ran around shouting and stealing stuff from your inventory in that one town ._____. however, simply replacing the sprite from a US friends copy let you get your stuff back. And also made that 'rescue the children' quest make a lot more sense.

however, i don't see the castle doctrine as a violent game. it is a game that allows for violence, but that is up to the players. like real life, really.

michalk · 2014-01-28 04:57:38

Jason, thank you for the reply. I know what you're talking about with the dark humor. When people press all the wrong buttons and go into all the wrong corridors. Check this one out:

Pointless death

So I too enjoyed watching the tapes, well, until the one that I posted in my first post. At that moment I realized it's not really fun. Making it fun - and in a game format at that - is actually terrifying.

I read the self-defense thread and your old news entries (especially liked the one on "the other"). That gives the proper context to the game, its mechanics and its meaning. I find it interesting that in a way I'm choosing a similar solution: I'm running away, avoiding the conflict situation altogether. Another successful strategy I found is to be poor. With a minimal security no one will bother you, maybe except some frustrated players. But then there is not much to do, besides waiting for the frustrated player to kill your family. Not a very positive prospect.

Another interesting aspect of the game is how it makes it easier to protect the safe than the family (because of no clear path restriction). Yet, to some players at least, protecting the family is more important. So there's this dynamic: should I spend more resources to protect something that's equally valuable in game's terms (as equal number of money is distributed between the safe and wife)?

tayfun wrote:

I don't understand how it's a big deal now. It's just bunch of pixels. They don't have a soul, they don't even represent any human being, just NPC.

I disagree. They are not just a bunch of NPC pixels. They are someone's bunch of NPC pixels. Julius Dwayne Palacios killing my family made me sad. Iceman felt regret after killing someone else's pixelated family. Those are real feelings we're talking about, pixelated presentation notwithstanding.

tayfun · 2014-01-28 05:35:45

michalk wrote:

I disagree. They are not just a bunch of NPC pixels. They are someone's bunch of NPC pixels. Julius Dwayne Palacios killing my family made me sad. Iceman felt regret after killing someone else's pixelated family. Those are real feelings we're talking about, pixelated presentation notwithstanding.

I think any person who has feelings for those pixelated NPCs, needs psychological help. We are alive human beings, any bondage with a non-existant individual means desperate loneliness. My humble opinion.

michalk · 2014-01-28 10:05:38

tayfun wrote:

michalk wrote:
I disagree. They are not just a bunch of NPC pixels. They are someone's bunch of NPC pixels. Julius Dwayne Palacios killing my family made me sad. Iceman felt regret after killing someone else's pixelated family. Those are real feelings we're talking about, pixelated presentation notwithstanding.
I think any person who has feelings for those pixelated NPCs, needs psychological help.

Along with all the people that cry at movies or get angry when losing a basketball match. Those are not real people on the screen and this is just a game, after all. Obviously.

Blip · 2014-01-28 10:24:26

michalk wrote:

tayfun wrote:
I don't understand how it's a big deal now. It's just bunch of pixels. They don't have a soul, they don't even represent any human being, just NPC.
I disagree. They are not just a bunch of NPC pixels. They are someone's bunch of NPC pixels. Julius Dwayne Palacios killing my family made me sad. Iceman felt regret after killing someone else's pixelated family. Those are real feelings we're talking about, pixelated presentation notwithstanding.

Michalk, I think you're completely correct about that. The fact that you are taking something tangible away from somebody else, especially something that you have as well and which can be taken from you in the same gruesome manner, is what causes regret. I really feel guilty after killing somebody's wife because that person no longer has a wife; I took her away from them via my murder. And the exact same thing could happen to me as well.

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#1 2014-01-27 10:50:01

Violence as the main theme

#2 2014-01-27 11:02:39

Re: Violence as the main theme

#3 2014-01-27 11:04:48

Re: Violence as the main theme

#4 2014-01-27 11:06:14

Re: Violence as the main theme

#5 2014-01-27 11:17:30

Re: Violence as the main theme

#6 2014-01-27 11:43:17

Re: Violence as the main theme

#7 2014-01-27 12:35:23

Re: Violence as the main theme

#8 2014-01-27 13:50:29

Re: Violence as the main theme

#9 2014-01-27 13:52:32

Re: Violence as the main theme

#10 2014-01-27 13:58:00

Re: Violence as the main theme

#11 2014-01-27 14:12:56

Re: Violence as the main theme

#12 2014-01-27 15:35:14

Re: Violence as the main theme

#13 2014-01-27 21:43:15

Re: Violence as the main theme

#14 2014-01-27 22:02:29

Re: Violence as the main theme

#15 2014-01-28 00:03:56

Re: Violence as the main theme

#16 2014-01-28 04:57:38

Re: Violence as the main theme

#17 2014-01-28 05:35:45

Re: Violence as the main theme

#18 2014-01-28 10:05:38

Re: Violence as the main theme

#19 2014-01-28 10:24:26

Re: Violence as the main theme

Board footer