Approaching Violence as Art

I'm sure entire books could be (and probably have been) written about the controversy of violence in media, or even just in games. So, I'll try to limit my discussion here: comparing two games which heavily feature violent imagery, and deciding which sends the better moral/cultural message.

For starters, there's MadWorld. I don't think it'll surprise anyone who so much as looked at the cover to hear this, but this game is a bloody mess. The gameplay approaches killing enemies with the same silliness and whimsy of a kitten merrily ripping apart a catnip toy. While I personally enjoyed the game, and would even argue it has many redeeming qualities, there is simply no denying that the game sends an overall bad message: violence is silly, fun, and has no repercussions.

Manhunt 2. Now I'm guessing this will surprise you, but I'm citing this game as an example of a positive, mature approach to violence in art. I recall this very game was once used as reason for some fanatical groups to boycott the Wii in an attempt to protect their children from violent imagery. However, the reality is that this game provides an experience that sends a much more responsible (albeit graphic) message about violence.

First, there are the kill sequences. All melee kills are largely obscured by a visual effect. It creates a hazy image that can sometimes completely hide what's going on until the kill is over. Some gamers hated this, calling it a stupid attempt at self-censoring, but I thought it wonderfully reflected the character's fuzzy, detached state of mind when killing someone, which brings me to the next point.

The character's reaction to his actions. At the start of the game, the main character makes it clear he does not want to hurt anyone, but is told he has no choice. After killing someone for the first time, he immediately says "I feel sick" and vomits all over the floor. (If you're interested in seeing this, I found a playthrough on youtube. I warn you it's fairly graphic, but click here if you want to see the scene)

The point here is that the player is really confronted with the morality (or lack thereof) of what they're doing. The character is disgusted and horrified by what he is doing, and rightly so. As the player transitions from killing criminals and sickos to killing cops and soldiers, the morality becomes more problematic. Is this really all just for survival? Does that even make it okay? Toward the end of the game, there are levels set inside the character's own mind where he is confronted with all the weight of his sins.

Manhunt 2 is appropriately called "mature," because it approaches the horrors of violence with the maturity and gravity that they deserve. There are tons of games where the player can kill characters in the game and never feel any remorse or have to pay any price for what they've done (insert popular first-person shooter here). Manhunt 2 aggressively confronts the player with what they're doing and forces them to think about it. If videogames are to be considered a legitimate form of art, they need to approach cultural taboos with some level of responsibility, and I think Manhunt 2 took a step in the right direction.