Thanks for the your great comment Silvia.

Regarding your point on how playing an FPS game can transform a player into a gun, here is an interesting insight I gained from talking to a few Iran-Iraq war veterans after the war. The first is from a machine gunner in an infantry division:

When I asked him how he felt about killing others, who just like him, might have a family and friends to go back to, he told me that he was under no delusion about what he was doing, and that soldiers talked openly about such things when they were not actively involved in an operation. The day and night before any major operation, though, there seemed to have been an unwritten agreement between all the soldiers, and the officers alike, to set aside any such thoughts, and rather engage in “ritualistic” behavior (such as reading the Quoran in a group, writing their last wills, or reading their wills to each other, renewing their vows to their country, etc.). The way he described it to me, it seemed that all of these mental/group preparations changed their state of mind, to one where you abstract things, rather than see them for their physical reality. In his words, they were in a state of mind similar to that when you are extremely tired (e.g. after a couple days of not sleeping) and everyone around you turns into a voice- where you sometimes don’t even attach the voice to a speaker directly.

The way I interpreted his description, was that humans, by the means of a strict and intense group ritual are capable of blocking out physical realities for a short duration. The doubts and thoughts do return after the action is over and life returns to a more natural pace however.

A completely different picture of war was drawn for me by a veteran sniper. He didn’t have the benefit of an accompanying group, and was alone on most of his missions (as opposed to U.S. Army snipers, who often have a “spotter” accompanying them, e.g.). He described an encounter with an Iraqi sniper, barely out of effective range. The two men were basically engaged in a 1-on-1 war: for almost a month, neither could leave, nor change his position for the fear that the other might kill him. They did manage to observe each other for extended periods though, and it seemed that started developing a keen sense of understanding and respect for each others position.

In the end, The Iraqi sniper seems to have been called back, and had to leave his position. The Iranian sniper, claimed that in those final moments, he actually had the opportunity to kill the Iraqi sniper, but refrained from doing so, knowing, or maybe just hoping, that they would never meet on the battlefield again. He was just happy that everything had returned to “normal” and that the constant tension and direct personal involvement in another man’s life was gone.

This second example led me to believe that our sniper had a very keen sense of the moment-to-moment reality of life (as opposed to the first example). In his case, it was an ongoing challenge to understand his position, ideals, his enemy’s motivations and behavior, which in the end led to moral judgments about both he and his contender.

When I encouraged human-like behavior for enemy AI, one of my goals is to engage the player in the second type of situation (sniper) and not the first (Infantryman) as most games do. To me, shooters, today, replace the group rituals with a few pre-game emotional cut-scenes/videos and one or two friendly NPCs, who try to capture the player’s affection/respect, and then try to put the player in the shoes of the infantryman, i.e. Shooting without immediately thinking about long-term personal consequences. When games succeed at doing this, morals are suspended for the a few hours, and since the player has an acute understanding that nothing in the game was “real” as soon as he steps away from his monitor, there is no incentive to return and think about personal consequences.

On the other hand, longer contacts with enemies, and a having a chance to observe their nuances, when NOT coupled with those rituals, provides a good chance for the player to be aware of the “reality” surrounding him in the game- a chance to start a dialog with himself even while immersed in the game: a major driving force for personal change and betterment.

I’d have to say though, that the two individuals I was talking about were recounting memories, so their interpretation might lace their narrative. The same holds true about my own memory and interpretation (I think I met those guys 5-7 years ago), but it would definitely be interesting to see player reactions t those two different situations, if they could be presented in an engaging way with a detailed AI.

As always, a beautifully written and insightful article! Thank you.

Your suggestion to humanize NPC “enemies” by adding psychological nuance here and there, such as panicking, smoking when nervous, or simply calling for back-up, left me thinking that this could actually spell the end for FPSs (and other destruction-oriented games). You need a consciously artificial world with its own separate set of moral rules to joyously go about obliterating anything that moves

For instance, what if you’re ambushed by a patrol of grunts you just spied discussing how eagerly they longed to return to wife, kids and the dog? Would you really shoot some poor grunt cowering in fear before you? “Poor” here would be a new word in FPS context. The more faceless, the more abstract the enemy, the more you can focus on the sheer fun of blowing stuff up or perfecting that long-range shot.

Ok, I admit I haven’t played many FPSs. I have played a few games of Prince of Persia though. I’ve noticed that engaging and mindlessly killing human soldiers at the beginning of the game is considerably less fun than when they turn into armies of sand monsters. Those appear to be artificial beings created solely for you to decimate while using a variety of aesthetic combos. The human soldiers have no personality whatsoever in the PoP universe, and still, you may feel a pang of guilt summoned by the mere idea of their humanity. In real life, could you not find a way to get along, or at least get by?

A different, yet similar phenomena seems to take place in FPSs: you might see your enemy’s human face, ever converse with him/her, but you yourself have become a symbolic gun on the screen. Once again, a distance is created, and it is the opponent’s humanity that suffers.

Mortal Combat type games, where you control an apparently human third person character duelling another, again cheat the principle: these characters are always super-human caricatures, defined exclusively by their abilities. So, it’s not really Zorg, beset by his childhood issues, that just pummelled puppy-eater Mongo, it’s the triple-lightning-left-kick (aka SHIFT+ D) that won over the double-double-torpedo-strike. As you pointed out, these characters appear more human on first sight, before you notice obviously limited and repetitive animation patterns.
In fact, even in real-life war, you must first deny/lessen the idea of your opponent’s humanity (this starts with using the word “enemy” and can degrade up to using “cockroach”, i.e. pest to be eliminated) to allow soldiers to kill with a clear conscience.

So then, what is a conscientious developer to do? The enemy can’t have too many affable personality quirks; but what if you only flesh out the adjuvant? That is inherently morally corrupt; besides, once you demonstrate a certain level of AI complexity, it becomes a possibility in your game universe. The player will then project it onto all similar entities: if your human side-kick has a personality, so must your human opponents (you just never got to know the latter all that well, since you shot first and *never* asked the questions ).

Actually, in many ways, FPSs are glorified (read: updated graphics) Space Invaders-type games. That game type emerged out of the technical possibilities/limitations of its time. These technical possibilities have evolved, but the game idea has not, which has led us to today’s grey zone of morality in violence based games (detractors see the human face, addicts only see the game mechanics). As AI further develops, and we are naturally more and more tempted to give NPCs human characteristics, game play ideas themselves will have to and naturally will radically change to emulate real-life morality codes.
But then, there is this last consideration: to what degree should you develop an artificial entity? Should the graphics be indistinguishable from actors on film? Should they have fully responsive and evolving personalities? There has been much talk already about the artificial possibly reaching an “unheimlich” degree of realistic simulation, where it no longer impresses, but becomes repulsive, a form of life without life.

As with traditional animation, the real strength of games may not lay in emulation, but in conceiving new possibilities for worlds, action and even thoughts, and in the process, evolving our own humanity.

In any case, thanks again for a wonderful article! A pleasure to read.
(sorry if I rambled, you just sparked so many ideas )