VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VENATIO (190 AD)

      After researching Caligula's Death Machine, I started to research around that Roman dominated time period for other extreme blood sports and conveniently, I found a really interesting blood sport named Venacio. A sport that not only continues the theme apparent in all of my research posts, but a sport that highlights and interesting point on how games can influence culture.

VENACIO - 1900 AD

  Venacio is the Roman Empire's answer to Call of Duty's Veteran difficulty - it's pretty much a certain death game. Again, it's a spectators sport where the player seem to draw the short straw. Pretty much a game of slaves versus Elephants, slaves would be tossed into an gladiators arena, not eager to be killed, and would have to hunt elephants with basic weaponry (or at least weaponry that wasn't suited to the scenario). In some cases, it wasn't elephants, but rest assured, it was never an animal that was easy game. An common contender was the Lion or Tiger for it's ferocious attitude.

    These Venacio hunting events have a huge mortality rate, quiet obviously, and where held the day before a Gladiator events (something I'll clearly be researching in a future post) as a kind of support act to the main event. Now, even though many slaves did die brutal deaths, the mortality rate of the animal wasn't something to be proud of, in some cases, up to 9000 animals were slaughtered in one Venacio event, especially in an inauguration of a Colosseum, most notably, 'the' Colosseum.

Three things make this sport interesting when the research topic is considered - one, its goals and violence, two its actual use, and three its influence on culture.

     As with many of these blood sports, there are always players, always enemies, always a goal of survival and in every case, there is always violence, either as entertainment or an indicator of success. In this case, violence is for the spectators, not the player, unlike the Vikings Skin Pulling antics. Although spectators would place wealthy bets on the 'famed' slaves. So, I think it's pretty clear now that violence in games have one of two uses throughout history, either for entertainment or indication of reward. What's interesting about this, is that violence has the exact same use now. But why is it frowned upon today? This leads us onto the next point - Culture.

     Surprisingly enough, this animal versus human blood sport is what spawned a surge of animal hunting  Whether for entertainment or for legitimate resources (Hyde, Tusks, Meat etc). I'm sure PETA would have a lot to say about this now, which just goes to show why concerns are raised in games today. Back then, a game like Venacio was incredibly influential on the primary beneficiaries of the game, so why is it impossible for players to be motivated to kill another human nowadays? This sport is a clear indicator that games can influence the games. It's not an unrealistic assumption that games can be detrimental to society.

     Finally, with Venacio, you can again see how games were a measure of power. With the Masoamerican Ballgame, it was a conflict solver. With the Vikings, it was a measure and motivation of power. With the Death Machine, it was an egotistical problem solver. Now, with Venacio, we have yet again, another game to reflect power - the leaders with the most exotic animals were considered the most wealthy. Kind of like a modern strategy game no? The real players are the leaders and spectators  not the slaves or animals, they are the tools to measure power.

    So yet again, we have another blood sport that reinforces the pattern emergent here, whilst also highlight the contrast and similarities between violence in games now, and violence in games then. A couple more blog posts on violence in ancient games to fill in the date gaps, and then I think I'll move onto modern games and psychological undertones to bring it all together in a nice, informative and conclusive timeline.

         Considering there are clear re-occurring themes here, in my future research posts, I only lightly highlight an evident following of the pattern, if there is a stray from this pattern as culture changes, then I shall definitely discuss it for future reference.

As I'm focusing on ancient sports at this present time, my group partner Andrew, has been focusing on violence in board games ranging from all eras. Have a look!

ANDREW SHUFFLETON - VIOLENCE BLOGS

LINK

NEXT POST: COMING SOON!

VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIKINGS: TUG OF WAR (SKIN PULLING) 1000AD

        Vikings were never subtle in their methods, but when researching various blood sports of the past, I came across a strikingly brutal variation of the child friendly tug of war, a variation called Skin Pulling. It doesn't take a genius to imagine how this variation of Tug of War played out does it?

     While there's no specific origin date or point of when Tug of War became tradition, there are reports of the Tang dynasty often took part in the game, dating all the way back to 8th century BC. These large scale competitions are reported to of had 1000 players (500 on each team) with drum players for encouragement! Mental! That's some pretty extreme competition, but to be honest the stakes weren't that high - it was simply a source of competition and entertainment. Similar reports of Tug of War suggest Egypt and even England (where it was presumably popularized by Lord Elliott Simpson) took part in the odd game of Tug of War. But when you follow these dates, you eventually arrive at Scandinavia, where the alarming Viking stories make them self known.

     Everyone knows the rules of Tug of War - two teams, one rope, one pull, and eventually, one stronger victor. The Viking spice things up a little though - two teams, many animal skins, one burning pit of fire, and one surviving team with lots of loot. As an attempt to prepare for upcoming battles, increase morale, and earn woman, Viking Warriors in Germany would stitch animal skins together to fashion a large rope and pose two teams against each other over a burning pit of fire. The losing team would then fall into the pit, die a painful death, leaving all of their belongings and woman to the winning team. Common prizes included the loot and most shockingly, raping rights of all the female villagers (there was such a thing as raping rights?)

VIKING SKIN PULLING
Did you know vikings never actually had horns?

  
  Now this is a blood sport if there was ever a single definition. But even in the extremities of the Viking ethos, it still shockingly conforms to the pattern I'm starting to see with the Ceaser's Death Machine and the Masoamerican Ball Game. It's interesting to see that even though all of these games are years and cultures apart, they all revolve around the competition of violence to gain a reward. Whats more interesting, is how each of the blood sports revolves around conflict and solution, exactly the same as digital games today. But what's more interesting, is how none of them involve woman - they are masculine sports. So does this link to primal instincts? I mean, these games are in fact cultures apart, in times were civilizations were untouched by others. So surely there must be underlying evolutionary and psychological explanation behind this? Male dominance? The Providing nature of the male? Males solve conflict through violence? Again, a future post when I start delving into the psychological side of violence. I need to answer a few missing links in this research. I can only do this once I've developed the whole picture though. But regardless, it's easy to see the pattern forming when it comes to games, violence and conflict.

    Masoamerican Ball Games where used to solve conflict and offer sacrifices to gods, the Death Machine solved the Emperor's conflicts for entertainment, and the Skin Pulling was used to increase morale and earn rewards. They are all so slightly different, but they all have a re-occurring theme - male focused violence with a link to conflict. I'd be interested to see if there are any female driven blood sports.

     Tug of War still exists today. In reality, it's just a fun sports for people of all ages - its a party game and a spectator's sport. But in digitally, where violence to resolve conflict had shifted to, Tug of War takes on many forms in first person shooter genre etc In fact, many games such as Halo use the same template as the Vikings did, just on a different platform that is more morally acceptable - teams kill each other to win a battle to earn the rewards. You can see the difference in platform, but you can see the similarity in concept.

     Already though, there is a clear contrast to then and now. Back then, violence was a common part of gaming and culture, now, violence in games is said to be detrimental to culture - its contradicting but highlights a possible cause. Even with this pattern emerging, there's still a few things I need to research before I can put my finger on any sole cause to these changes in morality. But it's, interesting to see how regardless of this morality, culture seemingly stays the same. Isn't modern gaming a male dominated community. Come to think of it, isn't war?

In all, a clear comparison between violence in games then and now, is the definition of the Viking Tug of War - "a sever contest of supremacy". It's just the audience that prompts concerns in today's society.

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VENATIO (190 AD)

VIOLENCE IN GAMES - CALIGULA DEATH MACHINE (37 - 41AD)

      Whilst researching how Vikings used violence in games (next post), I was told by a tutor about the 70's period film Caligula, a film that covered the famously unhinged Roman Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (known as Gaius), ruler from 37AD to 41AD. He'd created a Death Machine, especially designed to decapitate neck deep buried prisoners that he wanted dead. Back in that century execution was nothing unusual, but I've never seen anything even close to this scale before. It's frightening! As a further interesting note, this was used for entertainment, both for the unhinged Gaius and an upper class audience. Just look at the video and you'll know what I'm talking about.

    If you look at the deleted scene (which says something important in itself about how culture perceives violence as entertainment) from Caligula that shows this Death Machine in motion, there isn't much difference from violence in games nowadays - just it's medium. There are enemies (Prisoners), a means to cause violence (Death Machine), and players entertained by the results (Gaius and audience). Incredibly interesting when the topic is concerned!

I watched the video below and to be honest, it actually scared me. That wall is seriously intimidating!

       

     Obviously, Gaius had psychopathic tendencies (I read somewhere he was cannibalistic), and was the founder of this 'game' of execution, so this Death Machine is the anomaly of the research I've done so far (and probably until the end). However, it still says a lot about how violence was treated back in them days, as this event was still entirely entertainment.

     It's weird to think that back then, the officials and the upper class treated violence as an entertaining sport, but now, the upper class criticize it and it's supposed negative influence on society. Is this a sign that cultural morals have overpowered a possible primal instinct? Is it cultural evolution? I'll have to look at the psychological side of violence in an future post.

    It's quiet interesting to see how violence was a common and larger part of society than it's frowned upon image nowadays. A pattern I am seeing, considering the year jump from the last post, is how violence in 'games' was used as a method of not only entertainment, but as a means to resolve conflict. Back then, violence was literal as both a solution and as a source of entertainment, now, violence is literal in digital form as a source of entertainment. The only explanation I can see as of yet, is that culture is primary influencer in this difference. 

    The questionable difference between how violence was once perceived and how we perceive violence now, can only be answered by analysing the stark contrast the two cultures - again, a future post.

    So far, the two posts I have written recording past accounts of violence in games, is leading to two incredibly indicative topics - psychology and culture. Maybe these two topics can prove the passive focus of the timeline  Are these two directly to blame for how why violence is games and how violence is in games?

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIKINGS: TUG OF WAR (SKIN PULLING) 1000AD

VIOLENCE IN GAMES: MASOAMERICAN BALL GAME (1500BC)

      Going as far back in history as I possibly can at this point (I'll most likely find earlier recordings), I have come across the insane sport named the Masoamaerican Ball Game - a central / south american ball game. It's actual goals and rules arent that bizzare when looked at as a closed system (in fact, theyre quiet similiar to ball games of today), but when looked at as a cultural system, the cultural importance and abnormalities reveal themself.

MASOAMERICAN BALL GAME - 1500BC
In-Game Illustration

     Yes, the game has teams, yes the game has a ball and yes, the game has goals, but what's important is its tendancy to become violent, as the Masoamerican Ball Game often served to faciltate cultural conflicts in the dawn of war (isolated or expansive).

    What I find interesting about this is it is clearly a 'game' in th eliteral sense at its core, but it serves to resolve conflict, rather than to purely entertain. It's cultural importance cannot be understated - it's a reflection of the values (honour, culture) of the civalisation's time. The striking detail I learnt, is that in some cases, sacrifices were made to gods before game - mental!

    It's crazy that the act of violence to win a 'game' determines which side is superior, both in-game and in cultural hierachy. But to be honest, it's not too disaimlar to modern games when you consider players use violence to succeed in a modern game to earn rewards, progress and feel strong adn 'awesome' (Gun Fire, Sword Fights etc). Violence in ancient games (blood sports) seems to highlight culture on some level and real life conflict while modern games use violence as entertainment and a means to feel 'cool'.

    Maybe this is a pattern I shall see in future reseach - the clear contrast between the and and now. Does  violence in games directly reflect culture and ideologies? Has its use and meaning changed? I'll find out as  trod down the timline until the present day.

For future reference, here is a quick over of this common game that has violent tendacies prompted through conflict.

The specifics of the ominously-titled “Mesoamerican Ballgame” aren’t well-known, and frankly, don’t matter that much. Two Central or South American teams would try to keep a ball in play in a long alley flanked by walls. Later, hoops would be added to the walls to serve as goals. The ball was moved with the Mayan players’ hips, but later their forearms or feet.

The game often served to resolve disputes in lieu of war, so the matches were taken VERY seriously. So seriously, in fact, that human sacrifices were made to the gods before games.

REFERENCE LINK

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIKINGS: TUG OF WAR (SKIN PULLING) 1000AD

VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE IDEAS

        A key part of this research project is to present and communicate the findings and conclusions through a visually rich timeline. Creativity is one of my great hobbies, especially when Photoshop is concerned, and when you consider the timeline is to be heavy on visual information rather than textual information, a successfully designed timeline is key.

I don't want a linear, everyday timeline. It's too boring considering the topic my research is focused upon. I want it to fit the theme, be creative, be fun, but most importantly, just look cool. So I have a few ideas on how to tackle it - ideas that fir the idea of a visually rich themed timeline.

POLICE CRIME BOARD - I've been watching Dexter recently, and often, episodes feature the stereotypical crime board. Boards where images of suspects, victims and locations are pinned to a white board with minimal information, the sole purpose of such visual material, is to be presented to the detectives and forensics' specialists by those already informed.

Maybe I could use that idea to have a none linear timeline and to ensure the timeline is heavy in visuals. To further reflect the theme of violence (the topic) I could overlay blood spatter, maybe even have buzzwords drawn around the "crime board" in blood smears. This would both help convey the theme to those listening to the presentations whilst helping myself and Andrew to present the information rather than holding cue cards. Plus, it would just look cool.

CRIME BOARD - EXAMPLE

COLOUR SCHEME IDEA

RORSCHACH INK - When I think of crime, I think of violence, then psychology. Considering psychology may have be the driving force for this timeline, maybe there could be some way to present the timeline as a Ink Blot test. I think this is by far the most ambitious and interesting design. But presenting the timeline around this idea may cause issues. Yes, I don't want it to be linear, but I still want a logical order to the information. After all, it is a time "line".

RORSCHACH INK BLOT - EXAMPLE

      So they are my ideas so far, I'm still yet waiting to discuss these ideas with Andrew (my project partner) but I like them, and I'm sure he will too. I'm still thinking of other ideas, but as a starting point, these two ideas are great, as this research project could go two ways, and now, I have a timeline idea for both.

NEXT POST: COMING SOON!

VIOLENCE IN GAMES: INITIAL GOALS AND ARTICLES

      It's incredibly hard to find practical, never mind relieble evidence, when researching violence in games to draw an comprehensive and informed conclusion. Violence in Video Games is a topic with great coverage, arguments, speculations and conclusions, but beyond that, evidence seems to wane the deeper you delve into history or culture unless you know specificly what you are searching for.

So as a starting point, I have decided to path out my research. What do I want to know and what do I need to know? These are the questions that will be asked when researching violence in games (not just video games) as a whole. The answers to those questions are below and will form the basis of this assignment.

This is very much a living plan - further research can and may inform the direction of this study.

• Earliest recording of violence as a sport?
• Why violence in games before?
• Notable examples (dating to prehistoric)?
• Why violence in games now?
• Notable examples (modenr games and sports)?
• Why and is violence a pleasure?
• Why is violence prominant in games?
• Is there a passive pattern?
• Conclusion and future?

I believe that by answering these questions, I shall develop a comprehensive but concise journey documenting violence in games through the form of a visually rich timeline.

      Already a few articles show some importance in this research. It is importnat to note, that highlighting violence in games is not the single goal of this research, rather, the goal is to also understanding the reasoning behind violence in games then and now. Artciles found as of yet, may prove to be invaluable when answering the questions above.

9 INSANE SPORTS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/05/23/9-insane-sports-of-the-ancient-world/

BLOODSPORTS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sport

THE VIOLENT ORIGIN OF SPORT

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/basic-instincts/200812/the-violent-origin-sports

WHY DO PEOPLE RESORT TO VIOLENCE?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-the-cycle/201112/why-do-people-resort-violence

These articles, along with many others, will be revisited and referenced to draw conclusions for this project. However I will not research alone. Both I and Andrew Shuffleton will work in co-operation to reach the target. Have at look at his blog post below.

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE IDEAS

ANDREW SHUFFLETONS POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES