You are What you Eat: An Exploration of Consumption as a Form of Violence in Platforming Games.

Having access to a library of ‘retro’ games is an incredible privilege, and I definitely enjoy the opportunity to not only relive the joys of these fabulous NES and SNES gems, but also to really dive into the details of how these games operate and make us players feel. While reliving and discussing these classics, I was intrigued at how the games we focused on today explored and represented a very particular kind of violence mechanism and was curious to unpack how these games executed and got away with perpetuating it - that is of course, the mechanism of violence through consumption.

Kirby’s Adventure and Super Mario World are two games that center around pretty similar narratives, and these narratives among main series titles haven’t really changed over the years. The titular hero travels across worlds hoping to take down a malevolent villain with the assistance of body-altering tools and loveable cartoon sidekicks. In many of the titles in this series, a common mechanism that aids the hero is the ability to consume your enemies for some kind of benefit. in Kirby, our hero eats enemies to gain their abilities or to use his catch as projectiles; in the Mario Series, our hero’s dinosaur sidekick, Yoshi, eats enemies, converting them into currency. Having been brought up with these components to the game, I never really thought anything of them; in fact, I thought they were cute. As a child, I liked that the main concept of Kirby Games was this adorable pink hero sucking up his enemies; and I remember I enjoyed being able to use an enemy’s skill against them. But playing these games again, I had to ask myself, what kind of thoughts did those mechanisms perpetuate in me? Did the bright colours and stars let me know that what I was doing was right? That in order for me to finish a level properly, eating my enemies was the way to go? That I couldn’t reach certain areas or get certain achievements without absorbing the life force and ability of anything and everything that wasn’t me, that I wasn’t in control of?

Likewise with Mario World. I realized recently that the enemies in the game don’t actually attack you per se; they approach you and if they get too close, you get affected. Why is it then, that my instinct is to then invade their space and obliterate them? Or in some cases, eat them and convert them into coins? It really centers on why consumption is an effective means of violence for young children to experience. Why not just straightforward destruction? And certainly, I can’t quite speak on how one means of violence surpasses the other, but I am interested in exploring why consumption in particular is such a popular video game trope.

So why consumption?

Consumption or eating is something we understand from a young age. You eat something, you grow stronger. Implicit in the means, is reward. Regardless of whether you’re eating a carrot or whether you’re eating another person; you are gaining something from that consumption: energy, vitamins, a new ability etc. This is taken further in a game like Mario World, where your consumption translates directly into economic benefit: you get money for eating your enemies, reward for your violence. Kids may not understand the othering of enemies at a young age, but what they do understand is reward for effort. I wondered if in Mario World, you replaced all the goombas with toads or even with Princesses, would gamers still attempt to eat them? As an attempt to gain some kind of benefit? Even implicit in Kirby games is that your enemies are actually sometimes your friends, just mutual inhabitants of the same world, and yet you STILL try to eat them to gain a new ability. Including a consumption mechanism really permits the player to go wild and eat anything and everything and why? Because we all understand that there’s something to gain from consumption.

Extending outwards from enemies for a second, both games also feature power-ups or healing items that are also food-centric (Mega tomatoes, mushrooms, etc), so we are conditioned early in both games to believe that consumption, regardless of what we’re consuming, will benefit our performance. Both games establish an almost survival of the fittest mindset, except in this world, you’re already the apex predator and can consume anything and everything. Another instance of consumption and violence, though outside the sphere of Platformers, is Pacman. A game where your objective is simply to consume, and when given the opportunity, you can even consume your enemies for bonus points. The key here is in the reward for violence.

This reward-for-violence model that arises from these games also doesn’t seem quite exclusive to the mechanism of consumption. Looking at how violence is used in both Braid and Problem Attic, we can see that sometimes violence is necessary for benefit as well. In Braid, Tim needs to jump on enemies to reach puzzle pieces and in Problem Attic, players need to use enemies as a means of reaching higher platforms or areas, despite damaging themselves. Though not quite violence for violence sake, are these games perpetuating from an early age the notion that violence comes with rewards? Or that harm to others can be a blessing for yourself? And I have to wonder if there’s an inherently capitalist message in these games? With so much focus on heavy consumption, personal benefit through disrespect to others and independent heroism combined with the western-centric designs and names of these characters, are game companies trying to appeal to their consumer audiences? Are these the reasons why video game culture seems to get so much of the blame for real world violence?

Just some thoughts, hungry for discussion? Let me know what you think down below!

---

Featured image via