The Aggressor Analytical Categories

The Aggressor can be defined in many ways, but two have shown to be very common: the Aggressor as someone who is attacking another state, thereby breaking a norm of international law through the crime of aggression, and as a trope used as the “other” in a narrative for a group of people that build a common identity (see for that the dynamic and designated Aggressor). This database and the selection of games presented try to accommodate for both of these main tendencies to find the Aggressor in digital games.

The games themselves have been selected mainly on common themes like war and anti-war, conflict and/or threat. Due to their similarities to a simulation of international relations, many strategy games have found their way into the database. Also, many games that deal with a specific historical conflict, be it directly or indirectly, were looked at more closely (see for that the historical and fictional setting).

The categories used in this database should, by all means, not be understood as fully set and done. The Aggressor Project itself is, like this database, still on its way towards a deeper understanding of the Aggressor. The research in the field of digital games relating to the Aggressor is therefore still in its beginnings. Nonetheless, the proposed categories can function as preliminary examinations which strive to enable a further and deeper analysis of the Aggressor and Aggressor types in digital games.

This category is concerned with a central question of the project: how does the game in question conceptualise the role of the Aggressor?

Is there a “Dynamic Aggressor” in the game, this indicates that the game presents this role as flexible. A game like Europa Universalis IV (Paradox Development, Paradox Interactive, 2013) is a good example of this. The system of rules allows for a dynamic entry and exit of the role of Aggressor, both for the player actors and the ones controlled by the game. Aggression and the role of Aggressor become an optional one, meaning that it can be chosen to become or stop being an Aggressor. This often comes with a game-internal parameter that evaluates the aggression as part of the rules, and this can be punished or rewarded. Ultimately, however, the players decide whether or not to become an Aggressor.

The “Designated Aggressor,” on the other hand, means that the game chooses to present one side of the conflict, either constantly or episodically. There is no change in the role of the Aggressor. A good example here is XCOM: 2 (Firaxis Games, 2K Games, 2012). Both narrative and system of rules designate the Aggressor and the players cannot change this perspective. This does not mean that there is no option to act towards the Aggressor, but that the Aggressor role is locked. Even if, for example, players act like an Aggressor (through military attacks or morally questionable military actions), the game presents this only in relation to the designated Aggressor and does not change its perspective here.

Here, another important question for further research is central: is the setting presented in the game explicitly historical or not?

If the setting is “historical," the database understands this as a direct and explicit reference to a historical place, time or event. The history does not have to follow the development of real-life history, but can diverge when starting from a specific, or retain certain elements of history. An example of a fairly explicit historical setting - and Aggressors in it - is Company of Heroes 2 (Relic Entertainment, SEGA, 2014).

Not all games feature such a historical setting, specifically when touching upon more controversial memories or historical topics. For this, the setting category of “fictional” was conceptualised. This War of Mine (11 Bit Studios, 11 Bit Studios, 2014) can serve as a splendid example to demonstrate how a fictional setting does in no way mean irrelevant to historical research. Time and place are left blank and are for the player to estimate, but the proximity to historical events is certainly there. It shows that these games can indeed process historical aggression and present Aggressors by showing parallels or homages to historical events. However, it often requires more decoding by the players to understand this context properly.

The third category turns its view to the players themselves and their role towards the Aggressor: is there agency and ability towards the Aggressor and the fundamental aggression exerted?

An “Active Player Role” means that they have the ability to interact with the Aggressor in various possible ways. This can mean direct or indirect resistance to the Aggressor with the ultimate ability to overcome him, like the game This Land is My Land (Game Labs LLC, 2021) demonstrates. It can also mean that players are able to become an Aggressor themselves and act as equals towards him, like Age of Empires IV (Relic Entertainment, Xbox Game Studios, 2021) does.

A “Passive Player Role” on the other hand focuses stronger on the situation within the Aggression and often restricts players' abilities towards the Aggressor further. This does not mean that there is no changing the situation, but rather that direct actions towards overcoming are disabled and the focus lies rather on enduring or acting within the aggression exerted. Siege Survival: Gloria Victis (Black Eye Games, Ravenscourt, 2021) shows this, as the direct option is denied and the player is put in a more passive, enduring role. This category is interesting as it often focuses on forms of resistance aside from military.

With the categories designed, individual games can be profiled to get a closer look at the Aggressor directly. The correlations of categories can also be studies, as in which often overlap and where there is a gap. However, they should function as a basis of operation rather than an endpoint - there is much more research to be done here. For example, as every categorisation of digital games goes, it presents often complicated and overlapping situations abstract and simplified. Typically, every game has player agency and therefore an active player role, yet for the sake of analysis, there was a distinction made to highlight that some games deny direct change of the aggression and rather focus on showing endurance. These categories also need to be further refined and/or extended to sharpen their view in order to allow for a better understanding of the Aggressor in Digital Games.