When I was younger my mum would ask me what the book I was reading was about and after I explained the plot she would just say "child murder again? Should I be worried?" I feel like killing games with children fell out of favour around the time Fortnite took off. It's less shocking when youve seen a classroom full of 8 yr olds discuss their sick headshots to secure a victory royale.
Recently found an announcement for an "anti-killing game" where all the characters are criminals (implied to be murderers iirc) and they have to AVOID killing each other and escape through trust. At least the dead horse that is this genre brought some new takes eventually
@@mikul0id none of the characters in milgram are straight up cold blooded killers and the story isn't about them trying not to kill each other, it's about their prison guard decide whether or not they're worthy of forgiveness
I think the bigger question is not “why does battle royale media feature so many children” but why other violent genres don’t involve children more often. To be perfectly cynical about it, violence against children is a cheat code for creating audience investment. It’s shocking, it draws on the fears of both children and their caretakers, it makes the victim blameless beyond a shadow of a doubt (most of the time). So why don’t we see it more often? Well, it’s pretty easy to tell when you’re being manipulated like this. If you’re too transparent about what it is you’re doing, the audience will turn on you. They want to see at least a little restraint. Unless they’ve signed up for an experience without restraint or subtlety, of course. And a battle royale piece of media basically wears its lack of restraint on subtlety on its sleeve. To agree to sit down and watch these movies or read these books is to accept a higher degree of authorial manipulation than most stories, with the trade-off that the story will be more immediate and graphic and emotionally compelling if you stretch your sense of disbelief to its utmost. Asking whether the victims of your battle royale should be children or adults is asking basically if you should make an identical trade-off a second time. Just by choosing to write a battle royale story, you’ve already answered the question of “should I trade subtlety and a lack of contrivance for emotional immediacy and visceralness?” Emphatically in the affirmative. So of course you answer it in the affirmative again when the question is whether to make your victims teenagers or adults.
I think you're point about how adults can see how brave the children are while children get inspired to rise up is the main reason that these stories are appealing
There’s a great quote I can’t quite remember the source of: “Storybooks don’t tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. [Adults know too, though we call them by different names.] Storybooks tell children that dragons can be *beaten.”* I think part of the appeal of these stories is that they do what a lot of stories do-take an aspect of everyday human conflict-and dial it up to 11. In superhero stories, two friends arguing can quickly turn into a fistfight that destroys buildings not because the relationship is toxic & violent but because that’s how strongly they each hold their convictions and that’s what having a real, awful, heart-wrenching, drawn-out argument with a dear friend *feels like.* Similarly, though adults will often parrot “Children can be cruel,” childhood is still idealized in retrospect and children are often treated with a presumed helplessness & innocence of intention. Whereas I think everyone who’s ever dealt with social ostracization & outright bullying in school can agree that yeah, it sure feels like some of those other kids wanted you *dead.* That there was a maliciousness to it that adults would brush off, which other kids would lean into to get away with more. And any victim who ever had a bully pretend to be their friend or had a friend switch over to join the bullies knows that what it does to your ability to trust others, knows what it’s like to wonder if everyone who’s ever been nice to you was lying for one reason or another. And based on what I’ve heard from people who ended up as bystanders or bullies themselves, a lot of them felt like they had no choice, *someone* had to be in the role of victim, and if it wasn’t the person they hurt then it was going to be them. What I’m saying is the appeal of these stories is multifold. But beyond the shock & horror & glamour of it all, there’s a few truths that strike a chord with a hell of a lot of people: 1. Empowerment fantasies are potent, and the larger the disempowered state of the victim, the stronger the catharsis when they throw it off. Unfair systems, unhelpful or hurtful adults, the general sense of powerlessness that comes with being a kid, these stories all say that if you’re clever and find people you can trust, you can overcome that. 2. Being in public school sure felt like being trapped in a killing game in every way but the murder for some of us. It’s recognizing the self in the other and the catharsis therein. …Also, if anyone’s read this beast this far, I’d like to call out one of the few things the Hunger Games movies did better than the books, which is humanizing the Careers. Cato’s broken speech at the end about how he should’ve known he was dead from the start was fully movie original, and it rips my heart out every time. He’s unrepentant to the end in the book, and while that is definitely one way to frame it… fuck, he’s still a *kid,* and for everything I’ve said, he was taught to be the horrible person he was by the adults in his life, was never truly taught the consequences of his own actions, was sent off like a pig for slaughter, and suffers a drawn out & agonizing death as a result. Cato is still a tragedy, shows how the system hurts everyone including the people it favors, and I’m glad the movie gave him that moment of empathy. Plus, I think we can all agree that his actor knocked it out of the park with that performance.
I am reminded of a book call "Red Rising" (2014). The characters are 18, so not children but not quite adults either. It would fit into the Deadly Games category because the objective of the game is not to kill all of the other contestants, but there are no limits so killing is certainly a possibility. Also, (almost) all the participants grew up in luxury and never had to face hardship, which is why the Deadly Game is framed almost like a college, as in a place for these not-quite-children to have a coming-of-age experience. I thought it was an interesting take on the genre, and it fits into the mid 2010's, which is about where the shift in the genre you talked about in the video happened. It's the first in a series of 6 books broken into 2 trilogies. I only read the first three books, and the Deadly Game only appears in the first book because the next two books explore what happens to those who participated in the games and why it exists in society. The society itself is unique, in that there are different classes of people, genetically engineered for different purposes and separated by color. For example, Reds are the physical laborers of society and are short and thin, while the ruling Golds are almost 7 feet tall with godlike physiques. The overarching plot is working to bring down the classist society, and while I enjoyed it, I read it when I was younger so I don't remember how exactly it handled people being classified on their genetics (though it was definitely framed as bad, hence trying to burn down the society). It might be worth checking out, if you still enjoy those types of stories. Anyway, great video. Now do a part two where you talk about twelve year olds playing Fortnight, thus creating the Torment Nexus from the "Don't Create the Torment Nexus" genre of books (joking, or am I :p ).
If I ever do a follow-up video to this, it is absolutely going to be something in the vein of a "Children yearn for the mines" video about how it's so funny that we keep seeing stories about how it's bad for kids to be sent to a killing game but then kids in particular absolutely *adore* playing those kinds of games.
Okay but you know how they always say in these games, “I don’t care if the first kill is today, next week, or years from now! Nobody leaves until there’s one survivor left!” … Oh yeah? You mean it? I want a slice of life (probably manga because it doesn’t fit a VN as a medium) of exactly that. 16 candidates. Usual setup. But everyone agreed, “Yes I miss my old life, but murder is inexcusable and we never have any guarantee of actually being let out ever. This is our life now.” And maybe it’s like a small town for a game arena, and you see these kids throughout their lives, building their lives in this death arena. The MC is always totally pissed, but eventually began to use their built up social bonds or even much later on, their own kids to spice things up. But no, it always somehow ends up being okay, because the MC for the game… sorta sucks at this! The outside world no longer even gives a shit about the killing game aspect, for them now, it is a “wind down comfort show” Just to mix up the genre, I want that. Would you? AND THEN LIKE, WHAT IF THE NEXT GEN WITHIN THE GAME KICKS SHIT OFF, AND FIRST GEN IS HORRIFIED THEY FAILED TO TEACH PEACE, AND THE MC IS ESTATIC THEIR KILLING GAME HAS MOMENTUM AFTER DECADES?
i think another part of the appeal(?) for stories about killing/deadly games featuring a child or teenage cast is that the contestants are usually more balanced in terms of physical and mental condition. an all adults killing game could have a 70 year old war veteran, a 20 year old college nerd, a 40 year old firefighter, and god knows how much more. when you see a cast like that, you will make assumptions about who will survive based on their past life experience and get disappointed if it gets subverted badly (like if the college nerd somehow killed the firefighter in a hand to hand struggle). with a cast of people in the same age cohort, even if some kids are stronger than others physically and mentally, they're still on a more even playing field with each other AND more likely to make dumb slip-ups that result in easier to accept expectation subversions. of course, this doesn't mean that adults cant make dumb choices and subvert expectations in a satisfying way, or that all kids are equivalent to each other and thus have no advantages over each other, but i think it's just easier to handle this kind of story with a cast thats more likely to have a sense of balance
3:40 - Part 1: What're We Talking About? 11:10 - Part 2: Playing The Games 15:00 - Part 3: Ending The Games 20:46 - Part 4: Ok... But Why Kids? I think something pretty noteworthy is how much the media engages with the notion that its victims are children. Gone, Lord of the Flies and The Hunger Games all keep the fact that the main cast are all children core to their identity and how the stories play out (Gone in particular is littered with characters doing things like trying coffee for the first time, not knowing what the word "lynch" means, making trade deals that involves things like "fix our wii", to directly contrast how dire and beyond a child's scope the situation is). Danganronpa and Pretty Little Liars fall on the opposite end of the spectrum to me, where them being children feels almost circumstantial. Sure, this guy is 16, but he also leads the largest biker gang in the country and has a tragic backstory that would fit in a yakuza film. Not to mention the frankly perverted shit regarding how the female cast members are treated in Danganronpa in particular. They both still recognise that the main cast are kids, with PLL in particular taking on a Veronica Mars style "the adults wont handle this so we'll do it ourselves", but the horror associated with children in particular being put through this is less of a focus (again, imo. could be reading all this super wrong). Gut reacting tells me it's a target audience difference, but idk how to elaborate on that thoroughly. Awesome vid regardless, haven't watched u before but I'm for sure gonna check out more.
The point about Gone is a really good one, and it's part of why I kinda wish I had taken a broader angle to this because I *loved* those books and really wish I could talk about them more in general. Gone does a really good job of striking the balance between "Forced to grow up too fast" and "Still essentially children" and it makes it really compelling, and it's honestly kind of a shame that it doesn't get more credit for it.
Ultimately it just comes down to target demographic. Danganronpa and PLL feature high schoolers because their respective creators want high schoolers to consume their media. Same thing with HG, even though a plot element is the horror of televising children fighting to the death, that’s moreso a byproduct of the characters being kids to hit that target demographic instead of the other way around. Killing game related media isn’t as popular among adults nor will it likely ever be.
A big part of the appeal for me, as a kid in stories like Gone and the hunger games was how easily i could imagine myself in them. What if i was in the town that was caught in a capsule ? How would i manage my resources, react to the people around me and the creatures that have been summoned by whatever caused all this ? All of this was the subject of many day dreams as a kid, much in the same way as one might think ''what would i do in a zombie apocalypse?''
I find that teenagers are at the very overlap in terms of age where they aren't too experienced to know better, but are also not "pure" like young childre and are capable of scheming a murder and then executing it. For the narrative the death of a young person is much more tragic than an older person, a killing game in a retirement home would probably be way less dramatic not just because of the deminished physical aptitude of the elderly.
Hey there! I recently watched your inescapable video when it came out and I love your channel! I love how in-depth you're going when discussing killing games, and it makes me wanna make video essays again! I'm definitely subscribing!
Man so many people jump onto video making with unresearched or narrow perspectives. Never thought I'd hear of something as old as the Lottery. Well researched and you're clearly a connoisseur of the (sub?)genre.
So I think as this genre evolves, media with adults will be more Saw-like to up the stakes and madness for the adults (like in Your Turn to Die). They won’t be threatened with only death, but ironic, soul-destroying torment and spectacle as well.
You touched briefly on what I think are the main reasons for this phenomenon. Though a note that at the beginning I'd argue that the survival games you mention (at least divergent) are dystopias, which most if not all battle royale games are too (the main thing mentioned in this video) however, most of these properties are a subset of dystopias which was why you had to discount Divergent from so many of these things. The main difference is that I'd argue a Battle Royale is a constructed combat scenario, be it cerebral or physical, a dystopia is a depressing subset of fantasy. A dystopia *relies* on systemic issues, whereas a Battle Royale can happen in situations like Squid Game (yes, Squid Game is still a dystopia, but the choice to create the game is made by an individual as a response to the dystopia, it isn't the cause the class issues unlike Hunger Games where the games are a tool used by the very power that is the cause of the dystopia)/ Being clear about which you're referring to can be really important as the goal of each genre is very different. Some background: I absolutely grew up in this YA dystopia phase, I read and loved Divergent and the Hunger Games, but I can't handle most of the YA dystopia genre anymore as it's "immature" to me. However, I still like dystopia and horror. So, I've been figuring out what I still like and what I don't anymore, and thus, I have a thesis regarding the appeal of dystopia. This was spurred on by my deep love of Alice in Borderland, Sweet Home Season 1 and Squid Game. Quick recommendation for Sweet Home as a dystopia which really puts the time into showing the best and worst of humanity and has a strong thesis message. Alice in Borderland is a great Battle Royale, so if you're just looking for death games and you don't care *that* much about there needing to be a dystopia attached, just know that the protagonist is the worst of the main characters you follow. Note that both of those are very gory so only watch if you're into that. A Battle Royale, I argue, is about the characters themselves, pushing them to the breaking point and seeing how they react. Yes, most of the characters are bad, but the audience, in most cases, focuses on the diamonds in the rough, the teamwork against all odds, the generosity and the kindness. You want to see characters outwit the game itself. In shallow versions of this, the audience is left thinking that they could absolutely be all-powerful and outsmart/fight everyone else. In more cerebral versions, the audience is pondering the nature of humanity, the cause of the game or the cruelty of the competitors. Like for example, the thesis in Squid Game is that greed causes us to act cruelly, whereas in Hunger Games, you're left bemoaning the cruelty of reality TV. A Dystopia points a magnifying glass at the system or situation the characters are in. You still get the same flavours of character limits and hope in the face of doom, but the genre requires a problem that is oppressing the characters. Hunger Games is a really good example of a dystopia in later books/movies as the focus is less on death games and survival and on the actual world around them. There are two kinds of both of these genres, the YA kind and the adult kind. Most of the time, you see children in the fights; the series is aimed at the YA audience, and most of the time, where it's adults, it's aimed at adults (Lord of the Flies is the exception, the point of the book is t). YA dystopia is meant to cater to the teenage anger at the world around them, their feeling of being restrained and their desire for change, hence why these properties also have messages. The teen protagonists have drama that more closely relates to the teen audience, and they can imagine it's they who are going to be able to fight the same injustices in their own daily lives. Dystopias meant for adults normally lose this optimism because the audience has realised that injustice can't be "fixed", so it instead focuses on the character or on how hopeless the situation is. The reason for the turnaround is, realistically, because the genre intrigue faded, so the YA genre doesn't cater to it much anymore, thus leaving the adult genre as the biggest example. For the Hunger Games specifically, it's probably partly a result of the audience growing with the series. Also, I think there's a change in sentiment overall; optimism isn't highly in demand nowadays as we approach the shady area where consumers aren't consistently working anymore (see: every franchise). Note: The Hunger Games is YA and focused at kids, but one of the rare examples of YA where the theme of the story took precedence over the teen optimism. It kind of skirts the middle ground of YA and adult as it doesn't partake in a lot of YA tropes, but also the character is still hypothetically relatable and everything is "fixed" at the end when fixing decades of systemic oppression is even more difficult than even the Hunger Games suggests it is.
I'm not so sure how well I'll be able to word this, but... I think having the characters be kids in a revolution is actually a specific escapist fantasy for adults. We understand what's wrong with the world, we know the system is flawed and the game is rigged, but we also know that there is no easy solution, only a long arduous war that we may never see won in our lifetime. The idea that everything could be fixed all at once, ending the game early, is a naive and childish one. But we desperately want it to be true. And to add onto your point of finding inspiration in children, I'm reminded of a quote from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, paraphrased, "the child believes the world should be fair and the child is right." Since we're adults who live in the real world and have to follow all the rules, have learned to do so slowly our entire lives, the idea that the rules are made up and we can write new ones sometimes just doesn't occur to us. Also children are the future, and all that.
I think many of the "but why children?" points can be summarized and added to by the idea that all this happening to children highlights and intensifies the inherent violence and perversity present in the idea of killing games. We typically assume that children are in possession of a sense of "innocence" up until a certain point - it makes children and their state of innocence as these brittle, precious subjects, so the breaking of said innocence is a traumatic and mournful moment. Death is a particularly disruptive factor there. Introducing children to the concept of death is seen as, no matter the exact circumstances, at best a bitter reality that simply must happen at some point. The idea of breaking childish innocence by forcing them to not just witness death but potentially die themselves, or, even worse, be the bringers of death - it creates such an incredibly violent contrast to the perceived innocence of a child that it forces the viewer to pay attention and linger on it. It is shock value, in that sense. But not all shock value in necessarily bad and many of the works mentioned in the video play very well on that shock and working off it. However, having become a trope, now the concept of children participating in some potentially deadly competition no longer inspires quite the same amount of shock, if any at all. I typically see people looking back at Hunger Games as something even boring, cliche and derivative, using cheap tricks to pull on the audience's emotional strings. If I were a better wordsmith than I were currently, I'd say that the innocence to such concepts has itself been spoiled. Which could perhaps explain in part the more jaded narratives of newer works using the trope - the writers who write them and the readers who consumed them have grown familiar with the concept and have gotten over that sense of the disruption of the sacred. And what lies in wake of getting over that shock? When the shedding of young blood, even if in a fictional sense, becomes a normality to consider? That's something they had to contend with and that's what they arrived at.
You know, thats somethign very interesting to mention, cuz I have been involved with danganronpa for a long time, and I have seen the shift from "were all going to fight back and escape (please ignore the casualties along the way)" to "yeah were kinda fucked". I honestly consider the point that people shift not to be any nessicarly real world, or political event, but rather a event in a certain fangan that shifted how people perceive it. hell, how I perceived it. I sorta plan on doing a killing game kinda story, but something I have also become quite familiar with is that some of the early tropes, and tools that allowed people to get you attached to a character, and then make you sad really don't work, for example, focusing on a character for a chapter, and then killing them off. This for a time, did work, but even I caught onto it, I think many death game savvy people are so aware of this trope, that when I see other media that focus on a character or characters for a chapter, even if it isn't death game related, maybe deadly lives at most, I instantly know their gonna die that chapter, or are gonna likely get killed. (examples being digimon survive, and both caligula effect games). I still love the genre to death, but I think there's a certain... "gravatause" that only works if used well, if people over abuse that gravatause, then it becomes boring, kinda like how most people now days don't care for anything before the romantic period in terms of music and find it "way to simular", yet back in the day, from renaissance to romantic, all of that music does influence us now. I guess my main point is that we all kinda are attracted to the death game premise somewhat, since its an easy way to get you invested in seeing "who" or "how" will a character escape, but with every new death game, new ideas need to be made to actually create a good story, and then maybe outsmart the player. (SPOILERS FOR THAT "CERTAIN FANGAN" BELOW) this is what makes sdra 2 such an interesting game, because it did two things never attempted before, 1 have two killers in a single chapter, and 2, have a killer actually win, while the latter is a case of mikado being a troll and playing around with the rules to get his way, it was so shocking at the time because in a death game like danganronpa, ironically, a killer winning never happened before, and that's what invests players, something that is shocking, horrific to the players, but new. even if its for a single fake out execution.
I feel like there's a big piece here in the shape of the Saw movies, and their success; the Hunger Game books were coming out following the success of that franchise, and during some of its later releases, Dangonronpa came out between the Hunger game books and the eventual film adaptations, with Dangonronpa 2 releasing the same year as the first Hunger Games movie. Having the story be based around children and teens, and adjusting the content so that it can also be marketed at those demographics, which still allows it to maintain a good level of shock value around the age of the contestants/victims. It makes some sense to me there was a bit of a popularity boom around the genre, considering the popularity of something very similar previously, aimed at adults.
Thank you for the vid, I've picked up some recommendations! Right at the moment the only answer I have is as with any story, killing games allow its readers to ask themselves - what would I do in this situation? And with kids thrown in - what would I do if I was a kid? Looking back at my own childhood, the answer is "Die. I would die there as a kid!"
As an onlooker of this genre, rather than one who interacts with it, I feel this is moreso a logical fascination as a result of counter culture. This is nowhere near a status quo, or mainstream-adjacent genre, so when it pops up, people are like "hrm?". Especially in a world where most media can be boiled down to tropes and "Oh this writer 300 years ago did a similar story", something so pointed, and unprecedented, is going to get more attention. Similar to how battle royales as a video game genre popped off in recent times. Is it because it's good, or is it because, as far as video games are concerned, it's more of a newer game type, that also conveniently found its stride around the time Hunger Games fans would be nearing the age bracket for a target demographic? I think this media concept will remain car-crash level of fascination for a while. Mainstream media is afraid to be the ones who publish these works, and will demonize it when convenient, but will always eagerly wait for more works in this growing genre to continue being published. As someone who was required to read Lord of the Flies for an AP class I ended up not being allowed to take, my answer to the question of "why kids" personally comes down to the fact it twists enough normal tropes, and subverts enough expectations, that it remains an interesting concept. If nothing else, depending on how it's written, it is a premise that leads to stories that are better at sticking with people. Lord of the Flies will always be in the back of my mind, while shows like Lost are things I have to wiki to remember existing.
i think in cases like danganronpa the participants being children can primarily act as a sort of extra handicap to the whole scenario in general just as many other aspects are to make the scenario even more hopeless and interesting. theyre all stuck in a hostage situation, theres no access to the outside world or the internet, they have to try to survive, and of course on top of all that theyre just children, who are generally less competent, more vulnerable, and less independant than adults that would be placed in the same setting. really makes the entire situation all the more hard to navigate from the perspective of a more 'innocent' person whos definitely never had to overcome something as grimdark as whats being presented to them and can even justify more emotionally charged reactions to the situations from the characters, plus kids being a little dumb sometimes can justify the characters taking a while to understand wider mysteries and truths of the gameshow premise.
Regarding part 2, there is a killing game anime where all the participants are willing and eager participants. Juni Taisen is about a bunch of people who willingly participate in a killing game where each participant represents an animal in the Chinese zodiac, and they’re all also trained fighters and representatives of these clans that control the political landscape of the show’s world. Behind the scenes, the outcome of the game will decide how the power structure will form. They each also have a special ability, it’s very much Danganronpa inspired methinks. It’s a fun little romp albeit a bit predictable. Worth a watch for anyone who likes this type of media.
Thank you! Junko's views on despair has helped me so much in my battle against depression! Wish I could be more like her, being able to be herself, do what she wants, not let anyone stop her, and overcome all obstacles! ...of course, we have very different goals...but otherwise.
I read Battle Royale as a teen and liked it. I heard Hunger Games was basically a BR clone, so I didn't bother with the books, but when I got dragged along to the movies I liked the emphasis on the pageantry and showmanship.
Ok, old man talking here. I’m exactly generationally removed by 1 from you. Born 81 with kids already 17 (omg, that’s going to be a conversation later) I think I can help you out with at least some of the potential answers to your questions. A few caveats first. Someone using negative words does not instantly mean they are saying something is bad. A committee discussing ideas to reduce pedophilia in society has a very different meaning to a committee of the MBL assoc. discussing antithetical goals of increasing it. When I say something is ‘disgusting’ I’m not saying that media is bad of lessor quality to something that isn’t disgusting. The only other caveat is ‘Lord of the flies’ will not be reflected in my comments as I don’t think that piece of media is related to the questions being asked and where its narrative does intersect with these themes is superficial. The easy part first, you missed out on one title that really needed to be included. It’s not your fault as I wouldn’t ingest either the book or the movie of ‘Running Man’ (Michael Chricton, Arnold Schwarzenegger) if they were not contemporary. Running Man was easily the first big popular killing game movie. It attempts to approach themes of justice, vengeance, punishment and rehabilitation but is mainly a robocop style critique of capitalism and shows how there is no future for it but dystopia of some flavour. It’s very easy to see the through line of shock value from the Running Man using criminals through to blameless adults, blameless society, blameless children. Media will always evolve in this way as genres explore their limits. As a thought Jurassic Park (Michael Chricton) kinda fits into the killing game genre society level. Before my main point I want to say that you are not sick for enjoying danganronpa. It would be very sad if you lost your ability to empathise with children after becoming an adult. I can relate to my childhood obsession with Kristy Swanson and not be disgusted now that I once as a child thought teenage girls were hot. Perhaps there is even a weird comfort even in rewatching buffy (there can be only one) and no longer finding any of the sexual attraction remains. They are just kids. Ok sorry for the preamble but here is why I wanted to say something. There is a huge amount of media that is directly related to the themes you are discussing but have been skipped over due to their age and often language barriers. There is a tonne of truely terrific content and bits of media that explores these concepts much, much, much further than any of the mentioned properties. It’s not something I would recommend to anyone and would caution against consuming as I don’t think that any of the answers that kind of fiction explores to be beneficial in anyway other than just knowledge. If you want a topical starting off point ‘Salo’ by Pier Paolo Pasolini is a grotesque, disgusting, perverse feature that should be avoided by at all costs. Pier Paolo Pasolini may have also committed suicide in the most boss way ever. Oh I should say I only ever consumed one hunger game and one maze runner and remember almost nothing about them. Good luck and take care. Ummm be good to your mothers. If you want to know where I really think all this evolves from it’s sexism.
The 1st thought that came to mind was the eroge vn named Euphoria. But I dont think it rly fits the killing game genre. But, it's definitely extremely vile. But the h3ntai adaption sucks, but its definitely less tame than the source material
When I was younger my mum would ask me what the book I was reading was about and after I explained the plot she would just say "child murder again? Should I be worried?"
I feel like killing games with children fell out of favour around the time Fortnite took off. It's less shocking when youve seen a classroom full of 8 yr olds discuss their sick headshots to secure a victory royale.
Recently found an announcement for an "anti-killing game" where all the characters are criminals (implied to be murderers iirc) and they have to AVOID killing each other and escape through trust. At least the dead horse that is this genre brought some new takes eventually
Do you remember what the name of this media was?
@@infiniteworld3981 sounds like milgram right off the bat. i duno tho lol
@@mikul0id no, I don't remember, but it wasn't Milgram. It was in early access iirc
@@mikul0id none of the characters in milgram are straight up cold blooded killers and the story isn't about them trying not to kill each other, it's about their prison guard decide whether or not they're worthy of forgiveness
I think the bigger question is not “why does battle royale media feature so many children” but why other violent genres don’t involve children more often.
To be perfectly cynical about it, violence against children is a cheat code for creating audience investment. It’s shocking, it draws on the fears of both children and their caretakers, it makes the victim blameless beyond a shadow of a doubt (most of the time).
So why don’t we see it more often? Well, it’s pretty easy to tell when you’re being manipulated like this. If you’re too transparent about what it is you’re doing, the audience will turn on you. They want to see at least a little restraint.
Unless they’ve signed up for an experience without restraint or subtlety, of course. And a battle royale piece of media basically wears its lack of restraint on subtlety on its sleeve. To agree to sit down and watch these movies or read these books is to accept a higher degree of authorial manipulation than most stories, with the trade-off that the story will be more immediate and graphic and emotionally compelling if you stretch your sense of disbelief to its utmost.
Asking whether the victims of your battle royale should be children or adults is asking basically if you should make an identical trade-off a second time. Just by choosing to write a battle royale story, you’ve already answered the question of “should I trade subtlety and a lack of contrivance for emotional immediacy and visceralness?” Emphatically in the affirmative. So of course you answer it in the affirmative again when the question is whether to make your victims teenagers or adults.
this is some really good thinking, actually! never thought of it that way until reading this comment
I think you're point about how adults can see how brave the children are while children get inspired to rise up is the main reason that these stories are appealing
There’s a great quote I can’t quite remember the source of: “Storybooks don’t tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. [Adults know too, though we call them by different names.] Storybooks tell children that dragons can be *beaten.”*
I think part of the appeal of these stories is that they do what a lot of stories do-take an aspect of everyday human conflict-and dial it up to 11. In superhero stories, two friends arguing can quickly turn into a fistfight that destroys buildings not because the relationship is toxic & violent but because that’s how strongly they each hold their convictions and that’s what having a real, awful, heart-wrenching, drawn-out argument with a dear friend *feels like.* Similarly, though adults will often parrot “Children can be cruel,” childhood is still idealized in retrospect and children are often treated with a presumed helplessness & innocence of intention. Whereas I think everyone who’s ever dealt with social ostracization & outright bullying in school can agree that yeah, it sure feels like some of those other kids wanted you *dead.* That there was a maliciousness to it that adults would brush off, which other kids would lean into to get away with more. And any victim who ever had a bully pretend to be their friend or had a friend switch over to join the bullies knows that what it does to your ability to trust others, knows what it’s like to wonder if everyone who’s ever been nice to you was lying for one reason or another. And based on what I’ve heard from people who ended up as bystanders or bullies themselves, a lot of them felt like they had no choice, *someone* had to be in the role of victim, and if it wasn’t the person they hurt then it was going to be them.
What I’m saying is the appeal of these stories is multifold. But beyond the shock & horror & glamour of it all, there’s a few truths that strike a chord with a hell of a lot of people:
1. Empowerment fantasies are potent, and the larger the disempowered state of the victim, the stronger the catharsis when they throw it off. Unfair systems, unhelpful or hurtful adults, the general sense of powerlessness that comes with being a kid, these stories all say that if you’re clever and find people you can trust, you can overcome that.
2. Being in public school sure felt like being trapped in a killing game in every way but the murder for some of us. It’s recognizing the self in the other and the catharsis therein.
…Also, if anyone’s read this beast this far, I’d like to call out one of the few things the Hunger Games movies did better than the books, which is humanizing the Careers. Cato’s broken speech at the end about how he should’ve known he was dead from the start was fully movie original, and it rips my heart out every time. He’s unrepentant to the end in the book, and while that is definitely one way to frame it… fuck, he’s still a *kid,* and for everything I’ve said, he was taught to be the horrible person he was by the adults in his life, was never truly taught the consequences of his own actions, was sent off like a pig for slaughter, and suffers a drawn out & agonizing death as a result. Cato is still a tragedy, shows how the system hurts everyone including the people it favors, and I’m glad the movie gave him that moment of empathy.
Plus, I think we can all agree that his actor knocked it out of the park with that performance.
I am reminded of a book call "Red Rising" (2014). The characters are 18, so not children but not quite adults either. It would fit into the Deadly Games category because the objective of the game is not to kill all of the other contestants, but there are no limits so killing is certainly a possibility. Also, (almost) all the participants grew up in luxury and never had to face hardship, which is why the Deadly Game is framed almost like a college, as in a place for these not-quite-children to have a coming-of-age experience. I thought it was an interesting take on the genre, and it fits into the mid 2010's, which is about where the shift in the genre you talked about in the video happened.
It's the first in a series of 6 books broken into 2 trilogies. I only read the first three books, and the Deadly Game only appears in the first book because the next two books explore what happens to those who participated in the games and why it exists in society. The society itself is unique, in that there are different classes of people, genetically engineered for different purposes and separated by color. For example, Reds are the physical laborers of society and are short and thin, while the ruling Golds are almost 7 feet tall with godlike physiques. The overarching plot is working to bring down the classist society, and while I enjoyed it, I read it when I was younger so I don't remember how exactly it handled people being classified on their genetics (though it was definitely framed as bad, hence trying to burn down the society). It might be worth checking out, if you still enjoy those types of stories.
Anyway, great video. Now do a part two where you talk about twelve year olds playing Fortnight, thus creating the Torment Nexus from the "Don't Create the Torment Nexus" genre of books (joking, or am I :p ).
If I ever do a follow-up video to this, it is absolutely going to be something in the vein of a "Children yearn for the mines" video about how it's so funny that we keep seeing stories about how it's bad for kids to be sent to a killing game but then kids in particular absolutely *adore* playing those kinds of games.
Okay but you know how they always say in these games, “I don’t care if the first kill is today, next week, or years from now! Nobody leaves until there’s one survivor left!” … Oh yeah? You mean it?
I want a slice of life (probably manga because it doesn’t fit a VN as a medium) of exactly that. 16 candidates. Usual setup. But everyone agreed, “Yes I miss my old life, but murder is inexcusable and we never have any guarantee of actually being let out ever. This is our life now.” And maybe it’s like a small town for a game arena, and you see these kids throughout their lives, building their lives in this death arena. The MC is always totally pissed, but eventually began to use their built up social bonds or even much later on, their own kids to spice things up. But no, it always somehow ends up being okay, because the MC for the game… sorta sucks at this! The outside world no longer even gives a shit about the killing game aspect, for them now, it is a “wind down comfort show”
Just to mix up the genre, I want that. Would you?
AND THEN LIKE, WHAT IF THE NEXT GEN WITHIN THE GAME KICKS SHIT OFF, AND FIRST GEN IS HORRIFIED THEY FAILED TO TEACH PEACE, AND THE MC IS ESTATIC THEIR KILLING GAME HAS MOMENTUM AFTER DECADES?
i think another part of the appeal(?) for stories about killing/deadly games featuring a child or teenage cast is that the contestants are usually more balanced in terms of physical and mental condition. an all adults killing game could have a 70 year old war veteran, a 20 year old college nerd, a 40 year old firefighter, and god knows how much more. when you see a cast like that, you will make assumptions about who will survive based on their past life experience and get disappointed if it gets subverted badly (like if the college nerd somehow killed the firefighter in a hand to hand struggle).
with a cast of people in the same age cohort, even if some kids are stronger than others physically and mentally, they're still on a more even playing field with each other AND more likely to make dumb slip-ups that result in easier to accept expectation subversions.
of course, this doesn't mean that adults cant make dumb choices and subvert expectations in a satisfying way, or that all kids are equivalent to each other and thus have no advantages over each other, but i think it's just easier to handle this kind of story with a cast thats more likely to have a sense of balance
3:40 - Part 1: What're We Talking About?
11:10 - Part 2: Playing The Games
15:00 - Part 3: Ending The Games
20:46 - Part 4: Ok... But Why Kids?
I think something pretty noteworthy is how much the media engages with the notion that its victims are children. Gone, Lord of the Flies and The Hunger Games all keep the fact that the main cast are all children core to their identity and how the stories play out (Gone in particular is littered with characters doing things like trying coffee for the first time, not knowing what the word "lynch" means, making trade deals that involves things like "fix our wii", to directly contrast how dire and beyond a child's scope the situation is).
Danganronpa and Pretty Little Liars fall on the opposite end of the spectrum to me, where them being children feels almost circumstantial. Sure, this guy is 16, but he also leads the largest biker gang in the country and has a tragic backstory that would fit in a yakuza film. Not to mention the frankly perverted shit regarding how the female cast members are treated in Danganronpa in particular. They both still recognise that the main cast are kids, with PLL in particular taking on a Veronica Mars style "the adults wont handle this so we'll do it ourselves", but the horror associated with children in particular being put through this is less of a focus (again, imo. could be reading all this super wrong). Gut reacting tells me it's a target audience difference, but idk how to elaborate on that thoroughly.
Awesome vid regardless, haven't watched u before but I'm for sure gonna check out more.
The point about Gone is a really good one, and it's part of why I kinda wish I had taken a broader angle to this because I *loved* those books and really wish I could talk about them more in general. Gone does a really good job of striking the balance between "Forced to grow up too fast" and "Still essentially children" and it makes it really compelling, and it's honestly kind of a shame that it doesn't get more credit for it.
Ultimately it just comes down to target demographic. Danganronpa and PLL feature high schoolers because their respective creators want high schoolers to consume their media. Same thing with HG, even though a plot element is the horror of televising children fighting to the death, that’s moreso a byproduct of the characters being kids to hit that target demographic instead of the other way around. Killing game related media isn’t as popular among adults nor will it likely ever be.
I never realized that there where so many other pieces of media other than danganronpa that lean into the killing game genre, neat video btw
A big part of the appeal for me, as a kid in stories like Gone and the hunger games was how easily i could imagine myself in them. What if i was in the town that was caught in a capsule ? How would i manage my resources, react to the people around me and the creatures that have been summoned by whatever caused all this ? All of this was the subject of many day dreams as a kid, much in the same way as one might think ''what would i do in a zombie apocalypse?''
You literally make vids about all my favourite things I think I might die
I find that teenagers are at the very overlap in terms of age where they aren't too experienced to know better, but are also not "pure" like young childre and are capable of scheming a murder and then executing it.
For the narrative the death of a young person is much more tragic than an older person, a killing game in a retirement home would probably be way less dramatic not just because of the deminished physical aptitude of the elderly.
Hey there! I recently watched your inescapable video when it came out and I love your channel! I love how in-depth you're going when discussing killing games, and it makes me wanna make video essays again! I'm definitely subscribing!
Man so many people jump onto video making with unresearched or narrow perspectives. Never thought I'd hear of something as old as the Lottery. Well researched and you're clearly a connoisseur of the (sub?)genre.
So I think as this genre evolves, media with adults will be more Saw-like to up the stakes and madness for the adults (like in Your Turn to Die). They won’t be threatened with only death, but ironic, soul-destroying torment and spectacle as well.
You touched briefly on what I think are the main reasons for this phenomenon. Though a note that at the beginning I'd argue that the survival games you mention (at least divergent) are dystopias, which most if not all battle royale games are too (the main thing mentioned in this video) however, most of these properties are a subset of dystopias which was why you had to discount Divergent from so many of these things. The main difference is that I'd argue a Battle Royale is a constructed combat scenario, be it cerebral or physical, a dystopia is a depressing subset of fantasy. A dystopia *relies* on systemic issues, whereas a Battle Royale can happen in situations like Squid Game (yes, Squid Game is still a dystopia, but the choice to create the game is made by an individual as a response to the dystopia, it isn't the cause the class issues unlike Hunger Games where the games are a tool used by the very power that is the cause of the dystopia)/ Being clear about which you're referring to can be really important as the goal of each genre is very different.
Some background: I absolutely grew up in this YA dystopia phase, I read and loved Divergent and the Hunger Games, but I can't handle most of the YA dystopia genre anymore as it's "immature" to me. However, I still like dystopia and horror. So, I've been figuring out what I still like and what I don't anymore, and thus, I have a thesis regarding the appeal of dystopia. This was spurred on by my deep love of Alice in Borderland, Sweet Home Season 1 and Squid Game. Quick recommendation for Sweet Home as a dystopia which really puts the time into showing the best and worst of humanity and has a strong thesis message. Alice in Borderland is a great Battle Royale, so if you're just looking for death games and you don't care *that* much about there needing to be a dystopia attached, just know that the protagonist is the worst of the main characters you follow. Note that both of those are very gory so only watch if you're into that.
A Battle Royale, I argue, is about the characters themselves, pushing them to the breaking point and seeing how they react. Yes, most of the characters are bad, but the audience, in most cases, focuses on the diamonds in the rough, the teamwork against all odds, the generosity and the kindness. You want to see characters outwit the game itself. In shallow versions of this, the audience is left thinking that they could absolutely be all-powerful and outsmart/fight everyone else. In more cerebral versions, the audience is pondering the nature of humanity, the cause of the game or the cruelty of the competitors. Like for example, the thesis in Squid Game is that greed causes us to act cruelly, whereas in Hunger Games, you're left bemoaning the cruelty of reality TV.
A Dystopia points a magnifying glass at the system or situation the characters are in. You still get the same flavours of character limits and hope in the face of doom, but the genre requires a problem that is oppressing the characters. Hunger Games is a really good example of a dystopia in later books/movies as the focus is less on death games and survival and on the actual world around them.
There are two kinds of both of these genres, the YA kind and the adult kind. Most of the time, you see children in the fights; the series is aimed at the YA audience, and most of the time, where it's adults, it's aimed at adults (Lord of the Flies is the exception, the point of the book is t). YA dystopia is meant to cater to the teenage anger at the world around them, their feeling of being restrained and their desire for change, hence why these properties also have messages. The teen protagonists have drama that more closely relates to the teen audience, and they can imagine it's they who are going to be able to fight the same injustices in their own daily lives. Dystopias meant for adults normally lose this optimism because the audience has realised that injustice can't be "fixed", so it instead focuses on the character or on how hopeless the situation is. The reason for the turnaround is, realistically, because the genre intrigue faded, so the YA genre doesn't cater to it much anymore, thus leaving the adult genre as the biggest example. For the Hunger Games specifically, it's probably partly a result of the audience growing with the series. Also, I think there's a change in sentiment overall; optimism isn't highly in demand nowadays as we approach the shady area where consumers aren't consistently working anymore (see: every franchise).
Note: The Hunger Games is YA and focused at kids, but one of the rare examples of YA where the theme of the story took precedence over the teen optimism. It kind of skirts the middle ground of YA and adult as it doesn't partake in a lot of YA tropes, but also the character is still hypothetically relatable and everything is "fixed" at the end when fixing decades of systemic oppression is even more difficult than even the Hunger Games suggests it is.
Happy too see you diversify to another games!
(I will watch it now)
I'm not so sure how well I'll be able to word this, but...
I think having the characters be kids in a revolution is actually a specific escapist fantasy for adults. We understand what's wrong with the world, we know the system is flawed and the game is rigged, but we also know that there is no easy solution, only a long arduous war that we may never see won in our lifetime. The idea that everything could be fixed all at once, ending the game early, is a naive and childish one. But we desperately want it to be true.
And to add onto your point of finding inspiration in children, I'm reminded of a quote from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, paraphrased, "the child believes the world should be fair and the child is right." Since we're adults who live in the real world and have to follow all the rules, have learned to do so slowly our entire lives, the idea that the rules are made up and we can write new ones sometimes just doesn't occur to us. Also children are the future, and all that.
I think many of the "but why children?" points can be summarized and added to by the idea that all this happening to children highlights and intensifies the inherent violence and perversity present in the idea of killing games.
We typically assume that children are in possession of a sense of "innocence" up until a certain point - it makes children and their state of innocence as these brittle, precious subjects, so the breaking of said innocence is a traumatic and mournful moment. Death is a particularly disruptive factor there. Introducing children to the concept of death is seen as, no matter the exact circumstances, at best a bitter reality that simply must happen at some point. The idea of breaking childish innocence by forcing them to not just witness death but potentially die themselves, or, even worse, be the bringers of death - it creates such an incredibly violent contrast to the perceived innocence of a child that it forces the viewer to pay attention and linger on it.
It is shock value, in that sense. But not all shock value in necessarily bad and many of the works mentioned in the video play very well on that shock and working off it.
However, having become a trope, now the concept of children participating in some potentially deadly competition no longer inspires quite the same amount of shock, if any at all. I typically see people looking back at Hunger Games as something even boring, cliche and derivative, using cheap tricks to pull on the audience's emotional strings.
If I were a better wordsmith than I were currently, I'd say that the innocence to such concepts has itself been spoiled. Which could perhaps explain in part the more jaded narratives of newer works using the trope - the writers who write them and the readers who consumed them have grown familiar with the concept and have gotten over that sense of the disruption of the sacred. And what lies in wake of getting over that shock? When the shedding of young blood, even if in a fictional sense, becomes a normality to consider? That's something they had to contend with and that's what they arrived at.
You know, thats somethign very interesting to mention, cuz I have been involved with danganronpa for a long time, and I have seen the shift from "were all going to fight back and escape (please ignore the casualties along the way)" to "yeah were kinda fucked". I honestly consider the point that people shift not to be any nessicarly real world, or political event, but rather a event in a certain fangan that shifted how people perceive it. hell, how I perceived it.
I sorta plan on doing a killing game kinda story, but something I have also become quite familiar with is that some of the early tropes, and tools that allowed people to get you attached to a character, and then make you sad really don't work, for example, focusing on a character for a chapter, and then killing them off. This for a time, did work, but even I caught onto it, I think many death game savvy people are so aware of this trope, that when I see other media that focus on a character or characters for a chapter, even if it isn't death game related, maybe deadly lives at most, I instantly know their gonna die that chapter, or are gonna likely get killed. (examples being digimon survive, and both caligula effect games).
I still love the genre to death, but I think there's a certain... "gravatause" that only works if used well, if people over abuse that gravatause, then it becomes boring, kinda like how most people now days don't care for anything before the romantic period in terms of music and find it "way to simular", yet back in the day, from renaissance to romantic, all of that music does influence us now.
I guess my main point is that we all kinda are attracted to the death game premise somewhat, since its an easy way to get you invested in seeing "who" or "how" will a character escape, but with every new death game, new ideas need to be made to actually create a good story, and then maybe outsmart the player.
(SPOILERS FOR THAT "CERTAIN FANGAN" BELOW)
this is what makes sdra 2 such an interesting game, because it did two things never attempted before, 1 have two killers in a single chapter, and 2, have a killer actually win, while the latter is a case of mikado being a troll and playing around with the rules to get his way, it was so shocking at the time because in a death game like danganronpa, ironically, a killer winning never happened before, and that's what invests players, something that is shocking, horrific to the players, but new. even if its for a single fake out execution.
I feel like there's a big piece here in the shape of the Saw movies, and their success; the Hunger Game books were coming out following the success of that franchise, and during some of its later releases, Dangonronpa came out between the Hunger game books and the eventual film adaptations, with Dangonronpa 2 releasing the same year as the first Hunger Games movie.
Having the story be based around children and teens, and adjusting the content so that it can also be marketed at those demographics, which still allows it to maintain a good level of shock value around the age of the contestants/victims. It makes some sense to me there was a bit of a popularity boom around the genre, considering the popularity of something very similar previously, aimed at adults.
Thank you for the vid, I've picked up some recommendations!
Right at the moment the only answer I have is as with any story, killing games allow its readers to ask themselves - what would I do in this situation? And with kids thrown in - what would I do if I was a kid? Looking back at my own childhood, the answer is "Die. I would die there as a kid!"
I remember one book called "The Girl that could fly" that was about kids with super powers trying to escape an evil prison lol
I remember that too! I loved that book
As an onlooker of this genre, rather than one who interacts with it, I feel this is moreso a logical fascination as a result of counter culture. This is nowhere near a status quo, or mainstream-adjacent genre, so when it pops up, people are like "hrm?". Especially in a world where most media can be boiled down to tropes and "Oh this writer 300 years ago did a similar story", something so pointed, and unprecedented, is going to get more attention. Similar to how battle royales as a video game genre popped off in recent times. Is it because it's good, or is it because, as far as video games are concerned, it's more of a newer game type, that also conveniently found its stride around the time Hunger Games fans would be nearing the age bracket for a target demographic?
I think this media concept will remain car-crash level of fascination for a while. Mainstream media is afraid to be the ones who publish these works, and will demonize it when convenient, but will always eagerly wait for more works in this growing genre to continue being published.
As someone who was required to read Lord of the Flies for an AP class I ended up not being allowed to take, my answer to the question of "why kids" personally comes down to the fact it twists enough normal tropes, and subverts enough expectations, that it remains an interesting concept. If nothing else, depending on how it's written, it is a premise that leads to stories that are better at sticking with people. Lord of the Flies will always be in the back of my mind, while shows like Lost are things I have to wiki to remember existing.
i think in cases like danganronpa the participants being children can primarily act as a sort of extra handicap to the whole scenario in general just as many other aspects are to make the scenario even more hopeless and interesting. theyre all stuck in a hostage situation, theres no access to the outside world or the internet, they have to try to survive, and of course on top of all that theyre just children, who are generally less competent, more vulnerable, and less independant than adults that would be placed in the same setting. really makes the entire situation all the more hard to navigate from the perspective of a more 'innocent' person whos definitely never had to overcome something as grimdark as whats being presented to them and can even justify more emotionally charged reactions to the situations from the characters, plus kids being a little dumb sometimes can justify the characters taking a while to understand wider mysteries and truths of the gameshow premise.
Regarding part 2, there is a killing game anime where all the participants are willing and eager participants. Juni Taisen is about a bunch of people who willingly participate in a killing game where each participant represents an animal in the Chinese zodiac, and they’re all also trained fighters and representatives of these clans that control the political landscape of the show’s world. Behind the scenes, the outcome of the game will decide how the power structure will form. They each also have a special ability, it’s very much Danganronpa inspired methinks. It’s a fun little romp albeit a bit predictable. Worth a watch for anyone who likes this type of media.
Alice in borderland Is another good one !
No, liking media like this doesnt make you sick.
Thank you! Junko's views on despair has helped me so much in my battle against depression! Wish I could be more like her, being able to be herself, do what she wants, not let anyone stop her, and overcome all obstacles!
...of course, we have very different goals...but otherwise.
Very cool video!
DANGANRONPA MENTIONED
I read Battle Royale as a teen and liked it. I heard Hunger Games was basically a BR clone, so I didn't bother with the books, but when I got dragged along to the movies I liked the emphasis on the pageantry and showmanship.
Funny how this kinda stuff doesn’t get censored, yet Assassins High-school gets outright taken off air…..
Ok, old man talking here. I’m exactly generationally removed by 1 from you. Born 81 with kids already 17 (omg, that’s going to be a conversation later) I think I can help you out with at least some of the potential answers to your questions. A few caveats first. Someone using negative words does not instantly mean they are saying something is bad. A committee discussing ideas to reduce pedophilia in society has a very different meaning to a committee of the MBL assoc. discussing antithetical goals of increasing it. When I say something is ‘disgusting’ I’m not saying that media is bad of lessor quality to something that isn’t disgusting. The only other caveat is ‘Lord of the flies’ will not be reflected in my comments as I don’t think that piece of media is related to the questions being asked and where its narrative does intersect with these themes is superficial.
The easy part first, you missed out on one title that really needed to be included. It’s not your fault as I wouldn’t ingest either the book or the movie of ‘Running Man’ (Michael Chricton, Arnold Schwarzenegger) if they were not contemporary. Running Man was easily the first big popular killing game movie. It attempts to approach themes of justice, vengeance, punishment and rehabilitation but is mainly a robocop style critique of capitalism and shows how there is no future for it but dystopia of some flavour. It’s very easy to see the through line of shock value from the Running Man using criminals through to blameless adults, blameless society, blameless children. Media will always evolve in this way as genres explore their limits. As a thought Jurassic Park (Michael Chricton) kinda fits into the killing game genre society level.
Before my main point I want to say that you are not sick for enjoying danganronpa. It would be very sad if you lost your ability to empathise with children after becoming an adult. I can relate to my childhood obsession with Kristy Swanson and not be disgusted now that I once as a child thought teenage girls were hot. Perhaps there is even a weird comfort even in rewatching buffy (there can be only one) and no longer finding any of the sexual attraction remains. They are just kids.
Ok sorry for the preamble but here is why I wanted to say something. There is a huge amount of media that is directly related to the themes you are discussing but have been skipped over due to their age and often language barriers. There is a tonne of truely terrific content and bits of media that explores these concepts much, much, much further than any of the mentioned properties. It’s not something I would recommend to anyone and would caution against consuming as I don’t think that any of the answers that kind of fiction explores to be beneficial in anyway other than just knowledge. If you want a topical starting off point ‘Salo’ by Pier Paolo Pasolini is a grotesque, disgusting, perverse feature that should be avoided by at all costs. Pier Paolo Pasolini may have also committed suicide in the most boss way ever.
Oh I should say I only ever consumed one hunger game and one maze runner and remember almost nothing about them.
Good luck and take care. Ummm be good to your mothers. If you want to know where I really think all this evolves from it’s sexism.
The 1st thought that came to mind was the eroge vn named Euphoria. But I dont think it rly fits the killing game genre. But, it's definitely extremely vile. But the h3ntai adaption sucks, but its definitely less tame than the source material
You can make kid have some adult skills. You can't make adult relatable. Shut up, smartypants, it's more accurate to say you can't.
Early gang
: