Violence in Video Games

[deanb]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-14-warren-spector-the-ultraviolence-has-to-stop

 

So thought I'd use this is a spring board for something on my mind. I kinda touched it a bit of it in the Watch_Dogs thread,

 

Basically the whole "let's shoot n tear up n grind up n chainsaw through the game" is starting to get super dull element to an awful lot of games. And it's starting to get a bit extreme too (to the point where Crystal Dynamics are having to make a statement Lara isn't gonna get raped).

 

It sort of feels like it's an alternative to upping the ante on graphics, just now it's upping the violence, whose game has the best method of cutting the foes in half. And the shorthand of using a gun in games, like the Watchdogs example where it was all pretty neat mechanics, then out comes the gun at the end. I guess it's why when titles like Rayman Origins comes out it gets so much praise. Or like the comments other day a few guys on here had for the Lego titles, which are great with just sort of silly violence, nice enjoyable experience for all.

 

It's hard to stand by the industry, and parts of the media that bash on "latest report shows games cause violence" while there's plenty of uber-violent games going around and being hyped up n celebrated instead of much questioning into "is this where we want to go, is this the legacy we want".

 

ramble ramble ramble (it's late, I'll probably refine my thoughts some more later)

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I think there's room for countless kinds of games with different depictions of violence. It's just the bulk of the market right now seems to be that Gears of War type realistic-but-not-weighty, no consequences, balls out action violence that doesn't really even seem tongue-in-cheek or self-aware. I've heard it pointed out that it's dissonance of the highest degree to have a character act kind or funny or warm or whatever in cutscenes, then go out and straight-up murder 500 people before the next cutscene. It would be refreshing to have that rethought once in a while.

[TheMightyEthan]

I've heard it pointed out that it's dissonance of the highest degree to have a character act kind or funny or warm or whatever in cutscenes, then go out and straight-up murder 500 people before the next cutscene. It would be refreshing to have that rethought once in a while.

 

Nathan Drake is often brought up in that context.

[Mister Jack]

To be fair, Drake does get called out on that by Lazarevic.

 

"You think I am a monster, but you're no different from me, Drake. How many men have you killed? How many, just today?"

Edited June 14, 2012 by Mister Jack

[deanb]

Was gonna bring up that quote but ciuldnt find the clip. It's about the only self aware statement regarding the mass shooting in games that im aware of and its several years old now. And from same company came a game play trailer that ends with a guys head been blown off with a shot gun while pleading for his life.

 

Be nice to have balance. Like insomniac with resistance on one end n ratchet n clank on other. L4D n Portal. Sam n Max n Walking Dead. Spice it up a little. Show that shooting people isn't your one trick pony. Create your world, story, mechanic and ask yourself constantly:does this plot point/problem/etc need solving/moving forward with the use of a gun/violence. If the chaingun magically disappeared is the player fucked?

[Mister Jack]

Are you referring to The Last of Us? I don't really think that sort of game is in the same boat as power fantasy shooters like Uncharted or Gears.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Mister Jack

[Alex Heat]

Didn't they do this in Tomb Raider Anniversary or Legends? I forget which, but I recall Lara doing the THESE HANDS HAVE KILLED thing a whole lot.

 

And she's even the trope picture!

 

I'm alright with there being consequences to killing in games (I recall the NES Dick Tracy game punished you for shooting unarmed enemies), but I can't imagine devs bogging down the cutscenes and gameplay for it.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Alex Heat

[TheMightyEthan]

Well I don't think anyone (in here, at least) is saying that no games should have that kind of power fantasy violence, it's just sad that it seems like almost all big, AAA games feel obligated to. Watch_Dogs was the perfect example.

[Mister Jack]

The fact that it's so prevalent is really less of a reflection of gaming itself and more on the people who play them. The only reason it's seemingly everywhere is because it sells so well. That's probably the reason it's in Watch_Dogs, too. The game just won't sell as well if it's all about hacking. There's really no disputing that.

[Alex Heat]

The game just won't sell as well if it's all about hacking. There's really no disputing that.

 

I'll keep sending those TV show pitches to Picus anyway, goddammit!

Edited June 15, 2012 by Alex Heat

[deanb]

http://www.gamesindu...t-games-on-kids

 

So there's supposedly a US bill in the works to study the effects of violent video games. (of which I'm sure gamers will be able to provide a conclusion beforehand thus saving the money and effort in the first place).

 

Also with the whole 3:40AM thing I do have some other thoughts but for a more awake time I think.

[Mal]

Since you brought this topic back up, there is also this commentary by TB:

 

[Waldorf and Statler]

I can save them the trouble in math formulas.

 

Responsible parent+video game playing child=healthy child who only saw violence once parents saw it as psychologically ok for him.

Irresponsible parent+video game playing child= blame video games when the child doesn't act normally even though it did parenting for you.

[deanb]

http://www.destructoid.com/you-should-feel-bad-but-games-don-t-want-you-to-247794.phtml

 

Read this the other day, thought it pretty good fit for this thread. It is something that kicks in the back of my mind quite frequently. Many games make it hard to be a good guy/pacifist. Even if game states otherwise in the story.

But I can see the argument that gamers find it exciting, and having long periods of non-excitement can turn players off. Though I'd say it's a case of finding something else to fill in the gaps, or replace it altogether. Or at least create a game where violence is (somewhat) optional. I would hope that Watch_Dogs will feature a pacifist mode in some way and the stuff shown so far is for excitement factor. Kinda like the Three Pillars thing DXHR had.

[deanb]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/10277-Stealth-Games-Dont-Have-to-Be-About-Killing-People

 

A neat post from Yahtzee about making stealth games where the aim isn't to be killing folks. Leads a fair bit to the disappointment of Watch_Dogs having guns I guess, and some recent worries about how the new Thief game may play out. It does say something when the "don't kill people" is a gold trophy achievement in stealth games. The expectation is to kill people.

[Mercurial]

So? 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Some of us are tired of killing people and it's very unrealistic.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Approaching the December Dishonored DLC without being seen by people at all made the game all the more interesting. Same goes for Mark of the Ninja (only Mark of the Ninja actually encouraged it with the mask). I'm not one of the types who really cares whether there's killing—inordinate or not—in a video game, but I don't think it should be seen as necessary.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Yeah beating Dishonored without killing was great. Deus Ex could've learned a lesson in making it explicitly clear that not killing was an option, especially near the beginning.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yeah beating Dishonored without killing was great. Deus Ex could've learned a lesson in making it explicitly clear that not killing was an option, especially near the beginning.

 

Isn't there a no kill achievement? I'm not sure what you were confused about with it not making it clear. Why else would they give you both a lethal and non-lethal takedown?

[Waldorf and Statler]

Because at the very beginning of the game, when you are escaping the facility and all you have is a gun they never say something like "Remember you don't have to kill". Up until that point all you could imagine is that it was a regular shooter and had to kill the enemies, only once you get past an initial confrontation do they make it clear you don't have to kill but at that point you won't get the achievement/trophy.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Because at the very beginning of the game, when you are escaping the facility and all you have is a gun they never say something like "Remember you don't have to kill". Up until that point all you could imagine is that it was a regular shooter and had to kill the enemies, only once you get past an initial confrontation do they make it clear you don't have to kill but at that point you won't get the achievement/trophy.

 

I guess the confusion comes from people who have never played a Deux Ex game  before this one.

[Hot Heart]

The confusion comes from the segregation between an introductory section where you don't even have your powers and where you are not given a full HUD or any of the other notifications from completing sections to tell you if you weren't spotted, didn't kill anyone, etc. and the rest of the game where all of those things are present.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Hot Heart

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Those bonuses weren't present in Deus Ex (there's no "ghost" ranking to achieve that  gives you help in-game) yet you still knew about the option. So I mean really, it's just an issue for those not familiar with the series. Which is understandable as this drew in many new people.

[Hot Heart]

It's understandable, sure, but I think it's attributable to more than just one thing. I know a couple of people who had played the first game and felt that the 'rules don't apply' during the introductory section. Which is itself understandable since it's the one time in the whole game that you're meant to be defending somewhere instead of infiltrating it.