Do games rely too much on violence as entertainment [And no, this is NOT a "violence is bad" rant].

[Psych the Psycho]

Firstly, watch this video by youtuber "MrBtongue"; in the video he makes a lot of points about violence in video games:

http://youtu.be/5ZM2jXyvGOc

Done watching? Well then, let's sit and talk about a topic I like to call "Violence, the filler of modern games".

Please Note: Video Games that revolve around [over-the-top]violence like Saints Row or Call of Duty, are pretty much out of the discussion, but games like Bioshock Infinite and L.A. Noire that rely on characters and story should been given a closer look.

As mentioned in the video, L.A. Noire couldn't just be a detective, it had to have full-on shoot-outs (one-on-one stand-off's would have been OK). In Bioshock Infinite, you're waiting through armies and in a story driven game that makes the exploding heads really out of place.

Though, in The Last of Us, the violence doesn't seem out of place.

What do you think?

 

[Glongpre]

Yes, but what else can they fill the game with? It seems there aren't very many alternatives(yet). There are puzzle games, role playing(dear esther), and violent games. Until someone figures out how to move the story forward with something else, you will have to get comfortable with jumping on heads, or shooting them.

 

[Legion]

I think the problem is quite often that the violence doesn't really connect with the game. If you think about games such as Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider, the combat felt very excessive considering the scenario.

You'd think in Infinite that considering they want Elizabeth alive then capturing you would make more sense. There was also the fact that unlike Bioshock 1 and 2, they never really delved into justifiable reasons for why everybody has vigors or why you are facing enemies that seem to have extremely advanced versions of them. It all felt like it was there because "It's a game, what else is it supposed to have?". In the original games the enemies were psychotic and addicted to the plasmids, so it made a lot more sense in the context of the story.

Likewise in Tomb Raider, considering the fact that it's a large island, the way you are shoe-horned into combat zones where you can either stealthily take down enemies or slaughter them it often felt like it was there because "that's what games do" rather than because they felt it flowed well with the game and the story it was telling.

The Last of Us did it right and wrong I think. While the context worked, the game was frequently designed in such a way that killing was always the only option, because proceeding without it was impossible. They also sometimes had sections with far too many enemies at once. If you do that then you make the playable character feel a little too "good" to be believable, every fight should be a challenge not a shooting gallery.

If a game is based around action and adventure then I think violence is often necessary, but I think game designers need to make the two connect more freely than they often do. You need to have a reason within the context of the game that makes sense. Most games tend to stick you in areas that you cannot move past until everybody is dead and for me personally it almost feels like a check list now. I very rarely get excited about fighting in games any more.

 

[Genocidicles]

I think the main problem is not the fact that games are violent, but it's the quantity of the violence that goes on.

I mean in most games you gun down or stab more people than most action films. I don't really have a problem with violence, but it seems a bit silly and unrealistic to have a hero who murders more than a thousand people over the course of the story. I mean in every other entertainment medium, in the most violent of works the hero rarely kills more than fifty to a hundred people... You usually kill that many enemies in the just the first level in some games.

The best solution in my opinion would be to make the player fight less enemies, but make the few you do have to fight more intelligent, tougher and much more challenging to take down. Quality over quantity. The Last of Us seemed like a good step in that direction, at least with the human enemies anyway.

 

[Clowndoe]

While we're throwing links around have a look at this one:


This offers a different angle on the subject. Here it states that at least part of the reason is that making violent video games is too easy compared to making games that actually simulate human interaction. Mass Effect for example had some decently convincing gun fights. Sure they were in third person and involved a bunch of futuristic shields and healing, but it gave you a sense of what you would be doing if you were in a future shootout. Compare that with the talking bits that feel very directed and forced, despite being largely enjoyable for me. We just can't have you type your responses in and have the computer be able to answer to everything you say organically while also directing the player through the story elements.

I just can't think of many games or potential game mechanics set in real or realistic environments (that is to say, fantasy and sci-fi included, but not platformers) that have you interacting with the world that aren't killing people or avoiding them (so not Splinter Cell). L.A. Noire had a shot at this, but they had to dilute the experience by mixing in a totally different game. I had thought of the standoff-type shootout for that game before, but that's not what they did. I mean, if you're going to make a shooter, just cut out the middle man (the investigation).

The best solution in my opinion would be to make the player fight less enemies, but make the few you do have to fight more intelligent, tougher and much more challenging to take down. Quality over quantity. The Last of Us seemed like a good step in that direction, at least with the human enemies anyway.

Oh and this. Thanks for writing it so I don't have to.

 

[Psych the Psycho]

http://youtu.be/2QJVGtKPjNc

 

[IpunchFaces]

The thing about L.A Noire is that it's a slowish detective game with interspaced with Hollywood action. It just feels off. The elements of the game should complement one another, not stand as individual entities.

The initial tone of the game sets the premise of what it would contain. Bioshock Infinite projected itself as a high adventure, hero-saves-the-girl kind of story through its trailers. I came into the game expecting lots of shooting. And I got it. What I didn't expect was(in my opinion)a great story with a wonderful, thought-provoking ending. It totally overshadowed the combat in the end, and I began to realise the reason why they added the combat is to provide a filler between story set-pieces.

Then again, these aren't bad things, per se. It still provides entertainment. It's just used in the wrong way.

Some games use violence as a medium for the story and morals they try to tell; Like Spec-Ops: The Line or The Walking Dead.
The horrors of war and the soul-crushing depravity of an apocalyptic situation (just as examples) are scenarios that when used, can have a really profound impact on its audience.

Other games use violence as an avenue for entertainment. Simple, plain-ol' primal destructiveness, Like Manhunt, Painkiller or games where you are a man with a gun, and your life's goal is to kill shit.

And there are even games where there is no violence at all. Just atmospheric scenes, and a breathtaking story. Like Journey, or Dear Esther.

And you know what? That's okay. People have different tastes. That's why they have different games.


...Or are you referring to the over-saturation of the mainstream gaming industry with guns and blood? If that's your question, then I guess it's because gaming in general has been built on the concept of relieving stress. And the most efficient way for most people is break shit. And look, here are some zombies or demons or whatever, ready to be killed! And you have a gun! How convenient. It's like a digital stress ball, or like a shooting range.

The problem lies in the gaming industry thinking that because people like shooting stuff, they should have it EVERYWHERE. They see that Doom sell well because it's about shooting demons, HEY more games about you shooting demons! There is no moderation; and there is no thought in adding them. And if this concept of videogame making still sells, why should mainstream game makers stop? There is always a divide between what gamers want and what the corporate interests want. If statistics show that for decades adding shooting in vidyas will make it sell more, then they do it.

It's simply economics. But Indie gaming would tell you that not all gamers like violence, and you can make games that aren't violent and can still sell. Maybe one day the mainstream will take note of this and break the mold.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I don't think the pervasive nature of violence in video games stems from economics or societal leanings but rather the limited nature of our input devices and artificial intelligences.

Controllers have buttons and triggers, so they mimic the operation of guns and vehicles reasonably well. But what about talking? Kissing? Holding hands? Running and jumping and climbing for the sheer fun of it? These activities feel flat and unsatisfying through a controller. We simply don't have input devices that effectively mimic these behaviors. Even the very best attempts at broadening our range of action in games (for example, Heavy Rain) end up feeling mostly awkward.

Artificial intelligence, or lack thereof, is another big reason why violence dominates gaming. Violence, especially gun violence, is largely binary. You point, you click, you kill or maim. There are no real complicated degrees or gray areas, no real subtleties, which is ideal when you're interacting with severely limited virtual representations of people. The minute you try to infuse happenings with more layered and complicated interactions (conversation, non-violent physicality, emotion, etc.), the rough edges begin to show immediately. As a simulation, the experience simply falls apart.

The solution to more varied gameplay, then, would be a combination of more intricate and varied input devices with more convincing and complex A.I. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's the easiest and most directly gratifying interaction a game can have.

In Super Mario you jump on enemies and they die, in FPSs you aim at something, pull the trigger, and it dies. It has less to do with gamers wanting to murder something, and more with gamers wanting to be instantly gratified through gameplay. And added to that is the sensation of asserting dominance over something else.

And this need for instant gratification is something that will never leave games. Though developers could come up with gameplay that is instantly gratifying, yet lacks the murder/violence. How though, I wouldn't have a fucking clue.