I'm so tired of the killing.

[Gronk]

Seriously? It's 2013 and this is still what is considered acceptable gameplay? Kill people, murder people, not once or twice, but hundreds of times. It's not even considered an issue that your hero is a mass murderer even before the end of the training missions. Why?

Sat down to play "The last of us" the other day. You start off as a loving father who has to watch his daugter die. That's sad and a good way to gain some sympathy for the main hero. Fifteen minutes later he's an outright psychopath, killing people because they happen to stand somewhere that is not convenient? Not cool dude! Not cool!

Is this who naughty dog thought would be a good main character? An asshole who kills people, not because of desperation or revenge, but because of "stuff"? "They have our stuff, let's kill all of them!"

Why is this? Why does it always have to be killing? Why not, you know, hit them a bit in the head, just to stun them? Or tie them up and gag them? Why do i have to listen to them beg for their lives before the game casually instructs me to either a) strangle them, or b) shove a knife through their necks. Am i the only one having a problem with this? And don't tell me "you can throw a bottle to make them look another way". Yes, you can, but it's the harder solution and often you have to "clean" a place out before you can move on. The game wants you to kill. Simple as that.

And why is it so casual? It's like a knee-jerk reaction. There's a gu..KILL!!

In "Assassins creed" you could kill an innocent bystander just by pressing the wrong button by mistake. No effect on the character or the game, except a slap on the wrist, telling you "please don't do that again". Why is the option even there?

"Heavy rain" was an awesome game where life seemed to be valuable until One of the characters go on a shooting spree hollywood style, killing dozens of guys.

One thing i don't understand is why the writers doesn't seem to grasp that all this killing is hurting their story. Why should I care if John Marston, Lara Croft or that Joel guy dies? They killed hundreds of people already without flinching, they should die! Why should i care about a life if the game doesn't care at all? Is this how you think believable characters act? People don't, and if they do, they're psychopaths, shooting up schools, and probably not someone you would like to pretend to be.

Sorry guys, I just had to vent a bit.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Amazingly enough, living in a a post-apocalyptic world for 20 years, seeing the worse humanity has to offer, doesn't exactly improve one's moral judgement.

Spoiler: Last of Us spoilers

Especially when your child wasn't killed by the infection, but by humanity.

There's a lot of examples you could have used, but you go and use one of the most understandable reasons?

I lol'd.

Just don't play games that involve killing people, or do we have to play those so we can create threads complaining about them now?

 

[madwarper]

Don't like killing people? Fine. Stop playing first/third-person shooters.

Play Puzzle games, racing games, sports games, farm/city/amusement park sim games, etc.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Not filling their games with killing would require some other form of gameplay to fill that time, and non-murder based gameplay might not appeal to the brainless adrenaline junkies that publishers take us for.

The new Tomb Raider does try to address the fact that Lara's been forced to kill a man at first, but devolves into bodycount city as it goes on.

 

[Gronk]

Amazingly enough, living in a a post-apocalyptic world for 20 years, seeing the worse humanity has to offer, doesn't exactly improve one's moral judgement.

Spoiler: Last of Us spoilers

Especially when you child wasn't killed by the infection, but by humanity.

There's a lot of examples you could have used, but you go and use one of the best?

I lol'd.

Personally, I thought it was just an average game. Repetitive gameplay, really bad AI, Lousy camera. Good hype though.

So if your kid died, you would start solving all your conflicts by killing people?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Amazingly enough, living in a a post-apocalyptic world for 20 years, seeing the worse humanity has to offer, doesn't exactly improve one's moral judgement.

Spoiler: Last of Us spoilers

Especially when you child wasn't killed by the infection, but by humanity.

There's a lot of examples you could have used, but you go and use one of the best?

I lol'd.

Personally, I thought it was just an average game. Repetitive gameplay, really bad AI, Lousy camera. Good hype though.

So if your kid died, you would start solving all your conflicts by killing people?

Guess what. Joel isn't hero.

Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Rob Robson]

Seriously? It's 2013 and this is still what is considered acceptable gameplay? Kill people, murder people, not once or twice, but hundreds of times. It's not even considered an issue that your hero is a mass murderer even before the end of the training missions. Why?

Sat down to play "The last of us" the other day. You start off as a loving father who has to watch his daugter die. That's sad and a good way to gain some sympathy for the main hero. Fifteen minutes later he's an outright psychopath, killing people because they happen to stand somewhere that is not convenient? Not cool dude! Not cool!

Is this who naughty dog thought would be a good main character? An asshole who kills people, not because of desperation or revenge, but because of "stuff"? "They have our stuff, let's kill all of them!"

Why is this? Why does it always have to be killing? Why not, you know, hit them a bit in the head, just to stun them? Or tie them up and gag them? Why do i have to listen to them beg for their lives before the game casually instructs me to either a) strangle them, or b) shove a knife through their necks. Am i the only one having a problem with this? And don't tell me "you can throw a bottle to make them look another way". Yes, you can, but it's the harder solution and often you have to "clean" a place out before you can move on. The game wants you to kill. Simple as that.

And why is it so casual? It's like a knee-jerk reaction. There's a gu..KILL!!

In "Assassins creed" you could kill an innocent bystander just by pressing the wrong button by mistake. No effect on the character or the game, except a slap on the wrist, telling you "please don't do that again". Why is the option even there?

"Heavy rain" was an awesome game where life seemed to be valuable until One of the characters go on a shooting spree hollywood style, killing dozens of guys.

One thing i don't understand is why the writers doesn't seem to grasp that all this killing is hurting their story. Why should I care if John Marston, Lara Croft or that Joel guy dies? They killed hundreds of people already without flinching, they should die! Why should i care about a life if the game doesn't care at all? Is this how you think believable characters act? People don't, and if they do, they're psychopaths, shooting up schools, and probably not someone you would like to pretend to be.

Sorry guys, I just had to vent a bit.

When all is said and done, do you intend to buy games that don't have killing? Are you buying them now?

Look at this game for example, coming within 2 years:
Gameplay starts ca. 18 minutes in


Will you buy that one?

Or is not wanting killing something you are fooling yourself into believing?

Because I hear plenty of b***hing about not liking this and not liking that, but people aren't supporting the things they say they like.

 

[Gronk]

Don't like killing people? Fine. Stop playing first/third-person shooters.

Play Puzzle games, racing games, sports games, farm/city/amusement park sim games, etc.

But why? I like story in my games, would it have been so hard to just add a "stun" attack? Does the killing add something in particular to the experience? Would people not play the game if there was a "stun" attack?

Probably not.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Sat down to play "The last of us" the other day. You start off as a loving father who has to watch his daugter die. That's sad and a good way to gain some sympathy for the main hero. Fifteen minutes later he's an outright psychopath, killing people because they happen to stand somewhere that is not convenient? Not cool dude! Not cool!

You do realize that these "15 minutes" are 20 years of in-game story, right?
Yeah, "Stuff" that he needs to survive in this kind of world.
Sure, go on, stun and gag every single thug on your way instead of shooting them. I know it sounds really bad, but in the world they live in it is a rational choice.

Yes, you can, but it's the harder solution

And yet you just mentioned an idea of stunning your enemies.

If game wanted you to kill it would incentivize you. There's no score or achievements for killing, maybe one out of 10 enemies will have ammo and facing even 3 guys in an open means almost certain death.

It is "casual" because he was doing it to survive for 20 years!

 

[Gronk]

When all is said and done, do you intend to buy games that don't have killing? Are you buying them now?

Look at this game for example, coming within 2 years:
Gameplay starts ca. 18 minutes in


Will you buy that one?

Or is not wanting killing something you are fooling yourself into believing?

Because I hear plenty of b***hing about not liking this and not liking that, but people aren't supporting the things they say they like.

I actually have bought and played both the prequels to that game.

I like stories in games, and i buy games that seem to have interesting stories.

 

[krazykidd]

Not filling their games with killing would require some other form of gameplay to fill that time, and non-murder based gameplay might not appeal to the brainless adrenaline junkies that publishers take us for.

The new Tomb Raider does try to address the fact that Lara's been forced to kill a man at first, but devolves into bodycount city as it goes on.

What ? You mean stealth? Like Metal gear solid where you don't actually have to kill anyone?

OT: Stealth is underated ( i mean real stealth ) but isn't often done properly ( meaning many ways to get around an obstacle ). Devs can't be assed to do it ,for good reason it takes a long fucking time.

 

[Gronk]

Sat down to play "The last of us" the other day. You start off as a loving father who has to watch his daugter die. That's sad and a good way to gain some sympathy for the main hero. Fifteen minutes later he's an outright psychopath, killing people because they happen to stand somewhere that is not convenient? Not cool dude! Not cool!

You do realize that these "15 minutes" are 20 years of in-game story, right?

Yes? I was talking about play time. I am aware of the storyline. It still doesn't make the character arc believable. There are lot's of people who have gone through hell without turning into psychopaths.

Yeah, "Stuff" that he needs to survive in this kind of world.
Sure, go on, stun and gag every single thug on your way instead of shooting them.

I can't. The game won't allow me.

I know it sounds really bad, but in the world they live in it is a rational choice.

Yes, you can, but it's the harder solution

And yet you just mentioned an idea of stunning your enemies.

If game wanted you to kill it would incentivize you. There's no score or achievements for killing, maybe one out of 10 enemies will have ammo and facing even 3 guys in an open means almost certain death.

Quite often, the game demands that you "clean" an area before you are allowed to move on. How would you do that with this gameplay without killing? The game demands that you kill. If you don't, you don't get to continue.

It is "casual" because he was doing it to survive for 20 years!

 

[Zhukov]

I thought The Last of Us was an example of violence done right. Brutal, but not cartoonishly so, and in a setting that justifies the constant killing.

However, I get your overall point, and yes, I would like to see a bit less murderizing. I don't want the violent games to disappear, I still enjoy them, but I would like to see more story driven games that rely on other mechanics.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is probably why I've always had an affinity for stealth games. I feel better about myself if I can sneak past everyone without them ever knowing that I was there and without killing anyone [other than the target in some games. Like Hitman for example]. I still like having the lethal option because it increases the challenge of dealing with enemies in a non-lethal way and it makes sense that if I fuck up my stealth approach I can do what I have to do to survive.

 

[Bad Jim]

Averted, funnily enough, in Ultima 4. Murder and steal everything and you lose your hard earned virtues, which you need to build up in order to win. This ancient game is free:

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/ultima_4

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think violence/murder is too prevalent, mindless, and predictable over the course of most games. It undercuts the dramatic impact of any given conflict when you're repeating the same slaughter over and over again.

For example: Skyrim. Every dungeon has the requisite number of enemies you must "clean out" as you explore. This turns every dungeon into a predictable chore. Why not create a few dungeons with no enemies or only one powerful enemy? Why not dungeons that only tell a story or feature traps? Why not more conflicts that end in sensible surrender or retreat?

How crazy would it be to fire up Uncharted 4, reach the very first enemy "camp", drop in on two dudes with your machine gun... and they immediately give up because they're just hired goons with families and don't want to die. Or immediately flip sides, joining you for a cut of the treasure... only to betray you later on.

It's the binary nature of the violence that grates after a while.

 

[MammothBlade]

I tend to agree. I mean I love my fair share of violence, but only when it's done right. Killing loads of mooks is boring, repetitive, and above all desensitising.

It can be done right, just make the violence optional, even a last resort. Make it a costly action which must be meditated on carefully. Limited ammo, tactical risks, or consequences for the player character will make you think twice about pulling that trigger or even stabbing them. So will giving the supposed enemies a personality. Of course some people will just kill for the thrill of being a baddie, but it will make people stop and think if they're serious about their in-game actions.

Dishonoured is one game you might want to look into if you're tired of senseless killing, OP.

 

[DANEgerous]

You know I find a rather odd juxtaposition here, In games that killing accurately matters like Dishonored or Deus Ex Human Revolution it is not even satisfying and I typically do not want to kill anyone that is not requited to die but anyone in Saints Row is a blast to kill because you do it in such an absurd way that may defy physics and make no seance at all.

Then you have the middle ground type Military Sim CoD type stuff where you kill because you are solder and that is what you do because WAR! And yeah in that case I can agree. Kill because kill is boring and make a lot of things both in game and to a lesser degree in in life feel far more trivial than they should.

 

[Gronk]

Dishonoured is one game you might want to look into if you're tired of senseless killing, OP.

Thanks for the tip. I will check it out