I'm so tired of the killing.

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Look, there's truly something to complain about here. Games rely on killing a bit too often and there's a discussion to be had.

HOWEVER. Last Of US and Assassins Creed are NOT games that should be included in that discussion.

Last Of Us is post-apocalypse. All rules of civilization have broken down, right and wrong mean next to nothing and survival takes precedence over everything.

Assassins Creed is a game where literally your entire job is to kill people. That's what an assassin does. It's right there in the name. You don't get paid to cook. You don't get paid to clean. You get payed to kill people.

So use better examples.

 

[Gronk]

Assassins Creed is a game where literally your entire job is to kill people. That's what an assassin does. It's right there in the name. You don't get paid to cook. You don't get paid to clean. You get payed to kill people.

So use better examples.

Again I will argue that assassins creed is an excellent example of a game where the gameplay and the story has some problems. The main character is a professional assassin yes, he is ninja if we ever saw one, he is the best there is. But killing innocent civilians is surprisingly easy, you just happen to press a button and he lunges upon the closest person, stabbing them to death without a second thought, even if they are totally innocent and just happened to walk by.

I will argue that a professional assassin would never kill an innocent person in the open like that, and thereby risking his cover in doing so. Also the game makes it too easy, it's like having a "Tourettes-button", I don't know how many times I ran through the crowded streets of venice and, by accident, pressed the wrong button, killing some innocent passer-by.

Also you can clearly see that he has some sort of morals, or at least a code by which he lives by. Killing an innocent person causes the game to tell you that "he never did that in real life, please stop it". So why is the possibility even there, when it so clearly goes against his character?

This is what I mean when i say that gameplay works against the story.

Interestingly enough, even a game like CoD, where you kill hordes of people, acknowledges that killing innocent civilians is a something you save for that shocking moment, something you could actually choose not to play (though i know of no-one that actually did).

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Assassins Creed is a game where literally your entire job is to kill people. That's what an assassin does. It's right there in the name. You don't get paid to cook. You don't get paid to clean. You get payed to kill people.

So use better examples.

Again I will argue that assassins creed is an excellent example of a game where the gameplay and the story has some problems. The main character is a professional assassin yes, he is ninja if we ever saw one, he is the best there is. But killing innocent civilians is surprisingly easy, you just happen to press a button and he lunges upon the closest person, stabbing them to death without a second thought, even if they are totally innocent and just happened to walk by.

I will argue that a professional assassin would never kill an innocent person in the open like that, and thereby risking his cover in doing so. Also the game makes it too easy, it's like having a "Tourettes-button", I don't know how many times I ran through the crowded streets of venice and, by accident, pressed the wrong button, killing some innocent passer-by.

Also you can clearly see that he has some sort of morals, or at least a code by which he lives by. Killing an innocent person causes the game to tell you that "he never did that in real life, please stop it". So why is the possibility even there, when it so clearly goes against his character?

This is what I mean when i say that gameplay works against the story.

Interestingly enough, even a game like CoD, where you kill hordes of people, acknowledges that killing innocent civilians is a something you save for that shocking moment, something you could actually choose not to play (though i know of no-one that actually did).

I get what you're saying, but limiting the player like that can be one of the most infuriating things ever. I bought Fallout 3 for PC JUST so I could kill a few of those littler bastards in Little Lamp Light. If I had been able to in the console version, I probably would have never done it more than once. If a game tells a player they simply CAN'T do something they totally should be able to do, it breaks immersion and pulls me out of the experience.

I will give you that it's a bit easy to kill civies in AssCreed, but I think that has less to do with the climate of the games industry and more to do with the fact that AssCreed games have bad control schemes. Also, you're making it seem like killing civilians has no consequences. I haven't played those games in a long time, so feel free to correct me, but I seem to recall that if you kill 2, maybe 3, the game effectively reverses time and you lose progress.

 

[Gronk]

Also, you're making it seem like killing civilians has no consequences. I haven't played those games in a long time, so feel free to correct me, but I seem to recall that if you kill 2, maybe 3, the game effectively reverses time and you lose progress.

I think that's what happens yes, but that is a very simple and lazy way to handle the matter. I don't really think that is a "consequence" really, since it doesn't affect the story or characters. It's just a mechanical reset function.

Look, i'm not saying there can't be violence and killing in games, I'm just saying that i wish they did something smart with it. I played Spec ops: the line, where they actually tried to do something different with all the killing.

In The last of us, they could have made it so that if you killed a lot of people, Joels PTSD would become more acute, causing hallucinations, nightmares and shakiness. Then at least you would know that even if he is such a bad-ass as you say he is, at least he is not a mindless robot, and as such a much more interesting character.

 

[A.A.K]

- snip -

It appears you have empathy and a conscience and the killing, whether virtual or not... It's just enough for you.
You'd make a good Confucian Philosopher. It was written "Any man who revels in slaughter, or the rewards of slaughter, can never be a man of conscience and peace." Or at least I think that was the quote...been a while since I studied Confucius.
I get bored of violence, only because it's day-to-day. It's part of the reason why my gaming is so infrequent nowadays.
Family profession, years of training, teaching it, scary friends, normal friends, gaming, reading, studying...
I do enjoy a good game...but I can usually get my fix from just playing BlOps2 or Skyrim for an hour.
So I haven't felt overwhelmed by it all like you have.

 

[Doom972]

So you play a game in which the main premise is killing and then complain about too much killing? There are other games, you know.

For example, I recently I started a stealthy playthrough of Skyrim in which I don't kill members of the playable races unless it's a contract/bounty. It's very rewarding.

Other examples are stealth games (I recommend the Hitman and Thief games), adventure games (Played Grim Fandango yet?), and RPGs that allow you to solve problems in any way you wish (Fallout series).

 

[Strazdas]

i am also tired of world hunger. lets tell those kids in africa to stop starving.
you dont like killing and yet you buy games with killing. basically you are telling the game makers to make more of them. there are plenty of games that have no killing, and since you consider stunning acceptable, that broadens the scope even more. for example you can complete whole deus ex without killing a single person. and that game has a story that you so behold.
There are diffeerent games for different tastes, and you seem to be playing games not according to your taste.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Also, you're making it seem like killing civilians has no consequences. I haven't played those games in a long time, so feel free to correct me, but I seem to recall that if you kill 2, maybe 3, the game effectively reverses time and you lose progress.

I think that's what happens yes, but that is a very simple and lazy way to handle the matter. I don't really think that is a "consequence" really, since it doesn't affect the story or characters. It's just a mechanical reset function.

Look, i'm not saying there can't be violence and killing in games, I'm just saying that i wish they did something smart with it. I played Spec ops: the line, where they actually tried to do something different with all the killing.

In The last of us, they could have made it so that if you killed a lot of people, Joels PTSD would become more acute, causing hallucinations, nightmares and shakiness. Then at least you would know that even if he is such a bad-ass as you say he is, at least he is not a mindless robot, and as such a much more interesting character.

I could almost accept that, but again, it's post apocalypse. Killing is what happens to survive.

I haven't played the game, but it seems incredibly arbitrary to have killing people effect him in that way and it seems like a very limiting gameplay mechanic even if it did make sense.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

If bludgeoning lucha libre wrestlers with a giant, purple dildo whilst dressed as a Hot Dog is wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

Mk, so you want games that either have no killing, the option to choose the non lethal attack, or justify it's killing.

WELP:

Non Killing- Skate 1,2,3. Mario Kart. Eye Toy (if you have a PS2). Farmville. Animal Crossing. Tekken series. Street Fighter series. Dogs Life (again, another PS2 title). Tony Hawks series.

Non Lethal- Mortal Kombat (fatalities are optional). Mirrors Edge. Pokemon series. Metal Gear. Dishonored.

Justified Killing- Assassin's Creed series (if you kill a civilian, it's because you have a poor grasp of the controls, and by using fists you technically knock out every guard and only have to kill your target). Resident Evil Series (They're Zombies...). Hitman series (similar to AC, only the games give you incentive to only kill your target). Skyrim (you are penalized if you attack anyone that doesn't attack you first).

I know they're short lists, but they all offer a decent story/some fun if you are into the games' genre.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I don't understand why video games need to be violent at all. I mean sure, it is an option. But an option that most developers rely on? It's pretty ridiculous, there is no way that that is the best way to make a compelling game.

Exactly how much killing did classic board games and such have. Very little overall. Are video games so radically different from them that we have to rely on violence?

You know, just because the people who think that video games cause violence are complete and utter fools, doesn't mean that we should lap up violence at every opportunity. Cannot games be more heartwarming than violent for the sake of violent?

I find good games which don't use violence at all very refreshing. There's loads of Valve fans here. What about Portal. It has violence, but by far was it not violent for the sake of violent. Most of the game was avoiding danger and solving puzzles. And it was a very dark game.

Ultra-violence isn't this necessary evil that most games have to rely on. There are all sorts of ways to make gameplay. What about Catherine?
This doesn't look very violent to me. It's dark, and there's some forms of violence. But it certainly isn't all about the violence.

What about games like Guitar Hero, and Dance Dance Revolution? And rhythm games in general? What's wrong with them? Are they any less qualified as games than games that use violence?

There's so many examples I could go into. Now, violence in games isn't wrong. But it just isn't true that games have to rely on violence for gameplay. And in fact I'm getting sick of all the violence. For those of you not turned off by violence, doesn't it at least sometimes get, I don't know, a little bit boring?

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Then play old stealth games. Problem solved.

 

[devilkingx]

I've always wondered why no one who complains about this ever uses common sense

if someone was trying to kill me, and I had the means to kill them, I'd kill them so that I don't die

why do the faceless goons who go to extreme lengths to kill you for no reason matter to you more than the protagonists who kill for good reasons and usually in self-defense(how many of the things you've killed in video games were going to leave you alone and not willingly impede you in any way had you not have killed them? none? exactly.)

a good example is the best indie game ever made(terraria is like..a runner up), IJI, its a 2D freeware game made on an engine that gets little respect so I'm not going to mention it so it doesn't diminish your respect for the game

at the beginning, aliens invade and proceed to kill like 99/100ths of the human population and you need to try to stop them but you can do a pacifist run

when you kill the first boss in lvl 3, he says "you would kill so many... to save so few?"

keep in mind there were 1 million tasen and 6 billion humans, they killed like 5.999 billion humans for their 1 million tasen, and had no qualms about trying to kill you, nor did they even attempt diplomacy

why wouldn't you kill them all without remorse?

but if killing bothers you so much, batman arkham asylum, city and soon origins exists

and also entire genres without killing(platformers like mario, puzzle games like crush, racing games like need for speed and burnout)

 

[Requia]

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.

What exactly is different if you do this? I mean, you're basically arguing for less realistic violence, not less violence.

 

[Requia]

Exactly how much killing did classic board games and such have. Very little overall. Are video games so radically different from them that we have to rely on violence?

Well, I guess that depends on what you consider classic board games, and what you'd consider violent, but I'd call chess pretty violent, even if its very much an abstraction.

 

[BernardoOne]

Also using the Last of Us was not a good example violence and killing fit that world well.

I actually think that "the Last of us" is an excellent example. I accept that it is futile to use games like "Call of duty" or other "whackamole"-style games. The killing IS the game. The game and the story is built to satisfy the generic gameplay.

"The last of us" on the other hand, i get the impression, is NOT built around the act of killing. It seems they aimed for an engaging and emotional story, focusing on Joel and his memories and relationship with Ellie. That story, would not have changed one single bit, if they had chosen to remove the killing. Not at all.

I would go as far as to say that the killing actually hurt this story and it's characters. That's why I used it as an example.

Yeah, a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives peacefully with each other. That would not change the story at all..../sarcasm. Did you even finish the game? The act of "killing" is pretty major for the ending...

 

[LAGG]

You're looking into a very narrow range of genres and talking as if it were everything that exists.

 

[Clowndoe]

I completely agree that there's too much violence in games in a way. It's not that I don't like it and that those games aren't fun, but I keep thinking to myself that there must be a way to have a game that is based in reality and that isn't a sports or a driving sim or needing over the top player vs NPC power.

I think the problem is that apart from abstracts and platformers and such, video games as a medium is just too damn good at two things: Violence and simulations (and simulations of violence). I personally have a few ideas floating around for games that would curb the violence, like a game about trying to help impoverished people in third-world countries in the middle of violent conflicts. This would focus more on the human aspect, and it would be a lot like Planescape where you spend a lot of time talking to people and doing things that should be boring, but aren't, the way Planescape does.

You probably have to idea what I'm talking about, but that's kind of the point. I don't know how I would fill that game. Yes, once in a while it would be inevitable that you would be in conflict with some other group, and that would be made less trivial than in other games by having the combat be really realistic, meaning that the only way you'd get out of it without losing companions is by arranging to have an enormous tactical advantage (i.e., ambushing the enemy while they're on the road or something) to show that conflict is something to be avoided because in real life not much will ensure you can survive the 100th wave of goons attacking you. But what kind of interactions would I put in-between those two points? I don't even know, but one company did.

I'm talking about L.A. Noir, a game that has a fantastic gameplay style that contrasts abruptly with everything else. Unlike GTA where you drive around having wacky adventures in-between over-the-top-yet-totally-in-character body counts, you have a police procedural that has made a fun game out of finding clues and interrogating suspects... and then it has you rack up a triple-digit body count for good measure. Why? Why did it have to do that? Sure, I expected there to be shooting sections because that's a cool thing cops do, but if I were to believe this game the police go through 3/4 of the Gambino family every couple of weeks. This isn't what real fuzz do. I would have loved if, for example, a shooting section involved only a handful, or even only one perpetrator barricading himself and not standing up every couple of seconds until you cap him. They could have encouraged trying to figure out how to stop him without resorting to shooting him at all.

So that's one good idea this industry had that was partially ruined, probably so as to not alienate larger number of people who would have wanted what we actually got. I still think L.A. Noir was a good game, I mean I still enjoyed it thoroughly, and the shooting wasn't that bad. There are a few other games I've felt this way about, Red Dead: Redemption being another off the top of my head, but like I said, the number of scenarios are limited. Bottom line, OP, if you can think of a scenario for what you're looking for, I'm all ears.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

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!

A minor correction:

It was fifteen minutes for us, but twenty years for Joel. I'm pretty sure that, dead daughter or no dead daughter, if I'd managed to survive twenty years in a zombie-infested wasteland where food is scarce, bandits are everywhere, the remaining authorities treat you like cattle, and you can die at literally any moment, I wouldn't exactly conduct myself like the friggin' Pope, either.