I'm so tired of the killing.

[Rastrelly]

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.

Well, you have Fallout games, Planescape, Deus Ex, Dishonored... Thomas was alone... Thief games... Beyond good and evil (one sentient being elimination is required to complete the game - and it's final boss)... Lots of management strategie and adventures (i.e. Syberia, Deponia, etc.), lots of puzzle games... No killing required! Yet most people tend to play games to do some shooting, so, yeah.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Yeah, the world truly is going to shits these days.

The other night, I watched a porn movie. You wouldn't believe how shallow the story was. It was all about sex. That shit just don't fly in an emancipated, equal-opportunities society. Bloody troglodytes thinking about making babies all day long.

 

[Gronk]

Also i have to comment on the opinion that many people here seem to have, that just because of Joels background, it is fully logical that he go off killing everyone that stands in his way. I seriously do not know where you got that illusion? From Hollywood movies? He would be more likely to go into shock and just stay in a corner and cry, which is what most people actually do when they are exposed to truamtic events. Fact is, it is quite rare that people who has lost loved ones, go on killing sprees, even when it comes to revenge.

And for killing hundreds in a lawless environment? If you look at the wild west, a period where parts of america was "lawless" and "the gun made the law" you will find very few criminals who killed that many people. None of the legendary gunslingers or outlaws was even close to killing even 50 people during their entire lifetimes, but some of them are still considered mass murderers. It's totally unrealistic.

I know, games are not realistic, but please stop using hollywood psychology as "this is the way the world is".

edit: Oh and about the "knocking someone out might give him brain damage or kill him anyway?". yes, that is quite likely, but so is a) shooting them b) strangling them c) shoving a knife through their neck or d) burning them.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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.

There's actually a point where the main bad guy says something along the lines of "You think I'm the bad guy because I kill people, yet you've been doing the same thing this whole time. The only reason I seem bad is that I've been doing it longer than you." It's actually a really well delivered line that made me pause the game and give it some thought.

 

[Not Matt]

I agreed. I have noticed that when I play a game now I try to take the least hostile way to win the game. Whether it has one or not. It makes the experience so much more fun to try and play as a sensible levelheaded person than Rambo McPsychopath. We need moreparadigmatic videogames.
Take the thief games where the game slaps you in the face and screams "WHAT THE HELL!?!" when you begin killing. That is thekind of model we should be looking at

 

[TheRussian]

[sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]ALL I'M HEARING IS: WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA. GROW THE F--- UP. [/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]
Don't like killing? Don't play games with killing in them! Is that so difficult? There's thousands of good games with no killing in them. From Portal 1+2 to Katawa Shoujo, non-violent games are some of my favorites. For the record, my favorite game of all time is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas followed by Spec Ops: The Line and Team Fortress 2.

 

[Gronk]

Also, is it me or does Joel actually choke out the people he grabs from behind. Are they necessarily dead if you don't want them to be in your head canon?

This is actually a good tip. I might try the game again, ignore the fact that the bodies disappear and just pretend they are just passed out. And no, i am not sarcastic.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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.

Metro: Last Light, Alpha Protocol, Dishonored, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution all have nonlethal options, they all have achievements for not murdering people, you can only get the best ending in Metro by not killing to many people, and Alpha Protocol goes as far as to offer in game perks for being nonlethal that help you be more nonlethal in the future.

As I understand it pretty much all Metal Gear Solid games do that as well, as well as the original Deus Ex and the Thief games, I read an article on this site about a guy who beat Fallout 3 without directly killing anything other than a single Radroach in the beginning of the game. Many games offer the nonlethal option, you just have to be willing to put forth the effort.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Not every game is about killing. If you don't like it, why do you play a game about an assassin who killed hundreds of people and way too used to violence as the proper solution to any problem?
A lot of things that considered epic and great in both reality and fantasy involve a lot of gruesome killing. A lot of character development in storytelling can be achieved via killing of certain characters. Finally, most people (not all) just love seeing violence, it's the bestial nature of humanity. That's why we have cockfights and dogfights, why Rome had gladiator fights, why wrestling is so popular etc. etc.

Personally, I think sex should be glorified, not violence. But certain influential people in western world want humanity population to decline. Hence let's glorify violence and shun sex. Let em kill each other but no give life to anything. Note how sex in it's uglies form is ok (Darkness 2).
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to play some more Senran Kagura on Vita. That's a nice game, and you don't kill anyone.
Granted, people still die there in most gruesome fashion involving demons, but you don't kill anyone. That's speaking of killing and storytelling. Drama, it doesn't just appear, someone gotta suffer to create it.

 

[Wakey87]

You got to except games for what they are. People don't watch spaghetti westerns because they like horse riding and enjoy the scenery

 

[flarty]

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?

If i was a computer game character, yes i would.

 

[BishopofAges]

Some games use killing, death, murder, and the like as a plot device to tug on your strings, to make you care about the characters and what happens next. Some stories use it as a blanket statement, usually in the antagonist's speech, "Look! All the bodies you've racked up just to get to me! So tell me, hero, who is the real monster?!"

Others may use it for a game device, simply an obstacle of the room/region and you must overcome it to further your goals. There can be a story element to it, and usually is to make it more interesting. There is, however, the example of mindless killing to further your story and game experience and to that I point to "Painkiller", you are a semi-damned soul trying to prevent the end of all that is by killing demon lords, but the undertone is that you're really out to get your 'heaven-ticket' so you could be with your wife.

That's my two cents on the issue of killing as a tool in games, however I would like to point out that there are games with deep storylines without killing and without being a children's game, even if the killing isn't in the hands of the player.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It's all very well to preach, but do you have any ideas for alternative gameplay? Because unless you do I suggest you get off your soap box. Just saying.

When it comes to "The last of us" there is a very simple alternative. When you grab an enemy from behind and hold him around the neck, have an option to knock him out. There. Not very difficult at all. If you want to spare the guy, you can. If you want to shove a piece of glass in his neck, you can do that too. All i ask for is the option.

Would that really ruin the game?

Well I haven't played The Last of Us so I can't really say. I would imagine in a Post-Apocalypse environment such as in The Last of Us where survival is everything I don't think it'd be all that believable to have your characters have a non-lethal approach option esp. when your enemies certainly wouldn't indulge in such an option. I don't know.

 

[the clockmaker]

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.

The point of the character is that he is a hollow shell of a man who kills to survive but only survives because of inertia. His character arc (and honestly I would be surprised if anyone who got this far has not yet fled for the last of us spoilers')

Spoiler

Is that he moves from surviving by inertia to surviving for the purpose of keeping Ellie alive, to the point where he abandons the act that was once important to him (handing her to the fireflies) in favour of what is now important to him (saving Ellie). This is however, contrasted with the fact that he remains the same person throughout, his character develops, it is not replaced with a completely new and cuddly one as shown by the fact that he is highly brutal and merciless.

Removing the killing would have effectively neutered the story as the core theme of 'people losing their humanity to survive' would have been effectively neutered when the only actions that you have to take to survive are to tap someone on the head. I mean

-Joel's distance and threatening nature become non-existant. When we see what he does to the people he attacks when Ellie is not there, we get a sense of who he was in the twenty year period between the prologue and the actual start of the game. That character dissapears if he does not kill/maim because that is what he is.

-Ellie's act of symbolic acceptance into the world of adulthood in this bleak an apocalyptic place in killing David makes no sense if she does not kill David. Her guilt and trauma is clearly visible for almost the entire remainder of the game and is a key motivator for the character to actually go to the fireflies and her emotional withdrawal is what forces Joel to the be the emotionally available one for the first time since his daughters death. None of that occurs without Ellie feeling guilty.

-The world does not feel dangerous unless it forces you to change. If you can carry on as you would normally in your everyday life, then there is no danger. The fact that you have to do things which make you uncomfortable and the last of us succeeds in making killing that, is what shows you that this is not a safe place.

-A lot of the characterisation of the enemy factions is lost if Joel is not willing to kill
-The soldiers are brutal but trying to save the city, Joel's killing them for selfish reasons introduces us to his
highly self centred nature at the start of the game
-The hunters in Pittsburgh are awful with no redeeming characteristics, but Joel was just as bad at one point, a
fact we believe because we see how brutal he can be
-The Cannibals in the rockies are...cannibals, but as David says, they are just killing to survive, just as you
are doing, so it move you to a moral reaccounting of Joel.

-The whole point of the story is that Joel eventually is willing to do anything to save Ellie, which is lost if he is not willing to do everything to save Ellie

-Finally, the characters are supposed to be desperate people in a desperate world. How are the characters supposed to appear desperate when they can afford to take extra risk and extra time and resources incapacitating people instead of killing them?

Removing the killing from the last of us is essentially the same as removing the setting

 

[Mana Fiend]

You got to except games for what they are. People don't watch spaghetti westerns because they like horse riding and enjoy the scenery

Oddly enough, that's pretty much 90% of what I played Red Dead Redemption for. It's one of the few games I enjoy the experience of exploring more than the combat/storyline (although the storyline was excellent!). Same with Fallout 3...

As so many people have said, The Last of Us really doesn't work without the killing, although you can do down the knock-out route. Violence is a central theme, as it is in all wasteland stories. I do believe there's an option to turn down the gore, so might I suggest that if you decide to give the game another shot?

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

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!"

I mean it's not like last of us paints post-prologue Joel as a nice guy. The prologue provides ample reasoning as to why he's hardened and bitter and doesn't care.

I totally agree with heavy rain though. That mansion scene was fucking ridiculous.

It's not that I have a moral dilemma with playing as a character who's a murderer, more that if 3000 people die over the course of a game then there's no weight to it anymore. That's fine sometimes, but if every game does it, things get a bit stagnant.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

Dude I love the horse riding the scenery, then along came a drifter.

OT: OP: All 250,000 years of Human existence has killing it in. 3998 channels of cable TV have killing in it somewhere. I excused a porn channel and a bass pro fly fishing competition. If you really want to play game and minimize your violence, then either get a Wii or set your mature rating on your gaming device to E or Y. Me personally I am cool with the no killing if I have the option to do so like Dishonored and Metro: Last Light, well mainly cause I want that achievement, but it's nice. At least companies are getting better on explaining why killing might be justified in your current situation.

On a side note. if you feel really good about your decision, then I suggest on watching a Jar Jar Binx video =)

 

[Imp_Emissary]

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.

Well there's Metal Gear. In those games you actually are rewarded for getting trough a game without killing. Even more so if no one sees you.
And if you want you can make your way from start to finish killing everything you see.

That said, I think one of the things The Last of Us was trying to say was that being good at killing people does NOT make you a hero.

 

[the clockmaker]

Also i have to comment on the opinion that many people here seem to have, that just because of Joels background, it is fully logical that he go off killing everyone that stands in his way. I seriously do not know where you got that illusion? From Hollywood movies? He would be more likely to go into shock and just stay in a corner and cry, which is what most people actually do when they are exposed to truamtic events. Fact is, it is quite rare that people who has lost loved ones, go on killing sprees, even when it comes to revenge.

And for killing hundreds in a lawless environment? If you look at the wild west, a period where parts of america was "lawless" and "the gun made the law" you will find very few criminals who killed that many people. None of the legendary gunslingers or outlaws was even close to killing even 50 people during their entire lifetimes, but some of them are still considered mass murderers. It's totally unrealistic.

I know, games are not realistic, but please stop using hollywood psychology as "this is the way the world is".

edit: Oh and about the "knocking someone out might give him brain damage or kill him anyway?". yes, that is quite likely, but so is a) shooting them b) strangling them c) shoving a knife through their neck or d) burning them.

Actually, speaking as someone who has a lot of mates with PTSS and other mental health injuries, aggression is a very common response to traumatic events. Not to say that they are going to be going on a killing spree, but in the situation that Joel is in it fits in with what he has experienced. Please do not correct people if you do not know what you are talking about.

Plus, he did not suffer through a traumatic event, he suffered through a traumatic event and then had to survive through 20 years of the end of the world.

Plus, the wild west was not a time of Lawlessness, it had plenty of law. It also was a time of hope and of building. They did not have civilisation, but is was coming to them by golly. The world of the last of us has no hope, there is only the crumbling remnants of society.

Plus, It is so much harder to incapacitate someone who is trying to kill you than it is to kill them. So much more risky for so little gain and that in no way fits in with the characters of the story. You could put it in there for player freedom, just as you could put in the option to kill Ellie for player freedom, but it fucks over the story.

 

[JetFury]

Wow last of us is probably the worst example of a game criticizing violence. The game Is about violence, it's what the world is set upon. Both Joel and Ellies relationship and John Marston and his story of redemption are important in these games. Take that out and you really HAVE a game about nothing but mindless violence. Also take into account the settings are vital and were and would be violent times to live in. If anything this is a mindless critique of games that are about so much more than killing. Just shows you didn't understand that.