Again,i understand the hero having to fight,i don't understand why the player who buys a violent video game to kill stuff would want a good guy to do the killing.They buy the game for the violence,why would you want to be a good guy?Thaius said:
Protagonists and morality.
- Thread starter number4096
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think it's about being a mass murdering hero, it's about being a bad-ass action hero like you see in action movies. And the ones who actually do like being evil, well like I said there are RPGs that let you play as a villain.number4096 said:
Who says we buy the game for the violence? Unless you're psychotic, that's not the reason.number4096 said:
Far as I see it, there are three main reasons people play video games: story, competition, and entertainment. Entertainment, people just want to have fun. Whether it's shooting people or playing Cooking Mama, video games are made to be fun, and some people play them for no reason other than that. Competition, the same reason people play sports: to pit themselves against an enemy in a battle of skill, wit, and coordination. Whether this is chess or Gears of War, it's the same principle. Story is... well, story. I don't play Bioshock because I enjoy killing things, I play Bioshock because it's a thought-provoking masterpiece of interactive literature.
My point is, people don't play games just so they can kill things: violence is an element to the story or competition, and since video games are designed by their creators to be enjoyable, some people play them for no more reason than that. if you play games just to kill people, you need help.
I'm not much of the RPG maniac, nor am I really drawn into the whole campaign mode for a game. For me, it's all about multi-player/horde modes that keep me playing. From the original Horde Mode of Gears of War to Halo 3: ODST's take on the game mode, all the way back to the basic Team Deathmatches in Blood Gulch, I will walk those levels, slaughter noobs, challenge the best, and go back for more.
So in response to the title, I am a gamer, neither hero, nor villain. My actions bring chaos and destruction to environments that have no consequences in the real world. When I play these games, morality is discarded. When I leave these games, I reclaim my morality.
Game On, Brothers and Sisters, Game On!
So in response to the title, I am a gamer, neither hero, nor villain. My actions bring chaos and destruction to environments that have no consequences in the real world. When I play these games, morality is discarded. When I leave these games, I reclaim my morality.
Game On, Brothers and Sisters, Game On!
Then why are so many video games centered around killing enemies?And why do so many people find that enjoyable?Why does the story,competition and entertainment all center around the violence?Why is it so central to both games and players?Moreover,why does the protagonist has to be a goody-two-shoe in the middle of all that?Thaius said:
Most games stories have wars or evil forces as their main storyline with every other storylines centering around those two.And players love them for it.Otherwise they would not buy them.
I don't think that anyone really thinks of themselves as being evil, so that, whatever they may be doing, the protagonist will always be the "good guy" because the story is shown from their point of view.
Fine, I'll answer this one. The reason games center around violence is because there is nothing even remotely interesting in a game without conflict. Mass Effect has conflict, Uncharted 2 has conflict, hell even Pac-Man has conflict.number4096 said:
What really matters is not the violence itself but the REASON for the violence. Let's take Mass Effect: As Commander Shepard, you are humanity's hero; the one hope against the Reaper threat that is trying to wipe out all life in the galaxy. In order to defeat the Reapers (and the other enemies that come along), most of the time the only conflict resolution is killing the other guy. That isn't evil, not even close. Matter of fact, I could even go so far as to say it's an act of heroism. You're risking your own life to protect the galaxy's billions of inhabitants.
I'll say it again even though I know it's been said several times: The world works in shades of grey, not black and white. Things are not always clear-cut and there will ALWAYS be violence. Participating in this violence does not automatically make you an evil person.
Okay, hope you don't mind long reads... The following post is the result of years of studying video games as a storytelling medium, so... here goes.number4096 said:
Well here's the thing about video games as storytelling: no matter how it tells a story, there has to be a game too. In a game, there is a winner and a loser: if the results are ambiguous, like in a tie or something, it's unsatisfying. Heck, in sports we inserted the concept of overtime into games just to avoid ties if at all possible: in order to have a satisfying interactive experience, there has to be some sort of competition with a clear winner and a clear loser.
Stories are not quite the same way, in that ambiguity can be explored much more. Stories try to make a point, to provide an emotional experience, so lack of satisfaction or a feeling of ambiguity is forgivable, even encouraged, as long as the topic is explored. There must still be conflict, but the resolution of said conflict does not necessarily need to be an obvious, straightforward solution. For instance, in Mass Effect 2, there will often be choices that you have to make: hard choices, choices that you don't even really want to make because there is no clear-cut right or wrong. In the first game, for instance, there's a part where you have to choose between saving one crew member or saving another. No matter which choice you make, you're leaving a squad member, a friend, to die: that's not intended to satisfy you, it's made to test your resolve and your emotions. Its unsettling, and it's meant to be that way.
These are the differenced between games and stories: games are more of a clear-cut science, and stories are freely artistic, existing for reasons contrary to the reasons games exist. Video games try to merge these two opposite forces into one, using a game to compliment a story, or vice-versa. See how this could be kind of difficult?
So what's a kind of story where there's a clear-cut winner and a clear-cut loser? Anything involving dialogue is too nuanced and complex: it's incredibly difficult to create an entertaining dialogue system that works well with the story, since winning an argument or something is not necessarily victory, depending on the story context. And the game would have to have a lot of variables, since you're controlling something at such a micromanaging level as dialogue: check out the stuff that imports between Mass Effect 1 and 2 for an example. Imagine all the differences in what had to happen depending on what you said before! That's a daunting amount of work, and it's incredibly hard to do it right in the first place.
So things like romance and drama are pretty immediately cut out. What is there that can be so straightforward in allowing the player to know whether they have won or lost? Well... life and death. It's really the only thing in a story that is so easy to emulate in a win/lose scenario. If you kill your enemy, you win if your enemy kills you, you lose. Wrap it in a story to give context to the fighting, and there you go.
See how this works? It's incredibly difficult to add interactivity to a story without a clear-cut winner and loser, which is why most games consist of fighting as gameplay, leaving cutscenes to take care of the drama. Few games succeed at anything different. Some would argue that the more talking is in a game, the less of a game it is: visual novels, for instance, are basically just reading and choosing dialogue options: this is the kind of thing non-combat games are.
If you want examples of games that can break this mold, I'd recommend Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (DS and Wii), Mass Effect 1 and 2 (they have fighting in them, but the dialogue is done really well: Xbox 360 and PC), and Clannad (though it's a foreign game, so it's kind of a pain to get: PC). Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit) is a pretty good example too, and I imagine Heavy Rain will be as well: both involve death, but do not center around killing at all.
That make more sense?
EDIT:
Well said, JeanLuc.JeanLuc761 said:
Ok i let it go the first time but its bought, not "buyed" sorry i had to correct you but it was just very annoying, but for something relevant not everybody wants to play as the good guy, most people play as a good guy because the game was made so that you are the good guy not because they specifically wanted to be a good guy, and one reason people dont make games where you play as the bad guy is because it stirs up a ton of controversy and a ton of bad publicity but thats just one reason of coursenumber4096 said:
So game developpers make insanely violent video games because players buy them.But making making an admitted sadist as the player character would cause controversy so they make a mass-murderous goody-two-shoe?Now all that needs explaining is why players desire so much violence from video games(If it is for conflict,then why exactly?Why does conflict and fun go hand-in-hand?They are almost opposites.).Unless they are madmans,in which case everything fits.thenoblitt said: