"I kill you.": a rant on the matter of violent video games

Started by remixor, Fri 06/08/2004 02:19:06

Previous topic - Next topic

remixor

Check it out.  There's a feedback thread link at the end of the article.
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Darth Mandarb

A really good read.

I have fallen away from FPS since Quake came out.Ã,  It was like ... they all just seemed the same to me, just that the graphics were getting better.

I prefer games that make you think anyway.

I'm glad he wasn't blaming the violence in the world on Video Games ... I've always thought that video games weren't the source of violence, but rather a convenient outlet for it.

I mean, the 14 year old terrorist that straps a bomb on his back and blows up a bus didn't learn that from a video game.

Human beings are, in my opinion, genetically violent creatures.Ã,  It would be nice if we'd have evolved past that but it just isn't the case.Ã,  ALL humans can be pushed into being violent ... it's just [still] in our nature.Ã,  We may be getting closer ... but we still haven't been out of the trees long enough.

The mother of this kid probably blames it on something other than she was a shitty mother who didn't pay enough attention to her kid and didn't know what was going on in her son's life.Ã,  "He was such a quiet kid ..."Ã,  - heard that before.

Thanks for the link Remixor, it was a good read!

Redwall

aka Nur-ab-sal

"Fixed is not unbroken."

Sylpher

Something not considered in the article (though I thought it was good) was that video games largely expand on what many people would like to do in rea life but most people are sensible enough to know they can't so they do it in a virtual world. Alas.. Grand Theft Auto.

Even games that are highly life-like have you take on the character of someone doing something the general person is never gonna do in there own life. Super tech spy games and such.

Or they take you where you would like to be but it isn't possible.. Half-Life.

Though I agree this idea can and should be applied to not so hardcore violent scenarios. It caters to them easiest when adding a gameplay element. I mean how do you throw Gordon Freeman in his situation in Black Mesa and then have him leave the facility in a non-violent manner? Is he gonna discuss his feelings with the aliens and they will form a mutual bond as to not hurt each other as long as the trade routes between the kitchen and west hall are allowed to run tax free?

I dunno.. But it keeps me up at night!

remixor

Sylpher, you're totally right.  I just think there have to be other scenarios of things people want to imagine themselves doing that don't necessarily involve blowing stuff up.  I'm all for the violent games, I'm not calling for their death (despite the original title of the article being "Death the violent games", but let's not go there), I just want other situations as well.  And to take it a step farther than that, I think there are room for games that don't necessarily put people in fantasy-fulfillment situations.  Facade, which I mentioned in the article, is an example of that.  When you're playing the game, you feel very uncomfortable because the couple you're interacting with is actually have an argument that is dynamically generated depending on what you say.  If you handle the situation in a certain way, they'll get mad at you.  Despite having fairly primitive graphics, the game is remarkably immersive.  It's not the feeling of "Whoo, this is awesome" you get when you're blowing away a million guys, but after completing the situation, you (or at least I) are if nothing else extremely impressed by how much you were sucked in.  Not to mention, the game has amazing replay value.  Since it operates on a text parser, you can say whatever you want and there are countless ways the conversation will go.  The game even changes depending on where you stand in the room.  If you hang around the bar, Trip will ask if you want a drink, and if you stand to close to Grace she'll think you're coming on to her.  These aren't "if/then" situations either; they'll pan out differently depending on how the conversation was handled earlier.  Anyway, enough about Facade.  It's totally awesome and it's an example of a character and story driven game that does something new and doesn't rely on violence.  Hooray!
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Babar

Very interesting article. Sure, there is an irreversible trend towards games that do not solely revolve around killing and violence, but that is a long while away. Like it was said, the people who would be interested in games like Facade are not really into gaming. "Gamers" as a group seem to share the same detachment as "Computer Nerds" did in the 80s and 90s. It will be sometime for games to become as normal as, say movies. Right now there are many diverse genres of movies, something that every person could enjoy. Not so with games. One example of this is the fact that (in general), there are far fewer female gamers than male gamers.
The problem with making such unorthodox games as suggested, is that they are unlikely to make much money. Sure, alot of people will enjoy them, but the average gamer (this being some mythical 16 year old creature on the PC in the basement), would not care for it. That is also, probably the reason for the decline in adventure games. Most companies would not want to risk investing in such games. Sure, if alot more games were released that did not rely on heavy violence as a central theme, and instead had something else that was interesting, alot of people would get it. However, at the moment, these companies seem to think that that is not the way to go. There would have to be a lot more widespread advertisement of other types of games before there would be enough people willing to buy them to warrant their release. At the moment, as you can see, that is not the case. I have heard alot more about games like Doom3 and Halo2 and Half-Life2 than of "Facade". Sure it annoys me that advertisements like "A variety of guns and weapons" and "Realistic Killings" seem to sell. I for one cannot understand how having a seperate graphic for a seperate gun, in which a few variables have been changed to make it better or worse can be a selling point of a game. Sure, I enjoy such games, but their is a limit. After playing Doom and Wolfenstien (the original) and Duke Nukem 3d, I did not play many FPS until Half-Life and Halo. To me they were ALL exactly the same. You press the numbers on the top of the keyboard to get a vareity of different weapons, and shoot them primary and secondary (usually with Ctrl and Alt). There are a variety of levels that, despite different textures, end up looking exactly the same. That is the reason I dislike most FPS. There is so little innovation. Just advancements in graphics to make the violence more life-like. I mean, if you made a realistic Pacman, with a huge yellow guy eating beasts and berries, that would probably be labelled violent, and the odd canabalism incident would be blamed on it.
It is a good thing that due to the increasing variety of gamers, video games HAVE to evolve. Sure, there will always be the Action-packed, low on story-high on violence game, but the same can be said for movies. The evolution is just a matter of time, and of people giving little pushes and prods (such as this article), to move it in the right direction.
Most of the points I make are in general, I am sure there are specific instances I am wrong. I realise that I may have strayed from the original "violence" discussion, but I am sure you will forgive me.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Ghormak

QuoteQuite frankly, I'm sick of always having to kill things, be it with a gun, or with an army, or with a sword, or with magic, or with my feet. I don't have a problem with it but I want to do something else sometimes (and not just fit blocks into other blocks).

That sums up what I feel about games today so perfectly I almost suspect you of stealing my thoughts and writing them down for fun and profit!

Excellent article. I want more varied games too. Most of all, I'd like scary games that doesn't involve you killing hundreds of zombies using an arsenal of weapons big enough to kill... well, hundreds of zombies.

QuoteIf all the movies were pornos or snuff films, you can bet films wouldn't enjoy the exposure they do.

Heh, again I accuse you of mindreading! Remember that John Carmack once said "stories in video games are like stories in pornos. They're just there, they don't have to be good"? I remembered that yesterday when I was thinking about Doom 3, and had a little thought: "iD's (and other developers') mindless shooters are to the game industry what pornos are to the movie industry. They may contain pretty sights (ahem), but are unlikely to be enjoyed by the general public as genuine entertainment."
Achtung Franz! The comic

DGMacphee

Some points I agree with, some I don't.

For example, I agree that games today are more violent than they were two decades ago.

However, I also think that some games use violence to demonstrate a particular purpose. For example, I once read an article somewhere that GTA's violence was more a reflection on urban society (or rather, a satire on urban society). Here's a similar article that provides such an opinion: http://echo.colum.edu/back/winspr02/issues4.html.

Other games use violence for such a purpose. Hitman is a very violence game, but it uses violence to demonstrate the brutality of man to the degree that killing is "just a job". One of the strangest feelings I got from Hitman was after I completed a hit, I'd just be walking away from it. Just a job. Do the hit, then walk away. Life for everyone else continues. And it's that nonchalant feeling that really chills me, not the actual violence.

Deus Ex was also a very violent game, but the violence was used to demonstrate the brutality of war. I think it's interesting how at one point in the game, you switch sides. What were previously your friends became your enemies. The fact that these soldiers, who were once your friends, are now trying to kill you really places the player in an upsetting position.

However, I do think your article alludes to an important point, which is that most games (including Tetris) rely on survival. In Tetris, you need to survive the advancing lines of blocks. In Space Invaders, you must survive against alien spaceships. In Doom, you need to survive against the hordes of hell and get to the exit. A lot of games use violence as a means to resolve this conflict of survival. I think it's the games that twist this turn out to be better. A game like Hitman requires stealth to resolve survival. Deus Ex provides the choice to use violence or stealth.

Essentially, I think this is what you're trying to say: more games that use non-violent means (such as stealth) to resolve tension (such a survival).

Actually, I just thought of an interesting game idea based upon this. Ever played "tiggy"? ("tag" in the US). What about a tiggy-inspired game? It's non-violent, it incorperates survival, and I had great fun playing tiggy as a kid.

Then again, you could always switch off your computer, grab a group of friends and play tiggy outside.Ã,  ;D

But I guess nowdays, kids use digital rocket launchers to tag someone.


What's more disturbing these days is not violence but parental attitudes towards violence. Most parents don't really care if their kids are playing violent games. And it's especially disturbing when this sort of thing happens: http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10307563%255E902,00.html

I think what parents should do is the same thing when they have the "birds and the bees" chat. They should sit their child down and talk to them about violence. I remember once as a kid I had come back from a friends house where we were hunting birds with a BB gun. I told my Dad this over dinner and it annoyed him that we were just killing for the sake of fun. And rightly so. What he told me then I'll never forget. He said he couldn't understand why someone would kill for the sake of fun and told me the story of a friend of his who would go out camping in the woods with a crossbow. He wouldn't bring any food, because he'd just hunt what he needed to eat and nothing more. Think Burt Reynolds in Deliverence. And the main difference between him and me?

He was hunting for survival, and I was hunting for fun.

And I think that's what kids today don't realise about violent games. They've confused the violence as a means of fun, whereas they should look at a game in terms of survival -- violence as a last resort. The whole psychology of games has been confused in that kids play games as a means of fun, rather than a means of survival. Or perhaps it's just that sense of survival that gives them enjoyment.

It'd be an interesting topic to write a research paper on if anyone is studying psychology.

In any case, I do think games should open up more possibilities of survival rather than resorting to violence. I think violence is only necessary when it's not gratuitous (i.e. it serves a purpose to prove a point, such as GTA, Hitman or Deus Ex).
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

MrColossal

While I agree with DG about the whole birds and bees discussion and violent video games/movies or whatever, I don't understand this at all:

"And I think that's what kids today don't realise about violent games. They've confused the violence as a means of fun, whereas they should look at a game in terms of survival -- violence as a last resort."

I don't understand how kids of today have video games confused. Did kids in the 80's not confuse it? I never thought like this. I stomped on a goomba not just because it was a rule of the game or survival or something, it was fun, and I got points and it made a blee-BLOP! sound. Since the vast majority of kids play video games without killing people in real life then I think kids today have it exactly right. Just like we had it exactly right and our parents before us.

And unless I'm completely getting your meaning wrong, violence in many games is not a last resort. In Contra you can get past the first stage up until the miniboss without killing anyone, but then you're stuck, you have to kill. There's no other way around it. Just like thousands and thousands of games. Especially the first wave of video games. I mean you could play Space Invaders using stealth but eventually you'll run out of little blobby base things to hide behind and there are no shadows to hide in...

Also, I don't think Remo is saying that games don't use violence for a reason or to demonstrate a point of view or what have you. He's just saying he is tiring of violence. And to speak for myself, I get it, violence is dreadful, war is brutal, gang violence is terrible. I got it before I played video games. Is there nothing else that can be brought up in a game besides "War is hell."?

In regards to tag, here you go: http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=170

Now, the article by Christopher Remo

I enjoyed it heavily. As for the part about the woman killing her children because she said god told her, this can be applied to everything that is scapegoated and I hate it that no one seems to realize this [by "no one" I mean law makers and politicians]. A man went into an office building and shot a bunch of people cause he thought Willie Nelson [or some other musician like Willie] told him to do it in through the music. Where was the Willie Neslon witch hunt? Like what happened to Manson and KMFDM [and iD when it comes to games] after Columbine.

"I'm convinced that games as a medium have a lot more to offer than new and exciting normal-mapped ways of killing people."  I enjoyed that wonderfully.

I have a question for you [and you'd probably prefer all this was handled on the Idle Thumbs message board but I'm living in the here and now!], you write a few times that you're not condeming violence in games and you like violent games, do you feel the need to have to repeat this so people don't jump down your throat calling you a pansy or that you think violent video games are bad? Whenever I speak of violent games I find myself repeating "Not that there's anything wrong with violent games!" a lot because it seems people are touchy to criticsm on violence.

Woulda been great to have you at Mittens when we discussed games, Chris. Sucks you couldn't make it.

Eric
"This must be a good time to live in, since Eric bothers to stay here at all"-CJ also: ACHTUNG FRANZ!

DGMacphee

I think I muddled the meaning there. I used "kids today" as a cliche. I really meant kids in general confuse violence as fun.

Having said that, I think parents also need to illustrate the difference between "cartoon violence" and "real violence". And this enters into a new debate as to what constitutes "cartoon violence" and "real violence", but like I said it's something that a parent needs to discuss with their child.

QuoteAnd unless I'm completely getting your meaning wrong, violence in many games is not a last resort. In Contra you can get past the first stage up until the miniboss without killing anyone, but then you're stuck, you have to kill. There's no other way around it. Just like thousands and thousands of games. Especially the first wave of video games. I mean you could play Space Invaders using stealth but eventually you'll run out of little blobby base things to hide behind and there are no shadows to hide in...

This is kind of what I mean anyway -- using violence when there is no other option. You have to kill that miniboss or else he'll kill you. You have to kill the Space Invaders before they land and take over the planet. My point was that most kids don't consciously realise that there is no other option. They only know that killing the miniboss or the Space Invaders is fun and aren't aware of the moral implications. And likewise, this is something a parent needs to discuss with their child.

QuoteAlso, I don't think Remo is saying that games don't use violence for a reason or to demonstrate a point of view or what have you. He's just saying he is tiring of violence. And to speak for myself, I get it, violence is dreadful, war is brutal, gang violence is terrible. I got it before I played video games. Is there nothing else that can be brought up in a game besides "War is hell."?

I understood Remo's point of view. I was just saying that sometimes violence explains certain facets of humanity, thus we shouldn't discount violence. And likewise, I do know violence is wrong. I've known that for a long time. But there are other side issues. I think Deus Ex went beyond the normal "war is hell" message, and tried to say "war is morally ambiguous".

And yeap, Capture the Flag is a fantastic game. But there's still a violence element where the team members beat each other up. I was thinking more a real-time game in 3D where you just tag.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

MrColossal

Do you feel there are moral implications in playing Space Invaders? I don't. Could you elaborate, pleasey please?

As for a tag game, it would be horribly boring. Part of the fun in tag is contorting your body in awkward ways to make the person who is It miss you by just that little bit. Carmageddon had Fox 'n the Hounds where you played tag but the Hounds had to tag the Fox so it was the other way around, and you didn't even get any weapons. It was fun for about 5 minutes and then we went back to normal deathmatch. I can play tag in real life, I can't smash a solid granite jet car into the side of a ghetto blaster.
"This must be a good time to live in, since Eric bothers to stay here at all"-CJ also: ACHTUNG FRANZ!

DGMacphee

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 07/08/2004 07:29:27
Do you feel there are moral implications in playing Space Invaders? I don't. Could you elaborate, pleasey please?

I think Space Invaders is a very minor example of what I'm talking about -- I just used it to relate it to your argument. I could be very wanky and say, "Think about that poor Space Inavder's family!!" but I won't. I think it's more important to use more modern games of today as examples (ie. that miniboss example you stated). I say this because we've perfected computer graphics to the point of very close emulation of real life violence, such as Manhunt or GTA. Space Invaders uses graphics that are very "cartoony" in this day an age. Like I said, this raises a whole lot of questions into what constitutes "cartoon violence" and "real-life violence". And it something that parents need to make aware to their kids.

Also, Space Invaders was released during a time when violence in films were being explored in moral terms. Look at a films of the 70s and 80s, like Bonnie and Clyde or Die Hard. Violence in computer games wasn't such a big deal back then because a) most of it was cartoony or graphically inferior, and b) everyone was more focused about violence in films. But today, violence in games is an important moral issue because of the reasons I've stated before: graphics have evolved.

QuoteAs for a tag game, it would be horribly boring. Part of the fun in tag is contorting your body in awkward ways to make the person who is It miss you by just that little bit. Carmageddon had Fox 'n the Hounds where you played tag but the Hounds had to tag the Fox so it was the other way around, and you didn't even get any weapons. It was fun for about 5 minutes and then we went back to normal deathmatch. I can play tag in real life, I can't smash a solid granite jet car into the side of a ghetto blaster.

Which is why I said in my first post: "Then again, you could always switch off your computer, grab a group of friends and play tiggy outside".



Actually, I think parents also need to discuss, in relation to this, the difference between what is real and what is fantasy. Few kids are able to grasp the difference at such an early age. Imagination is a good thing, yes, but when it gets out of control then it can cause developmental problems.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

remixor

Eric: thanks the comments, much appreciated.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 07/08/2004 06:21:28
I have a question for you [and you'd probably prefer all this was handled on the Idle Thumbs message board but I'm living in the here and now!], you write a few times that you're not condeming violence in games and you like violent games, do you feel the need to have to repeat this so people don't jump down your throat calling you a pansy or that you think violent video games are bad? Whenever I speak of violent games I find myself repeating "Not that there's anything wrong with violent games!" a lot because it seems people are touchy to criticsm on violence.

Yep, I had to keep harping on it because I knew people would give me crap otherwise.Ã,  Amazingly, it wasn't enough.Ã,  I've been getting a lot of feedback from people claiming that I'm in support of censorship and banning violent games and saying I think the guns in FPS games should be turned into Super Soakers and stuff (which wouldn't actually change my argument at all...).Ã,  Frustration!

QuoteWoulda been great to have you at Mittens when we discussed games, Chris. Sucks you couldn't make it.

I really wish I could have gone.Ã,  What's frustrating is that this was my best chance to go (being in the closest proximity that it has been or will be for a while) but financially it still wasn't in the cards.
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Archangel (aka SoupDragon)

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

remixor

Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Redwall

aka Nur-ab-sal

"Fixed is not unbroken."

MrColossal

"This must be a good time to live in, since Eric bothers to stay here at all"-CJ also: ACHTUNG FRANZ!

shbaz

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 07/08/2004 07:19:47
Having said that, I think parents also need to illustrate the difference between "cartoon violence" and "real violence".

Man, I wouldn't advocate that at all, I still have scars.  :'(
Once I killed a man. His name was Mario, I think. His brother Luigi was upset at first, but adamant to continue on the adventure that they started together.

Alynn

I agree with your take on Beyond Good and Evil... I just bought it 2 days ago... and played it non stop... Already beat it... and still wanna play it again... Yes the violence was there, but in about 85% of the situations, you can forgo fighting and just sneak by the guards...

Kya is another game by eden and atari... Violence is there, but you can be smart about it, and make them fight each other (by making one think the other is hitting him while he isn't looking) Games where there is a violent, and a more thinking smarter way to go about it always ticked my fancy...

Anyway, they are few and far between, but there sure are some gems out there... and most the time I seem to find them in the bargin bin...

DGMacphee

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sun 08/08/2004 05:32:21
Man, I wouldn't advocate that at all, I still have scars.Ã,  :'(

What from? Did a fat italian plumber sit on your face when you were a kid?
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk