Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why So Few Violent Games?

ludusnovus.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#21

Post by 10098 »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #5

When I worked at Angel Studios about 15 years ago (doing projects for Nintendo and Disney), one of the many things that I liked about the company was a conscious decision by the four owners of the company to not create violent content. They were a class act. Not too far off topic: my brother and my grandson absolutely love violent games. I don't understand the appeal. What I do like are driving games and strategy gam…

> I don't understand the appeal.

What's the appeal of action movies?

It's fun. Haven't you ever tried blowing something up when you were a kid?

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#22

Post by Retric »

darkFunction wrote: post #8
mark_l_watson wrote: post #5

When I worked at Angel Studios about 15 years ago (doing projects for Nintendo and Disney), one of the many things that I liked about the company was a conscious decision by the four owners of the company to not create violent content. They were a class act. Not too far off topic: my brother and my grandson absolutely love violent games. I don't understand the appeal. What I do like are driving games and strategy gam…

The appeal is in infinite possibilities, sport and teamwork. Single player games don't appeal to me as an adult, the outcome is scripted and the characters are hollow for the most part. It's entirely passive and a film or book gets to the point quicker for me. Violent multiplayers though- Counter Strike or Battlefield- give rise to fluid, human, tense stories. Stories in the context of violence sure, but real and non…

I have been thinking you could probably build an open ended world with a reasonably deep autogenerated quest system. there are already weak AI systems that can respond to open ended text fairly well. Start with some basic relationships and the game could decide the second son wants to kill his older brother to take the therone but needs to frame someone to take the fall... Ect.

You can Restrict dialog choices while still giving the player real choices.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#23

Post by ripter »

aidenn0 wrote: post #13

If you didn't get the crawford reference, you need to play Siboot[1] right now. It's middling in terms of how fun it is, but interesting to see how much it was possible to model social interaction 27 years ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%26_Betrayal:_The_Legacy_...

Where can we play it? Wikipedia just describes it.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#24

Post by lotharbot »

emsy wrote: post #19

The author is sarcastic, but actually quite right. We don't have many games that actually explore violence, give it a deeper meaning or use it as a rhetorical device (like GTA V did superficially with the torture scene). There are many games with a violent shell, but it's actually about scoring points. Killing an enemy in an FPS gives me the same kind of satisfaction as solving lines in Tetris. The last time I played…

> "it's actually about scoring points"

Right -- you can replace all of the humans with mechs, and the ak-47 with some sort of power-sapping stun beam (that disables, rather than destroying, the mech) and many AAA games would play just as well.

There are people who seem to really like "ultra-realistic" gore instead of exploding robots or de-summoned cartoons, but that doesn't change the fundamental basis: most AAA games are about scoring hits against hitpoints, not really about violence.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#25

Post by cwyers »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #17
mark_l_watson wrote: post #5

When I worked at Angel Studios about 15 years ago (doing projects for Nintendo and Disney), one of the many things that I liked about the company was a conscious decision by the four owners of the company to not create violent content. They were a class act. Not too far off topic: my brother and my grandson absolutely love violent games. I don't understand the appeal. What I do like are driving games and strategy gam…

Interestingly, even extremely graphically violent games on the surface can be felt as non-violent in a competitive setting. I recall this "playing to win" essay, talking about Street Fighter. (If characters punching each other to unconsciousness is not violent, I don't know what is.) In fighting games, competitive players tend to concentrate on the structure behind punches and suffering. They see a game of anticipati…

It's interesting that you bring up Mortal Kombat, which wasn't the first fighting game, or necessarily even the best fighting game, but it certainly was the one that looked the most like two characters punching each other to death.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#26

Post by saraid216 »

cwyers wrote: post #11
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the author is being sarcastic.

I'm sure it's sarcasm. I just have a hard time understanding what the point it's trying to make is.

All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#27

Post by darkFunction »

cyounkins wrote: post #15
darkFunction wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appeal is in infinite possibilities, sport and teamwork. Single player games don't appeal to me as an adult, the outcome is scripted and the characters are hollow for the most part. It's entirely passive and a film or book gets to the point quicker for me. Violent multiplayers though- Counter Strike or Battlefield- give rise to fluid, human, tense stories. Stories in the context of violence sure, but real and non…

Please describe the story of Counter Strike, because I've logged hundreds of hours on the game and have no idea what you're talking about.

Story in the sense a game of football has a story.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#28

Post by vlunkr »

emsy wrote: post #19

The author is sarcastic, but actually quite right. We don't have many games that actually explore violence, give it a deeper meaning or use it as a rhetorical device (like GTA V did superficially with the torture scene). There are many games with a violent shell, but it's actually about scoring points. Killing an enemy in an FPS gives me the same kind of satisfaction as solving lines in Tetris. The last time I played…

Most likely because the average person doesn't want to explore violence that way. I love some FPS games, but not because they are violent. I like how fast-paced and strategic they are.

The same goes for movies. Most people will watch movies with some violence, but movies like Saw don't have mainstream appeal.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#29

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

cwyers wrote: post #11
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the author is being sarcastic.

I'm sure it's sarcasm. I just have a hard time understanding what the point it's trying to make is.

I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells.

Note the sarcasm here:

> In a sense, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know how to make games about the human heart, but struggle to deal with fists, swords, and guns.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#30

Post by manachar »

emsy wrote: post #19

The author is sarcastic, but actually quite right. We don't have many games that actually explore violence, give it a deeper meaning or use it as a rhetorical device (like GTA V did superficially with the torture scene). There are many games with a violent shell, but it's actually about scoring points. Killing an enemy in an FPS gives me the same kind of satisfaction as solving lines in Tetris. The last time I played…

Oddly enough, one game that hit me hard with the violence in it was Pikmin. Simple and cute, you can't help but learn to love and nurture your little underlings, but as the game progressed it became tougher to overcome challenges and before long you started having to plan on sacrificing percentages of your Pikmin just so you could achieve your goal. The first Pikmin death (with a beautifully haunting wail) hit me pretty hard. I never fully got comfortable with their sacrifices and felt every death fairly strongly.

This is of course fairly different than something like your average game where death isn't permanent or particularly impactful, especially when killing nameless/faceless opponents.

Post reply on HN