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

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#31

Post by sgarman »

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.

I think by stories the author means real adventures with you and your teammates for that specific match - not some sort of CS lore. Each match brings new humans that will play, react, chat differently then an AI in a single player game.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#32

Post by cwyers »

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.

And the two responses to my comment so far perfectly illustrate my confusion, I think:

> 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.

AND

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

Is the author's premise that games focused on social dynamics are just as easy to make as games focused on violence, and that we have to back-fit justifications to fit it? Or is it that games focused on social dynamics really are harder?

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#33

Post by hawkharris »

A solider once told me that boredom is one of the most mentally challenging aspects of war. Because you can go long stretches without running into anyone, let alone your enemies, the moments when you do clash are especially intense. It's like someone switching the radio dial from a low static sound to hardcore metal.

The games that try to juxtapose conflict with stretches of non-action are usually the most successful at conveying the experience of combat. The new Tomb Raider comes to mind. You can travel awhile without fighting because there's a lot to see and do in the environment. When you do encounter adversaries, they're usually in small numbers. They'll speak to each other and respond to your attacks with unique dialogue.

On the other hand, games like Call of Duty, which overwhelm the player with hundreds of enemies at all times, fail to convey the experience of war. The key is to provide contrast between action and non-action, and to provoke suspense by limiting the scope of the conflicts so they can be felt and comprehended more easily.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#34

Post by stonemetal »

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.

As per what he said there is no "Story of Counter Strike" and that is what he likes about it. It is a framework for him and his team mates to invent a story of struggle told in near misses and heroic wins.

Why he has trouble inventing the same stories with robotic team mates and opponents I am not sure, but he seems to find value in the shared experience.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#35

Post by vlunkr »

manachar wrote: post #30
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 pre…

haha, I've never thought about it that way when I played it, but it does seem especially heartless since you have no choice but to let some of them die occasionally, after you raised them to help you.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#36

Post by saraid216 »

Heh. It's sort of odd to read reactions to this by people who are completely outside the game industry.

This isn't sarcasm. This is a parody.

Every line is one that game designers who advocate for games about social dynamics have heard in response. That modeling a gunshot or a sword stroke is much easier than trying to capture the nuance of a conversation. The "Gorytron" reference refers to "Erasmatron", a computer system that tried to model story more abstractly than interactive fiction games.

It's basically just one long in-joke for those of us who are tired of the sheer quantity of games easily reducible to violent conflict resolutions.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#37

Post by morsch »

10098 wrote: post #21
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?

That's begging the question. Why is it fun?

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#38

Post by mbell »

hawkharris wrote: post #33

A solider once told me that boredom is one of the most mentally challenging aspects of war. Because you can go long stretches without running into anyone, let alone your enemies, the moments when you do clash are especially intense. It's like someone switching the radio dial from a low static sound to hardcore metal. The games that try to juxtapose conflict with stretches of non-action are usually the most successful…

There is a saying I've heard a few times in regards to aviation that seems to apply here, not sure who it should be attributed to: "Flying is hours of boredom, punctuated by moments of stark terror." On the gaming front, I think the closest I've ever seen to this was playing Eve Online, it certainly seemed to fit this description and the 'stark terror' parts were great, but I haven't played in years, I just don't have time for the 'hours of boredom' part anymore.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#39

Post by smacktoward »

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_...

Another good game along these lines from the same era is Jim Gasperini's Hidden Agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Agenda_%28computer_game%...), from 1988. A fascinating exploration of how politics evolves out of the interactions of the personalities of a few well-drawn characters.

Re: Why So Few Violent Games?

#40

Post by derefr »

lotharbot wrote: post #24
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 gam…

> 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.

Or with paint! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatoon)

Post reply on HN