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.
Why So Few Violent Games?
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#62Heh. 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 s…
"That modeling a gunshot or a sword stroke is much easier than trying to capture the nuance of a conversation." I think that's really kind of true, though. If you look at the kinds of movies we export successfully, spectacle sells overseas a lot better than movies about conversation. Is it because mass audiences are dumb? I don't think so. Are the Chinese less sophisticated than us? No. So why is "Transformers Age of…
He denounced the hack-and-slash genre in the 80s. The Dragon Speech happened in 1992.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#63The 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…
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#64This article rightly points out that violence isn't actually much simpler to simulate than social interaction; it's just that players accept crude simulation because it's still fun. Space Invaders is essentially a game of Breakout with reskinned sprites, but just providing those skins lets the player imagine the details of an alien invasion. Maybe a similarly crude level of simulation could work for social games, if…
> Think about it. When modelling a conversation between two people, there’s a limited number of variables in play. How much do they like each other, and in what way? Given a few basic ways of manipulating the interaction, how does that change the relationship? These are all simple systems to simulate, so much so that we have a long history of unimaginative, sappy romance games made by genre-obsessed, cookie-cutter developers. Physical positioning can be pre-scripted, movements can be automated, and emotions are a well-understood programming domain.
Indeed. Just so.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"That modeling a gunshot or a sword stroke is much easier than trying to capture the nuance of a conversation." I think that's really kind of true, though. If you look at the kinds of movies we export successfully, spectacle sells overseas a lot better than movies about conversation. Is it because mass audiences are dumb? I don't think so. Are the Chinese less sophisticated than us? No. So why is "Transformers Age of…
It's worth noting that Chris Crawford was working on this problem long before DOOM came out, and he did not succeed. He gets referenced in the OA for a reason: He denounced the hack-and-slash genre in the 80s. The Dragon Speech happened in 1992.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#66But beyond that, every way of simulating human interaction short of advanced AI will feel awkward because it's too fundamental a part of human nature. Games like _Long Live the Queen_ feel like spreadsheets and dating sims are just a genre of point and click adventure. The best game focused on human interaction that I can think of is the recent _Papers Please_ (disclaimer: I haven't played it, but it's on my list). Its modes of interaction are restricted, and it's not really a game in the strict sense, but rather a story told interactively. Interpersonal games need to move more towards the story telling if they want to be successful.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have mentioned, it's not about the game, but specific experiences you had. I have memories of intense stand-offs when rescuing hostages, or the one time I had an __absurd__ streak of luck and managed to single-handedly wipe out the entire other team (never since repeated). Some of my strongest gaming memories are of the first (?) level of Rogue Spear (one of the Rainbow Six games), where I was hunting terro…
With all due respect, it doesn't sound like the simulated violence had much to do with the nostalgia you're describing. Not that I don't believe that violence can't be a tool used to evoke empathy, but effective stories can certainly be devised without hyperrealistic violence.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#68Heh. 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 s…
"That modeling a gunshot or a sword stroke is much easier than trying to capture the nuance of a conversation." I think that's really kind of true, though. If you look at the kinds of movies we export successfully, spectacle sells overseas a lot better than movies about conversation. Is it because mass audiences are dumb? I don't think so. Are the Chinese less sophisticated than us? No. So why is "Transformers Age of…
It's not a friendly, fun social discussion, but it is a social discussion, and it's very well done. It manages to use the spectacle as a tool to tell a heartbreaking story, and is all the more impressive due to the contrast with the rest of the series.
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#69A 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 hav…
Re: Why So Few Violent Games?
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth noting that Chris Crawford was working on this problem long before DOOM came out, and he did not succeed. He gets referenced in the OA for a reason: He denounced the hack-and-slash genre in the 80s. The Dragon Speech happened in 1992.
The fact that he didn't succeed rather undercuts the parody here, though, doesn't it?