Would some games be better with less violence?
ngon master
I was reading
http://kotaku.com/5600550/lay-down-your-guns
It basically mentions of bunch of big games that just seem to add violence as filler. Here's a quick summary.
Mirrors Edge running and fighting didn't flow very well
GTA you can explore and play around in the levels for hours without firing a gun, but the second you start missions its all about killing, but I guess its a mob game, but you can add more variety than that.
Fallout 3 seemed like obvilivion with even more fighting, less exploring.
so the question is, would a lot of games be better if they didn't add violence as filler.
http://kotaku.com/5600550/lay-down-your-guns
It basically mentions of bunch of big games that just seem to add violence as filler. Here's a quick summary.
Mirrors Edge running and fighting didn't flow very well
GTA you can explore and play around in the levels for hours without firing a gun, but the second you start missions its all about killing, but I guess its a mob game, but you can add more variety than that.
Fallout 3 seemed like obvilivion with even more fighting, less exploring.
so the question is, would a lot of games be better if they didn't add violence as filler.
Replies
On the opposite end though I am a huge fan of some gore in my games, especially fps games.
Games like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 could do with some limb removal, bullet wounds and fractured/partially destroyed heads when you get a good headshot. It just adds that extra "omph" to see your latest frag fall over in pieces scattering blood decals all over the landscape.
Yes I loved Soldier of Fortune 2 for all the right reasons.
Sadly, it would have required a mouse, and then all their console money goes up in smoke.
Man, just thinking about a Battlefield game where an explosion sends team mates flying in bits makes me giddy. Maybe I need help :P
If you remove the gore of some titles like Gears, it won't be Gears :P.
Less violence won't make games better imho, but less interesting.
They want us to play tetris? lemmings?
Want to try kumatan?
[ame]
@ Blaizer
I want to play kumatan with lots of crazy cartoon gore!
I don't know about Fallout 3, but in both GTA and Mirror's Edge, the violence made sense in terms of the plot and the only reason it didn't flow well was because of the execution.
In mirrors edge it was really easy to screw up your attacks, with a controller or a mouse, and it made the combat not fun. 9 times out of 10 i would miss the timming on a disarm or crouch/jumb kick 5 feet early and have to reload around the corner. I know that's mostly cuz I suck, but not entirely. It depended entirely too much on the momentum you had built up to that point, but when it worked it was awesome. I'm not saying it would have been nice to actually get to play in the world and go more than 5 minutes without a chopper trying perforate you, but running straight towards a guy while he shoots at you, vaulting a stairway, and breaking his face with your foot?
Yes-Fucking-Please!
GTA, now this is just my oppinion, but all the gameplay in gta is mediocre. It's the combination of the different elements, along with nice graphics, a great story, and decent music (depending on your taste) that make it great.
More gore in Bad Company 2 MW2 might mean a slightly higher rating and one or 2 less sales though, but I'd like to know how well Gore-less Left 4 Dead 2 has been selling in AU, cause that kind of answers the question right there doesn't it?
I probably titled this thread poorly, I wasn't talking about making games less violent, but stop using fighting/shooting/violence as filler.
I'm fine with games being over the top gore and blood, but when I play a game were violence is only part of the formula, and its over used and not done well, it would of been better without it.
I think the answer lies in the question as it's not added violence as a filler that's a problem but a game's need for fillers in the first place.
Occasionally I'm fine with games that don't have violence. I'm fine with games that have moderate violence. And I'm just as fine with games that have me bathe in a sea of blood as long as everything fits together and the game is fun to play as it is, but if I get bored of the gameplay within 5 mins then even added violence would only extend these 5 mins to 7-10 till I get tired of it and never feel like playing it again.
But in reality gore is too much of a selling point to reduce it anyway, at least in most kind of games.
In the end you can't help having to admit that defeating your enemy is more rewarding than most of other things out there, I think that kinda lies in the nature of just about every being, and violence can indeed add to that experience ... so don't take it away
All the shooters have violence and more violence :poly136:. We could say it's the main Formula/ingredient, the rest is a poor excuse. You start with a gun, you get more guns, and you are always killing persons (soldiers), zombies, aliens or something that moves. The more spectacular and credible the kills, the better.
To remove the violence fillers would kill a lot in a game with violence. There is always a story of hatred, death, rivalry. You remove the violence fillers in starcraft 2, and it would not be "epic". Is what excites us better,
god of war
An action game without violence fillers it's not an action game. It's the main ingredient.
Overlord as example, has its small % of violence, but all it's like comedy, not very credible. I think it's a good example without fillers, but without so much success as modern warfare 2. And look kumatanchi, an educative game for kids without great success (and very well made, very appealing)
I'm having a hard time coming up with a lot of games that have both violence and something else, where the violence is actually more fun. My funnest playthrough of Deus Ex was one where I set out not to harm anyone. Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines was great when you were talking to people, figuring out what to say and who to trust, but it broke down horribly when you had to kill tons of monsters in the sewers. STALKER was cool when you were navigating a path through radiation or anomalies, or when you were underground being troubled by ghostly stuff in bunkers, but it was never as fun to shoot guys. Total War games would be much more fun if you could let battles be auto-resolved, but the auto-resolve always loses for you. The Witcher had some cool quest lines about solving a murders or delving into plots, but don't get me started on ghost dogs or drowned dead. Max Payne 2's dream sequences are the best game levels ever, combining prisons, apartments, TV shows, fun houses and psychiatric hospitals in a bix psychological mix, while its shooty sections were just good, but little more.
It's not even so much that the violence is shoddily done. The article mentions Mirror's Edge. Now, ME does lack some features like iron sights or an ammo counter, but it compensates by still utilising movement and momentum, and by having to take cover; its shooty parts aren't, IMO, actually inferior to, say, Half-Life, the jumpy parts are just that much better.
I've had to go back here and re-read the article because quite frankly I think the examples he's using are completely contradicting the point he's trying to make. All these games, including the ones here are not examples of games that would be better off of as pursuits into the human psyche or exploration of movement, just poor implimentation of mechanics.
Icedinferno put it better than I can though:
I tried really hard. and failed even harder.
I could only imagine how good Crackdown would be if it's combat wasn't so lame and lackluster.
As for Mirror's Edge, it should have been pitched as a racing game. It's very much at its best when you're playing the time trials and the shooty human element has been removed.
Actually, I believe guns were really added on later, but the game does feel like it was designed to be played without them.
mirrors edge, best without guns
As with the rest of the thread, imagine god of war without violence, or gears of war without curbstomps and chainsawing :O
I'm pretty sure no one is talking about no violence at all, violence is awesome. Just talking about games like mirrors edge, crackdown and so on where the best part about the game is not the shooting and killing, yet you're forced to do so much shooting and killing.
Don't tease with me no chainsawing in gears of war. To this day I haven't gotten through a single game without being chainsawed and then rage quitting to the dashboard.
Actually, mirrors edge encourages you to not gun people down, since you'll have a much better and fluid experience if you run, hit and disarm people, and throw the gun away.
And I think that part of the violence was important to mirrors edge, it made you feel like there was actually a threat, and that you knew martial arts, it was essential like headstomping an enemy in mario.
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,231.0.html
Yeah but fallout3 really isnt a particularly good game, overall. The shooting sucks, VATs sucks, the weapons are unbalanced and unfun, and the combat is one-dimensional, repetitive, and what little gameplay flow actually exists is broken by a lot of the enemy types. It's less about 'too violent' and more about 'too bethesda'
You guys just like it because you're starved for a game you can actually explore/investigate.
I was going to go all fuuuu.. but then I realized, I think you might be right, oblivion and fallout3 are okay games, but not perfect, but we enjoy them so much because they're pretty much alone in the genr
Total War might become Total Diplomatic Relations or something if it didn't always turn its states into fascist dictatorships with full control and a mission of war. As for Max Payne, I enjoyed the two games in their entirety, but at the end of the day I'd pay for a game that's completely like it's dream levels, I couldn't care less about more of the shootiness.
Just because apple sauce without apples wouldn't be much of a dish, doesn't mean you should throw apples into everything. Maybe we could do with less apple sauce.
What I'm trying to say is, why are stories always about supercops or supersoldiers? Why aren't there any games out there about other people, who do other things than committing genocide, and maybe even solve more difficult problems and have better solutions than violence? Books can, movies can, songs can, paintings can. Is "superguy has enemies, kills them all" the story you want to, nay have to share with the rest the world?
I still say it's about the implementaion. The first Oddworld games were all about running away from your enemies, but they were still horifically violent every 2 seconds when your being ground into chunks, or shot into chunks, or being horribly eaten or falling off a cliff. and they were 90% trial and error, but it was done well and it was fun.
now I'm going to go eat some sauce with extra apples.
hey but its always easy for an artist to make judgements about 'Lazy" design
Games, from a design standpoint, would only be better without "violence" if they're well designed that way.
A shittily-made game is going to be shit to play with or without violence.
Games, from a taste standpoint, will only be better without "violence" if the player isn't in the mood for violence when he boots Steam up.
A violent game is going to be shit to play if you're in the mood for Scrabble, or whatever non-violent games you kids are playing nowadays.
Most games that have been mentioned in this thread might have been better without so much violence. They most definitely would have been better if the violence was done better.