Elysian Shadows

After reading an article about Bioware CEOs saying the day where violent in games is not needed to satisfy the player is getting closer and closer http://tech.walla.co.il/?w=/4006/1516089 (its in Hebrew...)

I was left wondering how many non-violent games are successful and popular today.
So here's my list.

Today:
Portal

In the past:
Pong
Breakout
Mario
Tetris
Almost every point-and-click adventure game

Does this make you wonder if violent isn't necessary for a good video game? (or gamers have lowered their standard)
I am not saying any of my suggestions in the line above are true, just some food for thought.

I think that violence is so welcomed in video games because this is a thing we can't do in real life, but we can get over it with stuff like really cool visual effects and game mechanic.(of-course talking about portal)

Every game I own involves violence. The last five games I bought were all rated M. Besides, Portal comes bundled in The Orange Box, which has plenty of violence.

Well, I can't read the article, but my opinion is that there are many games that are successful without violence. For sake of argument let's say any game that gets and E rating is obviously not violent (unless you count jumping on a brown walking mushrooms head violent.)

With that you got,

* Mario Galaxy
* Guitar Hero and Rock Bands
* Racing games
* Sports games (including extreme sports)
* LittleBigPlanet
* A whole bunch of XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games

That's pretty much the list of popular games for current gen that I can think of. It's obviously outweighed by the violent games, but its still there.

Kcirtap1990 wrote:Well, I can't read the article, but my opinion is that there are many games that are successful without violence. For sake of argument let's say any game that gets and E rating is obviously not violent (unless you count jumping on a brown walking mushrooms head violent.)

With that you got,

* Mario Galaxy
* Guitar Hero and Rock Bands
* Racing games
* Sports games (including extreme sports)
* LittleBigPlanet
* A whole bunch of XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games

That's pretty much the list of popular games for current gen that I can think of. It's obviously outweighed by the violent games, but its still there.[/quot]

Just showing the other side,

it's obviously outweighed by the violent games, but its still there.

Look how many people play Half Life, Halo, TF2, Counter Strike, MMOs(most of them are), and OMGWTFBBQ GTA!!! compared to these games you presented (although Guitar Hero and Rockband are pretty mainstream).
LittleBigPlanet is a casual game, just made it's fuss and disappeared.
BurnOut(sports game) is voilent,
Same with the NeedForSpeed series; crashing cars and escaping/eliminating the police is more like a sandbox game then a sports game.
A whol bunch of XBLA games ARE voilent, Most PSN and WiiWare have it's violence, maybe a colorful and pretty one, but voilence is violence(that might be arguable).

XBLA/WiiWare/PSN games are not as common as PC games

And when do you play these not-violent games? when you're bored! these are just time-skippers, not like time-spenders(the ones I mentioned) if I got you a violent one you will change to it right away.

Games most definitely don't have to be violent to be fun. But violence in gaming isn't going to stop anytime soon. Since players and the market demands it, why stop? Also as bad as it sounds, violence has been a source of entertainment since people have been around. But you also have to remember that there are different kinds of gamers.

Specifically there are four type of gamers:

The Killer: Enjoys playing games for competition, usually requires fast thinking and reflexes.
The Achiever: Enjoys having the best gear, most cash, most levels, collecting most points possible, etc.
The Socializer: Choose to play games for the social aspect more so than the actual game itself.
The Explorer: Likes to discover new areas, learn about hidden places, secrets, trying new things that wouldn't be considered the norm.

Of course this is a very simplified explanation and you can have hybrids and such....

My point is, violent games are here to stay, simply because the market and audience demands them. Non-violent games are here to stay too. If you prefer violence that's your preference, I know people who would rather play non-violent games.

---Edit---
"but voilence is violence(that might be arguable)" hehe this reminds me of a funny story from ActsOfGord.

I'm the explorer! But no violence isn't some passing craze, it's been like that since the beginning of 3D gaming... The above post is right, different people have different taste... I like games that require competition and thinking, while also involving exploring and socializing, those are my kind of games, I like halo, mmos, and the like... It really doesn't matter wether they are violent or not... If it's addictive and fun i'll play it... I think the violence comes with the fact that to make games realistic and adventurefull you need violence... You can't take over an opposing kingdom without violence... A game that you talked your way to the top would suck, you have to earn it... And let's be honest, violence is programmed into the human mind, there always has been and will be violence for us, I don't care what the hippys say... I kind of am a hippy... but violence isn't going away in games...

eatcomics wrote:it's been like that since the beginning of 3D gaming...

More like the beginning of electronic gaming. Even Asteroids could be considered violent to a degree; shooting at rocks in space that explode into smaller rocks you need to shoot. It's destructive by nature. Violence will last in our entertainment as long as it will last in the world - that is, forever.

Most games are about overcoming something, taking down a villain, defeating evil. Effectively, the main goal is to survive most of the time. We subconsciously know that in order to sustain our lives, something else must die. Beyond a simple "kill or be killed" animalistic mentality, think about where our food comes from: plants and animals. Other forms of life are ended by our desire to live. By that logic, in order to improve life for ourselves, something must at least be harmed.

Also, characters are more symbols than anything. One stands for evil, one for good. You don't defeat evil by letting it live. The goal is to destroy it. The physical manifestation of that is violence.. perhaps somewhat ironically.

The only reason that violence is getting more attention in our entertainment is that we have a way to simulate it now, and it's becoming more realistic. It's no worse by nature than little kids making guns with their hands and "bang" noises. It just looks like it is.

aamesxdavid wrote:

eatcomics wrote:it's been like that since the beginning of 3D gaming...

More like the beginning of electronic gaming. Even Asteroids could be considered violent to a degree; shooting at rocks in space that explode into smaller rocks you need to shoot. It's destructive by nature. Violence will last in our entertainment as long as it will last in the world - that is, forever.

Most games are about overcoming something, taking down a villain, defeating evil. Effectively, the main goal is to survive most of the time. We subconsciously know that in order to sustain our lives, something else must die. Beyond a simple "kill or be killed" animalistic mentality, think about where our food comes from: plants and animals. Other forms of life are ended by our desire to live. By that logic, in order to improve life for ourselves, something must at least be harmed.

Also, characters are more symbols than anything. One stands for evil, one for good. You don't defeat evil by letting it live. The goal is to destroy it. The physical manifestation of that is violence.. perhaps somewhat ironically.

The only reason that violence is getting more attention in our entertainment is that we have a way to simulate it now, and it's becoming more realistic. It's no worse by nature than little kids making guns with their hands and "bang" noises. It just looks like it is.

100% right

And it's better to have that much violence in games then a person keeping it inside and bursting it out in Real Life.

When you feel like "killing someone" launch Counter-Strike and kill him.

It's either play videogames...Pretend to kill in your mind... Or kill for real... You decide america...

Sometimes I like to kill people in real life, there's nothing wrong with that...

But yeah I agree with aamesxdavid completely... the thing I hate is people blame everything on the violent video games and stuff which is stupid because there are a lot of people who play these games and nothing comes out of it. But the moment one kid does something it's immediately the game's fault and the violence in video games needs to stop BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Ever stop to think that maybe the kid was just a little messed up in the head?

LeonBlade wrote:Sometimes I like to kill people in real life, there's nothing wrong with that...

But yeah I agree with aamesxdavid completely... the thing I hate is people blame everything on the violent video games and stuff which is stupid because there are a lot of people who play these games and nothing comes out of it. But the moment one kid does something it's immediately the game's fault and the violence in video games needs to stop BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Ever stop to think that maybe the kid was just a little messed up in the head?

I actually had to write a paper on "Violence in video games" and I said the exact same thing, people who do it in real life are fcked up to begin with.

Netwatcher wrote:I actually had to write a paper on "Violence in video games" and I said the exact same thing, people who do it are fcked up to begin with.

I had to write a paper on "Violence in video games" as well. Although mine was a "Are you for or against violence in the media / video games, and state an argument for your decision"

Netwatcher wrote:I actually had to write a paper on "Violence in video games" and I said the exact same thing, people who do it in real life are fcked up to begin with.

Obviously they are fucked up if they go out and kill someone, but often there is evidence that these fucked up people were inspired by violent video games and may have never done it without that inspiration. To say that there is zero connection between violence in video games and real life violence is just wrong. But to say that it is a very strong connection is also wrong. The problem is the regulation of violence in video games, not that it exists.

Kcirtap1990 wrote:Obviously they are fucked up if they go out and kill someone, but often there is evidence that these fucked up people were inspired by violent video games and may have never done it without that inspiration. To say that there is zero connection between violence in video games and real life violence is just wrong. But to say that it is a very strong connection is also wrong. The problem is the regulation of violence in video games, not that it exists.

I don't think it's anyone's position that there is no connection - that's pretty unquestionable. It logically follows that violent people are going to be attracted to violent video games. The real question is do these games make the children violent. And I really don't think so. A child that is not prone to violence in the first place will no more want to kill people in a video game than they would in real life. Just the opposite is true.

Oddly enough, the movie "Scream" said it perfectly (about movies, but it's the same argument): "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative."

Glorifying violence by way of a system that rewards it in a video game will not make any child with half a brain think that killing people in real life is okay. If anything, it will provide an outlet for a child who is violent so that they won't feel the need to be violent in real life. But a child who doesn't have quite the same grip on reality that most do will get ideas for things to do in real life - this is the very definition of psychosis; a lack of connection to reality. So we shouldn't give violent games to psychotic children... wow, that's hard to figure out. It's also why games are rated. I understand that this system is not perfect, but it seems to be tightening - I was even carded buying Prototype last night, and I don't really think I look under 18.

Personally, I think pro wrestling is infinitely more dangerous than any violent video games. These are real people appearing to perform actions that would kill a person... but they don't. The other person gets right back up to fight 90% of the time. So what's a more dangerous message to send: that violent actions don't harm anyone, or that they kill people?

Furthermore: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/57ae50 ... igshow_fan

aamesxdavid wrote: I don't think it's anyone's position that there is no connection - that's pretty unquestionable. It logically follows that violent people are going to be attracted to violent video games. The real question is do these games make the children violent. And I really don't think so. A child that is not prone to violence in the first place will no more want to kill people in a video game than they would in real life. Just the opposite is true.

Oddly enough, the movie "Scream" said it perfectly (about movies, but it's the same argument): "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative."

Glorifying violence by way of a system that rewards it in a video game will not make any child with half a brain think that killing people in real life is okay. If anything, it will provide an outlet for a child who is violent so that they won't feel the need to be violent in real life. But a child who doesn't have quite the same grip on reality that most do will get ideas for things to do in real life - this is the very definition of psychosis; a lack of connection to reality. So we shouldn't give violent games to psychotic children... wow, that's hard to figure out. It's also why games are rated. I understand that this system is not perfect, but it seems to be tightening - I was even carded buying Prototype last night, and I don't really think I look under 18.

Personally, I think pro wrestling is infinitely more dangerous than any violent video games. These are real people appearing to perform actions that would kill a person... but they don't. The other person gets right back up to fight 90% of the time. So what's a more dangerous message to send: that violent actions don't harm anyone, or that they kill people?

Furthermore: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/57ae50 ... igshow_fan

I agree 100%, there's not much else that can be said.