/agree, i find in games where characters have a story and a background, that helps identify them more as a 'person' than a faceless NPC, my empathy towards them increases signficantly.

@Ben Ambroso

As yes, Colonel Raidenovich Raikov

In any industry or medium, we should be striving to ask questions like this one, instead of placing blame. because only one of thsoe actually finds answers, the other merely assumes them.



choir, consider yourself preached to.

I'm thinking Aeris in Final Fantasy 7. That was such a shock when she was killed. It seems like that solidified Sephiroth's place as the top villain of all time.

I can't think of too many games were a person I killed (a villain or one of his lackeys) screamed in horror. But they are usually fighting me up until the deathblow, too. Who would want a terrifying villain who has been giving you trouble and mercilessly destroying people and places without a shred of guilt to suddenly cry out for mercy, though?

I see his point. For that matter, how many movies show a character's victims screaming in agony or force the character to deal with the victim's surviving friends and relatives? I can't even think of too many books that do that. Isn't it more of a story telling element? The story teller doesn't want the audience to dislike the central character. That's why the few instances that I can think of usually involve the antagonist harming people.

@ C'tri

Protagonist=good guy
Antagonist=bad guy

That's a little too simplistic mind you, but its also the easiest way to say it. In God of War Kratos is the protagonist, but I wouldn't call him a hero. Sure, he kicks ass, but he's not a good guy, he's just better than the people he's fighting... maybe.

If memory serves the protagonist is defined as the person the story follows while the antagonist is the person who drives the story along by creating trouble for and interacting with the protagonist. I suppose that in some modern stories there can be multiple antagonists, but I'm not too up on that kind of thing.

@Gameboy.
That would make Kratos the ANTI Hero.
He's the hero of the tale, but he's not necessarily a good person.

As for violence in media, what the fuck is the big problem? The discussion doesn't matter, because it'll have violence either way! The only discussion as to violence in the media that is REALLY going on is the discussion about how video game violence is worse than all other kinds (which is stupid to say the least). All the other forms of violence in the media are readily accepted in our society!

I actually felt sorry for the zombies in halflife 2, the half-recognisable screams they make when coming for you made it seem that the "infected' person is still in there in pain while the parasite controls their body.

Same for the crew of the Von Braun in System Shock 2.

@dutch

apparently thats true, the headcrabs tap into just the motor functions of the victim, so they fell themselves killing people, feel their own bodies rotting etc. really nasty.

Just shows a lot of games do have that level of story, but its in the background and not many people realise it.

Thief was a good one, stalkign a guard as he was on his patrol, talking to himself about how when he got home he'd have a nice sleep, a good meal and see his family, you could knock him out, but killing is so much easier....

also this came to mind:
http://www.drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=14&issue=1

I don't want to 'kick a bee hive' so to speak, but I'm just curious why does media art have to be violent in order to be good? People talk like having AO video games is the only way we're ever going to push the edge of gaming. Isn't gaming about interaction? So a new way to play or unique art style is pushing the edge of the gaming world.

Granted games like Dark Cloud (Georama), Psychonauts, Tales of Phantasia (LMBS), Shadow of the Colossus, Spore (if it's ever released), etc. which bring unique art and play to the table while leaving depictions of ultra-violence at the door, don't make a splash in politics, they did find a way to 'push the envelope' by coming up with something original.

I will agree, sometimes a point needs to be made and violence should be used in order to make the point more effective (Schindler's List is a prime example) and the more realistic the violence the more effective you'll make the point, but to push the technological edge of gaming doesn't require grotesque images and violence worthy of an AO rating and really that's what I wished I saw more of; original ideas.

I remember an old Sega CD game called Vay...not the best game out there, but it was an RPG on what was then my most advanced console, so I ate it up...there was a scene where the party is running out of a dungeon after acquiring some Maguffin-type object. As they're running, they're assaulted by the Bad Guys(tm), and the green-but-light-hearted sidekick type takes an arrow in the back.

He dies, with some suitably heroic and moving last words, and another member of the party actually turns and screams his name, tears running down her cheeks. It definitely struck me, and left me with a bit of an empty feeling inside.

@ Sidewinder

I suppose it could tick off a few religious groups. I never really thought of that.

@Sidewinder

And Spore doing it in less than an hour? Oh my, the horror!

@ Austin Lewis

You are correct, sir. Kratos is an anti-hero. Still, I like X-Play's take on him. He's a bad-ass. How bad-ass is he? "He's so bad ass that he kills a completely innocent soldier JUST to open a door. A door that he probably could of opened with his sheer bad-assness."

Anyway, my example holds true. He is the protagonist, but not really a hero. There's a difference, which needs to be explained. Superman is a hero (he's also lame).

@ WinterNight

Games don't need to be extremely violent in order to be good. Quite a few of the games I play are not extremely violent. There are a few E rated games in my library, but the majority is T and M rated.

Ever play Shadow Hearts? It's not very violent. It is M rated, however. This is probably due to the dark Gothic tale. The main character transforms into demons and also fights quite a number of terrible creatures. In the first town you come to, you'll notice a crunching sound as you walk in the shadows. As you talk to people, you get the feeling that they are cannibals. Turns out they are cat demons that feast on human flesh (and favor women as they are less stringy and more tasty). Remember that crunching sound? It's soon revealed to be bones when you try to leave.

Games may not need to be violent, but they aren't all violent, either. They also aren't all for kids.

I got a question for all of you...

Does the people make the market, or does the market make the people?

I think if any question needs to be answered...it should be this one.

If the people make the market, then the sale of violent video games is filling a void, rather then creating one. I mean, there is a market for violent games, thats why they are being created. If no one bought them, no one would make them.

Or does the market make the people? And if so, how? Advertising? How many of us have actually been effected by advertising? Especially with how CRAPPY commercials are now-a-days. I know I haven't.

Advertising to me is sorta like preaching to the stubborn, or preaching to the choir. I know what I want to buy and whom I want to buy it from. So when I see a commercial, I'm either thinking "already getting it" or "hell no man, hell no"

I can't imagine I'm a minority on this. So I'd say the people make the market. And if thats the case, then we need to study ourselves to find the answer to this, and not blame the people who are just supplying us with what we want.

@ Jabrwock

It's true that history and lore is full of violence. But some of the worlds most celebrated artists did not use violence to make a point or to get a 'thrill' from the audience. Leonardo, Bach, Shakespeare. It's only recently that movies, TV and video games have featured violence and I'm not sure why.

I'll admit I like a good 'scary game' as much as the next guy. Bioshock really creeped me out and it really got my heart pumping, but really they're cheap thrills and eventually the voices and the dark atmosphere just became boring, bland and predictable. What excites me is the challenge.

Having my enemies head blow up realistically isn't going to give me a thrill for much more then the first few times I see it. What really sticks is the challenge. Online First-Person Shooters like BF2 and BF2142 are great examples of thrills without blood and gore.

My heart's always pumping when I'm running covert ops or notice a sniper in the distance somewhere. It's the challenge of remaining hidden and not getting shot that makes my heart thump and because of the unpredictability of humans it continues to make my heart thump to this day.

seems no one has mentioned fable. ive got to say i loved the fact that depending upon how you play the game, be it good or evil, will gauge the reactions of others to you. you may sometimes be revered, other times feared. another example is army of two, which has an aggro system that changes based on kills, type of gun you are using, etc. it makes the games more realistic and gives it a pretty wicked gameplay element.

@Winternight

But some of the worlds most celebrated artists did not use violence to make a point or to get a ‘thrill’ from the audience. Leonardo, Bach, Shakespeare. It’s only recently that movies, TV and video games have featured violence and I’m not sure why.

Read some good old Greek classics. Music can't describe violence, although it can celebrate it (see any piece written to celebrate military victories). Shakespeare seemed to prefer sexual innuendo. And Leonardo devised many interesting and artful ways to wage war...

Ever read Victorian literature? Holy crap were those people fascinated with extravagant ways to die...

Violence was an everyday thing back then, so it wasn't "thrilling" but more a morbidly depressing reminder of reality... But still a useful storytelling element.

I agree that it is a cheap thrill. But used masterfully to set the tone, or to provide a drive to the story (avoiding being a victim of the violence), can move the plot along while dragging the reader/viewer/player along with.

I remember a scene in Splinter Cell: Double Agent had a moral affect on me.

It was the scene where you have to shoot the helicopter pilot as hes chained to the wall. His mouth is gaged, so he doesn't "beg" for his life verbally. But the way they did his eyes, god I still remember them. The developers really captured the fear he had, without him saying one word. Simply by the way he looked at you as you pointed the gun at his head. The way he tried to crawl away but couldn't because he was tied up.

As much as I wanted to shoot the sucker in the face, in order to maintain a trustful relationship with the enemy, I couldn't. I shot the wall.

Anyone else experience this?


Also @GoodRobutRUs

Your right, in the case of Manhunt 2 and GTA. The Controversy sold the item. And I'm sure people would agree that if these games ARE a danger, that the same people who are trying to stop this danger, are the ones fueling it.

If you make a big deal outa something. Its going to become a big deal. If you disregard it, the true colors of the subject will come out. Not the overly fluffed or overly deflated image that it will falsely portray.

@Winternight

Did you not see my reference to Titus Andronicus, thats shakespeare at his goriest, much worst than the saws or manhunts of today

@ Predatorian234

I hate the advertising industry, with the fire of a thousand suns. There is NO quality control going on there, else we wouldn't have the completely useless, disingenuous commercials we see day and day out.

Advertising affects me in that I take note of the commercials I see that I feel people should have lost their jobs over, and then I make a conscious effort to avoid those brand names. I've actually stopped using products that I didn't really have a quality-related problem with simply because their advertising proves that they don't deserve my patronage.

It's sad, really, what the average exec seems to think will sell a product. Or an idea.

This guy has a good point.

But the question is, will it bare fruit and happen or will it wither away and disappear?

@Soul

"If theres a new way, I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time" -Dave Mustaine, Peace Sells.

If everyone thought this way soul, then it would have a fighting chance.

But people don't like new ways. They aren't willing to be the first in line on an untested, abstract, and unorthodox idea. They would rather beat a horse to death, then continue beating it until the twitching stops. Then they stand back confused at what went wrong.

The idea of adapting to our violence will never have the chance to bare fruit, because people will chop the tree down before it even starts budding.

there is more than one brand i have sworn off due to their bad advertising. (i've written off Apple not because i dislike their product but because i dislike their attitude and how they display themselves in commercials).

sidenote: i like those Orbit commercials -because- they are stupid. the best one is the one with Snoop Dogg just for the faces the kids make. they make me laugh, and that's why i remember them. it doesn't have to be a good commercial, just entertaining without being demeaning to the customer.

@Conejo

Well you have really crappy taste.

Lol no, I'm just kidding ya. I'm not a dick. At least not that big of one.

But that does strengthen the fact that the commercials had a positive affect. Even though I don't like it, doesn't mean no one else will. Different strokes for different folks ya know?

I think the same can be said about Violent Media....

@ Jabrwock

Masterful being the operative word. I realize that there are songs sung about great wars; paintings done of ancient bloddy battles; books which describe in detail dismemberment and art like this can and has had a huge impact on culture.

However there are also those books, paintings, and songs that aren't violent and have had a tremendous impact on culture and society. All I'm saying is that because a game has an AO rating doesn't mean it's going to push the envelope of gaming.

@ Conejo & chris

I'm well aware he did, but sometimes the violence was simply poisoning. Sometimes he didn't have any (A Midsummer Night's Dream).

@Predatorian234

extremes will always make the most memorable impact (be it ghandi or hitler). and in the end, a lot of what sells games is the extremity of the game itself.

both ghandi and hitler have had their way of making impacts - is either correct? im not sure. what i do know is a lot of came out of boths actions as well as a lot of bad. but both made more than a ripple in the pond.

we have truly become desensitized here in america to all that is out there. steps need to be taken somewhere to change the nature of how we see things.

I thought Metal Gear Solid 3 took a pretty good stab (unfortunate pun not intended) at this issue. I was going to write a pretty long comment about it... Then I remembered that someone at the Escapist already wrote it for me.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_29/177-Metal-...

Off-topic: I've been hearing a lot about Bioshock, and the comments in this thread have pretty much sealed the deal...I want to go play this game. I do not, however, own an Xbox 360.

I see this "Games for Windows" thing, but I've no experience with it. I have a decently capable PC running XP, but do I need to have Vista to use GfW? Do I have any option for playing this game without getting a 360 or upgrading to Vista?

@lumi

Vista isnt required, but the specs are quite high so check em out first. bioshock is a worthwhile purchase for anyone who calls themselof a gamer. While I didnt feel the impact a lot of people have been claiming, it is a great game, beautiful and well written.

Now go buy it...



Back on topic, I personally think violence for violence sake is sloppy and lacking in so many levels, which is why I hated Saw. But if you can use violent as one aspect of a deep story it can be just the thing to add another level of emotion and depth due tothe primal insticts it invokes. Cube is a great one, quite gorey but it adds to the story of fear and panic and the psychological degredation of the characters. The aformentioned titus andronicus uses violence and gore to ridiculous extremes to show the pit of the vengeful spirit, how close to madness it is (oldboy is a similar modern example). violence on its own says very little, as it is one of the moast basic tennets of entertainment, but applied in the right way it can push the boundaries.

@ Predatorian234

It was during the Manhunt 2 controversy. What I was reading sounded like only AO rated games were the only ones that could push the envelope. That's not to say though that I couldn't have misunderstood the comments, but articles like this make me think I wasn't mistaken.

@ Jabrwock

Most great struggles are violent simply due to the nature of man. Instead of resolving peacefully we're quick to the draw, but that doesn't mean struggle has to be violent. For example A Beautiful Mind was about a man's struggle with his mind. Now I know it'd be difficult to create/sell a game about something as bland as a 'war of the minds', but you get the point.

chris said what I'm trying to get at. Violence for the sake of violence is ineffective and just wrong or, in video game terms, design your game the way you want it, not so it meets an AO rating.

However games which reach an AO rating should absolutly get a shot at being sold, unfortunatly retailers and console makers are entitled to their rights and should be allowed to make the choice of whether or not to allow such content on their systems.

@WinterNight

Now I know it’d be difficult to create/sell a game about something as bland as a ‘war of the minds’, but you get the point.

Very true. How do you personify a struggle of minds? The classic portrayal has usually been... two "selfs", fighting for control.

Violence for the sake of violence is ineffective

I agree, which is why games that are violent for violence sake usually fail miserably. Now if they have great story AND violence, then you have the struggle, but the struggle is defined and meaningful.

@Winternight

I agree, It would be nice to see some games based on mental struggles. I myself have a good idea for one, sadly though I'm not in the industry nor have the talent to get there.

inner conflict, psychological adversity over physical adversity all make more entertaining media for me, I love cerebral films like that, i mentioned cube before because its a great show of the mind under pressure, and while there is gore its almost never as a means to an end, only another obstacle beside the mental ones the characters face. It would be amazing to have games that were like that but really challenge is defined by conflict and violence, and its very hard to create immersive gameplay through other means.

@Father Time

Empathy and immersion are key factors in enjoying a game, sure I get the point your making, but actually investing real emotions into a game can be done without slipping over onto the crazy train. Have you honestly never felt any emotion in any game? that would mean something wrong with you, either a sad story or the feeling of regret they make the game mean more to us. the ame goes for any other medium.

@chris

Can't say I have, mostly because a lot of the games I play fail to give enough suspension of disbelief (then again that is rather hard to do when you need to operate a controller to make the story move along, and when the characters do things in the gameplay that wouldn't work in real life). I have felt frustration and shock value in some games but that doesn't count. Twice I have felt empathy and pity when a character died in a video game, but in both cases there was absolutely nothing I could do to prevent their death (and as I said before I could restart the game and they are both back).

The first Postal game actually disturbed me greatly, with the screams and cries of pain ("I can't feel my legs" "It's so hard to breathe").

I also don't play GTA games in a murderous rage (unless I'm trying to up my media score in Vice City) but I feel less remorse for doing it because the GTA cities are usually full of scum who a just as likely to kill you as to look at you. Make me feel sympathy for the victim and I'm less likely to kill them in a game. I did the same in Deus Ex. I was less likely to kill what seemed like ordinary soldiers than the hardened killers.

I think what some of these people don't like is that you have a choice. Yeah, you can kill hookers in GTA, but you don't have to and it actually draws less potential attention if you don't. Easier to get health and money in other ways. Same with Bioshock. You have a choice with the Little Sisters and that fact you even have the potential of hurting them is enough to make the pundits wiggy.

"How many games make you suffer heart-wrenching wails of fear from your victims before you hurt them…"


This happens in Shadow of Chernobyl. Sometimes enemies will be hurt to the point where they cannot stand and can only ramble on in fear on the ground.

I agree that the MGS series does a pretty good job at making you think about the worth of human life. I'd go in more depth, but there's no need...

KOTOR had some good ones, not just lightside/darkside but shades of grey, I remember there was one quest on kashykk, some wookie trouble with slavers and it turned out this kids idol was working with the bad guys, and his friend shot him, you had to face the choice of exposing the truth to save the wookie who killed him, but crush the kids hope, or you could let the guy be executed as a murder (he wanted to preserve the kids memory of his hero rather than his own life). Tough choices, and you have to face up to the consequences of either because either way theres no way to win, and its all cause you stuck your nose into things.

BioShock is a start. It could have had a few more options though.

Because I don't consider it much of a spoiler, consider the two Splicers you see rather late in the game enjoying a ballroom dance. Just two grotesque, zombie-like figures and an old phonograph. They completely ignore your presence, even if you watch. They are talking back and forth like they don't realize the underwater city has gone down the tubes. You could go up and kill them, of course, but how many players would choose to leave them alone and let them enjoy the peaceful moment? There are no prompts, no text demanding you to do anything - it's just you as a player. What do you do?

I wanted to see more of those moments. The Splicers tended to come off as faceless zombies most of the time. It was easy to forget that they were once normal people.

What about The Punisher? I see quite a bit of pleading in that game, what with interrogation through torture and all. However, I can't say, considering the kind of guy Frank Castle is (a heartless, but well-meaning guy) and the kind of enemies he's murdering (sadistic criminals), that you're supposed to regret killing them.

God of War (both of them) actually made you witness to the suffering of more than one man throughout the games. Don't know if it helps the argument since Kratos is so badass he doesn't give a ****. I remember kind of looking around the room as I dragged the trapped soldier up the hill towards the sacrificial mechanism, as if trying to convince myself that there was another way to do this. Hearing his increasingly frantic protests as he got closer to the torches made me wince a bit on the inside. The translators in the sequel are another example, although by that point (and after the insanely hard sequence to get him to the book) I was more than willing to off him just to get out of that place.

I would tend to disagree as well, but for a different reason.

It just seems like it would be too hard to pull off, and potentially dangerous if it's not.

Think about it. Let's say we did have a game that decided to make the killing "realistic," with all the fear, pleading, heart-rending wails, or whatever that would entail. Let's also say that it's easier and possibly more fun to go through the game killing every random guard you come across, despite the fact that the game's shown you that he's a person with his own aspirations and a wife and kids at home.

What are the anti-game people going to think of that? If they call FPSes "murder simulators" as it is... Because if you think about it from their perspective, the realism isn't making the gamer feel bad, it's conditioning them -not- to feel bad.

Of course, it probably could be done in a way that would serve the purpose. It would just require the game to be made in such a way that there isn't a reward for killing indiscriminately, killing can and should almost always be avoided (and, if it can't, it must be due to story reasons and your character must react properly conflicted about it), and the anti-violence message itself to be a major theme in the game, since even the gameplay would have to be structured around it (but it would have to be entwined in the story well enough so it doesn't come off as preachy).

And then, there's the fact that even if there were games like this, the audience might be a problem - if the main core of the game is that violence is not all it's cracked up to be, but the game still has hyper-realistic violence, it could alienate large segments both of the people who might be most interested in such a story and the people who would be most interested in the hyper-realistic violence.

...on the other hand, if something like that was done properly, it could very well be the kind of story that only games can tell. There's no other medium that gets to point at its audience and say "YOU did this, and look what happened because of it," which could be really effective if the game could create a sufficient amount of empathy both for your character and the victims.

So, actually, I don't really disagree with the idea, in theory. I just think that it would be better as a high-concept game than something that should be generally more prevalent in the mainstream.

tycoon games for windows vista...

haha gotta love Windows......