Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411276 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:08:53 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesthe tedium of violence as progression
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
Print
Author Topic: the tedium of violence as progression  (Read 15097 times)
oahda
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2015, 10:56:20 AM »

if only we could find any game-developer to make a good non violent game...
Of course there are many and nobody is saying anything else.

It's about it being such a standard solution that's what's boring.
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2015, 11:05:39 AM »

ok whatever, ill post.

the reason violence/conflict in games is "easy" because for most of human history, that is what (rule-based) games were about. try to think of any classical game, including competitive sports, that doesn't involve conflict. for the longest time the only meaningful distinction was between direct (e.g. chess) and indirect (e.g. racing) conflict. usually direct conflict is what uses violence as a thematic metaphor in games.

that means we have a huge library of examples from the entirety of recorded history to draw on when it comes to conflict/violence based games. for conflict-free games that library is much smaller. ppl tend to forget that games based on a strict ruleset (as all videogames necessarily are) that don't involve some kind of conflict are, comparably, a very new thing. inventing new stuff isn't easy.
Logged
JWK5
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2015, 11:13:57 AM »

sort of weird thing that always gets left out of these conversations is SPORTS GAMES.
They're versions of existing games (sports) that happen to be free of killing. Sure there are goofy versions of sports games (Mario sports series for example), but generally people try to stay true to the original sports, or with some twists (usually not killing).

The discussion is about people with artistic freedom (not tied to make the game like a preëxisting sport) never really using that artistic freedom to do anything else than violence.
Ironically, my favorite sports games are more enjoyable to me because they added violence and killing (the Mutant League sports games). The series is a tongue-in-cheek satire of sports and the violence really plays up the aggressive enthusiasm of sports culture.

Megaman Soccer, Base Wars, Arch Rivals, Super Dodge Ball, and the various Blitz games were much more entertaining entertaining for me as well due to their added violence. There is something deviously hilarious about the comic mischief and over the top violence, I think it is all in the absurdity of the situations it creates rather than it being an actual depiction of violence. It is like those jokes where they present a horrible chain of events but in such an absurd way that it becomes funny.

I saw a TEDx talk where they defined humor as being "benign violation", kind of like tickling where it makes you giggle because the sensation is uncomfortable but non-threatening (maybe the laugh and good feelings that follow are your body's way of disarming the fight or flight response at the initial threatening sensation, for example tickling mimics the sensation of something crawling on your skin).

I am not all that fond of sports so the simulation games don't really do it for me (in the Madden games I just obnoxiously tackle anything that moves that the game will let me tackle just because I find some morbid amusement in it).









Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2015, 11:18:14 AM »

i don't want to debate because this subject makes me slightly uncomfortable. see, i have this unresolved inner conflict regarding violence in media: on the one hand im extremely squeamish when it comes to real violence. i make a point of not watching any news broadcasts or anything that depicts real people getting killed. i saw a terrorist execution video once and i remember being shocked/depressed for days because of it. otoh, like i said i have 0 problem with fictional violence (within some limits), especially videogame violence. i already said in some other thread that i don't really get "immersed" in videogame worlds a lot so maybe that has sth to do with it. anyway, ive been pondering for a long time whether this makes me a "bad person" or at least a hypocrite.

also the original article disses bloodborne and im too much of a fanboy to be level headed about this. Tongue

Okay, sorry Sad
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2015, 11:39:37 AM »

haha no, it's ok.
Logged
DJFloppyFish
Guest
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2015, 11:55:02 AM »

I have always agreed that violence and its associated mechanics are far too ubiquitous in games. That said, I don't think there's anything more inherently compelling than combat, be it physical or armed. The more I play games, the more I realize I don't want to play walking sims and puzzle games. I understand that is something of a reductive statement but I haven't experienced a truly "fun" alternative to combat-oriented games. Braid and Fez are great and all, but my interest in them amounts to something more akin to a academic one. I like picking them apart sure, but they don't feel like games to me. I think venerating puzzle games is leading us down this weird path of valuing a game's theory over it actually being fun to play. I feel like its really hot these days to say we should sit in a corner and play chess and experience the purity of the mechanics alone.

I can appreciate that sentiment, really I can. But let's face it, we all enjoy games with nice graphics. The extra context added to our situations can be immersive and if done right, feed directly into the mechanics in an interesting way. I think the role animations play in Dark Souls is a good example of that. Context is a very powerful thing. I think that's why developers fall back on violence. It is the most direct form of conflict we can imagine, and fighting human opponents currently offers more variables and gameplay options than asteroids and forces of nature. Unless you're talking about making a puzzle game, everything else ends up being an abstracted form of violence or action. Even chess is built on the idea of war, and I think there is a reason for that.

It is a pretty dark realization that we are so enamored with violence. But it makes logical sense. Conflict fascinates us.

I don't know why I got so preachy here, but allow me to land the plane somewhat. I think the real problem is that there is no variety in the conflicts we face in videogames. I want to see someone make a fun game about steering a ship through a storm that is actually dense mechanically. I really do. Instead though, we are rather creepily bombarded with games about murder. Worse yet, self serious ones that think they're being clever enough to jazz you up about it. That needs to change, but those games will probably continue to do fine because of what I said earlier. That extra context can go a long way.     

If COD was about a bunny rabbit slingshotting carrots into buckets on broomsticks, it wouldn't be one of my guilty pleasures. Unless maybe Vlambeer made it and there were tons of screenshake.
Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2015, 12:10:32 PM »

flappy bird was damn addictive save for the guilt that the game is "simplistic" (ie as much as a equivalent trim down shooter).

Casual game have plenty addictive and deep mechanics that are only shy away from complex presentation like cod game. One day they will make the leap, we will not recover. Even god damn hidden objects are now on a timer with layered mechanics with twitch based gameplay and anticipation ...  Epileptic HIDDEN OBJECTS FFS!!!
Logged

oahda
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2015, 12:11:40 PM »

You use the words "we" and "us" way too much, DJ.
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2015, 12:17:49 PM »

You use the words "we" and "us" way too much, DJ.

I had the same thought lol
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2015, 12:33:04 PM »

violence in vidgames/movies is popular for the same reason sports is popular/exist at all

if that confuses you you're not smart enough to discuss this :u
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
DJFloppyFish
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2015, 01:29:36 PM »

sorry Shrug

I guessed I missed the first/second person a little too much after all my schoolwork
Logged
JWK5
Guest
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2015, 01:41:56 PM »

Warning: Brain dumping and rambling ahead (take with a grain of salt). Any use of the word "we" is figurative.



Most games are about survival. This is regardless of whether we are talking about sports, board games, video games, etc. Even non-violent adventure games boil down to a battle against friction (i.e. to not get held back by the mysteries but solve them to move forward).

Human beings in general are enamored with conflict because conflict defines survival (i.e. the "winner" continues to thrive). Even in our own bodies is a never ending war between foreign entities and our immune systems. The universe pieces us together and every fiber of our being fights to not let it tear us apart. Death, essentially, is disconnection (separation) and what is injury and mutilation that we fear but disconnection (i.e. pieces of us being broken and torn from us). As a social species we fear being alone, again a fear of disconnection. The majority of all our social fears and prejudices stem from a fear of disconnection. Even the way people collect and hoard things screams of a fear of disconnection (especially seen in how attached people can become to these collections and hoards). We see death as being so final, despite the fact that our bodies aren't entirely "dead" or gone even after death (i.e. decay is the breakdown of our living system) because it represents the ultimate disconnection for or conscious minds: a disconnection from the experience of "living". This is why a lot of people say they would rather die than being on life support, they do not want to be aware of but disconnected from the experience of life. To them, it is still death. Survival is the war against disconnection, conflicts of any kind are battles fought in that war.

I think, for me at least, that is the core definition of what is a game. A game is conflict, it is survival, and the more it threatens you with disconnection the more intense it can feel (hence meltdowns in Dark Souls over lost souls). If you take the element of survival out what you are basically left with is a pretty picture, some nice sounds, a box to push around, etc. It might be an experience but it isn't really a game (unless you make your own little meta-game, but that will still require some element of conflict, some goal and energy spent to achieve it).

Survival gives an immediate sense of meaning, it gives you a reason to be alive and continuing to thrive (and to see the ones you care about thrive) is what can make you feel alive. The big draw to defeating our enemies in any manner (whether we are talking the elements, other humans, other creatures, an undertaken task, etc.) is that it signifies we have resisted that which seeks to destroy us, hold us back, or otherwise threaten our survival. Violence is one of the most immediate and visceral conflicts we recognize, whether that violence is by human hands, animals, the elements, or something fictional it is the fact that disconnection is extremely close and hangs in the balance of immediate events that makes it so intense. Where violent video games fail us is that there is no sense of disconnection, we have virtually nothing to lose, so the fight is not really a fight at all it is more of a nuisance we must climb over to get to where we are going.

Survival requires the threat of disconnection, conflict requires a threat to survival. Whether you risk losing points in Tetris, a race in Mario Kart, your farm falling to ruin in Harvest Moon, or your souls in Dark Souls the threat is all the same: disconnection, survival. A game doesn't need violence but it does need an element of survival and conflicts that threaten it.





EDIT: Another clue to why violent video games may hook so well is that though we fear an end to our survival we are particularly fond of the way our body rewards us for surviving conflicts. During and after getting tattoos, piercings, etc. which are basically bodily mutilation (disconnection) people often get a rush of endorphines and dopamine. This also happens during a violent fight, a near death experience (deliberate like bungee jumping or otherwise), etc. From personal experience competitive FPS and fighting games give a distinct rush when played well (i.e. defeating opponents) that few other games give. Similarly, making it through an area with a large pool of souls in Demon's Souls gave a distinct rush (sort of a build up rush happening because I know at any moment I could lose them all and they continued to amass the further I got). There are a lot of people who like to dangle their survival off a ledge, we seem to be prone to wanting to survive but not wanting to survive so well we learn nothing new (and risk not being able to survive unknown threats just beyond our reach).
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 01:53:26 PM by JWK5 » Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2015, 02:03:58 PM »

farm falling in ruin in harvest moon? which one?
Logged

quantumpotato
Quantum Potato
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2015, 02:15:35 PM »

So many games are power fantasies.. it's disgusting really. You get to perfect the same sequence over and over again until you get your slaughter down to a science. One game which story justifies this is Nethack, since you play the God of War... but it's balanced dramatatically with permadeath.

Settlers of Catan, anyone? Brilliant game, no direct violence (there are soldiers but they steal instead of kill).

Many old interactive fiction games were about puzzle solving, not killing things. http://www.ifarchive.org/. Monument Valley is a good example of a modern puzzle game not about killing things, instead exploring geometry and a story of redemption.

I think JWK5 is spot on though. Puzzle solving, social intrigue and escher-painting explorations require advanced thinking whereas "KILL OR BE KILLED" is understood at a deep, primal level (literally, your lizard brain stem).
Logged

JWK5
Guest
« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2015, 02:20:01 PM »

farm falling in ruin in harvest moon? which one?
Any of them. Keeping your farm going is the chief way to bolster your income and by resources to further keep your farm going (and expanding) which also ties in to having the resources needed for things like the cooking contests, keeping your animals happy, having the items to give potential mates, etc. The primary tension in the HM series (though as much as I like HM I kind of like the Rune Factory Games a little more) is that you are trying to keep your farm in order while working the other elements in the game, and you only have so much time in a day to do it (and only so many days in a year). If you ignore your farm it ends up full of weeds, no new crops grow, the animals get unhappy, and it gets harder to acquire resources. It can stall your progression through the game pretty badly (especially the SNES and N64 ones where the days are fairly short). It is especially brutal in the early game where your character doesn't have a whole lot of stamina and your fields are littered with rocks, logs, and other stamina-draining obstacles and your tools are of poor quality.
Logged
Netsu
Level 10
*****


proficient at just chillin'


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2015, 02:27:27 PM »

Most games need a challenge to keep it interesting, and the way I see it this comes either as fights, puzzles or platforming (or some other mechanic revolving around timing). I think there are quite a lot good games without violence but games about killing stuff will probably always be more popular because that's what gets most people going.

I consider myself a very violent game loving person but still as I look at my top played Steam games almost 1/3 of them have no fights (unless you count the shooting sequences in Papers Please).
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2015, 02:42:17 PM »

@JWK5
the way I play harvest moon is I don't care at all, lol, never felt like to grow the farm and it was fun! The only one I had a problem is the GC one where you have to be married by a certain date else the game end ... I always play by doing whatev (mostly not growing crops)
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2015, 02:56:20 PM »

is there a reason to keep making PEW PEW PEW games? what do YOU think?
There is at least as much reason to create "PEW PEW PEW" games as any other games you might consider of value. I am not tired because of the shooting/violence aspect, but because most real time games are mechanically poor or broken. There has to be someone capable of implementing clean formal systems in the domain of real time games.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2015, 03:16:16 PM »

For example I recently checked out Witcher 2 only to be disappointed. Probably the worst control implementations I have seen in a while. Not sure why people even play that mess, better watch a movie or read the book instead.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2015, 03:32:24 PM »

I don't get to kill the goblins in a book or movie, letting other people doing it on a screen is overrated, even kid would rather look at someone play than watching a movie.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic