next »

[JWK5]

im not sure thats entirely true. many games that are narratively not about violence still feature violent game mechanics (and gameplay themes) because it's what (devs and publishers think) sells or because they couldn't think of anything more fitting. this is why "ludonarrative dissonance" is being talked about so much today. it used to be an abstract academic concept, but now that games are putting more emphasis on storytelling its becoming acute.

Is it strictly because violence sells or because non-violence is difficult to "pad out". Violence is a "good" filler because it keeps the player busy in a familiar and accepted way, that is most players won't even question it because it is so familiar. It is an easy coat of paint for a treadmill for the player to run on. When you can't figure out what else your player should be doing, and when in doubt, throw in some violence. Like I said, the same old mechanics often lay the groundwork for the same old theme and aesthetics. LoL Nevermind, I read that all kinds of wrong. I just basically repeated what you just said. I am still waking up here...

bioshock infinite (already mentioned itt) is a big example of this problem. i honestly thought the parts where you just walk around were the best parts of the game and i actually dreaded the shooting sequences, not just because they weren't good but because they seemed out of place.

I actually liked the shooting in BioShock Infinite, about as much as I liked the story. The problem I had with the game overall is that it feels like they were trying to build two different games and couldn't decide on which they were going to go with. As a shooter, it had some great potential (the railway island hopping and verticality was very underused). As as an adventure game, it really kept the path straight and obvious (probably to facilitate the action). The setting worked well for either, but the two priorities did not mesh well. As soon as the action picked up the story hit the breaks on it and as soon as the story got good the action pulled you away from it. They'd have been better off giving the game two separate modes, one to tell the story of a mystery solver and one to tell the story of an action hero.

It wasn't an academic stuff, it was coined by the lead of farcry 2 on a blog post when he was trying to figure out how to make better game narrative looking back at how he made farcy 2 and what it tried to fix it (ie justifying the violence by setting the game in africa because africa is violent you know )

Far Cry 2 and 4 would have benefited greatly from a non-violent path. With both games all the potential was there for playing a character who was caught in the midst of the conflicts and was just trying to survive, rather than going all Rambo. I don't mind the action, both games made going Rambo fun, but that Rambo path just screamed for a more survival-based or even non-violent stealthy, information-gathering counter-part. Taking bases by stealth is one of the funnest parts of Far Cry 3 and 4, and all the little subtle non-violent and even merciful choices you can make just by waiting in Far Cry 4 was a breath of fresh air.

[vinheim3]

Violence isn't itself culturally fascinating, it's just an extremely effective game mechanism. Most games contain killing in their abstracted form, rather than a realistic, voyeuristic depiction, which is indeed culturally shallow. When games make you bored of killing people, that is a failure of the game's design, rather than artistic myopia.

Prevalence of violence is partially caused by the cultural fascination with killing and violence, but in games it's more driven by how effective it is as a player motivation: these people want to kill you, so kill them first.

[oahda]

[cynicalsandel]

Violence is boring.

I just want an Animal Crossing game that doesn't shame me for not paying attention to it constantly.

[SousaVilla]

I think it's also pretty hard to move away from tradition. When you play a new rpg you kind of know many of the stats and what they do. If you switch the names of the stats and the context of the actions it can be a little hard to tell their functions. "Strenght" vs "Intteligence" is pretty simple in a normal rpg, but what would be the differences between "Emotion" and "Reason" or something like that in a non-conventional rpg? I wish more people would try that but you run the risk of alienating a lot of players.   

[gimymblert]

That isn't a real difference, gears of war with mustache is still gears of war. Doing something different is like jumping from gary gigax's tabletop rpg to LARP to CRPG to JRPG

[s0]

I just want an Animal Crossing game that doesn't shame me for not paying attention to it constantly.

harvest moon?

[cynicalsandel]

I've got a few Harvest Moon games. Unfortunately, I prefer the gameplay and villager interactions of AC more than farming/ranching.

It's not that big of a deal. Just gotta smash some cockroaches, pull some weeds, and have every villager ask where you've been the entire time.

[J-Snake]

gears of war with mustache is still gears of war.

As long as it has blood. You see mustache is not the negation of blood, it's orthogonal to blood;)

[gimymblert]

guys

[SousaVilla]

That isn't a real difference, gears of war with mustache is still gears of war. Doing something different is like jumping from gary gigax's tabletop rpg to LARP to CRPG to JRPG

If you just switch the stats name, then yeah, it would be simply putting mustaches. But if you change how they work in order to represent a new non-violent system then you're throwing a lot of the traditional expectations away. Tabletop indie rpgs do this all the time, but you're supposed to read an entire rulebook before starting to play (at least the GM is, if there is one) and these systems focus less on the game system and more on player interaction and improvisation. Is easier for the videogame player/designer to just keep the way these games work and incrementally change them (the way Planescape: Torment does giving more power to non-violent solutions in a system that is clearly designed for traditional combat) than to change the way those systems usually work as whole.         

[gimymblert]

jrpg does this fine

[Phasma Felis]

I would like to see more non-violent games, because I think diversity is a good thing. The more kinds of games are readily available, the better. And some of my all-time favorites have been non-violent.

That said...

There is something just so viscerally satisfying about the notion that I can deal with all my problems by physically smashing them. IRL I do a fair bit of conflict resolution among my peers; I know that things are never black and white, never simple, everyone's always got a legit grievance somewhere, and compromise is the only real way forward. It's really satisfying to finally come to a mutually agreeable conclusion, but sometimes it's long and hard and frustrating and what if I could just blow it up instead. Wouldn't it be great if the world worked that way? If there were good guys and bad guys, and everyone could see which was which, and the good guys killed the bad guys and lived happily ever after?

The world doesn't work that way. So much misery and pain has been caused by people trying to make it work that way. But still, somehow, the idea calls to me.

[J-Snake]

The world doesn't work that way. So much misery and pain has been caused by people trying to make it work that way. But still, somehow, the idea calls to me.

And games don't work like the real world does. You have to think more abstract as a game developer.

[Alevice]

jrpg does this fine

really? one of the most linear genres where inteaction outside combat is so minuscule does this fine?

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

The only no violent game i enjoyed was Katamari Damacy but afterthougt even this game is freaking violent.

[RJAG]

often discussed, still worth a read:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/violence-is-boring-the-tedium-of-violence-as-progr.html

i couldnt agree more, and im glad to see it talked about in terms like "tedious" and "boring", because its exactly that. honestly at this point if im playing a game and it has me mowing down "bad guys" for some flimsy pretense, ill almost certainly put it down. not that violence as a mechanic is always bad design necessarily, just that IMHO at this point has to be bringing something really new to the table to not be completely tiresome. and this isnt a dig at AAAs or FPSs, it goes for everybody.

seems like as devs its a good discussion to have. is there a reason to keep making PEW PEW PEW games? what do YOU think?

previously:

http://www.destructoid.com/why-violence-in-videogames-is-getting-boring-37884.phtml

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hotline-miami-dennis-wedin-jonatan-soderstrom-interview-447406

It is depressing, especially when you see supposed "game designers" or indies (who have such great opportunity to do risky innovation; contrary to 'safe' AAA practice) and their "awesome game idea" is just more combat combat and combat.

I went off on a few people over at the Unity forums when they tried to tell me the the meaning of Star Trek series is combat. I blew a gasket. To watch The Next Generation and come away from it with "It's about combat." is the epitome of mental retardation. Literal retardation. A rational human being cannot think that. Yet...so many do, it is disturbing.

I also started one project (Away Mission) entirely BECAUSE I kept seeing morons on kickstarter talk about making a star trek game but "doing it right this time" and it proceeding to be about combat, combat, and combat.

So freaking tired of combat. Not combat, but games centered around combat. My game includes combat, but it's not at all the same. It's a tertiary feature. A minor part of gameplay. Overshadowed by the important aspects (Exploration, Personality, Diplomacy). It's an option you can focus on, among 8 others. Even then- my combat isn't bloodshed. It's often ways to PREVENT bloodshed through the use of combat. So much so, I do not have a war office or battle crew. Their job is SAFETY. Not combat. Not war. Not battle. SAFETY. They are just as responsible to secure fire extinguishers than they are to fire their weapons. In terms of gameplay, they actually DO the former.

Every freaking time I hear a great idea and click a gameplay video to see it in action, it'll be that great idea or theme- but combative. Want to be an intellectual pacifist scientist? Great! Now watch him as he blasts aliens to pieces to save the human race! 500 Upgradeable weapons! Features like: Combat with Aliens, Ship Combat, and Combat with Non-Aliens. We've even added a personality meter....WHICH DETERMINES HOW THEY COMBAT! "The Science skill allows you to craft grenades, as well as get an increase in critical hit damage to aliens and robots."

It's more than just disappointing. More than just tedius.

IT'S FREAKING DEPRESSING!!!!!!!

Two of the best games I've played recently were created 2 and 3 decades ago. Fallout 1&2 and Starflight.

In these 20-30 years, we have not innovated very much at all. In fact, our games often have LESS DEPTH and MORE VIOLENCE than these ancient relics. (Not to say those games weren't violent or didn't have combat. But that in most games these days, combat and violence is not only the core of gameplay but overshadows all other types of gameplay significantly. Even if there are non-violent components, they will somehow link to support the violence. People do not remember Starflight for its ship combat, or Fallout for its turn based combat. They remember these games, love these games, for every other reason).

As a game designer and indie developer: it is beyond depressing. It enrages me. Almost enough to enter combat with them. The Irony.

[gimymblert]

well there is monkey island though

[RJAG]

Violence isn't itself culturally fascinating, it's just an extremely effective game mechanism.

Did you instead mean this?

Violence isn't itself culturally fascinating, it's just an extremely safe game mechanism.

It's lazy game design.

It's a very SAFE mechanism. It's not risky like a non-violent (innovative) game is.


I will cut to the chase: Making non-violent gameplay that is engaging, fun, or interesting is difficult. Quantifying an idea into a tangible product isn't easy. It takes a lot of game design work to create game systems that aren't total crap.

A great example is exploration. I've seen a few titles that sound like amazing ideas for an exploration game. Then you see the videos and after the aww fades away- contemplate, "How are they going to make this...fun? How will this not be incredibly boring and nothing more than a show graphics that will inevitably (and quickly) get old?"

Unless they have some ingenius new component that isn't in the video or screenshots or their description / roadmap- it won't be all that fun. It will be niche: only fun for those who like exploring with nothing to do but oogle and oggle pretty graphics. Some will like that, but niche is niche right?

"This game is missing something. It's just not that fun."

Easy solution: Add monsters. Give them weapons. SOLVED!
Hard solution: Figure out a brand new idea(s) and prototype like hell to find out a way it can be fun. Brain a lot, and hurt the brain by thinking too hard.

Easy Solution: Think to yourself "Clone [insert Strategy/SIM game]'s components." and then immediately conclude "It will be too complex though, so casuals will hate it because they hate [insert Strategy/SIM game]." Don't actually think about it very hard. Just assume this is all true. Just assume [insert Strategy/SIM game] and its systems cannot be simplified or are the best there is.

Hard Solution: Risk, try to focus a lot on usability and a user friendly experience despite depth. Lots of work to do. Lots of QA testing which we don't have freely available.

And why risk? Trying something innovative could mean financial ruin. A ton of combat and hundreds of weapons as an advertising plug is safe. Clone minecraft? Safe. Clone Angry Birds? Safe. And those aren't all that violent right? It's basically LEGOS!

Then you have innovators like Dwarf Fortress, which IMO do more harm than good to the less individualistic thinkers in gamedev. What I mean by this is: Dwarf Fortress is a beloved idea, beloved depth, beloved gameplay. Yet its horrid UI, non-existent graphics, and ranking as one of the worst games in terms of usability forces it to a limit in success. Despite its popularity, its financial success is stunted by the decision to not bring it to the masses (make it playable with a good interface, better graphics, etc.) It could have a bigger number of gamers. Even hardcore gamers are turned off by DF for various reasons. They don't have to be. Even though they love the IDEA, they don't play it or don't play it much.

Other gamedevs, those who are less individualistic, will see this as niche. It has limited potential for financial success. It means if I try, I will make something crappier than him and won't sell enough copies. It means casual gamers will run away in droves. "I don't want to alienate all my fans." or "I need that extra consumer base to be financially successful and continue this." The need to appeal to a wider audience is real in the minds of many gamedevs. "This is too hard.", "This is not my game" (because they themselves never got the chance to try it out because it had such bad usability).

Fewer developers who are willing to try to bring depth ALONG WITH USABILITY to the masses. Less faith in humanity. More attachment to easily developed features (pew pew pew!) or features that aren't mentally taxing to create. Casual gamers who will forever say, "That's not the game for me." because no one ever tried to bring them that game. Automatically assuming they won't like it. That it's too complex or can't be simplified by a good interface or understandable tutorial. Simplified mechanics because "gamers are dumb" even if they have the potential to be smart. (Like someone blaming most students for being stupid, when the problem lies with the Teacher being crappy at their job.)


Worst of All:  The harsh reality that people don't want to say but certainly think. "This just isn't that good..." People love the idea. Praise the depth. Want the innovation. Don't really care for the game. Don't have the respect you'd think they do. So few play it compared to those who praise it. A lot disrespect it for its lack of appeal to the masses. People don't want to make a type of game (depth, complexity, innovation) if they see it as a failure in the back of their dissenting eyes.

Maybe this is just my perspective though. I've seen it a lot though. Time and time again I will read someone in a gamedev community say, "That's not my type of game." or even worse: "People don't like complex. They want simple." How will we ever know if people will like something if we never bring it to them in a way they can try it out? Also, people don't like needlessly complex. That doesn't mean they dislike complex. They like simplified interfacing, but not necessarily shallow depth. They like usability. Just because the idea is complex or has depth, doesn't mean you can't explain it in a simple way, or make interacting with the complex system simpler.

If deep games are always needlessly complex, if depth is always associated with bad graphics or ingenius programming, if no one ever stops playing it safe to try to innovate- the niche will remain niche. Innovation will be stifled.


We see games like Dark Souls which seemed more niche at first but then gather popularity where even casuals dive in to the sequel. (Arguably because the sequel was simplified in ways to pander to a wider audience- much to the dismay of the "hardcores", but then those casuals who are pulled in by the sequel discover they like the original too, and are now no longer "casuals" but "hardcore"). Now they can make Dark Souls 3 cater to the "hardcore" but still get that wider audience thanks to the simplified market-to-casuals sequel. There are now more hardcores: PROGRESS! Another team may now think "The Dark Souls Crowd is big enough that we can try to make our game", which is "hardcore". Look at Roguelikes too. Once upon a time, only the harder gamers would play those. Now, they are everywhere. It seems like half the platformers on steam (most indie games) have "roguelike mechanics". If I see another roguelike platformer, I'll barf. A few years ago, I'd never believe you that roguelikes (a niche) would become so much bigger.

Call it dumbed down, call it iterations or rogue-lite. It's progress. It's bringing niche game mechanics to a wider audience. Then that audience becomes more open to those original niche game mechanics. They are no longer "rogue-lite" but now capable of "rogue-like".

Then again, even so we see people simply add components based off of an old game: ROGUE. They don't try to innovate that game, just take from it and copy/paste it in their game. (How many games believe adding permadeath is somehow vital to their game's design, when it actually isn't? When it's a bad decision in their game compared to others.) Those people keep so many gamers from enjoying the positive sof "roguelike" because they are insistent on keeping archaic or idiotic pieces without thinking about the overall design and how it relates to THEIR game.

Who knows though. Maybe because of the rogue-lite, suddenly rogue-likes cease to be and we see some innovation that mixes 'lite' and 'like' into something with the benefits of both but the weaknesses of neither. Then it becomes the new fad, and we see AAA's bring it in. Not saying that's going to happen, but why not? Minecraft and Angry Birds explodes in popularity, and I'm sure AAA were green with envy.

[Canned Turkey]

Not replying to RJAG's really well thought out comments, or anyone else, just adding my thoughts.

What makes games fun, at least for me, is conflict. That's what makes a story good. Not all games are story based, but they all have some driving goal, and they all have something trying to stop you. That's where we get agency and what we call "fun". Pac-man, a game with minimal story, isn't violent per say. But there's a driving conflict, you want to eat all the dots, but the ghosts want to eat you. Tetris, you want to clear the lines, but there's limited time to think out your moves. This doesn't just apply to specific games either, you could take whole genres and describe them with a simple conflict. Racing games, you want to place highest, but so does everyone else. This is where violence lends itself so incredibly well to games, if everything can be boiled down to conflict, what's the biggest, most exciting conflict we can have? It's simple, a life or death situation. You want to live, but they want to kill you. You want to kill them, but they want to live. It works both ways. It's so easy because of how absolute it is. Nothing is higher on the list of "conflicting" things. It's like two immature kids playing pretend. One says, "I have a car! vroom vroom!" The other says, "Well I have a MISSILE LAUNCHER TO BLOW UP YOUR CAR!" one says, "I have a shield to block your missiles!" The other says, "I have a nuke launcher to blow up your shield!" It quickly escalates and, for them at least, the excitement of the game ramps up. There's a big problem though, this chain of escalation ends. It ends with the ultimate conflict, someone dying, but neither of them want it to be them. From a physical standpoint, nothing is after death. Death, and what leads to it, is the main thing we avoid as humans, and it makes for easy conflict, and by extent easy "fun".

Just my thoughts, glad to see people standing back and taking a look at an industry as a whole.