next »

[s0]

what about people who don't want everything to be interactive (like me)?

hey, thread derail

[Türbo Bröther]

Doing away with EXP for kills is the way to go. Slaughtering everything you see might not be as an attractive prospect when you're working at a loss.

[Alevice]

what about people who don't want everything to be interactive (like me)?

hey, thread derail

yeah dorf fortes and dork soles are like fucking movies man. crusader kings is like medieval avengers

[ThemsAllTook]

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 this is the way a lot of people see it, but it'd be nice if it were challenged more often. A cooking game, for example, could be a lot of fun but not fit any of those. I suppose it would loosely revolve around timing, but would be more about multitasking and keeping track of which ingredients you've added, which ones you still need to add and how long they'll take to prepare, etc.

This really does cut to the heart of it, though - the question to ask is, what tasks are challenging in an enjoyable way? There should be plenty of answers to that that don't involve any kind of violence.

[valrus]

Looking at the wider play industry (boardgames, physical puzzles, pen & paper puzzles, contests, gameshows, pub games, gambling, lotteries, etc.) and even just other parts of the videogame industry (casual, "mom" games, puzzle and boardgame conversions, simulation and racing, interactive fiction and visual novels) suggests that humans find a lot of things fun and compelling even in the absence of violent themes and mechanics.  It's just this one slice of gaming culture, AAA and imitation-AAA, in which variations on "harm it until it disappears" are the default mechanic.

I think boardgames are the most interesting comparison, being that they usually involve competition (often quite cutthroat), but thematically and mechanically they're quite diverse.  Out of curiosity, I visited this link a bunch of times http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/random. 

While violent games weren't rare by any means, they weren't even the majority of games that happened to come up, and that's with a broad definition of violence.  (Even then, half of the violent games that came up were historical wargames, which are numerous but are currently only a tiny slice of the boardgame industry.)  What came up instead was breaking codes, making archaeological digs, wiring a city for electricity, voyaging the Silk Road, traveling Europe, solving mysteries, creating a zoo, and, apparently, planning an orgy. 

[jolene]

oops. a lot of my games involve violent mechanics but i swear i'm making non-violent stuff too!!!

[J-Snake]

I don't get to kill the goblins in a book or movie

Right, that's why killing goblins should be fun in the first place, if you get what I mean.

[Türbo Bröther]

.

[oahda]

I, unlike some of you, think action violence is fun. Get over it If I'm happy, everyone is.

It's great if you're content. Nobody's coming to take your games away. Some of us want to see more other stuff, tho.

[SirNiko]

Everyone should play the Trauma Center games.

That's pretty much it.

[Nillo]

The takeaway from this thread for me is I really should go back and finish the Phoenix Wright games. I remember they were quite fun. Wonder if they're on the eshop...

[skaz]

I've been thinking about violence in video games for a long time. I won't say I don't enjoy it, I do a lot. What I'd like though, is violence not to be treated as a valuable thing. In the every day life, I won't value more a person because he or she have already killed people, no matter in which circumstances, even to defend him/herself. Killing shouldn't be valued all the time.

We experiment very different worlds in games, violent worlds. Should killing everything be praised? It can, but I'd like to have the choice NOT to kill. Right now I'm thinking about a RPG, and I think I've found a rather fitting solution. Killing shouldn't reward you, at least not all the time. Killing a wolf and take its skin and meat, there is a reward here. But should you be forced into killing bandits? Couldn't you just knocked all of them and take what you want? Without loosing anything like XP or loot? Couldn't you simply drag them alive to the authorities? Should the fact of taking their lives be rewarded in itself? This simple option values life over death.

[yeahjim]

It's overused and tritely presented precisely because it's so easy. It's like sodium. We crave it. So developers slather it all over everything because it's going to create interest where otherwise none might exist. It's not exactly an argument against violence, it's an argument for better overall game construction. The issue I think is that you get some knee-jerk pro-violence people (I'll kill you if you take away my double cheeseburger!!) arguing with some often snooty high-concept art people (if you don't enjoy my tofu soybean salad, it's because you're an idiot), when really what we want is a delicious, well-proportioned meal. Also I skipped breakfast this morning.

[J-Snake]

What I'd like though, is violence not to be treated as a valuable thing. In the every day life, I won't value more a person because he or she have already killed people, no matter in which circumstances, even to defend him/herself. Killing shouldn't be valued all the time.

Assigning a value (good or bad) to violence is a meaningless expression. What you value in games is the ability to resolve conflicts, by means you see fit. That's what every (good) game is about.

[oahda]

No, that's what most (not every) good stories are about, and not all games need to be stories. Minecraft is a good example.

[gimymblert]

Minecraft is a story, stranded man in unknown world must survive horde of evil at night by creating shelter and lighting torch, as he explore the world he discover old ruin and uncover mysteries that transport it a new world (the nether) and ultimately defeat a dragon.

[oahda]

Depends on what mode you're playing, but of course I meant the LEGO sandbox in this case. That's really entertaining to a lot of people, but has no conflict and no goal other than to finish a construction the player chooses alone.

[jamesprimate]

i dont think anyone would say that the "story" is the draw of minecraft

[gimymblert]

I'll bit

a bunch of people come together to a world, they think about what they could do and set up to do it

(hint I don't think there is a difference between story and gameplay, the only difference is interactivity degree and even linear media has some sort of indirect interactivity in the term of "interpretation puzzles")

[oahda]

a bunch of people come together to a world, they think about what they could do and set up to do it

The opposite of a conflict. :D