Separator

I'm Sick of Being a Virtual Killer

Default_picture
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Editor's note: Mega-franchises like Guitar Hero and Madden NFL aside, Aaron's claim that almost all big-budget titles are built around violence and killing as the primary gameplay element is hard to argue with. How quickly -- or even if -- that will change is much less obvious. -Demian


My father typed a strange series of commands into our new (and first) computer, and that's when it happened. Horribly low-resolution 3D pixels appeared on the screen; at the time it was the most amazing thing I had ever seen, and it still stands out as the moment games became not only a significant hobby, but a large part of my life in general.

It was the original Doom. My first experience with video games was pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a spikey monkey that shot fireballs. I cheered as he exploded in pixelated giblet glory.

Thinking back over my past 16 or so years of gaming, I don't think much has really changed since that initial experience. Sure, tons of games have stories now, mind-blowing graphics, animation, and sound that in many ways are comparable to film.

But in many cases, the gameplay experience itself hasn't really evolved past shooting monkeys with shotguns. The shotguns are just prettier, and the monkeys dressed up as aliens, robots, or soldiers.

I am well aware how diverse gaming supposedly is these days -- my collection is full of titles from many different genres, but as I consider which ones were arguably the most successful or that I enjoyed playing the most, and they're all games about killing.

My most-anticipated titles this year and next are 90 percent 'I'm going to go kill things' games. Even so, I am getting a little sick of it, or perhaps bored is a more appropriate word. Why is the industry so utterly obsessed with producing games where all we do is kill?

 

The audience, at least the 'young male' part, shoulders a not-insignificant amount of blame. But surely developers are getting sick and tired of doing the same old same old as well.

If the critical success of the independent games industry and the financial success of the Wii isn't a big enough indicator of a glaring problem, I don't know what is. Plenty of people who like video games don't want to just be killing things.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a prime example of what I think is wrong with the modern enthusiast gaming industry. Here is a game that is utterly brilliant in terms of raw production values, but even with all that amazing tech and art what is the game at its core?

A very simple shooter with some light platforming and a miniscule amount of adventure-game-style exploring and puzzle-solving.

The sequel looks like it's going to be even more focused on just the shooting (and though I'm disappointed about that, I'll probably still buy it, so yeah, I know I'm part of the problem). But this game and other games like it could be so much better if they concentrated on just telling a great adventure story, with gameplay centered around exploration and puzzle-solving -- arguably the more fun parts of the first Uncharted.

I realize that developer Naughty Dog always intended the franchise to be an action series where the combat was a big part of the gameplay, but I can't help but wonder why. Are combat and killing required components in a game of this budget and production quality?

The Indiana Jones movies are full of shooting and killing, but the main character almost never does any of it. He's busy running away from or outsmarting the people trying to kill him, or instead exploring locales and solving puzzles en route to a big adventure.

Game publishers and developers are in business to make money, I get that. The simple, easily marketable game almost always sells better than the complex or different game.

I'm still pretty much a part that young, male, violence-obsessed demographic that game publishers love to target, but let's try removing 'violence-obsessed' from that string of adjectives. I don't want every game I play to be a 'realistic' and 'gritty' killing simulator, or even a cartoony, lighthearted killing simulator. I like to think that I'm not alone in this, that it isn't just older gamers who are sick of killing sims, but some younger gamers feel the same way, too. Everyone appreciates significant diversity in movies and music; it's dissappointing that big budget games still follow the same tired formula.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (18)
Lance_darnell
August 13, 2009
My first video game, though my memory is fuzzy, was a Galaga knock-off called Gorf. It was a shooter, but it did not involve shooting people and I believe that is what your article is about. And I agree with your article, especially about Uncharted. When that game first came out I remember quite a few people saying that it had [i]TOO MUCH[/i] shooting. Even Fable 2 has had guns added to it. Heck, even Little Big Planet has a gun, its a paint gun, but it is a gun! I could try and make some point about video games being the modern version of boys playing cowboys and indians, and thats why there are so many guns, but even [i]if[/i] this is a factor, I think you are right that it is a case of monkey-see, monkey-do. Call of Duty 4 sold something like 10 million copies, and it did this just months after Halo 3 was released. That is impressive, and anyone looking to make a profit in video games is going try and repeat that success. Guns sell! Every game I am currently into at the moment, (Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, Team Fortress 2, and Fat Princess), has guns, or in Fat Princess' case, a bow and arrow. So I agree with you, but, I do not agree with your final comment about there being diversity in movies. Most big budget movies involve killing, and the games you are referring to are also big budget, so perhaps the truth is that when a lot of money is involved someone better be getting killed!!! ;)
Default_picture
August 15, 2009
Yeah I guess the main point I was just trying to make was that I'd like to see a major shift in thinking in all forms of visual creativity but at the end of the day sex and violence sells and all the intelligent argument in the world wont change that. Suppose part of the problem is that even someone like me who wants to see more diversity is [i]still[/i] buying the same old games. The only way its ever going to truly change is if the creators themselves decide to take action because the consumers sure as hell aren't. Alot of people would have to lose alot of money in the process. :P
Pshades-s
August 15, 2009
I hear you on this, big time. After I finished Resistance 2 earlier this year I wanted to try something else, and by that I meant something where I wasn't just shooting everything that moved. Yet when I look at all the big games I've played this year, they were all about running and gunning aliens, monsters, mutants or zombies. The real tragedy is I can't think of a big-budget game that would work any other way. I just finished BioShock and I loved it but how could that game exist without the first-person shooter aspect? It's a bit of cheat, but one of the appealing things about the upcoming Batman game is nobody has to die. Batman doesn't kill people, he just punches crooks in the face. I suppose it's splitting hairs (dead vs unconscious) but maybe it's a step in the right direction.
Profile_pic
August 16, 2009
I'm with you. I don't have a problem with violence so much as the overabundance of violent games.
Profile_pic
August 16, 2009
*overabundance of [i]thoughtlessly[/i] violent games. If a game presented violence meaningfully, I'd be singing its praises. All those WWII shooters took Saving Private Ryan's D-Day beach assault, but they only took the heroism and ignored the horror and insanity.
Default_picture
August 16, 2009
Flower works wonders
Default_picture
August 16, 2009
Fortunately, there's plenty of downloadable titles that deviate from an aged norm. Still, in a lot of shooters, that more passive route carries a few problems, not just from a design standpoint (which shouldn't even be considered, every development studio in the industry has the talent and resources to adapt), but there are some key reasons that give competition, whether it's racing cars, winning the playoffs or defeating the taliban, a definite edge. Frantically trying to run through a puzzle, unarmed, with enemies trying to chase you down, is an intense experience. You're inches away from an enemy you can only flee from, and your scrambling get away. You'll probably jump at each shadow, chew your lips raws, your clammy hands numbly pushing buttons, [i]just[/i] so. It's memorable =) For the first time Unfortunately, once that thrill is survived, once you've "solved" the puzzle and can breathe easily, what's the point of going back? Sneaking through Chernobyl in "All Ghillied Up" was a roller coaster, but despite being a high point of the game, when I went back to play it again, once I had known what to expect, it became predictable and boring. I'm not saying that all puzzles end up like this, but when your competing agaisnt other enemies, those levels tend to hold up more to multiple playthroughs.
Default_picture
August 21, 2009
I'd like to see a studio make a game where the option of being or not being violent is available all the time and based on your choices the progression and outcome changes drastically. It would take one hell of a team to pull off but it would be amazing.
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
You also have to remember that killing is a good time killer as well. Just think of how long a game would have to be if you didn't have to clear a room before inserting widget "A" into slot "B". A whole adventure game without killing would require decent amount of plot, dialog, and decision making which would be costly. Even in Shenmue, which had little violence, they made you move skids in a warehouse to extend the time of the game.
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
The problem is that in order to tell an interesting story, you need some kind of conflict. Violence is an easy, (usually) entertaining, and stimulating way to illustrate conflict. Plus, like many other posters have said, it's something most of us can't just go out and do. I think it also makes good games that can do conflict without violence stand out even _more_ than just being a good game.
Waahhninja
September 23, 2009
I had the same first experience with games except it was Wolfenstein 3D. I was at my dad's work while he was updating the network software in the office and he set me up at one of the spare stations. I had no idea what I was doing but I noticed that my character's picture would get worse when I was shot. I was FLABBERGASTED!
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
There have been a few games, outside of puzzle, sports and racing games, whose focal point weren't violence that I have played. Hotel Dusk stands out the most for me in terms of games that don't use violence to solve problems. It has some violence in the story but I can't recall a situation where the main character partipated in violence while in gameplay. I enjoy games like that where you have to use your wits to solve and issue and I wish more games would be like that. Fallout, while it is very violent, allows an option to rely mostly on outsmarting your opponent or being charming or even striking up a deal with him to get out of a sticky situation or to progress the story. Those two examples definitely show alternatives to the whole shoot everything in sight style of gameplay. I'm sure the vast majority of LucasArts graphic adventure and other games similiar in nature are not overly violent to back up their gameplay. I personally haven't played any of them to be a great judge of that.
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
I hear you on being sick of shooting. I've been gaming a long time and it's lost almost all it's flavor. I have Halo 2. Never played it. [b]Shadowrun[/b]. Have it, never played. [b]UT3[/b], Same boat. [b]Rainbow 6 V2[/b] ditto. These days the only game I'll play shoot 'em up with is [b]Team Fortress 2[/b], and that's only because there's more to the game than just headshots ([b]BF1943[/b] is an honorable mention). But onto the larger point that shooting has run it's course. Now I'm into games will minimal/no shooting. [b]Mirror's Edge, Pinball, Endwar[/b], crimney even boardgames. I'm finally to the point where I'm scouting out new game flavor as opposed to trying the FPS du jour. I am saturated with the flavor of FPS and I need it to change. I am also in the minority which makes any advice I'm giving to game developers the kiss of death. But to those who have already made something original, I'm looking to try your game.
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
I feel it should serve to ADD to the game. Not just be part of the game. It felt right in GTA IV during missions and cutscenes because it added to the feel of the character and his grunt lifestyle and it was terrible when doing it in the sandbox style just for the heck of it.
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
While I enjoy many violent games, I agree with you. I guess that's one of the reasons I've been into smaller titles lately like the Bit.Trip series. Even in completely innocent games like Mario, you're constantly killing stuff. But in defense, what else can you do? There are other possibilities, of course, but they're very hard to do and will they be financially successful? After all, we all have to make money...
Default_picture
September 23, 2009
Violence and sex has always sold to the masses and the gaming industry definitely took the violence route in making their greenbacks. People in general are afraid of change, must be the self preservation aspect of existence, so if something is working the aim is to keep it the same.
Brett_new_profile
September 24, 2009
I think Jon brings up a good point: Narratives need conflict, and violence is an easy way to achieve that. Gunplay also satisfies the skill requirements that media like books and movies don't have to deal with -- which is why you see plenty of dramatic movies, but fewer dramatic games. That's not to say things won't change, though -- and I think they already are. The varied distribution methods out there now allow for a lot more experimentation in games.
Default_picture
September 24, 2009
Its kinda ironic how I went off about violence in games with this article of mine but the top three titles coming out this year I'm most excited for are all chock full of killing in some form, Uncharted 2, RnC Crack in Time and Brutal Legend. So yeah I doubt I will ever get sick of playing games where the majority of what I'm doing is killing things I just hope that the industry does continue to really evolve and some day we do get alot more AAA high budget titles that aren't focused on violence because as awesome and fun as it can be it kinda makes at least the hardcore industry really look like its dependent on just that type of content. I think that the main reasons it is so prevalent is that for one thing its alot easier to design a title around violent conflict but also the audience for the most part still seems to be dominated by young males who have no problem with just playing say Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo, GTA etc. I'm not saying more of us need to get 'arty' and start obsessing over games like Flower or Cooking Mama haha, but rather to keep an open mind and show that yes we are interested in playing different genres and doing different things in our interactive entertainment. The only way we can get that message to the people with the money and resources to produce such games is with our own money and unfortunately until the economy really recovers that's probably still a ways off from being possible. I also think theirs still alot of immaturity in my demographic too though, I often read comments on many forums/websites where its basically 'this game has too much color and not enough blood, its gay!' which really upsets me because its that train of thought that is the source of my issues with the industry. Thanks for editing my article Demian and taking the time to email me. :D

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.