No way man, Uncharted would obviously be way better if it was JUST automatic platforming and Bioshock Infinite would be way better if they took out all the combat and you just explored the world, eating out of file cabinets.Not necessarily. They should aim to be compelling and maybe taking away from stabbing/shooting by adding other options of some kind will hurt that.
EDIT: Combat games are always being made for a pretty good reason. They have work and continue to work, they have depth and can be improved upon. Foregoing combat or some highly established "verb" (ugh, the way people say this shit), you ought to replace it with something with similar complexity and depth. That is, some form of interactivity that is interesting as something more than a vehicle for non-interactive media.
Disregarding your sarcasm, Infinite's first hour, before the Skyhook's appearance, was its best, and a game like Gone Home feels a lot more narratively focused without combat to interrupt the environmental storytelling.Originally Posted by hey_it's_that_dog
No way man, Uncharted would obviously be way better if it was JUST automatic platforming and Bioshock Infinite would be way better if they took out all the combat and you just explored the world, eating out of file cabinets.
It's funny because a GIF of Soldier of Fortune 2 in the context of this thread would probably be funny.
But here's an observation. I've likely played over 100 FPS since Wolfenstein in 1992.
And I think the only FPS to ever actually make me empathize or sympathize with killing someone was actually Soldier of Fortune 2. There's a mission which you sneak into a South American house, and the first person you come across inside is a maid. I remember unloading a shotgun round into her from distance that just caught her, and she stood there shocked and confused, futilely grasping at her intestines spilling out.
Only game to do that to me was SOF2 because you weren't always comically just exploding limbs, though often it was desensitized as that. But everyone once and a while, the way someone would gasp at air after the throat was punctured or twist and convulse on the ground after losing a pair of legs would be enough to give me pause.
This is a relatively old game... The exact same level of detail once we pass uncanny valley? I wonder what controversy that would have.
But here's an observation. I've likely played over 100 FPS since Wolfenstein in 1992.
And I think the only FPS to ever actually make me empathize or sympathize with killing someone was actually Soldier of Fortune 2. There's a mission which you sneak into a South American house, and the first person you come across inside is a maid. I remember unloading a shotgun round into her from distance that just caught her, and she stood there shocked and confused, futilely grasping at her intestines spilling out.
Only game to do that to me was SOF2 because you weren't always comically just exploding limbs, though often it was desensitized as that. But everyone once and a while, the way someone would gasp at air after the throat was punctured or twist and convulse on the ground after losing a pair of legs would be enough to give me pause.
This is a relatively old game... The exact same level of detail once we pass uncanny valley? I wonder what controversy that would have.
Says the guy who grossly appropriates real historical racism just to add color to his silly story about weird physics and shitty people.
If Bioshock Infinite continued that first hour through the rest of it he would have practiced what he preached.
If Bioshock Infinite continued that first hour through the rest of it he would have practiced what he preached.
Both Max Payne 3 and TLOU come to mind with gory violence.
TLoU isn't really that gory. What makes the melee kills seem so brutal are the animations and sound. The player deaths all cut to black before you see much of anything, but because the characters have been so well established, it's easier for the player to empathize and be shocked by the thought of their coming death.Originally Posted by Buckethead
Both Max Payne 3 and TLOU come to mind with gory violence.
My problem with the Last of Us is that the game tries to force upon you the idea that you are the good guy and that your actions are justified due to the situation of the world. I think if the game wasn't so slanted and that there were moments were both Ellie and Joel realize just how horrific their actions were the game would have been a lot better.
I think Bioshock Infinite was really good in the beginning. I k'ind of felt the weight of my actions when Elizabeth freaked out when I killed someone. However, she quickly stops. If she wasn't so quickly desensitized and she offered non violent alternatives that would have improved things.
I Am Alive has some good moments when it comes to dealing with video game violence. As soon as enemies see you have a gun they react some violently and others surrender. If you kill someone the others around start to flip out. It could have been better but you do get the feeling that you just straight up murdered someone.
I think Bioshock Infinite was really good in the beginning. I k'ind of felt the weight of my actions when Elizabeth freaked out when I killed someone. However, she quickly stops. If she wasn't so quickly desensitized and she offered non violent alternatives that would have improved things.
I Am Alive has some good moments when it comes to dealing with video game violence. As soon as enemies see you have a gun they react some violently and others surrender. If you kill someone the others around start to flip out. It could have been better but you do get the feeling that you just straight up murdered someone.
Eh, I dunno about even the first instance. Just before you ripped someone's face off, they were holding a festival with one of the main attractions being LOOK AT THIS INTERRACIAL COUPLE AND LAUGH (also throw a ball at them). Toss in the Church of Americanology headquartered in Flying VoodooTech City and you've got the reason why I couldn't regard a single citizen as remotely human. Everyone's an extreme characterization and I've got no problem killing characters.Originally Posted by SolidSnakex
I think the first instance of violence/gore in Infinite was spot on. It was shocking and hit you hard. But there was just so much of it afterwards with no change of pace that it couldn't keep that up. TLoU had a lot of action as well, but I think it still managed to to shock you even late in the game with how they handled it.
I always thought it weird when a game has an M-rating, but hides its violence. Like, watching some videos of Beyond: Two Souls, some of the more violent scenes are obscured, covered up by something or not even on camera. Maybe it's laziness, I dunno.
Yes, pure laziness. It didn't take thousands of man hours to man Beyond.I always thought it weird when a game has an M-rating, but hides its violence. Like, watching some videos of Beyond: Two Souls, some of the more violent scenes are obscured, covered up by something or not even on camera. Maybe it's laziness, I dunno.
The first hour (it feels like longer) of Infinite, outside a few spaced out moments, felt painfully dull and manipulative. Only thing duller than the two to four hours that immediately followed.Originally Posted by Remachinate
Disregarding your sarcasm, Infinite's first hour, before the Skyhook's appearance, was its best, and a game like Gone Home feels a lot more narratively focused without combat to interrupt the environmental storytelling.
It seems odd to me for one to start up a Bioshock game and be disappointed when one encounters a rich environment to explore. How did you feel manipulated exactly?The first hour (it feels like longer) of Infinite, outside a few spaced out moments, felt painfully dull and manipulative. Only thing duller than the two to four hours that immediately followed.
I always feel morally drained after I stomp on a goomba.
It's all about context Ken. I wouldn't call Bioshock Infinite as reality of violence if all that exist there is just violence, and only violence.
Need more love for this first post. Nails it.Originally Posted by Astrosanity
"... Or how people instantly turn into cartoony screaming skeletons when set on fire, like in Bioshock Infinite."
Of course, Levine is thinking of the "duty of art" through his own (only?) lens. Was the violence no less gripping and visceral in, say, Hotline Miami as you mash the button to mash the head of a man in the way? Do you need to see that "this is what it looks like when a man gets shot" in that game, or does the right-click boom-splat tell what needs to be told, allowing moments like picking up pizza to let us reflect on what we've done?
Except when trying to get a T rating.
Right, well, it was certainly trying its hardest to tell you "this is BioShock", which made me think "Man, I hope this game isn't as bad as BioShock!". The extra effort makes sense later I guess. The problem though, since everything up to your first good look at Columbia's exterior from the ground floor hasn't gone too long yet (and you've only seen the best spectacle the first hour has to offer), is that it makes for very poor exploration. You get put on this mainly linear path that feels like one of those pseudo-cutscenes in Half Life 2, only it goes on for an hour, street after street. I mean I get it: people were dazzled by the big pretty magic city, but, like, a whole damn hour of maybe watching NPCs talk to each other and maybe a mini-game/tutorial thing. The sheer novelty of the visuals, the fact you are in a magic city, and the sparse moments of interest (like the twins showing up) don't last long enough to make up for this tedious walk, unless, I don't know, you really are that dazzled. I wouldn't call it a rich environment for exploration, though there is certainly some richness in the aesthetics. You wouldn't be missing out on much world-building if they put you a (rather fast) conveyor belt that at least makes sure to hit the "god only knows" quartet. You know, this reminds me of the first Half Life... you won't see me complaining about that game.Originally Posted by Remachinate
It seems odd to me for one to start up a Bioshock game and be disappointed when one encounters a rich environment to explore. How did you feel manipulated exactly?
It is too bad that after that it takes a few hours for combat to find its grove, then you get some rather open combat scenarios at least. The later "peaceful" moments don't last nearly as long as well. I don't think I'll ever be able to replay the game though.
Bioshock Infinite is my personal GOTY just beating out TLoU, mainly because I'm a physics nerd and loved the story, but it's a poor example to use for showing the "gory reality of violence."
It's not just about the gory reality of violence, but putting that violence into context. In order for gory violence to be impactful or have meaning, it has to be used sparingly or it has to be important to the story. I like the Saving Private Ryan reference brought up earlier in the thread.
We're never going to see a shooter that is as meaningful as Saving Private Ryan. Sure they can copy and paste a scene from that movie and make it ultra realistic with gore, but it's never going to matter because the writing and character development in most games is pretty bad. We've gotten the storming the beach at Normandy scene in Medal of Honor, but we've never gotten the scene where they are counting dog tags to find Ryan and joking about it before realizing that the dog tags they are looking at belonged to friends of the guys glaring at them.
We're never going to get the Wade dying scene. We're never going to get the Caparzo being shot by a sniper scene.
We sure as fuck aren't ever going to see or be able to play as Upham in the scene where he watches his friend get stabbed through the heart and he does jack shit because he's scared and a human being.
All we're going to get is glorified Military Channel-style violence that never delves deeper into anything.
Again, I love Bioshock Infinite and it's my GOTY, but it just saddens me that likely the only way that game could be made is if it were a FPS.
It doesn't matter how realistic or gory violence is, in video games it's the norm. I'm not going to be impacted by the reality of violence if a game consists of 30 hours of people being killed every two minutes.
It only works if the violence means something and is either infrequent or so disturbing that it makes an impact on you. I'd venture a guess that even gamers don't want realistic violence. I just think of the torture scene in GTAV, which I thought was great but heavy-handed, but people thought it was too much. The whole point of that scene was to make you feel uncomfortable and make you realize that torture is bad and you should feel bad for doing it because, guess what, torture still exists in this world.
And unfortunately video games do a piss poor job of doing this and I don't see how it's going to change because violence, whether it's shooting or stabbing people, is the easiest form of game design."One of the responsibilities of art is to actually show this is what it looks like when someone gets shot, because it’s really obfuscated" in media reports about war and violence, Levine said. "War is about sending pieces of metal very fast at people and tearing them to bits on the most primal level."
It's not just about the gory reality of violence, but putting that violence into context. In order for gory violence to be impactful or have meaning, it has to be used sparingly or it has to be important to the story. I like the Saving Private Ryan reference brought up earlier in the thread.
We're never going to see a shooter that is as meaningful as Saving Private Ryan. Sure they can copy and paste a scene from that movie and make it ultra realistic with gore, but it's never going to matter because the writing and character development in most games is pretty bad. We've gotten the storming the beach at Normandy scene in Medal of Honor, but we've never gotten the scene where they are counting dog tags to find Ryan and joking about it before realizing that the dog tags they are looking at belonged to friends of the guys glaring at them.
We're never going to get the Wade dying scene. We're never going to get the Caparzo being shot by a sniper scene.
We sure as fuck aren't ever going to see or be able to play as Upham in the scene where he watches his friend get stabbed through the heart and he does jack shit because he's scared and a human being.
All we're going to get is glorified Military Channel-style violence that never delves deeper into anything.
Again, I love Bioshock Infinite and it's my GOTY, but it just saddens me that likely the only way that game could be made is if it were a FPS.
It doesn't matter how realistic or gory violence is, in video games it's the norm. I'm not going to be impacted by the reality of violence if a game consists of 30 hours of people being killed every two minutes.
It only works if the violence means something and is either infrequent or so disturbing that it makes an impact on you. I'd venture a guess that even gamers don't want realistic violence. I just think of the torture scene in GTAV, which I thought was great but heavy-handed, but people thought it was too much. The whole point of that scene was to make you feel uncomfortable and make you realize that torture is bad and you should feel bad for doing it because, guess what, torture still exists in this world.
Last edited by GillianSeed79; Today at 06:02 AM.
But when that sort of scene is put in a gameplay scenario you would still end up shooting a lot of people during it.Originally Posted by Kenshin001
TLoU did a good job. It can be done.
Gore for gore's sake is pointless though. To be honest I'd prefer to see a more realistic take on the psychological impact of violence and conflict in games. Games tend to depict human reactions to brutality in a very superficial way.
You never see soldiers surrendering or pissing their pants or reactions to death in any meaningful way. The scene where Wade dies in Saving Private Ryan towers over everything ever done in a video game. That sort of thing could even be gameplay, trying to save a dying soldier as he bleeds to death. Ultimately futile, not fun, but it'd make a memorable counterpoint to mowing down 2000 Middle Eastern people.
Sure, the acting and music that acompanies that segment would help for the emotional part but at the end of the day it would just be another "Defend this point or person against mutiple waves of soldiers that you have to mow down like it has been done in so many games already .
This is far from the truth never once in TLOU did i think Joel was a good guy or the game made it seem like he was one .Originally Posted by metalmonstar
My problem with the Last of Us is that the game tries to force upon you the idea that you are the good guy and that your actions are justified due to the situation of the world. I think if the game wasn't so slanted and that there were moments were both Ellie and Joel realize just how horrific their actions were the game would have been a lot better.
I think Bioshock Infinite was really good in the beginning. I k'ind of felt the weight of my actions when Elizabeth freaked out when I killed someone. However, she quickly stops. If she wasn't so quickly desensitized and she offered non violent alternatives that would have improved things.
I Am Alive has some good moments when it comes to dealing with video game violence. As soon as enemies see you have a gun they react some violently and others surrender. If you kill someone the others around start to flip out. It could have been better but you do get the feeling that you just straight up murdered someone.
Yes the game world made it okay for you to do certain things but then again so does life.
In fact the game told you that Joel was a survivor and he did what ever it took to stay alive.
It had been 20 year since the out break and Joel had been desensitized and Ellie grew up with it being the norm .
Last edited by gundamkyoukai; Today at 07:57 AM.
WhatOriginally Posted by Succinct Verbosity
Video games are limited in their portrayal of violence because you're an active participant in events. We are never going to have a war game that reaches the heights of Full Metal Jacket, Platoon or Apocalypse Now because our active participation in events prevents us from truly feeling bad.
Being a participant is what gives games so much potential in this regard if it's done right.
Like this?
I agree.
Game developers should do what the fuck they want to do. If they want to cut back on the depictions of violence, fair enough. If they want to aim for realism, cool. If they want to exaggerate it and make it a shock-value gore fest, then that's good, too.
Just make it fit in with the game experience. I want to see creative and talented people's visions for a game, not something that is designed by outside pressures to fit into a form-factor that will be acceptable to everyone.
Just make it fit in with the game experience. I want to see creative and talented people's visions for a game, not something that is designed by outside pressures to fit into a form-factor that will be acceptable to everyone.
I felt like the game did a pretty good job telling us that Joel was everything BUT a good guy.Originally Posted by metalmonstar
My problem with the Last of Us is that the game tries to force upon you the idea that you are the good guy and that your actions are justified due to the situation of the world. I think if the game wasn't so slanted and that there were moments were both Ellie and Joel realize just how horrific their actions were the game would have been a lot better.
He was broken man without any moral standards and everything he did was driven by selfishness. The game also did a good job in justifying his personality. I never thought that what he did was right, but I always understood why he did it and in his situation I probably would've done the same thing.
Oh, and the Winter part was basically about you beeing the bad guy. Those guys were scared of you because you killed many of their friends and family. You were a threat to them.
At the end of the day there is no place for right and wrong in the world of TheLastOfUs.
Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd7fsY33L6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd7fsY33L6Y
Originally Posted by Kenshin001
TLoU did a good job. It can be done.
Gore for gore's sake is pointless though. To be honest I'd prefer to see a more realistic take on the psychological impact of violence and conflict in games. Games tend to depict human reactions to brutality in a very superficial way.
You never see soldiers surrendering or pissing their pants or reactions to death in any meaningful way. The scene where Wade dies in Saving Private Ryan towers over everything ever done in a video game. That sort of thing could even be gameplay, trying to save a dying soldier as he bleeds to death. Ultimately futile, not fun, but it'd make a memorable counterpoint to mowing down 2000 Middle Eastern people.
Yeah, in another part of the same spectrum, where someting like it could happen in game the fight between Melish and the German soldier near the end also towers above anything in a game. The fucked up feeling in my gut and solar plexus, I had/have when watching both the Wade/Melish scenes is untouched.
The last time a videogame death affected me, to no extent of those two examples mind you, was in the first, The Darkness. Jackies Estocados girlfriend. I was just shocked, was all.
Last edited by Jabba; Today at 12:28 PM.
I'm sick of hearing people prattle on about the responsibility of games. The only responsibility a game has is to be intellectually (and I mean that in the base sense of the word) challenging and/or entertaining in some fashion. You want to teach, or send a message, or make a statement, or make some art or whatever, that's fine, but quit insisting all the other creators in the field have some "responsibility". They most certainly do not have any responsibility to fulfill your notion of what a game should be.
this one does.Originally Posted by toastyToast
Are there any games that realistically depict violence and the effect it has on people?
I'm curious
I'd be kind of worried about someone who was hankering for full realism in violent games.
When games can successfully convey the emotional reality of violence, it'll be worth demonstrating the gory reality of it.
That, I think, is the problem, here. You want to make violence realistic? Gore alone isn't the way, gore is just what violence looks like. You want to be mature, you have to convey what it feels like, and that's a whole lot more complicated; possibly impossible.
A songsheet isn't a symphony.
That, I think, is the problem, here. You want to make violence realistic? Gore alone isn't the way, gore is just what violence looks like. You want to be mature, you have to convey what it feels like, and that's a whole lot more complicated; possibly impossible.
A songsheet isn't a symphony.
People really should play Red Orchestra and Red Orchestra 2 if they want something like this. It doesn't show the gory side in terms of blood but it shows the harsh, harsh realities of war and after playing a lot of it it's certainly made me respect the poor innocent people who were thrown into war by the careless leaders of WW2.
The screams and the fact you see people bleeding out in front of you is enough to put people off the game, but I'd much rather see the consequences of my actions rather than making it look like war is a game. The game gets so tense at points that you almost forget you're in a game and the environment consumes you into being genuinly scared (atleast when you first start playing it).
I know I was scared a hell of a lot more hiding in a building in RO2 with artillery shelling down on the roof above me than I have been playing any other game. I felt helpless, I was just a powerless man at the mercy of fate much like the other poor souls who had to fight in the conflicts of WW2.
The screams and the fact you see people bleeding out in front of you is enough to put people off the game, but I'd much rather see the consequences of my actions rather than making it look like war is a game. The game gets so tense at points that you almost forget you're in a game and the environment consumes you into being genuinly scared (atleast when you first start playing it).
I know I was scared a hell of a lot more hiding in a building in RO2 with artillery shelling down on the roof above me than I have been playing any other game. I felt helpless, I was just a powerless man at the mercy of fate much like the other poor souls who had to fight in the conflicts of WW2.
What are the war games he plays that are hiding the violence so much that he felt the need to speak out? Anyways, there's more to war than carnage. It'd be interesting to play a war game that reflected the emotional toll it takes on the typical game soldier that personally has killed thousands of people.
I get where you are going with this Mr. Levine but we need more games like Bioshcok Infinite and less shlock like Dante's Inferno.
This is nonsense. 0 computer games create realistic violence and there is a reason for this and it has nothing to do with portraying violence in a responsible way.One of the responsibilities of art is to actually show this is what it looks like when someone gets shot
Except for Soldier Of Fortune (2) and a handful of exceptions there are not really games realistically depicting what a bullet does to a human body. Games do not necessarily have this responsibly because more often then not they are about unrealistic things.
If not then i want politics to address this alien evasion thingy we've been dealing with for so long now. All those city destroyed by them, aliens or space Nazi's, or locked up behind giant domes. They always breach your medieval defenses just when your manna has barely been restored and you just respec'ed to a stealth character.
If a game wants to do it i can admire it, especially if done really well. But often it's gore for the sake of gore. And that's fine too.
If not then i want politics to address this alien evasion thingy we've been dealing with for so long now. All those city destroyed by them, aliens or space Nazi's, or locked up behind giant domes. They always breach your medieval defenses just when your manna has barely been restored and you just respec'ed to a stealth character.
If a game wants to do it i can admire it, especially if done really well. But often it's gore for the sake of gore. And that's fine too.
Agreed. I remeber back in Goldeye. I think that was the first FPS I played that you could knock someone out rather than killing them (although the animation was just a comical slap). Why more games don't allow you to do this is beyond me. Maybe provide sleeping darts or anything but having to constantly kill wave after wave of people.Originally Posted by NullPointer
Games should provide their players with more options than stabbing or shooting people to death.
I quite like the violence in Batman AA & AC as you knew he had 1 rule so you were never going kill people (just beat them half to death...but not kill them).
For me the most important element of violence in game is context. I have to believe that what i'm doing in the game is a result of the world, story and characters. Whether that makes them justified is something that should be left for the player to judge for themselves. (As much as I loved Red Dead & Fallout i always felt the game dictated my actions as being either good or bad. I'd much rather make up my own mind).
In terms of realism I remember playing GTAIV and seeing the NPC's crawl away from you in a gun fight clutching their stomach was always quite believeable + I love the self inflicted damage you can cause yourself in GTAV when you mistime jumps etc. Also helps that europhia and nautral motion make you believe the character on screen has a sense of self preservation. (They want to keep themselves alive as much as you do).
Good shout. RO2 is great for giving you a sense of dread while playing. Even more spectacular is that it's a multiplayer title.People really should play Red Orchestra and Red Orchestra 2 if they want something like this. It doesn't show the gory side in terms of blood but it shows the harsh, harsh realities of war and after playing a lot of it it's certainly made me respect the poor innocent people who were thrown into war by the careless leaders of WW2.
The screams and the fact you see people bleeding out in front of you is enough to put people off the game, but I'd much rather see the consequences of my actions rather than making it look like war is a game. The game gets so tense at points that you almost forget you're in a game and the environment consumes you into being genuinly scared (atleast when you first start playing it).
I know I was scared a hell of a lot more hiding in a building in RO2 with artillery shelling down on the roof above me than I have been playing any other game. I felt helpless, I was just a powerless man at the mercy of fate much like the other poor souls who had to fight in the conflicts of WW2.
| Thread Tools | |