Devilgunman
Member
Yes, I agree with OP that there is a lot of murdering in video game but I don't see why it's a problem. If you can't handle it, then stop participating.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
There's too much murdering going on at E3.
- Thread starter Two Words
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I agree with OP that there is a lot of murdering in video game but I don't see why it's a problem. If you can't handle it, then stop participating.
Inviusx
Member
Fortunately there are tonnes of other fighting games out there. To be honest though MK is a great game and as a fan of fighting games you're missing out. The violence takes a back seat once you have seen the fatalities & xray moves a couple of times, then it just leaves a really good fighting game. You should check out MKX.
Pestilence11
Member
All these games need to be turned into tag (melee) or paintball (shooting).
Yes I am joking.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Given the flashiness and pageantry of E3, it seems like the "flashy killing" kind of stuff just fits in.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
How people will interpret my attempt at comedy?
Bobs Big Boy
Member
Let's stop telling people what they have to make. It's a cancer on the industry and am embarrassment for anyone on the outside.
I do think the stakes of the situation matter. If the Doom demo just had a guy one-shotting a ton of demons, I'd probably find it boring. But the high-stakes demo they did pretty good job of reminding me of my experience of Doom in the 90s. I know what it feels like to be down to 10 HP and absolutely desperate for a health pack, you know? The feeling I got from the Dishonored 2 demo was that they wanted to show off a lot of the mechanics, but there were no stakes. The MGS5 demos are good examples of how to demonstrate mechanics around high stakes. Snake is constantly getting the upper hand, but he has to first find himself in a sticky situation before getting the upper hand. A movie analogy would be Jackie Chan films. I find it really boring when some badass guy in an action film just destroys his opponents with ease because it feels like there are no stakes. The movie is just spending all of its time saying "This guy is too badass to have any problems with these guys". On the other hand, Jackie Chan action movies constantly had Jackie finding himself in the worst situations that he had to fight his way out of. He was constantly losing the upperhand and having to struggle to get it back.
Having a genuine discussion is not forcing anyone to do anything. It's about making us think.
All I'm saying is that I think game companies are using flashy kills like a money shot too much in these demonstrations.
Yeah, but your "comedy" implies that no one else gets what's happening here. But everyone does, they just have different thoughts on it.
Do you think the money shots should be eliminated or that they shouldn't present them as much in the marketing?
DiscoJer
Member
Personally, I always find something of a double standard.
Violence in games is appealing because to a certain extent violence is built into humanity. We got where we are by our ancestors being very good at killing, and part of that was because they found it enjoyable..
Yet if you are turned off by fictional, but very graphic and realistic violence, then you're treated like some sort of crazy person. Even though the whole point of fictional violence, the point of making it more realistic and more graphic, is that it's close to real violence to try to appeal to that violent instinct inborn in humanity . And not just violence, sadism.
Violence in games is appealing because to a certain extent violence is built into humanity. We got where we are by our ancestors being very good at killing, and part of that was because they found it enjoyable..
Yet if you are turned off by fictional, but very graphic and realistic violence, then you're treated like some sort of crazy person. Even though the whole point of fictional violence, the point of making it more realistic and more graphic, is that it's close to real violence to try to appeal to that violent instinct inborn in humanity . And not just violence, sadism.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Honestly I wasn't trying to make a real point other than acknowledging some aspects of E3 are pretty goofy if you step back and analyze them.
Bobs Big Boy
Member
Would agree there are better ways to create some kind of tension. And then all I can think of is The Last of Us and then remember how senseless that demo was and how much different the game was? There are things that play well in trailers that do not necessarily show what the game is but what the audience wants.
Violence in mk served a purpose initially: there was tremendous shock and awe value to photorealistic violent fighting. This was a huge differentiator from whatever cartoony fighting game that was out at the time.
times have changed, and the bar is much higher now to wow people with violence in games. For that reason I would agree that showcasing the violence so much may not be the best idea. Satisfying kills are a given now in garden variety AAA games, and perhaps it's not in the best interest to spend too much time advertising it as a main feature.
I could take them or leave them in the game as long as I feel like the gameplay mechanics are the primary motivators to keep playing. The fact that the marketing relies on the money shot kills leaves me less confident that a game will do that.
The year I agreed most with the OP's sentiment was the year they showed TLOU. There wasn't a major tragedy at the time (not one that I can remember right now, anyway), but lots of people, even some journalists, commented on the weird way the presentations and audience reactions were leaning into extreme violence.
I ended up playing through that game and didn't really think about it too much, especially after a few hours in. But playing a game and reacting to things within my own frame of mind is a different message entirely from putting the brutality on a huge glossy stage show with a cheering audience.
There's a difference between an exhibit and a spectacle.
SneakyStephan
Banned
The more realistic the animations and graphics get the more tasteless it becomes imo
and it's as you said OP, these days it's violence for the sake of violence, not like a shock combo in UT or a mid air rocket gib in quake
There's way too much torture porn in modern games
A good example of a game that has both kinds of violence is battlefield games
Shoot down a helicopter which crashes into a house which sends the roof down on the players inside: that's gameplay stuff and dynamic scenarios and it's not just about squishing a person in some gory way
vs
the knife animation where the player grabs the enemy , turns him around, stabs a knife in their throat while the enemy player's model has a horrified look on their face. This animation serves no purpose other than to be torture porn and I really wonder what kind of person is into that kind of stuf, or what kind of person enjoyed making that...
and it's as you said OP, these days it's violence for the sake of violence, not like a shock combo in UT or a mid air rocket gib in quake
There's way too much torture porn in modern games
A good example of a game that has both kinds of violence is battlefield games
Shoot down a helicopter which crashes into a house which sends the roof down on the players inside: that's gameplay stuff and dynamic scenarios and it's not just about squishing a person in some gory way
vs
the knife animation where the player grabs the enemy , turns him around, stabs a knife in their throat while the enemy player's model has a horrified look on their face. This animation serves no purpose other than to be torture porn and I really wonder what kind of person is into that kind of stuf, or what kind of person enjoyed making that...
Death Penalty
Member
I mean I get what you're saying to an extent, but putting aside that a stealth game by nature works a lot different than a run and gun this distinction doesn't seem to have a lot to do with how murder is being portrayed. I would say it's easily arguable that killing is glorified far more in Doom (again "glory kills") which is a game that's as much a power fantasy as it's possible to be. That's what you're arguing, right? That killing is being glorified and used as a selling point? I don't really see how pertinent it is that in one game a player's health dropped a bit lower than the other.
I mean, I don't know how to further describe the difference between desperately running for your life to get ammo and health to take out a Hell Knight and coldly deciding how you're going to murder bystanding guard #17.
Marmaladefire
Member
I think this is a good conversation to have, unfortunately there aren't many moderate positions on it. Video game killing doesn't lead to real life killing but the glorification of mass murder and torture, especially of other humans as the main aspects of gameplay in almost all high budget gaming is somewhat unsettling. Is this the only way we can have fun as hobbyists? I don't think so. Are we pandering to a demographic of teenage edgelords and *ahem* "free speech advocates"? Yes. Glorification of violence is an issue. It makes for boring, samey games that tend towards the distasteful. Should we start putting blood filters everywhere and have the ESRB double down on everything? No.
It's like; gaming journalism can be really shady sometimes. That has fuck all to do with harassing and abusing women who make and play them.
Well generally in action game trailer and movies trailers you want to see the action , intense emotions, comedy, and explosions. So in a shooter you see someone getting shot. In a game about assassinating people you should see someone getting assassinated. These things should amaze you and make you want to buy the game for the average consumer. Avoiding killing someone during e3 gameplay and talking it out during a shooter doesn't make for good marketing for the action crowd.
Death Penalty
Member
I thought the argument wasn't the nature of the killing, but rather it being used as a selling point without the inclusion of interesting game mechanics, which Dishonored 2 had in spades. Could you clarify what exactly you're arguing here? I'm getting a bit confused.
SlickShoes
Member
Calling it murder is a complete nonsense.
There is killing in many games but please read about what murder actually is, none of these games are simulating actual murder.
There is killing in many games but please read about what murder actually is, none of these games are simulating actual murder.
lightskintwin
Banned
After gaming all these years, especially after gen 7, I don't even notice it. I guess I'm completely desensitized to it.
ModBot
Not a mod, just a bot.
E3 Thread Locking Rules:
During E3, we have a standing policy against "5 second reaction threads". What is a 5 second reaction thread? It's a thread that you make immediately after an announcement, or in some cases after a lack of an announcement, where you are really just blowing off steam. These threads include things like: "Wow Sony just won E3!", "Where's Rare's game???", "How will the other conferences match Ubisoft's?!?!", "Wow every game had playable female characters", "Was GAF's hype for Fallout premature?", "Damn how will Microsoft match the PS4Neo?", "Are you buying an NX?". Mostly if your thread is a question that popped into your head a few seconds ago, you shouldn't be posting it right now.
During E3 lots of news and announcements are breaking and it can be hard to keep track of it all. Low content reaction threads make it hard for users to find what they're looking for, and because passions are running hot they also tend to lead to messes. If you just wanted to make a quick comment, try to make it in reply to the relevant thread.
If you still believe this requires a thread, polish it up a bit and re-post when stuff cools down no earlier than next Friday. Thanks. You can check this policy post from E3 2015 for more information.
During E3, we have a standing policy against "5 second reaction threads". What is a 5 second reaction thread? It's a thread that you make immediately after an announcement, or in some cases after a lack of an announcement, where you are really just blowing off steam. These threads include things like: "Wow Sony just won E3!", "Where's Rare's game???", "How will the other conferences match Ubisoft's?!?!", "Wow every game had playable female characters", "Was GAF's hype for Fallout premature?", "Damn how will Microsoft match the PS4Neo?", "Are you buying an NX?". Mostly if your thread is a question that popped into your head a few seconds ago, you shouldn't be posting it right now.
During E3 lots of news and announcements are breaking and it can be hard to keep track of it all. Low content reaction threads make it hard for users to find what they're looking for, and because passions are running hot they also tend to lead to messes. If you just wanted to make a quick comment, try to make it in reply to the relevant thread.
If you still believe this requires a thread, polish it up a bit and re-post when stuff cools down no earlier than next Friday. Thanks. You can check this policy post from E3 2015 for more information.
- Status