Support NeoGAF

[Tellaerin]

Exactly. There's no distinction being made here, just the typical nerds who think the Japanese can do no wrong and the dumb Americans are ruining the world. It's just another dumb argument from the people who think that violent adult manga is classy art that should be respected and stuff like The Punisher is just for base redneck Americans without any class. Whatever, if the subject matter of my original post had been some truly obtuse game filled with gore from an Eastern developer like I don't know say Killer 7, then the gore and violence would be regarded as beautiful artwork from geniuses, rather than a base form of entertainment as the Punisher and Mortal Kombat. All I hear are hypocrites with jingoists eyes.

If that's what you get from reading my posts, it's because you're too busy listening to your own rhetoric to hear what I'm saying. The Japanese hardly 'can do no wrong'. Do you see me condoning things like Japanese kids murdering each other over schoolyard taunts? No? Well, then perhaps you ought to stop putting words in my mouth before you make yourself look like more of an idiot than you already have. My point is that as a citizen of the United States, residing in the United States, my primary concern is with what sort of entertainment is being produced and released by my fellow Westerners. They're the ones my opinion should carry some weight with, as opposed to a foreign culture from the other side of the globe. The sad fact of the matter is that the average gamer from the foreign culture in question seems to have serious misgivings about being cast in the role of virtual sadist in the games he plays, while the vast majority of Westerners seem to relish that opportunity, regarding the freedom to inflict pain and suffering on innocent and defenseless characters in a virtual environment as 'cool'. Should I feel proud of this?

The violence and sexual content in the games that Capcom/Tecmo/SNK make are no more acceptable or unacceptable than the violence and sexual content in the games that THQ/Midway/Rockstar make.

Depends on the game in question, but any game where you can run around killing or torturing innocents, noncombatants, or otherwise helpless characters is tough for me swallow, regardless of its country of origin. I think it's safe to say that there have been a lot more of those games developed in the West (and a much bigger demand for said games) than there have been in Japan, though.

IOh Jesus. Watch too many Michael Moore films lately? Yeah American society is a real hell-hole. We're all itching to leave. Yeah right. That's why we can't keep people from every corner and rock on the face of the Earth from spilling through our borders. It's real unfortunate to live in America. Get real. Most people who live in this country consider it the greatest place on Earth. May not be perfect and there's certainly plenty of room for improvement but still far better than the alternatives out there. I don't consider myself anything but spoiled by getting to live in America.

Bravo. *golf clap* About the only cliche you missed was 'If you don't like it, leave!' Want to tell me I'm 'anti-American' too, because I dare to believe that a country where kids bring guns to school and shoot one another over a pair of sneakers might have a problem with violence that needs looking into? It's difficult for people who do give a damn about things like this to actually do anything, though. The moment anyone tries to raise peoples' awareness, people like you crawl out of the woodwork, waving your flags and proclaiming that the United States is 'still the best country in the world' at the top of your lungs. Urban violence (and our growing acceptance of it as the 'reality' of life in the city) is a very real problem in this country, but your average American doesn't want to hear that. As long as guys like you keep on telling them that everything's OK loud enough and often enough, they'll gladly believe you, right up to the point where the problem has become too big to ignore--and by that point, it's damn near impossible for any of us to do anything about it. Denying problems doesn't make them go away, and turning a blind eye to them out of national pride isn't doing anyone any favors.

I'm actually on the fence concerning the depiction of violence in videogames. On the one hand, I don't necessarily believe it desensitizes people to violence in the real world, based on my own experiences. I'm also strongly opposed to censorship in any form, and I would never want to see government-imposed regulation on violent content in games. On the other hand, I find the sadistic glee with which some people rush to perform violent acts in the games that allow them to (most of which are developed here in the West) extremely unsettling, as is the eagerness with which they embrace the games which have the player controlling an antihero. I think it says something disturbing when the 'heroes' of some of the biggest, most popular games on the market here are nothing but ruthless scumbags whose quests revolve around acquiring personal power and wealth, and who are free to kill innocents for kicks or quick cash, while characters with more noble or altruistic goals are dismissed by players as 'corny' or 'fake'. As Camillemurs mentioned earlier, this may well be a reflection of contemporary Western society on some level, and I find that thought disheartening. I'm glad many Japanese gamers find that sort of thing a little distasteful, that they don't crave the opportunity to kill innocents or torture defenseless characters in a virtual environment. I only wish that more Americans shared those sentiments, too, that games which cast the player in a heroic role and rewarded them for positive actions were in stronger demand instead. (I'm looking forward to the upcoming Spiderman game because it promises to do just that; I'm hoping it'll be received well and open the door for more free-roaming games that encourage gamers to play as a hero instead of a thug.)

 

[SolidSnakex]

I'm actually on the fence concerning the depiction of violence in videogames.

I basically look at it in the way of whether or not the game actually needs that sort of violence. Take for example GTA, it simply wouldn't be the same game if you couldn't just kill anyone you wanted. The entire point of the game is you're in a living world, you can attack whoever you want or if you want you can become a police officer and an ambulance driver and help people out. Whether people like the violence is one thing, but the game actually does need it to achieve the feel that it's aiming to have. Morrowind allows this sort of thing too, if you want to go into a village and kill people you can. Same with Fable. But it's to add to the atmosphere of the game, not just a "Hey look you can kill random people".

Kojima for example actually likes GTA. This is a guy who added the tranq gun to MGS because he's not a big fan of violence. But he completely understands what they're trying to do with GTA and it's not for it to be 1 big blood bath. It's for it to emulate a world which you couldn't do without allowing you to do what they do in the game.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I hate it when people are deliberately obtuse. The difference (which should be obvious from the example provided) is that in SS, the violent imagery is merely a consequence of the action that's taking place, whereas in MK, killing someone in a gruesome manner becomes the point. Let's say two characters with supernatural powers are duking it out, and one of them has almost no health left. His opponent lobs a fireball at him. Now, if that guy went up like a torch as a result of the attack that killed him, it's still violent, sure. But there's a world of difference between that and beating someone until they'e stunned and helpless, then very deliberately setting them on fire and watching them burn alive. In SS, you're not sadistically murdering a helpless character when you inflict that deathblow. If you really can't perceive a difference, then I think there's something seriously wrong with you.

I brought the point up simply because there've been quite a few negative comments from Japanese gamers and game developers about the violence in Western-developed games. I honestly feel that it's a case of the context that violent imagery is presented in, rather than the imagery itself. (I also think you're laughably ignorant when it comes to anime and manga, but that's another discussion entirely--I'd rather stick to the topic at hand, thanks.)

so Killer Instinct is bad because they have the "helpless dazed opponent" scene where your opponent can be killed, but Killer Instinct 2 isn't as bad because you have to kill them with a move during the match instead of after?

 

[Tellaerin]

so Killer Instinct is bad because they have the "helpless dazed opponent" scene where your opponent can be killed, but Killer Instinct 2 isn't as bad because you have to kill them with a move during the match instead of after?

The thing that makes the Fatalities in MK worse than the deathblows in SS, IMO, is that they require you to make a deliberate, conscious effort to brutally kill your opponent. A fighting game where the strike that defeats your opponent also finishes him off in a brutal fashion isn't as bad because it's just a consequence of their fight. In MK, matches always end with the losing player stunned and staggering. While they're vulnerable, you have the opportunity to perform a Fatality. At that point, it's not a case of striking down your foe in combat anymore. When you pull off that Fatality, the game has put you in the position of executing a victim. You've just rendered your opponent helpless, and you're taking advantage of that to kill them in an especially sadistic, gory fashion while they're incapable of defending themselves. That's what makes it feel a little unwholesome, not the actual violence of the Fatality itself.

I'll confess that I haven't played much KI2, just an occasional match at the arcade back in the day. If the moves where you can kill an opponent during the match are anything like the instant-kill moves in the Guilty Gear series (that is, they can be avoided or reversed by a skilled opponent) then I have no problem with it. It all comes down to whether or not my character is savagely murdering a now-defenseless foe, or just striking a lethal blow against someone who was fighting until the very end.

 

[Keio]

There are, in my opinion, very interesting questions in this debate:

1) What are the consequences of violence?

In GTA, violence as such has no consequence. There is no moral judgement whether you slaughter a thousand civilians and police, although at times killing leads to an increase in wanted level - and a trip to the spray garage.

Now consider this: in Soldier of Fortune, shooting civilians in earlier levels (set in the US) was not accepted but when the game progressed to Iraq, it was suddenly "a moral choice up to the player to decide" and no one punished you for mowing through crowds at the market.

Should violent actions have a consequence? Should other characters in the gameworld react to sadistical action and maybe start reconsidering their friendship with the player? This is well done in some rpgs, but maybe game creators should start looking into adding more of a moral dynamic into the world.

2) It should be up to the player to decide, then!

People defending GTA violence often use the argument that you don't have to kill loads of innocents. But who hasn't done it? Maybe it's an example of absolute power corrupting, then, but obviously everyone tries it at least one - especially because it is without consequence.

Now, because it also has no real consequence, it makes the killing all the more pointless. Could that lead to desentisization - it's just another civilian, don't worry? At least that's what often happens while driving in GTA. You just bump off a few pedestrians on the way, without feeling anything (except a quick vibration in the DS2).

3) What sort of violence IS acceptable?

I think game devs are now testing the limits of this. I think this is a very good talking point.

Question, at the risk of causing flames to emerge... what if a fantasy game emerged based entirely around the theme of ethnic cleansing? Or what about those hentai games which have characters which seem underaged? What about a "rape sim", if someone made one? Where do you draw the line at a game being "just fantasy" and a game "going to far"?

Why is it that we accept in Hitman that you sneak into the bedroom of a person and then MURDER him/her in cold blood? How about you enter the room and RAPE that person? (I believe that at this point the latter sounds terrible and unacceptable to everyone, at least it does instinctively to me) ... Why is it that the latter is terrible and unacceptable but beating the person to death with a golf club is just another days work for the gamer?

I really don't know where these lines should be drawn. Some part of me believes that it's good for people to be able to virtually act out their fantasies in a way which does not cause harm to real people.

But in the end, does gaming affect our perceptions of the real world in subtle ways? Are we more prone to ignoring human suffering because we have been saturated by depictions of it in popular culture?

And especially do games, which place the player in the place to commit all these acts, completely lack the power to make violence anything else but fun?

 

[SolidSnakex]

There are, in my opinion, very interesting questions in this debate:

1) What are the consequences of violence?

In GTA, violence as such has no consequence. There is no moral judgement whether you slaughter a thousand civilians and police, although at times killing leads to an increase in wanted level - and a trip to the spray garage.

Now consider this: in Soldier of Fortune, shooting civilians in earlier levels (set in the US) was not accepted but when the game progressed to Iraq, it was suddenly "a moral choice up to the player to decide" and no one punished you for mowing through crowds at the market.

Should violent actions have a consequence? Should other characters in the gameworld react to sadistical action and maybe start reconsidering their friendship with the player? This is well done in some rpgs, but maybe game creators should start looking into adding more of a moral dynamic into the world.

2) It should be up to the player to decide, then!

People defending GTA violence often use the argument that you don't have to kill loads of innocents. But who hasn't done it? Maybe it's an example of absolute power corrupting, then, but obviously everyone tries it at least one - especially because it is without consequence.

Now, because it also has no real consequence, it makes the killing all the more pointless. Could that lead to desentisization - it's just another civilian, don't worry? At least that's what often happens while driving in GTA. You just bump off a few pedestrians on the way, without feeling anything (except a quick vibration in the DS2).

3) What sort of violence IS acceptable?

I think game devs are now testing the limits of this. I think this is a very good talking point.



Why is it that we accept in Hitman that you sneak into the bedroom of a person and then MURDER him/her in cold blood? How about you enter the room and RAPE that person? (I believe that at this point the latter sounds terrible and unacceptable to everyone, at least it does instinctively to me) ... Why is it that the latter is terrible and unacceptable but beating the person to death with a golf club is just another days work for the gamer?

I really don't know where these lines should be drawn. Some part of me believes that it's good for people to be able to virtually act out their fantasies in a way which does not cause harm to real people.

But in the end, does gaming affect our perceptions of the real world in subtle ways? Are we more prone to ignoring human suffering because we have been saturated by depictions of it in popular culture?

And especially do games, which place the player in the place to commit all these acts, completely lack the power to make violence anything else but fun?

What other consequences would you like in GTA for killing someone? In the real world if you kill someone, or go on a spree you get a bunch of cops coming after you. The same happens in GTA. If you start firing at officers, or if they see a gun in your hand they start firing back..Same as in GTA. It's about the only consequence they could give unless you want them to end the game everytime you kill someone which is going to make the game extremely boring and repetitive having to restart everytime you accidently run over someone when you're in a frantic mission.

And no it doesn't desensitize people to actual peoples emotions and feelings. I personally and mow down several people in GTA, watch Ichi the Killer or any other violent film without flinching. But I can't watch real life violence because it just makes me sick. There's a big difference between game violence real life violence no matter how realistic the game violence might be. It's still a polygon and that's it. The only people games might affect are the people that have had problems before they even started playing the game.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Why is it that we accept in Hitman that you sneak into the bedroom of a person and then MURDER him/her in cold blood? How about you enter the room and RAPE that person? (I believe that at this point the latter sounds terrible and unacceptable to everyone, at least it does instinctively to me) ... Why is it that the latter is terrible and unacceptable but beating the person to death with a golf club is just another days work for the gamer?

I really don't know where these lines should be drawn. Some part of me believes that it's good for people to be able to virtually act out their fantasies in a way which does not cause harm to real people.

But in the end, does gaming affect our perceptions of the real world in subtle ways? Are we more prone to ignoring human suffering because we have been saturated by depictions of it in popular culture?

And especially do games, which place the player in the place to commit all these acts, completely lack the power to make violence anything else but fun?

actually, i think it would be great for a game to allow you the option to rape and torture victims before killing them... not because i want to do it, but because it is just another option... another level of interactivity... another thing that i *could* do...

 

[AniHawk]

actually, i think it would be great for a game to allow you the option to rape and torture victims before killing them... not because i want to do it, but because it is just another option... another level of interactivity... another thing that i *could* do...

The asterisks around "could" made me crack up.

God I'm tired.

 

[The Faceless Master]

The thing that makes the Fatalities in MK worse than the deathblows in SS, IMO, is that they require you to make a deliberate, conscious effort to brutally kill your opponent. A fighting game where the strike that defeats your opponent also finishes him off in a brutal fashion isn't as bad because it's just a consequence of their fight. In MK, matches always end with the losing player stunned and staggering. While they're vulnerable, you have the opportunity to perform a Fatality. At that point, it's not a case of striking down your foe in combat anymore. When you pull off that Fatality, the game has put you in the position of executing a victim. You've just rendered your opponent helpless, and you're taking advantage of that to kill them in an especially sadistic, gory fashion while they're incapable of defending themselves. That's what makes it feel a little unwholesome, not the actual violence of the Fatality itself.

I'll confess that I haven't played much KI2, just an occasional match at the arcade back in the day. If the moves where you can kill an opponent during the match are anything like the instant-kill moves in the Guilty Gear series (that is, they can be avoided or reversed by a skilled opponent) then I have no problem with it. It all comes down to whether or not my character is savagely murdering a now-defenseless foe, or just striking a lethal blow against someone who was fighting until the very end.

yes, you have to do the finishers in KI2 against a person who still has the ability to defend themself... and i still don't see how the one tiny change of it being vs an active opponent vs being against an opponent who was just active a second before you beat them into a near death daze is such a huge shift in consequence...

 

[etiolate]

This reminds me of something I saw last year. I was in a gamestore, one of the Hollywood Gamecrazys set up with old systems available to play used games on. There were 3 kids there, maybe age 10 or so and two of them were playing Killer Instict Gold while the other was browsing around. After one of the matches ended, the first player kid says "Hey! You should check this game out! It's cool!" to the other kid browsing and he responded "That game is lame, it doesn't even have hookers or drugs in it."

I was a little shocked by the statement. I had been, previously, someone who rolled their eyes at violence in videogames debates. My mom always worried when I was younger, because I liked fighting games. I just liked them because at the time they were a new genre and there was a lot of skill required in doing special moves and combos. This kid's response had nothing to do with anything like that. He was judging based purely on how... I don't know how to put...I guess how graphic or extreme the game was. I realized it matters WHY the kid/person plays the game and not just its content. Do we get into a pattern where games compete by trying to outgore each other because thats what people are responding to? Games are still fantasy, but I just wonder how common of a view is that kids about what makes a game good.

These days, conversely, I avoid games that try hard to look 'mature' or 'dark' because they end up being some of the easier games out there. Not only can you kill dozens of civilians in a game like GTA3, its quick, easy and effortless.

 

[Keio]

What other consequences would you like in GTA for killing someone? In the real world if you kill someone, or go on a spree you get a bunch of cops coming after you. The same happens in GTA. If you start firing at officers, or if they see a gun in your hand they start firing back..Same as in GTA. It's about the only consequence they could give unless you want them to end the game everytime you kill someone which is going to make the game extremely boring and repetitive having to restart everytime you accidently run over someone when you're in a frantic mission.

Good point gameplay-wise, I'd hate the save/load trouble...

But what is different from the real world is that the consequences are very mechanical. I don't think most people refrain from killing only because they fear the police, but more so they because they don't want to be cast out of by their family/society.

The main real world consequence of violence, in my opinion, is the judgement of people all around you. Most people don't think you are cool and good company after a violent outburst - it's most likely that you'll end up a sort of "outcast".

So what sort of consequences would I like to see? Let's say that in a game like Freedom Fighters where you'd be leading a group of fighters against your enemies... You'd shoot someone who surrenders, maybe the others would refuse to follow you anymore and you'd end up having to fight alone? Maybe all NPCs should make it clear that they abhor the needless violence done by the player (such as shooting more holes into dead bodies or killing a wounded enemy) - and thus "condition" the player into not doing that anymore?

 

[AniHawk]

Not so sure if there's a war game around this, but I think if there was something to be made around a Band of Brothers type setting, where you had cutscenes, and were able to grow attached to your main character's buddies, and watch what really happens in war- that they get blown up, shot, stabbed, go into shock, etc. Not only would it sort of bring down the need for violence in that game, it would be much more "mature" than any type of game like GTA could ever be.

Not that anyone would actually go through with making it. It'd be too much hard work and people might be turned off from the consequences of violence, that it's not really that much fun anymore, but it's very real.

Keio, I like your idea about something like Freedom Fighters, but again, people crave for carnage and destruction (just look at State of Emergency). It wouldn't sell, and the developers know that.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Good point gameplay-wise, I'd hate the save/load trouble...

But what is different from the real world is that the consequences are very mechanical. I don't think most people refrain from killing only because they fear the police, but more so they because they don't want to be cast out of by their family/society.

The main real world consequence of violence, in my opinion, is the judgement of people all around you. Most people don't think you are cool and good company after a violent outburst - it's most likely that you'll end up a sort of "outcast".

Well that's in GTA kind of. If you're shooting someone, or fighting against them, some other pedestrians will come and try to help them by fighting you. Ofcourse it doesn't last long but that's more of a problem w/ith the power of the systems. Similar to how if you drive a car in one direction and see a car go by you if you turn around a few seconds later that car will have vanished and not because it just drove out of range. I think they've really tried to implement consequences just because of all the people that complain to them, they just won't be able to properly add them in till next gen I figure.

The whole GTA aspect was a style of game that was bound to come along and it wasn't going to be easily accepted. Most games have been very restrictive in that you go here do this, then go here do that. GTA opened it up to you make up what you want to do. If you want to do a mission go do it, if you want to go on a shootout then do that, if you want to be a police officer then do that. In a few years I don't even think it'll be a big deal, because people will come to just accept it like they have with MK. They'll realise it's done more good for gaming than bad. Alot of developers have already started adding in "GTA" type functions into their game. It's probably the most influential game to come along since Mario 64. And it's not because of its violence.

 

[Tellaerin]

yes, you have to do the finishers in KI2 against a person who still has the ability to defend themself... and i still don't see how the one tiny change of it being vs an active opponent vs being against an opponent who was just active a second before you beat them into a near death daze is such a huge shift in consequence...

So you see no difference between some guy who slashes his enemy into two pieces with a sword with his final strike as the two of them are dueling, and one who disarms his opponent, then knocks him unconscious, duct-tapes him to a post, douses him in gasoline, and sets him ablaze while he's helpless? The mindset behind those two acts of violence strike you as being comparable, just because they both result in the violent death of an opponent? Me, I'd say that the first guy isn't necessarily a bad human being, while the second is pretty clearly a cruel, sadistic bastard.

 

[DDayton]

You know, I was under the impression that a lot of this new found "freedom" was present in the first Ultima game...

* Attack anyone, even villagers or townspeople.

* If you DO, the rest of the town attacks... you get tossed into jail.

* Go anywhere. Do all sorts of things. You don't want to "progress" in the mission? Do something else.

The difference being (aside from all the OTHER ones) that the game world had consequences for those who did evil things.

Personally, I think the ability for the player to DO evil should be limited... or dealt with in a humorous manner. What happens when Snake shoots at Meryl in MGS, again? He gets thwacked to the floor...

 

[Keio]

Not so sure if there's a war game around this, but I think if there was something to be made around a Band of Brothers type setting, where you had cutscenes, and were able to grow attached to your main character's buddies, and watch what really happens in war- that they get blown up, shot, stabbed, go into shock, etc. Not only would it sort of bring down the need for violence in that game, it would be much more "mature" than any type of game like GTA could ever be.

I would love to see a game like this! And I think it might actually sell very well - provided that it got enough coverage from non-gaming media.

I think that the lack of emotional attachment is one of the things that is really problematic in gaming. I mean: people are still talking about that one death in FF7 - ergo it was the most memorable incidence of violence in videogames and without a drop of blood spilled. For many non-gamers I think that the lack of drama is one the main reasons not to be bothered to play games.

One of the few times I have felt true remorse after killing an NPC was in Deus Ex when I was infiltrating the ... sewers? ... guarded by the "terrorists". One of the was talking to another how he was a teacher, but had no option but to be there fighting the oppressive system. I tried to sneak past, he spotted me and I panicked and shot him and hid buddy. That left me feeling really bad - good work, Mr Spector!

And for the record: I personally thought GTA3 and VC are brilliant games - the most important games this gen, though not the best. But their careless attitude towards violence is something that bothers me and I don't think the developers will try to make violence any less preferable in San Andreas, quite the opposite with their new drive-by group shootings...

True player freedom does not ensue from the opportunity to kill/rape/maim/torture - it's the same sort of illusion where people equate free elections and a free society...

 

[SolidSnakex]

The difference being (aside from all the OTHER ones) that the game world had consequences for those who did evil things.

The difference being that GTA is much more popular, thus having a much bigger impact on the industry.

"True player freedom does not ensue from the opportunity to kill/rape/maim/torture - it's the same sort of illusion where people equate free elections and a free society..."

Technically it does allow all that. If you're trying to give a player freedom you should allow them to do whatever they want. You don't have to force them to any of those, but having the option is fine. I personally really don't care to see rape in games as I don't like seeing it in movies either, but if it happens it happens. GTA is really only the start though, games will allow more player freedom, more consequences ect. It's for the better of game development I think since it's going to allow the player more gameplay options which is always a goodthing. Plus games are going to stop being so linear and will open up much more which is once again a good thing.

One thing though about the consequences is that it's a dangerous option especially for something like GTA which has a big appeal of being a "pick up and play" type of game. If you get the entire city pissed at you, and everywhere you go pedestrians are trying to kill your or beat you up that's going to annoy alot of people. It might be fun for the first few minutes but when you're trying to do missions and everywhere you go you're being shot at or being pulled out your car when you slowdown it's not going to be much fun. So they've got to balance just how realistic they want it to be and how much fun they want it be. Because upping the realism can definetly lower it's popularity and that's not a good tradeoff. If you want an idea of how it'd be turn on GTA and find the cheat for the pedestrians to constantly attack. It's not too much fun after a few minutes.

 

[Keio]

Technically it does allow all that. If you're trying to give a player freedom you should allow them to do whatever they want. You don't have to force them to any of those, but having the option is fine. I personally really don't care to see rape in games as I don't like seeing it in movies either, but if it happens it happens. GTA is really only the start though, games will allow more player freedom, more consequences ect.

I am all for player freedom: I would love to be able to have intelligent discussions with NPCs, have more forms of interaction with the world than shoot&use, play different factions in the game worlds against each other, hire helpers to go on a dangerous expedition, start a revolution against the ruling class... But these options are much more appeling to me than a simple mechanic of freedom to do MORE and DIFFERENT KINDS of violence.

If you get the entire city pissed at you, and everywhere you go pedestrians are trying to kill your or beat you up that's going to annoy alot of people. It might be fun for the first few minutes...

Um. Realism? If you see a Most Wanted criminal walking on the street, do you go and attack him/her? I think there is a wealth of options for consequences in a GTA-style game:

I think it would be interesting if you would then have to disguise yourself to avoid civilians calling the police. Maybe violent actions would also lead to your reputation changing amongst criminals. Some would think you are a liability and want to ge rid of you. Some would give you more and more extreme jobs - and that could be a way for the designer to portray the moral destruction and corruption of the character that at the end has no function in the world other than kill for others or kill for pleasure.

What if everyone other than the greediest and most evil mafia bosses turned away and refused to even speak to the character? All the ladies would just walk away because they wouldn't be interested in a psycho?

Anyway, GTA could easily give interesting options: when you are hired to kill someone, what if you cut a deal and not kill him but kill the one who hired you? Or maybe stage the murder of the character and cut him loose? Again, loads of interesting options which could be explored by a game designer wanting to do more than mayhem & destruction...

 

[SolidSnakex]

tions for consequences in a GTA-style game:

I think it would be interesting if you would then have to disguise yourself to avoid civilians calling the police. Maybe violent actions would also lead to your reputation changing amongst criminals. Some would think you are a liability and want to ge rid of you. Some would give you more and more extreme jobs - and that could be a way for the designer to portray the moral destruction and corruption of the character that at the end has no function in the world other than kill for others or kill for pleasure.

What if everyone other than the greediest and most evil mafia bosses turned away and refused to even speak to the character? All the ladies would just walk away because they wouldn't be interested in a psycho?

Anyway, GTA could easily give interesting options: when you are hired to kill someone, what if you cut a deal and not kill him but kill the one who hired you? Or maybe stage the murder of the character and cut him loose? Again, loads of interesting options which could be explored by a game designer wanting to do more than mayhem & destruction...

Your actions do change among criminals. As you get ranked higher in the criminal world, some turn against you, others become more interested in you ect. More advanced stuff though calls for more advanced programming which isn't exactly easy. You've also got to consider that this gen of systems just isn't up to alot of the stuff people want in these free roam games, it's not that the developers don't want to add them in it's that they simply can't add them in due to limitations.

Killing someone that hires you would mess with the story. GTA is still story driven even if it's open ended. I mean what do you do if you go and kill all your mob bosses. Then what do you do? You no longer have any goals to complete and then you turn it into exactly what you and others have been complaining about, just a violence spree. The mob bosses add a sense of purpose to the game. Whether people actually follow them is one thing but they're there for you to follow.

I wouldn't mind some of the options you mentioned appearing in upcoming GTA's. But give them time to get hardware that's actually capable of more complex themes. They've already talked about GTA4 being online which is going to open up alot of new possibilities for the series.

To comment on the Japanese developers not be interested in these types of games. I think that's going to change by next generation. I think you'll see a few developers making them as alot of developers are starting to make games specifically geared for US audiences. So atleast something from Capcom or Konami that's along the lines of GTA, maybe not an exact copy but something that's open ended in a modern world. GTA's success in Japan shows that there is an appeal for that type of game there and I think that some Japanese developers didn't think there was any appeal for it there. Maybe one of them can do a GTA Tokyo before Rockstar. Or maybe GTA Tokyo will be outsourced to Capcom since they've been publishing GTA and GTA style games (The Getaway) in Japan.

 

[DDayton]

Call me crazy, but I don't think any of the options mentioned go beyond current hardware capabilities... it would just require different programming and a desire to frame a game with those options.

 

[Tellaerin]

I am all for player freedom: I would love to be able to have intelligent discussions with NPCs, have more forms of interaction with the world than shoot&use, play different factions in the game worlds against each other, hire helpers to go on a dangerous expedition, start a revolution against the ruling class... But these options are much more appeling to me than a simple mechanic of freedom to do MORE and DIFFERENT KINDS of violence.

This has to be the best sentiment in this thread.