Wow - long time I''ve ever had something to actually post (bitch) about. Let''s start from the beginning (wow - what an idea) In many genres in computer games, I''ve noticed that there is something of a focus on destruction and pillaging. It''s not that I wasn''t a big fan of this when it first came out. Many hours I spent venting my frustration at being a lonely nerd by killing demons in Doom. In fact, without this I probably would''ve hurt my brother (more) due to lack of anything to do. First Person Perspective (and most evil First Person Shooter) has long been used for basically hurting things and trying to demolish anything and anyone, if I could''ve pasted some of my high school teachers faces into the game it was even better. This trend in usage of good technology (to average means) stemmed from the success of one game, made by one team of individuals, who knew what intense action gaming should consist of. Then came clone after clone of the same thing, by a bunch of individuals who thought the first one sold really well and wanted to be loved by a bunch of lonely frustrated geeks just as much, and also get a shatload of money. At first the gaming community hated and ignored this blatant crap, but soon we had bent under the weight of mass commercialism and a new breed of gamers (generation) had come in and started buying this and claiming they were the best games of all time. This annoyed me because not only were these people massively vocal about how much they liked killing things (very disturbing) but also it brought money to the industry, which I think was a big mistake. All you game producers out there, get stuffed -> you''ve crushed the creative breathe out of the industry and silenced the voice of many devoted game developers that have been there from the beginning -> good on ya (stupid bloody morons). Sorry - that was the Australian in me bursting out there. it won''t happen again. Role Playing Games were, at the base of it, hack-fests. Sure there were NPCs that you could talk to, and that''s about _all_ else you did other than kill stuff. It was kill this, then talk to this about having killed that and get something from it. It didn''t matter what you killed, be it human, beast or gerbil. Just as long as someone that was "good" wanted it dead. And there were plenty of things that needed to be dead, so many things, that a person could spend 24 hours killing things and occasionally talking to NPCs about it, or as in the ultima series, spend 20 hours talking and 4 hours killing, and then come to some kind of game conclusion. Basically, there was so much to be dead that a game could be based around it. Very original guys. If you rearrange the letters in "strategy" you get - "Get Artsy" which has nothing to do with anything (treasure that moment, it''s the only time I''ll smile in this post). Strategy games could be broken into two types. One was -> dominate everyone else just because it''s a violence based challenge (what a lifestyle to lead, I wish I was a destructive human and I could justify the wholesale slaughter of imaginary people because I thought I was right and they were wrong) and the other was -> dominate everyone else because it''s an econimical challenge (gee - not much difference here at all). The basic idea -> make something bigger than someone else and slap ''em with it. This is basically killing for those who like to justify their needs for credentials without looking either violent or petty. I''m not for a second bashing any players of these kind of games. We are all alike, and we''d be stupid to kid ourselves into thinking that we aren''t just doing this because of simple gratification of our imaginary lives (all you hardcore FPS players are equally as "sad" as the strategy gamers or the role-players that hang around the library and the physics lab in high school). It''s unfortunate that us game developers have made little or no effort to pull the industry out of it''s rut. Our game design idealogies haven''t changed for twenty years, we are still recommending books that were written ten fifteen years ago, not only bcause the people that wrote them at the time really knew what they were doing, but also because we haven''t managed to innovate at all due to the massive creativity leak that occured about 5 years ago. Think about it, have we done anything new in the past five years of making games? All we have done is make cosmetic changes to old framework. Making something look better than it is, when we could be making something better than it really looks. There''s been little in the realm of developing in the game industry compared to game making. We are all just talking alot of expensive, profitable, yet useless, hot-air. There is alot more to explore than violence and competition. RPGs, RTSs and FPP games all need a splash of water in the face. What about a first person game where the objective is to investigate some sort of disaster that has global implications - there is little hope for the RTS genre, this is from the basic sin of human greed and desire to conquer, there is nothing to be got from that (as a point of note, I dislike most strategy gamers in real life - this may be a reflection on their dominant personalities because I don''t like people trying to step on me and use me like a tool). RPGs have long supposed to be something interesting where you can explore fantasies and play out someone in a different world, these have always fallen short in assuming that the someone that u play wants to go out and kill things to achieve stuff -> not the case, if only I could bloody well play an RPG where I didn''t have to kill but I had to use some skill and intellect in order to solve some conflict of any sort, for instance, the impending doom of mankind due to it''s self-destructive nature. Erg - brainwave, RTS have always been RPGs on a larger scale, similar idea could apply. What about having to save humanity by succesfully colonising another planet and this time the success parameters will be based on how much you don''t have to resort to destroying everything around you. I say it''s time to look at the different types of conflict and experiement with other kinds, other than just external conflict with other beings. Looks an internal conflict and environmental cause I''ve f**king bored of the other one. We are only covering 1/3 of the possible types of fulfilling gameplay here as it''s something basic about human nature is to solve conflict and be the hero. This step forward needs alot more creativity from the game developers and it''s time that we justify our pay cheques, it''s getting rather ridiculous. Stuff what the publishers thinks, or what could be a viable product - make a viable game and think outside the violent loop. Man - this whole post seems to come across as one big load of bird crap which will eventually fossilise and be used to create super-phosphates to fertilise plants. I guess it takes some crap to get something to grow then!

Amen.

For an Aussie, you seem to have grasped something other than sheep pretty well ...

Although the violence in many genres is unescapable, it is far too prevalent. If something gets in your way, kill it. If something has something you want, kill it. If an innocent pedestrian is walking along, set him on fire and watching him run around screaming (Syndicate anyone?)

I am developing a RPG which is a bit more (or should that be less) than the average Hack & Slash. Instead of hordes of monsters, you have 7 main (very powerful and very intelligent) enemies (who can also recruit henchmen), but the rest of the world is full of people who don''t give a damn who you are or what you''re doing. They''re happy to live in their little bubble and not get involved. If you want something from them, you have to convince them that it''s for their own good, not because you need it. Of course, if you choose an evil character, you can kill them all, but this unnecessary to finish the game.

And on that note, there are many non-lethal ways to defeat your opponents , like statis, transmutation, conversion and so on. It caters for individual style. People expect, nay, want violence, and a game that doesn''t cater for such people won''t sell well, but that doesn''t mean that that''s the only way the game should be played ...

Merrick

-------------------------------------------------
Mindphuq Software : "Who do you want to do today?"

Ok, my 2 cents. Well maybe more like a quarter.

I 100% agree that looking at the computer store shelves is sickening, not due to any aborance I have toward excesive violence, but due to the fact that it proves Maitrek''s point about the industry being in a complete rut and displaying very little creativity. It''s as if the industry agrees with morfe''s statement that a game without violence wont sell ... which while I admit is a common belief, it''s untrue. Gamers do not want ONLY non-violent games, nor even primarily non-violent games, but they would purchase some games with or without violence. Look at it in the abstract and consider games like go-muku, othelo, poker, minesweeper, etc. These games are all competitive (involving winning and losing, beating other players or being beaten), but they are not realistically, or even significantly violent. They are about having fun. Get involved in a good game of Soory! in mixed company, and you will see what the idea behind social board games is. Or get in a match of chess or racquetteball, and you will understand what competition is. But in certain computer games, most of the fun EXCEPT violence is taken out. I believe a game like "Age of Empires" requires violence, and benifits from it. But if they had 5 times the budget and time, and 10 times the creativity they could have done so much more (in addition to the fighting and tachtical side) by going for even further realism. By simply building as much gameplay into trying to make you civilization thrive internally, by making the ecomonics harder (since it WAS hard to live back then) and more tretcherous, and making diplomacy more meaningfull, they could make a game genre that has never before existed ... the REALISTIC - real time simulation (realistic in a relative sense).

If anyone here has played much Imperialism, you would probably know that the game is fun, WITHOUT the fighting, but the fighting adds the necessary realism and danger to it...makes it balanced. The problem is, the game dynamics are set up such that violence only escalates .. so early in the game you build, but eventually you must FIGHT ... and continue fighting the rest of the game. Which really ruins the game, because me and my best friend have always wanted to play the game in the last stage (of three) of technology, while still being diplomatic and experimenting with the wunderful economic system. So what I want to see, is NOT a warless sim, which exist in many incarnations, but a sim WITH WAR, with interesting fighting and tactics, that chooses to keep and use all of the fun elements of the games without fighting.

I want to see an RPG where an obviously evil character is almost always caught and killed or imprisioned, but a charater who controls himself can manipulate the world in profound was. A person who wants to be evil, should at least have to be clever about it, if they want to live long.

I would also like to see a political / military / economic game in which violence without sufficient cause brings on discontent (VIETNAM anyone!! WAKE UP) Sorry ... sometimes I don''t understand why game designers don''t dig into at least as much human nature and sociology as would seem benificial or important. Doesn''t anyone care about the causes of war in the real world ... so they can really touch the players, something writers have known the power of for a long time. I don''t want games to be novels, nor movies, I want them to be games, which means something the players shape and mold and control. But they can draw on the attraction and intriuge of so many as yet untapped areas.

I''d like to leave on a happy note though, and that is simply this. If you haven''t heard about it yet, head to lionhead studios and look up the game "Black & White" which like all of Peter Molyneux''s (check spelling) games (Populous, Dungeon Keeper) seems to be about to advance the gaming world (and especially the god game genre) yet again. It is still based on most of the same aspects as other RTS and god games, namely violence and power. But he always brings a certain subtlety to the table, and advances the area of immersion of the user, PARTICULLARLY in the area of making you care for you worshipers / underlings. You want them to LIKE you! And that''s a long way from the amount of immersion you get from a game of QuakeIII where the best thing you can say about the bots, is that it''s cool when they say something funny, cause you feel like the programmers (not the characters) have just told you a joke.

Well ... I''ll try to check this thread later. But hopefully I wont be so longwinded (well...maybe).

Maitrek, you make lots of good points, especially the one about being able to reference works we''ve had 10-20 years ago and not seeing much difference. In some cases, we''ve gone backwards, in that our games have gotten smaller and more focused... and that focus is mostly on mass murder.

I can''t seem to win any converts on this, but I''ll say it again for the hell of it: Combat works well because it is a well understood system. Hit points, attacks, enemies, these elements make it exciting, scalable, and repeatable. Any system that''s this way is a goldmine, and that''s why it''s used so much.

We won''t get any other types of gameplay until somebody starts looking at systems. Look at Thief! Somebody sat down and said, "Okay, thievery... how does it work? What does it need? What resources are there?" etc., etc., etc.

I want you to notice that, although it doesn''t make a ton of money compared to gaming, the pen & paper RPG industry is WAAAAAAY ahead of us. I was looking over a system for trading, and there was so much cool detail that could go into a computer game. If we looked at systematizing things (like you''d do if you were making rules for a pen & paper RPG) we might get gameplay that''s a ton of different stuff: politics, law, conspiracies, espionage, persuasion, forensics, relationships, etc., etc.

But this is harder to do than combat, so most people I''ve talked to don''t seem to be interested... oh well...

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Whilst it''s true that many games have, and can benefit from violence, the sheer volume of these games is what''s making it quite stagnant.

Xai - I agree, lots of games could use the addition of other types of complications and foes other than violence. For instance Age of Empires could have used climatical difficulties, rather than meagre enemies. Violence can be fun, but unless we start layering our games with more than just the single experience they are going to become something a bland experience. Also, adding to the mix of violence should be things like consequences 9as you said, vietnam) why can''t publishers and developers work on this together dammit.

And Wavinator - I agree with you, however the main problem is that no one steps up and actually does go ahead and create a more complicated system for handling such things. Sure, we can complain that other people don''t do it (like me) but it takes someone to actually do it in order for it to - well - get done.

We could at least try and make combat complicated, by actually instead of challenging the player, maybe questioning the player. Straight out shooting indiscriminately is damn simple, but if you make it murdering someone, then it''s complicated. Why not explore that? Sure it''s extremely dark subject matter, but it can make for an interesting game.

quote: (stupid bloody morons).

Sorry - that was the Australian in me bursting out there. it won''t happen again.

When the Australian in me bursts out, I usually have to go buy
the poor girls a home pregnancy test. (but seriously...)

People like games that allow them to perform deeds that they
couldn''t possibly do in real life. Any real life type business
should be left for soap operas on tv. I can read books and make
relationships and build sandcastles in real life, in a game they
are boring. What I can''t do is chop somebodys head off, or
pin somebody''s leg to a wall with a javelin. Especially with
violence which creates the illusion of superiority, and makes
the player feel more confident (yeah! i nailed that punk bitch!)
A good case of this is one particular friend of mine who does
NOTHING but play computer games (he still sucks at them though).
He is completely weak-ass and uncoordinated, and if he pisses me
off any more I will kick the shit thru him, but because of his
game inflated ego, he believes he can kick peoples asses. (He
is getting to be a real pain, he tries to start fights with us
and cause shit).

One of the things your mind craves on a subconcious level is
power, and the illusion of power is often enough to satisfy the
craving. This is why violence games and murder based experience
games dominate (males anyway). It is all a big power trip and
its probably going to be in place for a while.

(if all game developers started dishing up enlightened games
though, then these people would have to buy enlightened games
and we''d be better off - but you''d have to kill Carmack first.)

----------
"i think that all this talking and such is paining my head to astounding annoyance" - Erick
"Quoting people in your tag is cool. Quoting yourself is even cooler" - SpazBoy_the_Mitey

Disco Love For Everyone

Instead of just whupping his ass, although it''d probably be great fun, go paintballing. You can let out that rage by shooting someone, it requires actual skill, there are no assault charges to contend with and it''s a sh*t load of fun ...

... just don''t get hit

Merrick

-------------------------------------------------
Mindphuq Software : "Who do you want to do today?"

Maitrek, you forgot to put one of those little red angry faces at the beginning of this thread. I love those little angry faces, there so cool. There''s one face they are missing though, it''s the one with a smile that''s crying (hyserical laughter)

But seriously, there''s one big issue about game design many people don''t realise, this issue is one big reason why games don''t seem to be going anywhere. Any game that wishes to sell well must consist of a Game Design that allows for impressive graphics to be used (the game design must accommodate the use of amazing graphics). This is becuase people (even myself) think that they can make some sort of intelligent desicion about a game by looking at the screenshots and reading the back of the box. It''s a hard habit for all of us to break especially when you think you are actually good at these sorts of judgements. So what do you suppose we do about it then?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I can prove your point in two words : Deer Hunter ...

Merrick

-------------------------------------------------
Mindphuq Software : "Who do you want to do today?"

Morfe, cool webpage btw, how do you get to the secret page? Come on

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!