I saw this in another thread...and just wanted to add my thoughts...started a new one because I didn't want to draw attention away from that threads subject matter... Before I get labeled as some sort of "censor" and crap...keep in mind that this is all about where the game industry is and is currently going...

quote: Then obviously violent games are not for you. Don´t play them. The reason why we "want" more violence is because we came to this conclusion [Diodor]: "OK, then let's find ways to make a FPS more violent just for the sake of it." Which I translate into: let´s discuss ways of incorporating violence into FPS. Which I find rather interesting, as the media culture in general seems to be steered in the direction of more extreme positions. It´s a trend, it´s happening, and it´s not only in games.

er...If the trend is to increase the violent content...that doesn't give players, who find it a turn-off, very many game playing options does it? And being that at LEAST 95% of all the games yet made, deal exclusivly with violent actions...from Mario effectively killing turtles by jumping on them...to armies of troops dieing on the battlefield in a RTS game...with all of this happening BEFORE games jump aboard the current "more violence" trend...does this not concern you folks in the slightest? I'm not saying we should banish or censor violent games...I'm just trying to point out that: 1) games are a form of entertainment...but walk into a store and take a look at the choices available and compaire these choices to other forms of entertainment...there are TONS of books, films and TV shows that do not even depict a single violent act in them in any shape or form...yet the VAST majority of games revolve around the player 'killing' something (no matter how arbitrarily depicted) 2) Because of this...we game developers are effectively telling the world the "killing is fun!"...it is so engrained in us that any game design we come up with that doesn't allow the player to kill somthing is greeted with the simpleton comment that "such and such can't be any fun!". 3) the violence depicted in games actually decensitises us to further depicions within games...When you first started playing Quake you may have noticed the gibs flying around...but after doing this for hours you no longer pay attention to it. 4) With so many games depicting death, and with us saying that developing games like this is our "first amendment" right...Well, honestly, it gives the impression that "game developers" are OBSESSED with death...no strike that..."game developers" are OBSESSED with "violent acts that cause death"...there is a huge difference 5) the cry for "more realisam" will sink the game industry if followed through completely...The first time a "photoreal" violent game (that allows the player to hide dead bodies and such in a effort to avoid detection) is found among the belongings of a disturbed kid who went on a killing spree...well this will fuel the wrath of the government to no end, as soon as somebody cries out that "game X is a murder training simulator!"...The more "un-realistic" violence is depicted, the less critical the outside point of view is toword the violent act...If such a kid had copies of Sonic rather then "Death chamber" the polititions would have little reason to condem games...but in the aftermath of such a horrific event, finding a copy of such a realistic looking game could easily meen more government regulations will follow, and possably some game developers could even face jail terms... 6) if you are unwilling to at least try to develop a non-violent game because it "won't sell"...You are contributeing to the problem...if your game development decisions are basied on the potential money you could make...you are not "excersizeing your freedom of speach", you are makeing a buisness decision and thus produceing "product"...and "products" can be and are regulated by the government... Games NEED to grow-up...They must expand outside thier current limited sources of gameplay influences...But I suspect most of you won't understand...You'll just retort with "violent games do not cause violence"...which has nothing to do with the subject at hand...other then this incorrect perception exisits in many seats of power around the world, and our overall lack of gameplay diversity only supports such views...no matter what the scientific evidence shows... "You can NOT prevent the tiger from attacking you,..but you CAN give him few reasons to do so" Edited by - MSW on January 5, 2002 12:29:32 PM

That''s why I want to make graphical adventure games!

-Yoshi
XGXCX ''''99

I don''t agree with any of your points MSW, and as you will read, I have very strong veiws against your country''s absurd gun laws.

1)
True, but think of the reasons behind this. Books and films use action and interaction between people to keep things interesting. And out of those two things, a film or book lives or dies by the way the interactions bettween people are carried out. Computer games don''t have that luxury, as a game is about interaction between the user and the game. There is no easy way of allowing the player to interact successfully with the personalities of a game through dialouge, simply because it is not usually very believable. AI is too long a way off (although MMO games are a possible antidote). Think of an RPG without the combat. Is there enough commpelling content in the conversations to keep you playing? Probabaly not. The other problems games have is graphics. It''s much easier to portray a gunfight than it is too accurately convey body launguage and emotions in an intersesting-looking way. Without this charecter interaction, a game must therefore rely on action or management (not possible in films or books). To be frank, if I see another badly thought out Theme Whatever then I''ll scream, plus some people don''t like management. Leaving action. Which will come from either sports, simulations (pacifist) or violence. Quite simply, we are held back by our medium in ways that films and books are not. And if we stray to close to either, games become interactive movies/books, which is simply not compelling enough to the analytical part of our brains. I don''t see violence as a choice, more as a lack of options.

2) Developers telling us killing people is fun? IT''S NOT REAL. Killing people without the guilt or pain may well be fun, but we have no way of testing this. However, I''m pretty sure that whilst killing soldiers in Half-Life is fun, I am firly against ever killing someone real. If I did so, accidentally or whatever, I am certain I would find the experiance and guilt unbearable, and not a bit fun at all.

3) Desensitivity? I''m not sure either way. Some people spend all day ''ignoring'' the gibbs in quke and yet get histerical at the first sight of real blood, whereas some people have no problem with blood and violence despite never experiancing it before (one of my freinds used to be like that. He''s no freind anymore). I think this depends more upon our naturel demeonour and hence our upbringing (i.e: parents values) than on the media we are exposed to.

4) I have no idea what the ''first amendment'' is, as I''m British. I would think it is more likely that a lot of game developers are normal people. Certainly, if the tabloids in my country (who tried to blame Microsoft Flight Sim for Sep 11th) got hold of a game developer obsessed with death, they would have a feild day with it, and that has not happened yet.

5) the cry for "more realisam" will sink the game industry if followed through completely - true. Games causing killing spree''s on there own - false. We have less killing sprees in this country per population member than you do for one reason. Wanna know our secret?
WE DON''T KEEP GUNS IN MOST HOUSEHOLDS!!
May surprise you, but without guns, killing spree''s don''t happen. And deflecting criticism onto games (or other media) is simply ignoring the fact that most of these children have deep, deep problems, usually steming from society around them. Their parents and schoolteachers and freinds should take the most blame, followed by your laws on gun control, followed by the image conscious image projected upon all western countries (including my own). Don''t look for scapegoats, look for solutions.

6) if you are unwilling to at least try to develop a non-violent game because it "won''t sell"...You are contributeing to the problem?
Whilst I don''t actually perceive a problem, we do all live in a capitalist society, and a game developer producing unmarketable games is a hungry, penniless, homeless games designer. Companies aren''t going to bet millions on a three legged pony with it''s hooves handcuffed together.

MSW, thanks for opening a new thread and not turning the other one into a debate on violence.

quote:
Original post by MSW

And being that at LEAST 95% of all the games yet made, deal exclusively with violent actions...from Mario effectively killing turtles by jumping on them...to armies of troops dieing on the battlefield in a RTS game...with all of this happening BEFORE games jump aboard the current "more violence" trend...does this not concern you folks in the slightest?

There''s a reason why 95% of the games are violent. I believe one definition of ''game'' implies a competition between players having opposing goals. Hence, the result of a game is that one must win and one must lose. Starting to see why violence fits games like a glove yet? Heck, computer games didn''t invent violence. Boys play war since forever, and you could call chess a violent game as well (the symbolism is pretty obvious). Games have originated in training for war. In some occasions the link can still be clearly found (remember that game the Afghans play - two teams on horseback try to take a goat to a target area - similar with football - a thousands years old game originated in training horse riders in getting their wounded comrades from the ground)

Am I concerned? Yes, that I don''t understand an essential part of games (and computer games in particular).

quote:
1) games are a form of entertainment...but walk into a store and take a look at the choices available and compare these choices to other forms of entertainment...there are TONS of books, films and TV shows that do not even depict a single violent act in them in any shape or form...yet the VAST majority of games revolve around the player ''killing'' something (no matter how arbitrarily depicted)

The kind of violence described in games is very naive, mechanical and impersonal. You don''t hate the enemies, you don''t believe they are hurt by your actions, you don''t really believe they exist. It''s just a test of fast reflexes and smart decisions.

On the other hand, the kind of violence sometimes depicted in books and movies is often shocking. Yet I don''t hear anyone complaining that Shakespeare causes kids to kill, nor is any theater actor attacked because he "plays" a sick cold-blooded assassin like Richard.

quote:
2) Because of this...we game developers are effectively telling the world the "killing is fun!"...it is so engrained in us that any game design we come up with that doesn''t allow the player to kill something is greeted with the simpleton comment that "such and such can''t be any fun!".

Actually, the game industry is one of (if not the) the most commercial in the entertainment field. Rather the world tells us what is fun and we obey.

quote:
3) the violence depicted in games actually desensitizes us to further depictions within games...When you first started playing Quake you may have noticed the gibs flying around...but after doing this for hours you no longer pay attention to it.

Proof that graphical depictions of violence aren''t worth a lot. We need something else.

quote:
4) With so many games depicting death, and with us saying that developing games like this is our "first amendment" right...Well, honestly, it gives the impression that "game developers" are OBSESSED with death...no strike that..."game developers" are OBSESSED with "violent acts that cause death"...there is a huge difference

Actually, from what I''ve seen on this forum, the general consensus is that a non violent game is better than a violent one (but harder to create and keep interesting), and that gameplay is the most important part of a game (not weapons and different death animations). Since the ''Let''s make a dissgustingly violent game'' (which aimed to create a satire anyway), I don''t remember a discussion on creating violence.

quote:
5) the cry for "more realisam" will sink the game industry if followed through completely...The first time a "photoreal" violent game (that allows the player to hide dead bodies and such in a effort to avoid detection) is found among the belongings of a disturbed kid who went on a killing spree...well this will fuel the wrath of the government to no end, as soon as somebody cries out that "game X is a murder training simulator!"...Even more government regulations will follow, and possably some game developers could even face jail terms

Oh come on, this has happened before. What was the result? Armed militias are (to an extent) legal in the USA and you worry about games? Anyway, why does everybody think that reducing violence is such a concern for the government? They train the same thing in the army anyway.

quote:
6) if you are unwilling to at least try to develop a non-violent game because it "won''t sell"...You are contributeing to the problem... if your game development decisions are basied on the potential money you could make... you are produceing "product"... and "products" can be and are regulated by the government...

I don''t see how discussing violence implies that I am not willing to develop non-violent games or that I am obsessed with violence. In fact the team I work with will release a non-violent game soon about a TV managing company - and I had a great time working on it. And I love Roller Coaster Tycoon, even more than Carmageddon. What of it?

quote:
Games NEED to grow-up...They must expand outside thier current limited sources of gameplay influences...

You''re right. And violent games need to grow up too.

I think violence and competition plays an important part of life, you see it in nature with the food chain, in the streets, since you were kids you always had that other kid you didnt liked, if you are to model games close to reality, you just can''t make your world a "barbie" world, because thats not real, you have to model real world situations, and in the real world, almost everything is a survival quest, die or kill, win or lose, even the sims depict violence as something that well, happens, if you want to set the games free of violence you have to code tetris, tic-tac-toe, mahong, card games, (not sure if checkers or chess since you do kill the oponents pieces ), and then if 2 people get too involved in those games, and one keeps beating the other, they might end up kicking each other butts (like contrary football (soccer) team fanatics)

I can see that I wasn''t being very clear...I appologise...my intent was not to discuss why violence happens...or even if playing games has any involvement in real life violent actions...

Things like gun control laws, and parents, etc...These are not things we (useing ''we'' to meen the whole game industry) have direct control over...but we do have direct control of the games we make...and by createing a much wider variety of games with much less emphesis on graphic violence...we in effect give those in power fewer reasons to pick on us, thus forceing them to spend much more energy trying to rectify the real problems...Either we can start this ''change'' now, under our own control...or change later when it gets forced upon us by the watchful eye of the government...

i dont really want to open up this can of worms again, but:
anybody who thinks gun control laws actually help against crime must have their head up their ass.

people in the US are just trying to use it as a scapegoat for their bad parenting, because of course, they have more important things to do, like work 6 days a week out of town and have the tv raise their kids

Why criminals shoot other people:

Because they can since no one can shoot at them

[/period]

Why we like violence:

So that we don''t have to find out ourselves

[/period]

Why liberals don''t like guns:

Because they follow emotion and emotion isn''t always the truth

[/period]

I´ll just comment on the last MSW and barazor posts (Andrew, grow up). As for criticism on MSW´s original 6 points I pretty much concur with Focus and Diodor. Oh, and the quote in the original post was from me. The reply to the last MSW post is more concerned with the topic, the other reply is just my view on guns and homicides.


@barazor:

Insults aside, any statistic pretty much shows that you are wrong (at least the way I interpreted your post). It may be true that gun control laws don´t influence the populations willingness to commit crime , but it cerainly has an effect on homicides. Just do some comparing, select a region with tighter gun control laws (like Europe for example) and compare homicide rates, especially those commited by minors.
Not having access to a gun will not keep someone from WANTING to kill someone, but it will definitely stop them from shooting someone. Here in Austria we have very little problems with family related or school shootings because of the fact that minors simply don´t have access to guns. There are fewer guns around to start with, and those who have guns are checked on regularly and since recently even have to do a psych exam. While these measures still aren´t foolproof the direction is good. And I doubt that you can argue against the point that less guns means less chance for shootings.

I agree on your point of the widespread use of scapegoating in the US, not only guns (which I see as a valid point) but also the media in general, mostly computer games. It is hard to look at the real problems, and from a political point of view very unpopular.



@MSW:

Luckily I live in Austria where government control of computer games is rather limited. The German marked is somewhat different, but the restrictions are mostly focused on the showing of red blood and gibs, so it´s a problem easily remedied.
As for making a certain type of games as to not give "them" less reason to pick on you, I say screw them. Making games has never been a political issue, and I don´t think it should be. I want to make games for the people who have fun playing them, to a lesser degree I have to make games which sell (generally the same thing, just not always) because making and publishing games costs a lot of money and I haven´t met anyone who´ll make games on charity.
So for the sake of clarity, here are the things which determine the choice of game I make (in order of importance):

1) The Customer. Whoever pays the bill says what goes. That´s how it is with capitalism. Communism had a go but it didn´t work out, so that´s how things get done. The Customer will of course get advice on all other points, including laws and regulations in other countries (mostly related to the depiction of blood) but the call is his.

2) The Consumer. The players. They should have fun playing the game. Definitely not all of them, as I think that´s generally not possible (or extremely hard to achieve), but the segment you are aiming for should have fun with the game you made. What they like gets put in, what they don´t gets taken out.

3) Me. There are some genres which I prefer to others. There are some concepts which I have personal interest in making.


At no point do I want to be a slave to the possible political repercussions, and I will certainly not change a line of GD of any of my games because SOME GOVERNMENT somewhere MIGHT be pleased with me and MIGHT spend time on other problems. If there are political issues involved, they will be checked of course (such as NS backgrounds for games in Germany), but definitely not for something as vague as a maybe.
America needs to have a long close look at it´s social problems, computer games are just one in a long line of scapegoats. And I will definitely not try and cater to and play nice because of the internal problems of what to me is a foreign country.

If something eventually does get forced upon the American gaming industry it will be sad in every respect, because I believe that games are to be made "as is", without cuts or changes, because the audience these games get made for IS CAPABLE OF DECIDING WHAT`S GOOD FOR THEM. Games with violent content are not for minors, there are laws or regulations for that in almost every country I know of. A consenting adult is responsible for his own actions, any kind of media exposure will not change that. If a country has problems with how these games are distributed or the fact that these games get into the hands of people they are unsuited for - another problem entirely, but essentially a problem for the individual country to deal with. They shouldn´t give guns to monkeys (at least here they don´t), they shouldn´t hand out booze to minors, but don´t blame the gun if a monkey shoots himself (which is acutally not fitting, as it implies a direct connection between the gun and the monkey´s death).
So if anything, the distribution paths should be watched, the parents should watch what their kids play, then we wouldn´t be in this whole mess.

I´m not arguing against the evolvement of games in general, but as stated before all the genres will evolve, including the violent ones. Action films have gotten better in the last twenty years, so will FPS in the years to come.

Edited by - Hase on January 5, 2002 6:48:27 PM

quote: Original post by barazor
i dont really want to open up this can of worms again, but:
anybody who thinks gun control laws actually help against crime must have their head up their ass.

The fact is simple:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
BUT People use guns to kill people
Remove guns from the equation
Person now must find a new much less convenient way to kill people
Much less convenient way to kill results in less kills and more failure

Its that simple!

I don't see how anyone could say gun control wouldn't help. Its ridiculous. Sure, a person who wants to kill might still want to kill but now he has to find some other method. Lets say he takes a knife and goes to school, he'll take out one or two people before someone knocks him out since a knife is much less powerful than a gun. Had he had a gun, he walks into school and shoots down 20 people before they even know what hit em.

Edit: I thought this post was in the lounge. I apologize seeing how my post has nothing to do with "violence in games" and instead has to do with violence in life and gun control. Please delete my post if needed.





Edited by - Cameron on January 6, 2002 12:30:17 PM