Id say the reason violence in games is so popular as well as violence in many other things is pretty simple.

Humans naturally love to fight and kill. Its in are instincts how do humans break up history? By the wars.

Competition is also rooted in are gene''s, competition for food, mates, and everything else for the most part.

When you look at nature and look at competition what do you find most of the time? Violence.

Thus its only natural that the majority of us humans enjoy the ever so popular violence, killing, and competition in such games.

ive heard that some homo sapiens killed some neandertales(?) a little while ago(10000 years?)! in the oldest culture of the world there was war! the only reason why millions of people didnt die was because there werent millions of people! if somebody wants to kill, he kills, he doesnt need a gun for it! this discussion is boring! ive never seen a game which says: "go out and kill some people!" the reason why the school gunners have such games is because they want to kill, so they play the games! they dont kill because they have the games!

quote: Original post by MSW
we game developers are effectively telling the world the "killing is fun!"...

Killing is fun, it gives you an immense sense of power''s. It''s just that normally you have to deal with guilt afterwards.(I''m not speaking from experience by the way.)

Men are designed to hunt and fight, that''s why they like to fight. Its just like people enjoy sex because they need to reproduce.

quote:
When you look at nature and look at competition what do you find most of the time? Violence.

Okay...first of all...games require CONFLICT...not competition...In order to even have competition you must first have CONFLICT...competition among animals for food, mates, etc...would not exist if they didn''t have the CONFLICT of limited amounts of food, of few or undesireable mates...

Take sports...only one team can win the World Series out of all the teams competeing each year...Without the CONFLICT of haveing multiple teams working towords the same goal, there is no competetition...you must first get two or more of the teams to want/need to win...with them both wanting/needing the same goal you have then created CONFLICT...competition can''t begin until both parties are actively fullfilling the need to resolve this CONFLICT...

99.99999% of the CONFLICT in the world...both in nature and in our modern society...can be, and is, resolved without violence...

but listening to most of you and the message I could gather from so many of the games available today is that CONFLICT resolution must equal violence...If my girlfriend and I started Argueing (actively resolveing a state of CONFLICT), it would seem perfectly reasonable if I were to beat on her instead of resolveing the CONFLICT rationaly.

Maybe it''s just me...gun control, bad parents, poor control of game rateings...I can''t directly control that...but I can control the games I make...I just wouldn''t feel comfortable if some kid were to get ahold of my game (despite all the issues I can''t effect)...starts to play it...and for the next 40 hours he is repeatedly shown that all his problems (and CONFLICT) can be resolved through violent meens...like it or not...for some kids, games are babysitters, surrogate parents, teachers, and even role models...the game industry didn''t ask for this resposeability...and all things being equal it shouldn''t have to deal with it...but life isn''t fair...Either we continue to pass the blame around, or we do what we can to help the situation...

99.9999%? Right...listen, how many of the conflicts in the world are human? Probably, what, .00001%? Less? And I don''t think animals are going to talk out their problems. They''ll go straight to the killing. Unless you were exaggerating with that number...

True, conflict is what breeds competetion, and yes conflict can be dealt with without violence.

This simple fact makes us more of a evolved speices then some animals for the simple reason that we can reason and hold back primal urges.

And yes you can build games that arent viloent. Take for example a puzzle game or a game with stages the player moves through by using intellegence vs killing and violence.

However in my first post I was just trying to point out why 95% of the games have violence. Its human nature and it offers release to some people for thoose gene encoded primal urges to kill or do violence.

I personally would much rather go blow off stress and tension killing in a video game then let a bad day get to me and effect real people.

quote: Original post by altair734
99.9999%? Right...listen, how many of the conflicts in the world are human? Probably, what, .00001%? Less? And I don''t think animals are going to talk out their problems. They''ll go straight to the killing. Unless you were exaggerating with that number...

Animals talk out their problems..of course not...but they do growl, and perform other acts of intimidation...

example:
a lion is eating away at a fresh kill...another lion comes forward, hungry and interested in eating too...thus we have CONFLICT...the first lion snarls to warn the second that "this is mine!"...and the second lion backs away to go find food else where...there, no violence occured...even if the second lion didn''t back down until the first lion started chaseing him...still no violence has occured...the first lion has resolved the conflict through intimidation rather then through violence...

If a typical game lasts for 48 hours (lets use Half-Life for an example) how much of that time does the player purpotrate violence in order to resolve conflicts?

Then follow any animal around for the same amount of time recording the time the animal resolved CONFLICT through violence...then compare the two

You have to be either a fool or blinded by bloodlust to think an animal spends a large portion of its time acting violently...

quote:
I personally would much rather go blow off stress and tension killing in a video game then let a bad day get to me and effect real people.

excellent point...but I think the game industry is missing a potential opertunity

Would you rather come home day after stressfull day and play a violent game to relieve the pressure...or would you rather play a game that would not only relieve the day''s stress, but also possably give/teach you how to deal with stress better...so each day doesn''t seem as stressful as the last?

Anyway...I''m not against developers makeing violent games...Violent games have been around for a long time, at first because it was the most simple and direct way to create gameplay...but here we are years later and to many games use violence as a crutch...this is sad, as games can and should be much more then just a stress reliever...

Games will evolve...I''m just trying kick it into gear a little sooner then many seem willing to allow

The reason that games such as halflife has so many conflicts and conflicts which can be solved only by violence is in my mind pretty simple violence is fun both in games and in real life.

I love how MOH:AA handled this; still just as violent but there isn''t any blood, just puffs of smoke here and there; after all they are wearing alot of armor so it isn''t that hard to believe that there wouldn''t be tons of blood spilling out of them; it may be there but It wouldn''t be very visible.

I didn''t even notice that it didn''t have any blood untill I read it in an interview; it doesn''t detract from the gameplay in the slightest.