Non Violent games in a time of too much violence

#21

Quote:Jeff Trier

I have a 4 year old and a 9 year old daughter. I let them watch anything that I watch and play anything that I play.

:)

That's what it's all about! Computergames are games. It's playing somthing for fun. Kids know how to do this, and some people don't grow up in this sense - like you Jeff. (I wan't to be a daddy like you one day) :)

Many of you, who are so much against violence in computergames, have you not growed up too much - so you have forgotten what it's like beeing a kid?
And then you glorify your own childhoods innocense, and attempt to put you own kids in it. Doing this might end up creating some really fustrated teenagers.

I'm not embracing the violence. Just all things within reason. Don't go too far in either directions.
*runs for cover*

#22 Hmm. The problem with violence. The balance of creativity vs. resposibility.

Think of it this way. George Lucus once said that he would never let his kids see Raiders of the Lost Ark.
He also said that he had always wanted to make a movie that had an element of King Soloman's Mines.

Now I wonder if this is hypocracy. To me it isn't, to some it is. There is a difference between Yearn to Create and Responsibility of a parent. For instance the Hypocritical thing about Raiders of the lost Ark is, that even though Lucus himself wouldn't let his Kids see the movie, He did market it to kids through the manufacture of Action Figures and what not. That is hypocracy.

As one who aspires to be a game developer, I want to market to the gamer. I feel though if I create something that isn't for kids, I should attempt to avoid marketing to kids. Ads for my games shouldn't appear in Boy's Life or during Kids Club on the WB. I will do this, because for the most part. The games I want to make, are not for kids.

I'm an adult, and I love games. I'm also a father. I realize that there is an adult market for gaming..esecially nowadays. The fact is that I would have no problem Creating games that contain violence, sex, or harsh language. I do have a problem with the idea that I saw a kid at Walmart(he couldn't have been more than 11) buy a copy of Max Pain, and there wasn't an adult accompanying him. Now that has to stop.

We do have a responsibility in who we market to. I also feel we have a responsibility to make sure that Retailers are not marketing our creations with adult content to kiddies. The rating system has to mean something and it is pointless if it isn't even enforced. Basically I think game publishers should have no problem taking a loss, by pulling thier games off the shelves of a store who doesn't enforce ESRB or other ratings.

Hell if I have to...I'll leave out the cover art and put in huge capitol letters "If you sell this game to an unaccompanied child under the age of 17, I'll sue the crap out of you."

maybe then they will get the message.

#23 Good one Josh! :)

#24 I don't think violence in games needs to be the big issue that it has become. What it we need is a stricter enforcement of age restriction with regards to gaming software, not from the companies; the certificates are in place, but from the parents who need to realise that games, like movies, can contain material that is unsuitable for certain age groups. If a game has a 18 certificate on it, thats exactly what it means, only suitable for those aged 18 and above. Having worked in a EB store, I was often amazed by how many kids, having been refused purhase of GTA 3, simply pulled their mother or father from the back of the store to buy it for them. Great game that GTA 3 is, it does involve some very questionable morality. On the other hand, parents ran for cover when their kids wanted to buy Sims Hot Date, the prospect of the kids being privy to something approaching adult relationships scared the shit out of them! :)
I am interested in creating highly realistic military sims, and for this reason I'd expect graphic portrayals of military related violence. But I think the difference here is that whereas I would hope to convey that the principle aim is to primarily stay alive and secondly achieve your objective (and therefore avoid firefights whenever possible - your character may be KILLED, and your mission will fail), games such as soldier of fortune simply revel in what an automatic weapon can do to flesh and bone. I personally find that a little odious. Perhaps the games industry needs to grow up a little, and explore the wider conotations of war and the effect it has on individuals, instead of producing, age restricted or not, yet another 'video game nasty'.

#25 @ everyone, Virtual War Threads.

I feel that is what this thread has become. At least you guys aren't as bad at it as the Trible War and Tribes 2 forums.

Anyway, I have no studies show and nothing to debate.

@Forrest,

Generally, one of two ideas must exist to catch my eye. Conquest or Capitalism. Sometimes the two go hand in hand and it's even better. Say, in Fallout 2 you kill someone to get better weapons. At any rate, as in Fallout 2, when I have aquired everything you can possibly have, the killing isn't fun anymore. The whole game losses it's appeal. It seems to be only fun when I'm struggling to survive, and there is much to be aquired in the game. Perhaps I lack the vision of a great game. Oh yeah, I dig Sim City Classic :)

Have fun guys.

#26 I saw something the other day which migtht interest you. A research team in Britain did some work on how TV affects teenagers in relation to levels of violent behaviour. The results (I don't have the exact statistics with me) were something like this:

If the teenager (between 13 and 19) watches over 3 hours of TV a day incidences of violent behaviour level out at about 20% by the age of 25 - so one in five of them will have been in a fight by that age.

If the level of TV is 1 hour a day or less this drops to 3%.

I'm not arguing for or against (hell being a student I watch over 3 hours a day myself and I wouldn't hurt a fly :-)) but it seems to me that if normal TV has this affect what would ultra violent games do? Just a thought.

#27 dunno if this is posted above, because i want to make a violent game so i didnt read yet, but the coldstone game theyre working on will be noncombat. it will involve traps and poison so technically it is violent, but check it out, coldstone looks cool anyway :).

#28 There's only one important thing to keep in mind in evaluating studies.

Correlation != Causality

So when these studies report correlations, they are reporting on 'possible links to causes' but I think the media drops that detail and reports things as facts.

This seems to happen all the time with this kind of stuff, even if the subject is not violence.

The point about there were violent people before there were violent forms of media is significant. I guess the concern is that is there more violent people. But the thing is, societies throughout history go through changes of levels of violence. Social interactions and cultural tendencies scale strangely.

Look at Rome's 'Bread and Circuses' - american TV and video games are not the first instances of a culture using violence as entertainment. And that was real violence. Is there a correlation of crime level in ancient rome to the introduction of the gladitorial games?

Anyhow - it is a difficult issue but at least we have the freedom to make our own decisions on the issue.

#29 Something I haven't seen mentioned:
violence, combat, killing bad guys etc are easily communicated game concepts. In a way, violent games are somewhat "easier" to design, from the standpoint of communicating the mechanics involved to the player.

Imagine how much easier it is to describe Quake or GTA3 to somebody (like a game buyer or a potential publisher) and have them "get it" versus, say , Pikmin or The Sims.

There is also the market to consider...most game buyers (I'm talking the typical teen-young adult male) know darn well that non-violent and educational games are usually not that fun. This is more true for the console than the PC market, of course.

I believe that any "violent" gameplay concept can probably be dressed up in in some more benign way, without destroying the fun. All of the stuff that offends the PTA moms in Grand Theft auto could probably be done -as a game play mechanic- without any violence or law breaking simulated. All it takes is a bit of creativity.

#30 Someone should make a mgs-style game, but without the shooting. It should be more aimed at solving puzzles n stuff. Hmmm, the only game i play right now is Liero, and i can't say that it's not violent....

#31 First off, please don't think I'm an idiot if you don't see the relevance of the point I am going to make. This actually comes from an article I read (unfortunately, I don't recall who wrote the article)

Two scenes which were filmed for the movie "Austin Powers" depicted the reactions of the friends and families of guards who are killed by Austin Powers as he works to foil Dr. Evil. These scenes poke fun at the old action movie device of nameless, faceless minions who the hero kills left and right. Unfortunately, these scenes were cut from the movie before theatrical release.

While these scenes were meant to be funny, exploring the background of "characters" in the movie who would normally be completely inconsequestial, the cut scenes also highlight a large problem with how both movies and video games depict violence. As many others have pointed out in this thread, depicting violence is not in itself the problem; the problem is depicting violence without depicting the consequences. And while many can draw a distinction between the fake violence of movies and video games, thanks to the game industry's drive to make everything else increasingly realistic (geometry, textures, sound effects, etc.) many will believe, if even only on a subconscious level, that the violence as depicted is real ie. they will fail to understand the consequences of violence.

Morover, I'm not going to start saying videogame violence brainwashes people; whether or not I believe that is true, I just don't KNOW that. But what I do know is that people are often driven to recreate violence they see depicted onscreen, despite the fact that they know the violence is fake! For example, teenage boys are routinely maimed or killed while copying the stunts depicted by pro wrestling, and afterwards they always feel sheepish for having done it because they knew full well the entire time that the violence in pro wrestling is choreographed and fake.

#32 Something else to consider when quoting from this plethora of "scientific research" is that most (not all, just most) of these "studies" never bother actually talking with children. Rather, most of these "studies" ask parents (usually in the midwest U.S., with strongly religious states being preferred by these "scientists") if they think entertainment in the form of movies, television and video games is "bad". Hmmm... duh, the majority of parents who think Oral Roberts is an ideal role model are going to say, "Why, yes, movies and television and especially video games are evil!".

A few months back, The Hollywood Reporter printed an in-depth article about this (no, I don't have the particular issue any more, but it should be on their website somewhere), as well as results of a *real* study that inquired of children between something like 8 and 17 what *their* views are - this was done in the fallout of the Columbine High incident. Nearly all of the children surveyed indicated that they saw absolutely no connection between what they saw on TV, in movies, or the video games they played and how they behaved in their real lives. Moreover, most of the children surveyed said they believe that those people who engage in real-life violence are predisposed to violence to begin with (and you can look at psychological profiles of serial murderers for further proof), whether because of their familial environment or because of psychochemical imbalance, or because they're just plain crazy to start with. This study was the first, and to my knowledge is still the *only*, study to actually involve children in its research.

That all being said, I take these "studies" with a grain of salt, whether it's a "legitimate" study or not. It's *extremely* easy to skew the results of any survey, study, or other statistical measurement to reflect the view you want to present (and since most of the "studies" done to date have been commissioned by the "religious right" to try to impose strict censorship on *all* forms of entertainment and art), it's best to dig deeply into the *who*, *what*, and *why* of a given study.

Having worked in the filmed entertainment business (as a makeup effects artist) before my former (tech) employer whisked me away to Colorado, I know how easy it is to dress anything up to look like anything you want it to.

Now, before the flames start pouring in, my personal opinion is as follows:
Having created special effects makeup, and knowing what goes into that process, it would be easy for me to say "it's not a big deal". However, the visceral thrill of seeing decapitations, disembowelings and so forth does get rather old - and each movie or whatever has to outdo the last to keep the thrill factor inherent in the Big Gross-Out high. On the other hand, something I learned from Dick Smith is that those types of effects aren't nearly as interesting to create as more subtle effects, like aging a 20-something actor to appear to be 120 years old (Dustin Hoffman in "Little Big Man"), or transforming Hal Holbrook into Abraham Lincoln, let's say.

On the storytelling front:
Alfred Hitchcock used to say that the less you showed the audience, the better. "Psycho" is perhaps one of his most compelling pictures psychologically, and an interesting study in use of the "less is more" principle. You see, the picture was released in 1960, a time when full-color production was the norm, and black & white photography all but abandoned in motion pictures. Hitch originally had planned to shoot the entire movie in color *except* for the shower scene, which he intended to shoot in black & white from the very beginning of his involvement in the picture. It was only later in pre-production that Hitch decided to shoot the entire film in black & white. Why was the plan *always* to shoot the shower scene in black & white? Because Hitchcock abhorred the idea of showing *that* much blood in one of his movies. Look at any of Hitch's other pictures, and you'll see a long history of a) very little on-screen violence and b) almost no blood shown on-screen. In case you couldn't tell, I'm a *HUGE* Hitchcock fan (North by Northwest and Vertigo are my two favorites). Anyway, I think there's much to be learned from Hitchcock's views. The audience or player's imagination is *far* more effective at filling in what we don't show than any of us could ever be at showing it right there on-screen. The shower scene in "Psycho" is extremely effective specifically because of what it leaves to the viewer's imagination (not to mention brilliant film editing, music and sound design).

So, wouldn't it be really cool to see a game done in the Hitchcock style? You know, some everyman is in the wrong place at the wrong time, is mistaken for a government agent and ends up fighting for his life while solving the mystery of just what the heck is happening to him(okay, that's "North by Northwest", but you get the idea)... I think there's a vast pool of ideas just waiting to be explored there.

If you aren't into story-driven games, there are still plenty of ideas for non-violent (or at least non *explicitly* violent) games. How about a FPS where all the enemies are mechanical and don't spurt blood? There are all sorts of ways you could complicate life for the player by varying the means of disabling different robots (maybe some can be disabled by shooting their power supply while others have to be mounted and wires cut or their CPU removed). In such a situation, maybe you have EMP Grenades and Tasers, or a "gun" that shoots bolts of electricity.

One of the things I really liked about Deus Ex was that sneaking past enemies was often a better strategy than killing all the enemies. In fact, in the first mission, there's no way you can complete the mission *without* sneaking for most of the level.

Okay, I'm climbing down from the soapbox now. :)

--Jeff

#33 I'm not really bothered reading all that!!! But I totally agree with the title of this forum.
I'm a game designer, and I'm always looking into ways of making my games less violent. The way I see it, only a truely great designer can create games that are non-violent,(within reason).

#34 A lot of good points and ideas have been made in this topic. I think in the end though it really comes down to personal preference. I play games with violence because I like to play violent games. The game I am developing has violence because I want to make a game that I would enjoy.
People use games as entertainment and escapism. My life is pretty slow going and relaxed (and very non-violent) so in contrast I like to play games with lots of action and violence. I think this holds true to a lot of people and its why violent games make up a large part of the market. Same with driving games, in real life we have to drive all slow and careful-like. So we play crazy racing games that allow us to drive in a way we cant in real-life (ie FAST).
I think a lot of people play gaes that allow them to do things that they can't (but want to) in real-life.

My 2 cents.

#35 GAH!

Please stop bringing dead posts to life. No one wants to read new comments about a dead conversation. :)

#36 I think this an interesting post - one that will never be dead. Actually, as long as it is kept alive with constructive replies, it will provide feedback to game designers.

There is violence; you can't ignore it. You cannot shut yourself from the rest of the world and pretend that we don't live in dangerous times. You see it on the tv, you read it on the newspapers, you discuss it with your friends and colleagues, and if you have children, they too discuss it at school.

And you WILL play it - whether you shoot people, aliens or both is another story. Then there exists the variety of ways to do that: you can command an army and let them do the dirty work (Strategy Games) or you can do it yourself (First-Person Shooter Games).

Children can play these games as much as they play cowboy and indians with their friends at school and become good adults if they are told in their infancy to establish the difference between what is real and what isn't. To not allow them to experience these games is to subtract important lessons that will make a difference when they grow older.

IMHO I think all games have violence, even those that don't look like. SimCity can be considered violent, if you consider that letting people build large cities that pollute and destroy the environment will alter their behavior later on.

One game I really miss is "Outpost 2: Divided Destiny", from now-extinct Dynamix. I think it was the only strategy game I ever played that didn't quite focus on the War Theme; rather, they made it very clear in the game that weapons and combat units were mainly for defense. Your goal was to keep a group of people alive and well-fed in a totally hostile environment, complete with earthquakes and meteor showers. You had to focus so much your attention on producing enough food for your colonists, mining different types of metal, keeping Morale high, taking precautions against disasters, researching and the like that you would barely think about massing units to wage war on your competitors.

#37 Removing violence altogether is unnatural, but I do agree that there are lines to be crossed. Soldier of Fortune doesn't need the enemy's intestines to fall out as they die, but considering the "Depth" of the game it'd be a bargain bin junker within a few weeks if it didn't. Same for Postal.

Females enjoy games that aren't focussed around violence, so that should also be kept in mind. On the same hand, those same games scare away the "hardcore" (desensitized) gamers who think a lack of blood means the game is trash.


Before I break it down, lemme make a key so these terms (based on my experiences) can be understood.

Hardcore - People who will play a game even if it brings nothing new to the table or is just accepted as "crap". Will almost always stick to one genre, and usually worships one specific series of games or a developer. No content is too explicity or too boring for these folks. Most are male and 15 to 25.

Example games: Anything Square, Blizzard, Id, or Rockstar makes.


Family - Parents who buy games for their kids. Violence usually is limited to injury (like in cartoons) or comical (like in Sims)

Example games: Sims, sports games, "Mascot" games like Mario or Zelda, anything Humongous Entertainment makes


Women - Violence itself doesn't turn them off, but mindless violence will. If it furthers a story (like in a RPG) then it can work. Usually prefers non-violent stuff.

Example games: Sims, Everquest, Mascot games


Connoisseurs - If it's a good game, they'll play it. Usually doesn't matter what genre, and never matters what developer. Less "cool" themes won't scare them away like they might Hardcore gamers.

Example games: Deus Ex, Jet Grind Radio, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Shenmue


Popular - If it's shown in ads during The Osbournes or between commercials during Friends, these people will play it. If their friends at work or school are playing it, they'll play it. Usually closeted versions of Hardcore or Connoisseurs who see their friends as a reason to play (or not play) certain games.

Example games: Grand Theft Auto 3, Counter-Strike, Tony Hawk series.


Casual - They don't have time for games. They can't read through issues of PC Gamer to see what those wannabe hacks have to say about some new game. If it catches their eye, they'll buy it. Usually lean towards Popular or "pickup" games which don't require long periods of playing to enjoy.

Example games: Sims, Grand Theft Auto 3, Counter-Strike, Tony Hawk series


Realistic - Did that gun actually have that large of a muzzle flash and shoot at that exact same rate? If not, these guys will bust your balls. Pretty small market, but very dedicated. A much older market (25+) and one that's pretty darn hard to innovate in, afterall you have to stick close to what history gave you.

Example games: Panzer General series, Civil War sims, MS Flight simulator


What kinds of games work in terms of content vs. violence?

Simulation game - Appeals only to the Realistic gamers. If it's good, it can pick up a few "Hardcore" people along the way (usually limited to those who are into Racers or Flying games) and even some Connoisseurs.

MMORPG - Can't really turn away anyone. Even Connoisseurs might give it a try, and the pure addictiveness might get the better of their normally good judgement and keep them playing garbage like Everquest for too long. Social aspect draws in more fringe gamers, like Women and older players.

Shoot it 'till it dies - Hardcore FPS gamers (probably largest group I've seen in terms of Genre) will buy it and praise it and play it even if it's the same as the last one. As long as you have a cool engine licensed, made by a cool company, related to some cool film or character you've got a hit with the Popular and some Casual gamers. Usually scares away most Women and Family gamers.

Strategy - Usually a step above Hardcore FPS gamers in terms of intelligence, but still a similar marketshare. Afterall, brains over mouse clicking. Can draw in Family gamers and the more intricate ones can draw in the Realistic gamers.

Unique/experimental games - If good, can draw in all groups EXCEPT Hardcore gamers. Unique games are (in all seriousness) seen as a sign of being a "lesser man" by Hardcore gamers. How many hardcore Counter-Strike players ever gave Sims or Chu Chu Rocket a chance?

Open-ended games - Seems to draw in the largest mass of people. No one can really hate the story or the characters, since you control most of it. Depending on the content, you'll alienate specific groups. Grand Theft Auto 3 will scare away the Family and Women, while Sims will scare away any and all Hardcore gamers.


I got a little (a lot) long-winded, but I think it does show a good trend towards explaining why certain games are hits.

1. Word of mouth
This means you have a title that isn't so incredly strange that it'll make people feel like idiots to say it to their co-workers around the water cooler; "Dude, play some Chu Chu Rocket with me."

This also means the game won't alienate audiences from the get go. Dave Perry of Shiny said it best about the flop of a game Messiah: "If no one wants to dress up as your character during Halloween, you've failed".

2. Simplicity
Many people want to escape into games, and making it so much like real life will only scare them away.

3. Open-ended
Rules, who wants rules? Allows player to feel in control, instead of being controlled. Again, another good way to escape from real life, especially work or school. "Oh yeah, well I'm gonna blow up your car!" sure can help make up for a bad mid-term.


Violence will not scare away customers, just change your target audience.

Now to merge the two... muahahah.

The Sims Theft Auto.

It involves talking gibberish to people in cars then asking them to leave their vehicles. If they do not, you move on to the next car. Once you successfully borrow a car, you drive home and begin to cook dinner and burn your house down.

Now who's going to help me make it?

#38 I think violence should be used artistically.

Like any color, too much can be a bad thing. Unless that's what you are basing it around.

#39 My thoughts:

Violent games where I can kill things and their limbs flying all over are great relief for everyday stress.

With customizable features (such as skins/models) you can load your boss, redneck neighbor, OJ Simpson, or virtually anyone you want, into the game and blow them apart. Better there than in real life :(

Although another view:

There's not a whole lot of THOUGHT going into 80% of games released for platform and console. How many Japanese Anime styled Ninja games can be made?

Or S.W.A.T. team action fighting zombies?

Sheesh how bout some originality here people?

My 2.52

#40 Non violent games have never been very popular becouse of the fact that people crave what they cant have or do, You could get a job as a train driver or a pizza delivery boy so you should you spend money doing that at home when you could be in some far of galaxy killing Krob'lobs or robot centurions with a super-killer-destroyer-ray-gun that makes spectacular efects when shot.
does a train make spectacular efects when picking up people at a station ? If it did there would be no computer games.