Part 1:
[video=youtube;5ZM2jXyvGOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZM2jXyvGOc[/video]
Part 2:
[video=youtube;vi4CMOawBb8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi4CMOawBb8[/video]
He makes some solid points of asking the pure necessity of violence in certain games.
Nah I loved ripping apart things in Doom 2016 keep it going
only casuals need the violence slowed down so that they can keep up with it :sax:
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53200057]Nah I loved ripping apart things in Doom 2016 keep it going[/QUOTE]
Did you even watch the videos?
I think you missed the point, Doom totally works because unbridled violence works well and plays fucking great because that's Doom's premise.
Think to his highlighting of LA Noire and the question he asked of if run of the mill rockstar shooting was really necessary (or atleast just bland shooting, not even good shooting) in a game like it.
Interesting how I never really thought that L.A. Noire does indeed stray from it's central gameplay. From being a by-the-book detective, to becoming this unstoppable killing machine that's able to stop a big time bank heist by himself. It would be more appropriate to have a full team go in, with Phelps being extremely vulnerable to gunshot wounds. There are a few moments in the game where going after a single person does actually help the game in a big way. One of which is kind of a spoiler.
[sp]The last part of the last case of the Homicide Desk makes you go through these underground tunnels, chasing the final bad guy. While it isn't action packed, the bad guy IS PACKING a shotgun that can easily blow you away. So most of it is taking cover and peeking around to see if he's not in cover anymore.[/sp]
It's extremely tense and I'd think it was one of the biggest highlights of the game, especially because of the history leading up to the fight. However, I don't know if game developers are able to stretch this type of gameplay into other sections of the game. It's specific, but it would be quite a feat if it showed up more in other kinds of video games.
Isn't there an option in L.A Noire that lets you skip shootings ? I swear I remember of something like that.
Shootings aren't much memorable in this game imo. Making them a cutscene would've given the devs the ability to make them look more realistic instead of just having Phelps steamrolling through entire mobs.
[QUOTE=StoneRabbit;53200200]Isn't there an option in L.A Noire that lets you skip shootings ? I swear I remember of something like that.
Shootings aren't much memorable in this game imo. Making them a cutscene would've given the devs the ability to make them look more realistic instead of just having Phelps steamrolling through entire mobs.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/la-noire-skip-930x419.jpg[/t]
It also includes parts where you might be chased or fall down buildings and if you fail it a bunch of times the option comes up.
Pretty nice analysis, it is true that in many ways violence may be a fun, easy and marketable element to add into gameplay, but a lot of times can be unnecessary and may detract from the pacing even. One prominent example I can think of is Deadly Premonition. I love everything about how the game is already, and all its quirks and flaws really show a lot of passionate charm, but even the main dev SWERY himself said that the combat parts were publisher demands, since combat/violence = more sales. The combat of course ended up being the weakest part of the game, and it does ruin a lot of the pacing (though props to SWERY for making it work the best they could).
Sometimes having violence being an option in a game, but something either never necessary or completely avoidable is also the best way to go about it. Planescape Torment encourages a lot of diplomacy and solving problems through words and not fists, and the game itself really is at its best and most engaging when playing through it with a charisma and intelligence based character who would rather talk down the eldritch monstrosity rather than slay it.
LA Noire's a bad example, because it's a case where you can obviously see some developers/the publisher thought the game would be too boring without action and slapped in a metric shitload more action sequences and shootouts.
On a first playthrough it doesn't feel super jarring, but when I watched a second playthrough it was a lot more obivous the two parts didn't gel well together.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;53200345]LA Noire's a bad example, because it's a case where you can obviously see some developers/the publisher thought the game would be too boring without action and slapped in a metric shitload more action sequences and shootouts.
On a first playthrough it doesn't feel super jarring, but when I watched a second playthrough it was a lot more obivous the two parts didn't gel well together.[/QUOTE]
It's actually a really great example. He points this out in the video. The game would have been better without them, yet they felt an obligation to include the action sequences. He's asking to slow it down and not depend on a bad habit, and focus on the other gameplay aspects instead of including generic shooting galleries.
hi dude
this is so awesome. is there anyone help me? i want to simulate this video from this site:
[URL="http://namayenegar.ir/%D8%AC%D8%B4%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF/"]آموزش تری دی مکس
[/URL]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Bot" - Novangel))[/highlight]
I've actually started to experience a form of violence fatigue in video games. I still play violent games however violence, specifically gorey violence, is a much less significant draw for me and is typically the part of the game I like least.
Instead I've reached a point where I feel more and more done with certain kinds of violent, gorey games. They don't disgust me, they don't make me offended, they just make me bored kind of. I feel more engaged when I can talk to an NPC and hear some really well written dialogue, or do some cool stealth, or even just do some non-gorey fighting like in a Zelda game. When I play a game that gives me the choice I typically go down the path of [I]least[/I] violence because it's just not as interesting and is usually only mixed up in terms of method of killing. And I've seen enemies be killed in games in just about every way one can physically imagine.
What I haven't seen is every cool conversations one can have, or all the different ways someone can sneak around someone else, or sell items, or engage in politics, or farm shit. I haven't seen as many cute cartoony games in the past 10 years that playing something new and cartoony like BotW or Mario Oddyssey or Cuphead or Hat in Time or Night in the Woods feels incredibly refreshing to me. I want less gritty realism and blood and swear words in my games, I'm just ready for different stuff.
I think he's missing a piece of the puzzle when it comes to the whole "fiction influences how people view reality" thing.
It isn't that continued exposure to something you clearly understand to be fiction will override your experiences in real life. It's that your brain [I]hates[/I] not knowing things, and in the absence of any sort of real life experience with something, it'll latch on to whatever fictional experience you have to inform how you should respond or behave.
Another example would be, it isn't that the more porn you watch the more warped your view of sex becomes. It's that when your [I]only[/I] experience of sex comes from porn, you'll fall back on that knowledge for lack of anything better.
You might consciously be aware that fiction isn't applicable to reality, but when you're put in a situation where you need to make a decision, your brain will pull from whatever it has available to tell you what to do or what to expect.
The problem isn't a glut of fiction, but a lack of real experience. This is why censorship is as important as propaganda for convincing a population of people to believe what you want them to. Propaganda is at its most effective when people have no other reference point to base their beliefs on.
I like combat in games, I just wish certain games would find times for things other than violence. Some of my favorite moments in the original Destiny were spent exploring and working out some of the weird puzzles and side quests they threw into the expansions, not just clicking on heads. I'd like actual real thought-out puzzles in the dungeons in TES games, but they'll never do that because Bethesda seems to be absolutely terrified of doing anything that could possibly alienate the LCD these days.
Actually, another really good example is Bioshock Infinite. I thought the combat was surprisingly tight, but the beginning of the game just gives you this impression that [I]this game should've been an adventure game,[/I] Burial At Sea's walk-through of pre-collapse Rapture being just the same. The game we got after the late-development rework being both extremely linear with more focus on direct combat and yet also more narrative focus just didn't come off as strong as either a full-on shock game or a full-on adventure game.
Heck, it's not like you couldn't work combat into a game about navigating a society intensely paranoid of strangers while investigating a missing person, just make it sparing and meaningful if you do it.
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
Also, having played LA Noire recently the combat is definitely weak, but honestly there were parts of the game I found dull enough that I was kind of glad when the combat sections showed up- though it's possible that that's because I'd played through part of the game before and I already kind of knew what happens, and combat ages a lot better on repeat playthroughs than a static puzzle or cutscene. HL1 aged better than HL2 for precisely this reason, and it's something to consider, I think.
[quote] Games should ignore the context of the world of which they are a direct reflection of [/quote]
Fuck off.
Just like good ol Mr. Caldwell Gervais, what I get is a salient point at the start followed 4/5s of the videos going completely off the rails to an untenable goal that [I]doesn't actually exist[/I], replete with shooting himself in the dick with Alien. There's the exact example he used as the "perfect expression of the concept" and it hit every gameplay note with resounding exactness. And it sold 2.5 million copies, which funnily enough was about +20% of what CM sold, as large as a trainwreck as it was, because as it turns out his premise of the perfect Alien game was niche as fuck, and not shared by the general populace.
[quote] I'm tired of violent games [/quote]
You're not even kind of looking hard enough, there are an ass ton of non-violent games. Context is always king.
Coca-Cola sells one hyperultrametric shitton of coke. All the coke. Assloads. The CEO of coke has stated publicly he is not blind to what coke does to the human body over time, and his company happens to make a shit ton of alternatives to coke, some actually legit "healthy" (gold peak) some worse than even coke (flavored tea and juice SKUs, which on average have about 40% more junk that will wreck your pancreas in them than coke does) but coke is most sold because [I]that's what people buy[/I][B] because that's what people want[/B], even when all the health risk info is right out in the open.
People buy violence because they want violence, because it is a direct cathartic reflection of many many things that form the human condition, and they will not be going away anytime soon and watering down the context and content doesn't change a damn thing, which incidentally is why people still read[I] the iliad.[/I]
There're plenty of non-violence games and plenty of innovation and iteration in them too, but imo violence generally spawns from conflict which is essential in most drama, in which fighting is often the easiest, most riveting and engaging way to settle a dispute. I have to assume video games are not the only entertainment medium dealing with this.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53200678]There're plenty of non-violence games and plenty of innovation and iteration in them too, but imo violence generally spawns from conflict which is essential in most drama, in which fighting is often the easiest, most riveting and engaging way to settle a dispute. I have to assume video games are not the only entertainment medium dealing with this.[/QUOTE]
Movies and sport
Violence is really easy to visually systemise. Counter Strike isn't really about shooting terrorists, it's about the abstract concepts of precision and timing and team work and angles and situational awareness and knowledge. The visual representation of that stuff comes in the form of shooting terrorists because that's just how things go. It's hard to fully explain properly, but if you play enough and develop understanding far enough it just kinda clicks that most violent video games aren't about violence. Most eSports games are, surprisingly enough, fundamentally identical to sports but because they're also electronic and in a visual medium need some form of visual representation. This is why it frustrates me that the Olympics are selecting non violent eSports, because all eSports are non violent, even the ones where you can kill people with firebombs.
That being said, violence is a crutch for many, many games. Take Mass Effect for example, Shepard is a soldier and he's fighting violent enemies, so it stands to reason there would be a certain amount of shooting in those games. But there's simply too much. Mass Effect's strengths lay in story telling and world building, and what the design of the game results in is this weird situation where you're getting to know cool characters and then all of a sudden the game is like "right, it's time for you obligatory cover shooting section now because people would say we're not a real game if you didn't shoot aliens with lasers every 5 minutes". Part of this is definitely our fault, people seem to have a weird arbitrary definition for what's a game, and get mad at games like Journey for daring to not have space marines slicing evil space lizards apart with chainsaw guns. But a huge part of it is just also development, things being how they are because that's how they are. And the blatant fact that having 15 hours of shooting bad guys in Mass Effect is a shit ton cheaper and has greater mass appeal than 15 hours of character development and world building.
I agree with his point 100% but he does a pretty bad job of presenting it and in the first video seems to have done no research at all and doesn't offer any insight into how games are produced which is pretty important here.
I love a good shooter but I feel like I've gotten old or something because now it seems jarring how death has no consequence in pretty much any piece of fiction.
Even in the Clint Eastwood films he points out have much more build-up and the violence has more weight, it has no real impact. Side characters die in droves and this seems to change nothing when in reality every death is an irreversible change in a community of people.
Every miscellaneous bad guy too has friends, a place they call home and maybe family, and it strains my suspension of disbelief when their deaths are narratively slid under the carpet.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;53201890]
Even in the Clint Eastwood films he points out have much more build-up and the violence has more weight, it has no real impact. Side characters die in droves and this seems to change nothing when in reality every death is an irreversible change in a community of people.
Every miscellaneous bad guy too has friends, a place they call home and maybe family, and it strains my suspension of disbelief when their deaths are narratively slid under the carpet.[/QUOTE]
i think it just shows how morally bankrupt most fiction really is and how many people just dont give a shit about what they watch or play. some sort of government oversight in curbing violent media isnt a bad thing if it was done right because it really is a big problem now
Yeah its a good point. I feel like people dumbing you havent even watched the video.
There is a lot of room for alternative game-models outside of violence, and I agree that they are vastly under explored. One that me and my friends have been playing that is actually really fun in a way you wouldn't think it might be, is viscera cleanup detail where you and your friends clean up a map.
[QUOTE=27X;53200603]Fuck off.
Just like good ol Mr. Caldwell Gervais, what I get is a salient point at the start followed 4/5s of the videos going completely off the rails to an untenable goal that [I]doesn't actually exist[/I], replete with shooting himself in the dick with Alien. There's the exact example he used as the "perfect expression of the concept" and it hit every gameplay note with resounding exactness. And it sold 2.5 million copies, which funnily enough was about +20% of what CM sold, as large as a trainwreck as it was, because as it turns out his premise of the perfect Alien game was niche as fuck, and not shared by the general populace.
You're not even kind of looking hard enough, there are an ass ton of non-violent games. Context is always king.
Coca-Cola sells one hyperultrametric shitton of coke. All the coke. Assloads. The CEO of coke has stated publicly he is not blind to what coke does to the human body over time, and his company happens to make a shit ton of alternatives to coke, some actually legit "healthy" (gold peak) some worse than even coke (flavored tea and juice SKUs, which on average have about 40% more junk that will wreck your pancreas in them than coke does) but coke is most sold because [I]that's what people buy[/I][B] because that's what people want[/B], even when all the health risk info is right out in the open.
People buy violence because they want violence, because it is a direct cathartic reflection of many many things that form the human condition, and they will not be going away anytime soon and watering down the context and content doesn't change a damn thing, which incidentally is why people still read[I] the iliad.[/I][/QUOTE]
This isn't a critique of studio business practices, this is a critique of artistic merit.
If someone said "transformers 15:Dawn of the Robonoids is bad because it's too long and it's filled with annoying racist stereotypes", the response wouldn't be "well it's the highest grossing movie ever so shut up".
The videos aren't about how violence is bad, they're about how violence is used as filler in games where it makes no sense and why that might be. The secondary point is about the effect violence might have on the audience that consumes it(which I disagree with to an extent).
I think you bring up a good point though, which is that he fails to recognize that in an environment where multiple equivalent products exist, companies aren't necessarily the ones deciding what people consume; A:I vs A:CM being a decent example of that. Alien vs Aliens is a good mirror of that example in the world of film.
Action is one of the most universally appealing genres of fiction, regardless of medium. That isn't to say it's the most loved, but it is at least the most liked by the most people.
I don't think it's fair to say that companies are morally responsible for producing content that produces the greatest return on investment. Or at least, that isn't a useful statement. You can't shame or legislate supply and demand economics away. If you consider larger budget productions being pushed towards action as a means of appealing to as many consumers as possible a problem, then it's a problem fundamental to the way economics functions, not a problem with Bobby Kotick.
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202182]i think it just shows how morally bankrupt most fiction really is and how many people just dont give a shit about what they watch or play. some sort of government oversight in curbing violent media isnt a bad thing if it was done right because it really is a big problem now[/QUOTE]
I would [I]strongly[/I] disagree with the notion that fiction has become "morally bankrupt", or that fiction even can be morally bankrupt.
Morality doesn't apply to things that aren't real. In the context of fiction, anything can be permissible, because it being fiction necessitates that what is being depicted isn't actually occurring and that no one is actually being exploited. Fiction allows us to express desires and feelings that have no healthy outlet in reality in a controlled, safe setting.
Saying that fiction is bad because it's too violent is like saying sewers are bad because they're full of too much poop. That's where it's [I]supposed to be[/I].
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202182]i think it just shows how morally bankrupt most fiction really is and how many people just dont give a shit about what they watch or play. some sort of government oversight in curbing violent media isnt a bad thing if it was done right because it really is a big problem now[/QUOTE]
To most of us violence has become little more than fiction/fantasy. There's constantly more violent entertainment being made but most if not all western countries enjoy a steady decline of violent crime.
Suggesting some crackdown on violent media is an ineffective, dangerous and completely misguided idea.
What, then is the relationship with violent entertainment and violence as a social issue? Very difficult to say but MrBtongue in the second video had a very good guess. If warfare becomes a very disconnected type of violence as it has for big countries like USA and Russia, it mayb become very easy for people to advocate for war.
It's all speculation at this point. What I want is violence as an element of fiction be given the respect and meaning it deserves and not be used as some filler content.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;53202388]
It's all speculation at this point. What I want is violence as an element of fiction be given the respect and meaning it deserves and not be used as some filler content.[/QUOTE]
and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202601]and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media[/QUOTE]
Yeah sorry, don't need the state dictating what is and is not acceptable in fiction. Easily abusable and can quickly devolve into a "wrongthink" scenario.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202601]and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media[/QUOTE]
yeah lets not have government-enforced creativity ok?
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202182]i think it just shows how morally bankrupt most fiction really is and how many people just dont give a shit about what they watch or play. some sort of government oversight in curbing violent media isnt a bad thing if it was done right because it really is a big problem now[/QUOTE]
by and large we are in the least violent period of time our species has ever known despite media being arguably the most violent it has ever been.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202601]and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media[/QUOTE]
im gonna draw a guy with an AR-15 cutting nazis and demons in half with a hail of bullets and I'd like to see anyone try and stop me
I'm not even gonna make a followup where the nazi and demon families are at a funeral or nothin
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202601]and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media[/QUOTE]
As a game developer: Please place this opinion in the garbage bin because you haven't interacted with anyone who's written or developed for games before in your life and - if you have - they have written/developed garbage because the first rule is to know your audience and the second rule is to satisfy your audience. The reason why we write and develop such games is because that is where the demand is; we don't create the demand (unless you're just that good), we satisfy it.
Also, there are games - right now - which espouse endlessly on how 'war is awful' and 'violence is overall bad, even if it's a sometimes necessary solution for the good of many', 'respect the [I]hell[/I] out of any gun you ever pick up' and 'your enemies have feelings and families too'. Minus the occasional shining jewel of a rare exception, those are the games that do not sell when they go hard into it because those are the games that are very hard to write and design well in a way that the player might enjoy and get some fun and interesting challenges to their perspectives from. Also, they tend to be paper thin and only pay lip service to the concepts in question - and are still dragged down by it.
The 'simple fucking truth' is that you're ignorant on a subject that you are claiming expertise on. Please go acquire knowledge on the subject before you go off on someone all holier-than-thou espousing 'truths of the world' that you have nothing but your anecdotal experience to back with. Please show me how to convert the Call of Duty audience to the Police Quest (specifically SWAT) line of games and keep the vast majority of them and I'll be sure to relay your thoughts to folks I meet in the industry if and when I meet them.
Which game do you think they're going to choose to play? This:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfwyEhEwunk[/media]
Or this:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCWFoF4TNuk[/media]
e: More on that line of games, specifically, which slowly realized who their real audience who kept buying their games was. Each sequel in the series had loads more sales than the prior one - and each one dropped more and more of the whole 'this is a game where we give you really cool and fun gear which we then proceed to tell you to [I]never[/I] use unless you have to' and slowly became 'CoD: Tacticool Edition' from its very dry, incredibly serious, hard-eyed and unflinching 'respect your weapon and respect every single person you meet, even if they're holding a gun, and do absolutely everything in your power to ensure they do not die' roots. Turns out that people play games to fuel power fantasies; they don't want to beat up a paper tiger or feel like one - they want to feel like Godzilla trading blows with Mothra. Last I checked, most people who've played the Arkham Asylum-line of games haven't gone out and become vigilantes fighting crime - most folk who play GTA haven't gone around robbing cars and banks. We fulfill fantasies - and through that, often, the fantasies stay exactly that: within the player's mind.
[thumb]https://imgur.com/YSYNMBE.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;53202601]and the simple fucking truth is that's never going to happen on a wide scale unless you have strict enforcement of standards when portraying violence in fiction. force writers to show some effects even if its just a few henchmen that die, place firm limits on how real weapons and firearms can be shown so nobody gets funny ideas, stop using monsters and zombies and shit as cop-outs, there's lots that could be done to push fiction out of this shit. that is what i mean by curbing violent media[/QUOTE]
China? Is that you?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
