To be honest, I consider this video his weakest because games have had nonviolent alternatives since their inception.
This idea that we focus to much on violence in videogames yadda yadda really only comes from a place of ignorance or arrogance.
Its like the people who say undertale was a revolutionary RPG because you saw the impact and conveniently forget that Fallout 1s water chip quest is a thing.
There's an incessant and annoyingly prevelant ignorance of gaming history that you do not see in other mediums.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;53200514]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.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely love mixing it up personally.
It's good to go from massively violent like DOOM, GTA, DUSK, to fun and playful like AER, RiME, ABZU, or abstract, etc
it makes it really work out for me because it creates a nice variety of different tones.
it's even better when I get to mix it up and buy a MAX VIOLENCE game and a nice calm gentle game
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53203281]This post is ironic because you missed a huge underlying point but still have an opinion for some reason. He explicitly states in the first video that game devs need to look at their design decisions on a [U]case by case basis[/U] to see if violence makes sense for what they're trying to achieve, but because many game devs aren't you see game's narratives often not meshing with the violence because they're not made in a synergistic way; it's used as safe way to meet expectations and fill space.
imho peoples TLDR reaction to this video is confusing as fuck when you consider what he's saying is what every other big name YouTuber's have been saying about AAA games for years now to positive reception but with a more focused lens. Game developers (or more likely publishers) don't want to take risks, they just want to do what seems like the safest thing over and over, just rehashing what they and others are already doing until it starts losing money at the cost of creative freedom, at the cost of games that never get created because they're not destiny/cod/battlefield competitor no.32565454453454. Think about how many failed shooters line the rows of the video game graveyard, tens of millions of dollars wasted trying to squeeze into a stupidly saturated space that nobody wanted them to attempt in the first place. Imagine if that money that went nowhere, chasing nothing, was put towards every other type of game.[/QUOTE]
This.
People get really defensive when gaming is criticised in any way, even internally. Which sucks, because it think its cool to talk about this shit. It's indisputable that nearly all games, and all major games that aren't fifa, systemise violence in some way. That's not inherently bad but it seems kind of pointless. Many games that systemise violence don't really need to do so to the extent they do i.e mass effect but violent systems are so ingrained in gaming that I think it's beginning to subtly harm it.
Just because something is easy and ubiquitous doesn't mean it's what everyone should be doing.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53203427]This.
People get really defensive when gaming is criticised in any way, even internally. Which sucks, because it think its cool to talk about this shit. It's indisputable that nearly all games, and all major games that aren't fifa, systemise violence in some way. That's not inherently bad but it seems kind of pointless. Many games that systemise violence don't really need to do so to the extent they do i.e mass effect but violent systems are so ingrained in gaming that I think it's beginning to subtly harm it.
Just because something is easy and ubiquitous doesn't mean it's what everyone should be doing.[/QUOTE]
But that isn't what "indisputably nearly all games" do. There are games out there that doesn't systemise combat such as simulators, puzzles and narrative games.
That said, I think (if this has to be made a problem) the underlying issue comes from player-developer expectancy, as fighting is trivialized as common solutions to most problems. I do agree that combat shouldn't be the first in line if a game needs some padding, but if Nintendo, who puts play and fun ahead of everything, struggles to find non-combat settings, it is a sign that there just isn't a lot of room to budge when it comes to exciting problem-solving-tool-obstacle-execution games we come to love and know.
Most games that don't feature "systemised violence" that aren't sports (which can still be labelled as "violent") generally does not have wide appeal. We may criticize this developer-consumer behavior but once the roles are flipped and finding ourselves as the one making games, it becomes a conundrum almost not worth solving.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53203492]
Most games that don't feature "systemised violence" that aren't sports (which can still be labelled as "violent") generally does not have wide appeal. [/QUOTE]
Odd statement to make. Strategy, simulation, sandbox and card games are incredibly popular. Also consider the entire mobile game market which is huge and largely nonviolent.
The number of games under categories "violent" and "nonviolent" is so enormous you can hardly generalize anyway.
What even is a violent game?
Is Garry's mod violent because of death and shooting mechanics? If so, then wouldn't Scribblenauts also be?
Are Hearthstone or Civilization violent because they depict combat? In similar way so does chess.
Can Amnesia be considered violent when the violence is directed only towards the player character?
It's rather muddy. Then you've got games like Undertale which have violence very much as a core gameplay system but it makes every life matter.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Thankfully it won't happen. You have no idea what you're talking about.
There is one thing we all can do however: reward or be the change you want to see. Put your money towards the kind of games and fiction that do it well in your opinion, or make your own.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;53203795]Odd statement to make. Strategy, simulation, sandbox and card games are incredibly popular. Also consider the entire mobile game market which is huge and largely nonviolent.
The number of games under categories "violent" and "nonviolent" is so enormous you can hardly generalize anyway.[/QUOTE]
I was generalizing everything that allows players to inflict "harm" as "systemised violent", that doesn't discount things like Mario. But you are correct, I forgot about games such as trivia and match-3 which draws in very different kind of audience but are and should still be considered games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
