Violence as a means of interaction.

Can't be bothered writing some long ass shit no one is gonna read so keeping this short.

I'm increasingly disliking how in so many videogames the main mode of interaction is violence. The more I think of this, the more stupid the idea becomes. In almost every RPG, Adventure, Action genres, pretty much anything which has you playing as a character of some sort, the game forces you to whack, smash or blow shit up. What bothers me is the sheer limitation, the constrained means of interaction. It's as if videogames are almost dysfunctionally violent like some emotionally stunted human being who can't seem to relate or interact with his surroundings except through sheer force. Like THAT kid in high school.

I know videogames are only fiction, but the more they try to ape reality, the more sophisticated they become, the more jarring it is to see them still use a mechanic which hasn't really evolved since the early days of gaming, with limited hardware. Why must we always be so violent in videogames? And why are we increasingly being asked to carry out even more insidious means of force on our opponents in games? Rather than evolve beyond violence and look past it, developers are just putting in even more extreme forms of violence such as torture and shock tactics to create a sense of connection with the act of force, since most of us as gamers have become so blase with shooting people in the head. Some games have tried to add aspects of speech choices as a means of interaction, but even then, they're mostly non-consequential, and the games are still inherently very violent.

So my question is anyone getting tired of constant violence as a means of interaction in game, and secondly how can games evolve past violence, especially in the RPG, Adventure and Action genres, usually anytime you play as a character of some sort.

P.S. Don't give me lists of games that don't have violence, I know half of videogames are not intrinsically violent, although even then Sports games, SHMUPS etc contain abstractions of violence, heck even Pac Man has a dog eat dog mentality attached to it.

Because games and movies are all based on conflict, otherwise there wouldn't really be any story at all, and the game/movie would fucking suck.  Especially in a form of medium such as a game, the only good conflict to really play is literal, violent conflict.  A videogame where it's just people talking wouldn't be very good at all.  Internal and verbal intrapersonal conflict doesn't translate well into an interactive medium.  
 
So basically?  Get used to it, cause it ain't about to change.  It will change right about the time when man itself stops being violent.

" Why must we always be so violent in videogames?"

The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that we have to take videogames as being inherently violent. You're saying videogames are violent then and can't really go beyond that. Effectively games are NEVER going to be taken seriously as a medium of interaction if that's the case.

And I'd have to disagree with the movie analogy, movies are much more sophisticated in scope. There are plenty of movies without violence of any sort, just look beyond the typical hollywood trash and you'll find them.

" @FourWude said:

" Why must we always be so violent in videogames?"

Because video games are about conflict, and there is pretty much no form of conflict as exhilarating as violent combat. "

" And I'd have to disagree with the movie analogy, movies are much more sophisticated in scope. There are plenty of movies without violence of any sort, just look beyond the typical hollywood trash and you'll find them. "

" ...internal and verbal intrapersonal conflict... "

" ...doesn't translate well into an interactive medium. "

" @Icemael said:

" @FourWude said:

" Why must we always be so violent in videogames?"

Because video games are about conflict, and there is pretty much no form of conflict as exhilarating as violent combat. "

Soooo.... this is it then? This is all that videogames are and can be? If that's the case, I'm disappointed that they couldn't be more. "

" @FourWude said:

" And I'd have to disagree with the movie analogy, movies are much more sophisticated in scope. There are plenty of movies without violence of any sort, just look beyond the typical hollywood trash and you'll find them. "

There are, but the good ones are about...

@InfamousBIG

said:

" ...internal and verbal intrapersonal conflict... "

...which... 

@InfamousBIG

said:

" ...doesn't translate well into an interactive medium. "

"

Many movies may be of conflict, but they're not necessarily violent. The emotions are conveyed in an adult manner, sophisticated and full of range.

In videogames you come across conflict and the only choice that ever gets offered to you, and it's not really a choice at all, is to blow some shit up or kill someone in ever more elaborate means. It's juvenile in that regard. The first ten thousand headshots may well be fun, but after a while, it begins to grate that so many games follow the same path.

So my original separation of movies from games stands. Movies handle the conflict better, they convey what the person is feeling. Videogames don't. It might be boring if they did try to deviate away from violence but they've got to at least try. 

Adventure games for example don't require you to kill anyone and can still provide conflict.  But just like the movies, the violent one tend to do the best

I think this is fitting 
 
  

" @FourWude: I'm not using the movie as an analogy, I'm contrasting the two mediums.  You're making my point for me when you're saying that there are movies without violence out there.   
 
My point is that as an interactive medium, the player has to have a part in the action.  If there's no violent conflict, and the game simply comprises of what, talking to people?  So at what point are you just watching a movie? And let's say you make a game that you just talk to people, but let you make dialogue choices, Mass Effect style.  Even the shortest games are much longer than movies.  I highly doubt that a story with no conflict will hold someone's interest for 10+ hours, whether movie or game. "

One not necessarily intersperse the dialogue with violence as the sole means of interaction. We have puzzle games, but they're constrained usually into being quite simple games. I suppose Portal was revolutionary simply because it allowed you to play a puzzle game with the full breadth of any character based action or adventure game. It conveyed a sense of space and interactivity which was arguably more evolved that Half Life. The same could to an extent be said of Mirror's Edge (I wish they had removed all guns from the game), a means of interacting with the game world in a semi-unique way.

I don't think games are inherently violent, no doubt violence can be fun in a fictional world, but games CAN be much more. I just don't think developers have really tried yet. And partly the blame is that consumers haven't really tried to look beyond instant gratification with games either.

I would suggest watching this Extra Credits episode on Non-Combat mechanics in video games, very interesting and insightful.

" Adventure games for example don't require you to kill anyone and can still provide conflict.  But just like the movies, the violent one tend to do the best "

Adventure games tried and they almost practically died by the turn of the millennium. There's been a bit of a comeback recently, but the genre is practically niche nowadays. But yes adventure games at least tried to change the nature of interaction (although most early adventure games are quite primitive in their interaction).

I'd love to see a fully realised 3D world adventure game like Beneath a Steel Sky.

" @FourWude: There's nothing juvenile about violence. The only reason grown men try to refrain from using it in real life is that injuring someone usually leads to a whole bunch of problems (with the law, with the people who liked the dude you beat up et cetera). Video games simulate the good parts (the violent combat) without exposing players to the bad parts (being thrown in prison for years and so on). "

When violence is your ONLY means of interaction in a game world, it becomes juvenile.

Violence is also seen directly by society as a primitive means of interacting with ones surroundings. The methods of violence may get more sophisticated but its nature will always be base.

What your post is saying is that without recriminations for violence in the real world, violence would be good. I strongly disagree with that assessment.

I agree. It's what makes gems like Digital so refreshing.

Perfect, though exaggerated example of what I'm trying to say in a round-about way. The characters are presented with scenarios and situations and their means of interaction is to be as fucking violent as possible. Fun it may be for a while, but after doing that in every other game you've played every year of your entire life, it begins to grate.... heavily.

@Lights_Up_The_Shaft said:

" I would suggest watching this Extra Credits episode on Non-Combat mechanics in video games, very interesting and insightful. "

I personally would like to see games with less violence, and it is possible. Puzzle, platforming, and adventure games are all games that can be great with violence. It is just most popular games like you states, RPGs and action games involve putting the player into some kind of exciting scenario, and the easiest way of executing that is some kind of battle/war. And I really cannot name you one RPG that does not involve some kind of violence, i was going to say shop keepers tale, but even that has some violence.  
 
I personally would love more games like the rebooted prince of persia game. While it did have some combat, it was really violent. Even that, it was not the focus of the game. As you said, portal is a great example of a FPS with no violence(besides player death.) Another good example is Mirrors edge, yes you do kill guys, but rarely with guns. The fun part of that game is running for your life. I would like to see a FP(non)Shooter where you are just an average person trying to survive some crazy situation. It could be a story heavy game, with a lot of action, and character interaction. Just imagine the opening of HL2 until "A Red Letter Day." You did not shoot a single enemy during that sequence, but it was compelling and exciting. I would love a full game like that, just keep changing up the formula by adding puzzles, and stealth sections(maybe like similar to the sniper mission in COD 4 when you aren't shooting guys.). Maybe even character interaction where you persuade characters to do different things/command people. A good example of what the game could be like is the movie "Children of Men" It is a very exciting film, and very action packed near the end, but the main character never kills a single person.  
 
There are options out there, and there are games out there and games still coming out without violence. It is just violence sells and it is easier to do then to not do violence. Devs needs to explore other options though, it is risky, but can lead to great things. 

Watched that video and now it makes perfect sense why video games are the way they are.  All those games he described sounded terrible.

Because If there's no violence then you can't die and if you can't die then you can't fail?

" @Icemael said:

" @FourWude: There's nothing juvenile about violence. The only reason grown men try to refrain from using it in real life is that injuring someone usually leads to a whole bunch of problems (with the law, with the people who liked the dude you beat up et cetera). Video games simulate the good parts (the violent combat) without exposing players to the bad parts (being thrown in prison for years and so on). "

When violence is your ONLY means of interaction in a game world, it becomes juvenile. "

" Violence is also seen directly by society as a primitive means of interacting with ones surroundings. The methods of violence may get more sophisticated but its nature will always be base. "

" What your post is saying is that without recriminations for violence in the real world, violence would be good. I strongly disagree with that assessment. "

Prince of Persia is a prime example. No doubt the combat sections are great but It's the traversal of the game world, the movement and agility offered to the player which sets that series apart. Puzzle-platforming at its finest.

I think I'm in the minority here but PoP 2008 is one of my favourite games this generation. The combat was by far the most tedious aspect of it, and also one of its smallest, but moving around the rich, vast and jaw droppingly beautiful world, so fluidly and easily was almost poetic. I reckon you could probably have removed all the boss combat sequences, replaced them with puzzle sections and the game would probably have been better for it.

You're also right that the start of HL2 is the most unnerving and possibly "richest" in terms of presenting a believable world, in the whole game. Many HL2 players regard the opening section as some of the best HL2 has to offer and not a single bullet to be shot.

" @FourWude said:

" @Icemael said:

" @FourWude: There's nothing juvenile about violence. The only reason grown men try to refrain from using it in real life is that injuring someone usually leads to a whole bunch of problems (with the law, with the people who liked the dude you beat up et cetera). Video games simulate the good parts (the violent combat) without exposing players to the bad parts (being thrown in prison for years and so on). "

When violence is your ONLY means of interaction in a game world, it becomes juvenile. "

No more juvenile than when your ONLY means of interaction is puzzle-solving or talking. 
 

@FourWude

said:

" Violence is also seen directly by society as a primitive means of interacting with ones surroundings. The methods of violence may get more sophisticated but its nature will always be base. "

Society is dumb. The motivations behind actions are always basic -- it is precisely the methods that differentiate the simple actions from the sophisticated ones. 
 

@FourWude

said:

" What your post is saying is that without recriminations for violence in the real world, violence would be good. I strongly disagree with that assessment. "

My post doesn't moralize. That's just your imagination. "

The reason almost every society has held violence in low regards is the sheer destructive nature of it. Violence is counter-productive to a healthy, burgeoning society which wants to flourish. Now that's not to say there isn't a time and place for violence, there is, but as a means of interaction it is not of equal value to that of say dialogue.

Your post did moralise when you said, "Video games simulate the good parts", 'good' is a normative judgment. I inherently see no "good" parts in violence, I see only necessity. Sometimes man has to be violent, that's a given. But when violence is presented as your sole choice, I have to ask, why is this so? Maybe it is fun, but all I'm saying is that it would be nice if some developers started to add in interaction which deviated away from the standard violent fare.

I suppose if a game only had puzzle solving or talking it would be constrained, but in terms of interaction they "can" be, not necessarily, more sophisticated in their approach. But again this wasn't the point I was making, I wasn't saying that puzzle solving is better than violence, I was saying that developers need to start looking beyond violence and offering more breadth in the games they create. You can still have your violent games, but how about other non-violent games where you play as a character.

" The reason almost every society has held violence in low regards is the sheer destructive nature of it. Violence is counter-productive to a healthy, burgeoning society which wants to flourish. Now that's not to say there isn't a time and place for violence, there is, but as a means of interaction it is not of equal value to that of say dialogue. "

" Your post did moralise when you said, "Video games simulate the good parts", 'good' is a normative judgment. "

" I inherently see no "good" parts in violence, I see only necessity. Sometimes man has to be violent, that's a given. But when violence is presented as your sole choice, I have to ask, why is this so? Maybe it is fun, but all I'm saying is that it would be nice if some developers started to add in interaction which deviated away from the standard violent fare. "

Part of the problem is that violence sells. A lot of the big names in the industry don't feel the need to move out of their comfort zones when it comes to interaction. Video games have a long way to go as a medium, and slowly people are going to emerge that take great steps forward in the areas that matter. I like to look at Journey as an example. While I'll admit theres alot we still don't know about that game, it appears to be simply about exploration and discovery, not a drop of conflict in sight.

I thought Fallout: New Vegas did a good job of providing as many non-violet options as possible. 

" @FourWude said:

" The reason almost every society has held violence in low regards is the sheer destructive nature of it. Violence is counter-productive to a healthy, burgeoning society which wants to flourish. Now that's not to say there isn't a time and place for violence, there is, but as a means of interaction it is not of equal value to that of say dialogue. "

That depends completely on the type of society you want to built (and if you want to build a society at all). 

@FourWude said:

" Your post did moralise when you said, "Video games simulate the good parts", 'good' is a normative judgment. "

"Good" doesn't have to have anything to do with morals.

@FourWude said:

" I inherently see no "good" parts in violence, I see only necessity. Sometimes man has to be violent, that's a given. But when violence is presented as your sole choice, I have to ask, why is this so? Maybe it is fun, but all I'm saying is that it would be nice if some developers started to add in interaction which deviated away from the standard violent fare. "

Bingo. And I have nothing against non-violent interaction. I just have no interest in non-conflict. "

Alright whatever. But no society has ever flourished that had violence at its core. Violence is almost antithetical to society. And please don't say Spartans. And I think it's fair to assume without society there would be no videogames, the human interaction needed, skill sets, education etc would not be prevalent. So a society that is based on violence would never flourish to the point where you could create violent videogames anyway.

Also "good" is a normative value.

The assumption implicit was that violence has inherent "good" parts to it. I disagree with that entirely. To say, "Video games simulate the good parts", is to assume as a matter of fact that violence has good parts to begin with. That was the crux of what I disagreed with.

" Alright whatever. But no society has ever flourished that had violence at its core. Violence is almost antithetical to society. And please don't say Spartans. "

" Also "good" is a normative value.

The assumption implicit was that violence has inherent "good" parts to it. I disagree with that entirely. To say, "Video games simulate the good parts", is to assume as a matter of fact that violence has good parts to begin with. That was the crux of what I disagreed with. "

" I would suggest watching this Extra Credits episode on Non-Combat mechanics in video games, very interesting and insightful. "

Because if someone made a tea party game no one would buy it including you.

" @FourWude said:

" Alright whatever. But no society has ever flourished that had violence at its core. Violence is almost antithetical to society. And please don't say Spartans. "

Not true. It's simply a matter of who the violence is aimed at. 
 
@FourWude said:

" Also "good" is a normative value.

The assumption implicit was that violence has inherent "good" parts to it. I disagree with that entirely. To say, "Video games simulate the good parts", is to assume as a matter of fact that violence has good parts to begin with. That was the crux of what I disagreed with. "

Violence has good parts to all men. It's in our instincts. "

You're conflating the inherent qualities of violence with utilising it. For example lets say violence was inherently evil, there may still be a time when that inherent evil be used for good, that doesn't stop violence from being inherently evil. The two are not part of each other. You stated that there are "good parts to violence", which I disagreed with. There may be times when violence need be utilised but there is no inherent quality of "good" in such a destructive force. Take for example the police and criminals in society. If society had no criminals there would be absolutely no need for police and their government sanctioned monopoly on force. There is nothing inherently "good" about the force and violence which police use, they are a necessity to counter social ills. Without criminals and criminals using force we would never willingly have police and police using force.

The example of society that I used was one that was intrinsically violent, unto itself. The act of violence when directed inwards in that society would be self destructive. It would never survive.

Also please explain how "violence has good parts to all men"? Just because it may be instinctual doesn't mean anything. Humans are not like animals, we have a higher intellect which can override instinct. Even in acts of self defence, there is no "good", there is just a necessity of the situation. Even an act of self defence presupposes that one life was worth taking to protect another, it doesn't presuppose that one life was "better" or that the act of self defence of taking another life was "good".

" Because if someone made a tea party game no one would buy it including you. "

"

Can't be bothered writing some long ass shit no one is gonna read so keeping this short.

I'm increasingly disliking how in so many videogames the main mode of interaction is violence. The more I think of this, the more stupid the idea becomes. In almost every RPG, Adventure, Action genres, pretty much anything which has you playing as a character of some sort, the game forces you to whack, smash or blow shit up. What bothers me is the sheer limitation, the constrained means of interaction. It's as if videogames are almost dysfunctionally violent like some emotionally stunted human being who can't seem to relate or interact with his surroundings except through sheer force. Like THAT kid in high school.

I know videogames are only fiction, but the more they try to ape reality, the more sophisticated they become, the more jarring it is to see them still use a mechanic which hasn't really evolved since the early days of gaming, with limited hardware. Why must we always be so violent in videogames? And why are we increasingly being asked to carry out even more insidious means of force on our opponents in games? Rather than evolve beyond violence and look past it, developers are just putting in even more extreme forms of violence such as torture and shock tactics to create a sense of connection with the act of force, since most of us as gamers have become so blase with shooting people in the head. Some games have tried to add aspects of speech choices as a means of interaction, but even then, they're mostly non-consequential, and the games are still inherently very violent.

So my question is anyone getting tired of constant violence as a means of interaction in game, and secondly how can games evolve past violence, especially in the RPG, Adventure and Action genres, usually anytime you play as a character of some sort.

P.S. Don't give me lists of games that don't have violence, I know half of videogames are not intrinsically violent, although even then Sports games, SHMUPS etc contain abstractions of violence, heck even Pac Man has a dog eat dog mentality attached to it.

"

"

Can't be bothered writing some long ass shit no one is gonna read so keeping this short.

I'm increasingly disliking how in so many videogames the main mode of interaction is violence. The more I think of this, the more stupid the idea becomes. In almost every RPG, Adventure, Action genres, pretty much anything which has you playing as a character of some sort, the game forces you to whack, smash or blow shit up. What bothers me is the sheer limitation, the constrained means of interaction. It's as if videogames are almost dysfunctionally violent like some emotionally stunted human being who can't seem to relate or interact with his surroundings except through sheer force. Like THAT kid in high school.

I know videogames are only fiction, but the more they try to ape reality, the more sophisticated they become, the more jarring it is to see them still use a mechanic which hasn't really evolved since the early days of gaming, with limited hardware. Why must we always be so violent in videogames? And why are we increasingly being asked to carry out even more insidious means of force on our opponents in games? Rather than evolve beyond violence and look past it, developers are just putting in even more extreme forms of violence such as torture and shock tactics to create a sense of connection with the act of force, since most of us as gamers have become so blase with shooting people in the head. Some games have tried to add aspects of speech choices as a means of interaction, but even then, they're mostly non-consequential, and the games are still inherently very violent.

So my question is anyone getting tired of constant violence as a means of interaction in game, and secondly how can games evolve past violence, especially in the RPG, Adventure and Action genres, usually anytime you play as a character of some sort.

P.S. Don't give me lists of games that don't have violence, I know half of videogames are not intrinsically violent, although even then Sports games, SHMUPS etc contain abstractions of violence, heck even Pac Man has a dog eat dog mentality attached to it.

"

" @Icemael said:

" @FourWude said:

" Alright whatever. But no society has ever flourished that had violence at its core. Violence is almost antithetical to society. And please don't say Spartans. "

Not true. It's simply a matter of who the violence is aimed at. 
 
@FourWude said:

" Also "good" is a normative value.

The assumption implicit was that violence has inherent "good" parts to it. I disagree with that entirely. To say, "Video games simulate the good parts", is to assume as a matter of fact that violence has good parts to begin with. That was the crux of what I disagreed with. "

Violence has good parts to all men. It's in our instincts. "

You're conflating the inherent qualities of violence with utilising it. For example lets say violence was inherently evil, there may still be a time when that inherent evil be used for good, that doesn't stop violence from being inherently evil. The two are not part of each other. You stated that there are "good parts to violence", which I disagreed with. There may be times when violence need be utilised but there is no inherent quality of "good" in such a destructive force. Take for example the police and criminals in society. If society had no criminals there would be absolutely no need for police and their government sanctioned monopoly on force. There is nothing inherently "good" about the force and violence which police use, they are a necessity to counter social ills. Without criminals and criminals using force we would never willingly have police and police using force.

The example of society that I used was one that was intrinsically violent, unto itself. The act of violence when directed inwards in that society would be self destructive. It would never survive.

Also please explain how "violence has good parts to all men"? Just because it may be instinctual doesn't mean anything. Humans are not like animals, we have a higher intellect which can override instinct. Even in acts of self defence, there is no "good", there is just a necessity of the situation. Even an act of self defence presupposes that one life was worth taking to protect another, it doesn't presuppose that one life was "better" or that the act of self defence of taking another life was "good". "

" @Icemael: You say that violence is inherent to the human condition. My question to you is what is your methodology for determining what the essence of humanity is? I'm not saying that violence can't be part of our nature, but rather that we have no way of knowing one way or the other, and thus counterproductive assumptions that potentially hold back games (as per my previous argument), and societal development as well, seem to be misplaced at best.  I may be stretching your "violence as instincts point" but I might posit that it is capable of being reduced to near non-existence with a concerted effort. Additionally I'm not sure what the relation between instinctually motivated violence and much of violence today, we deal with different situations today than we did during instinct formation. "

" To throw in my two cents on the "violence has good parts" point, I don't think that fourwude is being inappropriate, he's claiming that your statement that violence can be good in some part or another is incorrect. The point being that necessity is not the same as good, this is hardly a lecture on morality and can instead be viewed as a request for you to explain how violence can be good rather than the ends served by violence.  "

"For example lets say violence was inherently evil, there may still be a time when that inherent evil be used for good, that doesn't stop violence from being inherently evil. "

@Icemael:

 You say that violence is inherent to the human condition. My question to you is what is your methodology for determining what the essence of humanity is? I'm not saying that violence can't be part of our nature, but rather that we have no way of knowing one way or the other, and thus counterproductive assumptions that potentially hold back games (as per my previous argument), and societal development as well, seem to be misplaced at best.  I may be stretching your "violence as instincts point" but I might posit that it is capable of being reduced to near non-existence with a concerted effort. Additionally I'm not sure what the relation between instinctually motivated violence and much of violence today, we deal with different situations today than we did during instinct formation.

@Juno500: Fight or flight implies fight as the only choice now? The method by which threats are perceived can also be changed as well (for instance normalizing living standards can reduce the severity of a stressor, and thus reduce the severity of this biological response) Or alternative responses can also be utilized as well (do even the majority of people respond to stress with violence?) More importantly we've found ways to overwrite other instincts, it seems odd to agree that violence is bad but then accept the fact that we can't make steps to move away from it because it's part of our instincts.  The argument that certain conditions can produce certain biological responses which produce aggression seems to lend to much strength to some sort of biological determinism. Namely when it comes to the ability of dealing with the biological response, I fail to see the unstoppable fall to violence from there. I would love to see you show why being prepared physically for an incredibly active situation somehow means that violence is necessitated, if it's not then we hardly need to rewrite human biology in order to achieve our ends. 

I wonder how many people here have, either recently or during a formative period in their life (or both), read something by Nietzsche.

The second question... I'll leave that for another time.

"

Can't be bothered writing some long ass shit no one is gonna read so keeping this short.

"

Violence...it's been around long before vidja games. It will be around long after vidja games.

I've always thought about this. It's a pretty interesting points how as video games have matured, it seems that we've gotten more entrenched in violence. It really has been ingrained into game development that everything needs some combat aspect to it. Even games like, as someone said, Prince of Persia and Mirrors edge which succeed purely on the merits of their non-combat gameplay still feel the need to include it. Most of it is probably just market perception, to be honest. People expect combat and developers think they'll get railed (they would) for not including violence. 
 
Another interesting point to think about is why so many games focus on shooting specifically. It occurred to me that it really boils down to not just that people want violence, but that shooting is really the best way to interact with a 3D space. It's really on of the few actions you can model in a game where your actions reach out into 3D space and interact with it.