coreymw

I like to think the debate between EA and Valve went something like this.

EA: "We want to push our products and sales onto our customers through your service."

Valve: "No, that's not how we operate."

EA: "Get Bent"

@iAmJohn said:

@Coreymw said:

@FluxWaveZ: I suppose I'm grappling with the fact that games are violent and kids play games. Kids grow up. I know and have always been a person who says that games don't influence people and who they grow up to be. But at some point I have to wonder if replacing violence with non violence would make a difference. It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but would it make a difference?

There's two problems with what you're saying:

1. The majority of games released every year are rated E. This is according to the ESRB themselves.
2. The average age for people who play video games is somewhere in the low-30s. If most of the people buying and playing are adults, why not make games that deal with these kinds of themes that are made for adults?

Furthermore:

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

Without conflict there is no inherent narrative arc.

Not that conflict = combat, but you get my point.

This is also the truth. Conflict doesn't always need to mean violence and the fact that your interaction with most games is to cause violence speaks to the immaturity of storytelling in the medium, true, but conflict of some kind is how you drive most narratives, and as someone who thinks that narrative is important and wants to see it evolve beyond the generally limited scope most games take nowadays, that needs to remain.

Adults who play video games are less likely to be influenced by non violent games than a kid. That isn't to say a 30 year old man won't pick up Flower tomorrow and decide to leave violence behind, but adults are more set in their ways and thus are less influenced by entertainment than kids. Those 30's adults can still change their thinking, but because violence is all they've known it's going to be harder, in theory, to change their view than a childs.

@iam3green: But it doesn't have to be.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@weeman105 said:

Opposition is the challenge. Opposition is what gives you anything to do at all.

Yes, but I don't think a fun video game necessarily needs challenge. See: Heavy Rain (at least its earlier parts). A game doesn't need to be a player being against something for it to be good or entertaining.

In a way I think Minecraft or games like it are pretty cool. You aren't there to be violent, you are there to build and explore. You are there to create, not destroy (in most cases).

@FourWude said:

Agree with you 100% OP. Videogames must start looking beyond violence as the primary means of interaction. My problem isn't that there aren't plenty of non-violent videogames (there are), but with the fact that in the majority of videogames which have violence and extreme conflict, violence is the sole means of interactivity, they seek to propose nothing but violence. And there's a market for that, fine, but I would hope games develop beyond that. Otherwise the industry will find itself in an developmental and artistic stagnation, one which eventually leads, in part, to its downfall.

Modern videogames are fixated on a dysfunctional level with violence as the sole means of interaction and conflict resolution. Violence is the de facto standard. Most games openly advocate violent means to an end in every scenario imaginable. It is the core of why games are deemed adolescent. It's not that videogames can't be more than they are right now, it's the fact that so few even bother trying. So few games want to push the artistic and interactive boundaries. As an industry most growth has occurred technologically, which leads to higher costs, which is part of the reason why the industry is in such bad shape right now. For such a young industry, the lack of 'boundary pushing', and being content with dishing out the same regurgitated experiences over and over is troubling. There is no long term value to it.

Don't be put off by the imbeciles who will tell you, that you're a liberal, stupid, wrong and the ones who will tell you that violence is sophisticated and a hallmark of advanced civilizations. It's not. But that discourse isn't in the scope of your thread, it's a sociological one.

Yes, 100%. That is what I was trying to say, mostly. The fact that any resolution to most games is through violent means bothers me. I should have the choice to be non-violent and to solve issues via more productive, less destructive means.

@FluxWaveZ: People can change. I feel like Jenova Chen is trying to change that, and in some cases he is succeeding. Are you people trying to tell me that I should consider entertainment violence a lost cause. Maybe I should focus my peaceful thoughts somewhere else?

@Scooper: Carl Sagan always did have a special place in my heart. He makes it so easy to show how insignificant me and my problems are while highlighting the fact that this may be it, and if it is, we're fucking up.

@FluxWaveZ: I suppose I'm grappling with the fact that games are violent and kids play games. Kids grow up. I know and have always been a person who says that games don't influence people and who they grow up to be. But at some point I have to wonder if replacing violence with non violence would make a difference. It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but would it make a difference?

@CaLe: Thankfully you have that privilege, but at what cost? There are people in other parts of the world who are being killed just for looking at someone the wrong way. I'm not saying that's a direct result of violent games of course.

@FluxWaveZ: I seek out those sorts of games. Unfortunately, the market doesn't reward those types of games and as such developers are reluctant to produce such titles.

Of late I’ve been thinking about violence in games and why so many of them put a player right in the middle of conflict. I don’t know what spurred this on, maybe my getting older has something to do with it. Not only the violence, but the immaturity. The notion that flexing to best your opponent feels tired and quite frankly, childish. I think as a society and (mostly) grown adults, we should find a better way to challenge ourselves and to best our foes.

Come to think of it, why do we even need foes? Why should there be an opposition in games? Why can’t there be you, your friends and the rest of the world working together to accomplish a task, or set of tasks. One could say that violence is ingrained in who we are and always has been, therefore we put it in our entertainment to satisfy that curiosity and urge to commit acts of atrocities against our fellow man with little to no consequences. That old familiar “what would happen” effect as I like to call it.

Instead of iconifying those who triumph over their enemies with violence, why aren’t we championing those who complete a perilous journey or seemingly impossible task with peaceful means? Those should be our true hero's. At some point in our disgusting past, humans got it in our minds that conflict resolution required violent acts instead of peaceful reasoning. Why can’t we change that? Why can’t we start with children? If violence has been ingrained in us, why can’t we use video games as a means to ingrain peaceful conflict resolution?

At some point while reading this you may think “Good god another hippie spreading his hippie cheer”, or you may not. All I’m trying to say is that we are all on this rock together. If we don’t find a way to get along we are going to ruin our world and each other. I think we should stop idolizing and rewarding brutish acts and start appreciating those who take the route less traveled. I think if we start now with kids and the games they play that we might have a decent shot at shaping a kinder, gentler future.

Or, you’ll tell me to get bent, to which I’ll reply, “care to talk it out?” and offer my hand in peace.

Note: I am in no way stating that games void of violence will ultimately fix our worlds issues. I am merely postulating that were we to shine more light on less violent acts and less on kick ass shoot em-ups, it can't hurt.