The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Nowadays the majority of games involve some sort of destruction, in particular killing. This is odd, as something as abhorrent as the taking of life is frowned upon by most people (of humans anyway, and of most animals in general). Killing in games is sometimes portrayed as the main feature, or of the infinitly stupid point of 'its cool' - however, that seems to be a widely used term. Some people get annoyed and even angry at this.
Lets take my Gamecube for example. Every single game has an element of destruction or of death. Even Mario, Super Monkey Ball and Luigis Mansion have destruction, albeit on a very non-graphic plain. Residnet Evil, Timesplitters 2 and Eternal Darkness, however, all feature graphic deaths, and in the case of the horror games, gore. Even Burnout, with its replayed crashes and ability to record them has a rather macabre feel to it in places - just why is it 'funny'?. Its a question for psychologists really, as to why death and killing holds a pervese pleasure for us, but I am questioning why people say that it has to be in games, in particular, ones that do not portray reality (as realism sometimes to exist has to hold elements of what it emulates).
Games with killing are neither good nor bad - its the rest of the game that makes it good or bad - I'm not saying GTA3 is bad because it has gratuitous violence, and I'm not saying its good for it either. If you think about it, almost every single game you have involves death, or connotations of such. Of course, if they are realistic games, then thats reasonable - reality has an edge of destruction everywhere. People talk about the fantasy games, one where you go off the wall a bit. Mario is a prime example. It does feature death in tiny amounts, but the emphasis is on platforming and collection, rather than just the killing. However, a fantasy game like many of the RPGs feature heavy hack'n'slash elements - why aren't RPG characters total pacifists that only help people? It always seems to be Warrior Monks, and not pious Monks. Its a stereotype that is lodged firmly into gamings conciousness.
So why can't some games be all about being philanthtropic, generous, happy etc. Well, in life, you can't have freedom without restriction, love without hate, life without death. Thats why killing is in games - Without it, life has no point and is dull - Imagine Mario if he had no enemies or purpose. Sure, jumping around would be cool for a while, but what then? My point is, while sometimes killing is taken to a ridiculous level of gore, which isn't always a good thing, as it sometimes detracts from the rest of the game, it does help you get sense of perespctive.
People say that games affect you. Its an old argument. American high school shootings are blamed on games, not guns. Its ridiculous really, as the game is not inviting you to kill in reality itself. Therefore some may argue that deahth (violent) in games should be removed. Why? If you took away violence from real life you would end up with a peaceful world for sure, but one that was full of decadence and corruption, as people simply did what they wanted without any fear of retribution. I'm not condoning violence in reality - in a perfect world, bith it and corruption would be gone, but in games, as long as its not used as a selling point, and therefore glorifies it, it gives you a purpose, not to kill, but to see where good lies among evil. If there was no evil, there would be no good, and so it is true in games. Sure a totlay pacifistic game would be different, but then again, it wouldn't make any money.
So, in conclusion. Killing, while perhaps sometimes horrifcly glorified, gives you a persepctive of your life, in game, and also means that companies sell more games, as most of us get more fun out of GTA3 than Microsoft Train Simulator. Games don't have to feautre violence - I accept that. But those that do, they do so for a reason, whether it be for the story, for a purpose, or such like. Those that portray it as fun are for a different argument. Violence is bad in life, but in games, its there for a reason, and its not to corrupt you to kill.
Lets take my Gamecube for example. Every single game has an element of destruction or of death. Even Mario, Super Monkey Ball and Luigis Mansion have destruction, albeit on a very non-graphic plain. Residnet Evil, Timesplitters 2 and Eternal Darkness, however, all feature graphic deaths, and in the case of the horror games, gore. Even Burnout, with its replayed crashes and ability to record them has a rather macabre feel to it in places - just why is it 'funny'?. Its a question for psychologists really, as to why death and killing holds a pervese pleasure for us, but I am questioning why people say that it has to be in games, in particular, ones that do not portray reality (as realism sometimes to exist has to hold elements of what it emulates).
Games with killing are neither good nor bad - its the rest of the game that makes it good or bad - I'm not saying GTA3 is bad because it has gratuitous violence, and I'm not saying its good for it either. If you think about it, almost every single game you have involves death, or connotations of such. Of course, if they are realistic games, then thats reasonable - reality has an edge of destruction everywhere. People talk about the fantasy games, one where you go off the wall a bit. Mario is a prime example. It does feature death in tiny amounts, but the emphasis is on platforming and collection, rather than just the killing. However, a fantasy game like many of the RPGs feature heavy hack'n'slash elements - why aren't RPG characters total pacifists that only help people? It always seems to be Warrior Monks, and not pious Monks. Its a stereotype that is lodged firmly into gamings conciousness.
So why can't some games be all about being philanthtropic, generous, happy etc. Well, in life, you can't have freedom without restriction, love without hate, life without death. Thats why killing is in games - Without it, life has no point and is dull - Imagine Mario if he had no enemies or purpose. Sure, jumping around would be cool for a while, but what then? My point is, while sometimes killing is taken to a ridiculous level of gore, which isn't always a good thing, as it sometimes detracts from the rest of the game, it does help you get sense of perespctive.
People say that games affect you. Its an old argument. American high school shootings are blamed on games, not guns. Its ridiculous really, as the game is not inviting you to kill in reality itself. Therefore some may argue that deahth (violent) in games should be removed. Why? If you took away violence from real life you would end up with a peaceful world for sure, but one that was full of decadence and corruption, as people simply did what they wanted without any fear of retribution. I'm not condoning violence in reality - in a perfect world, bith it and corruption would be gone, but in games, as long as its not used as a selling point, and therefore glorifies it, it gives you a purpose, not to kill, but to see where good lies among evil. If there was no evil, there would be no good, and so it is true in games. Sure a totlay pacifistic game would be different, but then again, it wouldn't make any money.
So, in conclusion. Killing, while perhaps sometimes horrifcly glorified, gives you a persepctive of your life, in game, and also means that companies sell more games, as most of us get more fun out of GTA3 than Microsoft Train Simulator. Games don't have to feautre violence - I accept that. But those that do, they do so for a reason, whether it be for the story, for a purpose, or such like. Those that portray it as fun are for a different argument. Violence is bad in life, but in games, its there for a reason, and its not to corrupt you to kill.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Nowadays the majority of games involve some sort of destruction, in particular killing. This is odd, as something as abhorrent as the taking of life is frowned upon by most people (of humans anyway, and of most animals in general). Killing in games is sometimes portrayed as the main feature, or of the infinitly stupid point of 'its cool' - however, that seems to be a widely used term. Some people get annoyed and even angry at this.
Lets take my Gamecube for example. Every single game has an element of destruction or of death. Even Mario, Super Monkey Ball and Luigis Mansion have destruction, albeit on a very non-graphic plain. Residnet Evil, Timesplitters 2 and Eternal Darkness, however, all feature graphic deaths, and in the case of the horror games, gore. Even Burnout, with its replayed crashes and ability to record them has a rather macabre feel to it in places - just why is it 'funny'?. Its a question for psychologists really, as to why death and killing holds a pervese pleasure for us, but I am questioning why people say that it has to be in games, in particular, ones that do not portray reality (as realism sometimes to exist has to hold elements of what it emulates).
Games with killing are neither good nor bad - its the rest of the game that makes it good or bad - I'm not saying GTA3 is bad because it has gratuitous violence, and I'm not saying its good for it either. If you think about it, almost every single game you have involves death, or connotations of such. Of course, if they are realistic games, then thats reasonable - reality has an edge of destruction everywhere. People talk about the fantasy games, one where you go off the wall a bit. Mario is a prime example. It does feature death in tiny amounts, but the emphasis is on platforming and collection, rather than just the killing. However, a fantasy game like many of the RPGs feature heavy hack'n'slash elements - why aren't RPG characters total pacifists that only help people? It always seems to be Warrior Monks, and not pious Monks. Its a stereotype that is lodged firmly into gamings conciousness.
So why can't some games be all about being philanthtropic, generous, happy etc. Well, in life, you can't have freedom without restriction, love without hate, life without death. Thats why killing is in games - Without it, life has no point and is dull - Imagine Mario if he had no enemies or purpose. Sure, jumping around would be cool for a while, but what then? My point is, while sometimes killing is taken to a ridiculous level of gore, which isn't always a good thing, as it sometimes detracts from the rest of the game, it does help you get sense of perespctive.
People say that games affect you. Its an old argument. American high school shootings are blamed on games, not guns. Its ridiculous really, as the game is not inviting you to kill in reality itself. Therefore some may argue that deahth (violent) in games should be removed. Why? If you took away violence from real life you would end up with a peaceful world for sure, but one that was full of decadence and corruption, as people simply did what they wanted without any fear of retribution. I'm not condoning violence in reality - in a perfect world, bith it and corruption would be gone, but in games, as long as its not used as a selling point, and therefore glorifies it, it gives you a purpose, not to kill, but to see where good lies among evil. If there was no evil, there would be no good, and so it is true in games. Sure a totlay pacifistic game would be different, but then again, it wouldn't make any money.
So, in conclusion. Killing, while perhaps sometimes horrifcly glorified, gives you a persepctive of your life, in game, and also means that companies sell more games, as most of us get more fun out of GTA3 than Microsoft Train Simulator. Games don't have to feautre violence - I accept that. But those that do, they do so for a reason, whether it be for the story, for a purpose, or such like. Those that portray it as fun are for a different argument. Violence is bad in life, but in games, its there for a reason, and its not to corrupt you to kill.
Lets take my Gamecube for example. Every single game has an element of destruction or of death. Even Mario, Super Monkey Ball and Luigis Mansion have destruction, albeit on a very non-graphic plain. Residnet Evil, Timesplitters 2 and Eternal Darkness, however, all feature graphic deaths, and in the case of the horror games, gore. Even Burnout, with its replayed crashes and ability to record them has a rather macabre feel to it in places - just why is it 'funny'?. Its a question for psychologists really, as to why death and killing holds a pervese pleasure for us, but I am questioning why people say that it has to be in games, in particular, ones that do not portray reality (as realism sometimes to exist has to hold elements of what it emulates).
Games with killing are neither good nor bad - its the rest of the game that makes it good or bad - I'm not saying GTA3 is bad because it has gratuitous violence, and I'm not saying its good for it either. If you think about it, almost every single game you have involves death, or connotations of such. Of course, if they are realistic games, then thats reasonable - reality has an edge of destruction everywhere. People talk about the fantasy games, one where you go off the wall a bit. Mario is a prime example. It does feature death in tiny amounts, but the emphasis is on platforming and collection, rather than just the killing. However, a fantasy game like many of the RPGs feature heavy hack'n'slash elements - why aren't RPG characters total pacifists that only help people? It always seems to be Warrior Monks, and not pious Monks. Its a stereotype that is lodged firmly into gamings conciousness.
So why can't some games be all about being philanthtropic, generous, happy etc. Well, in life, you can't have freedom without restriction, love without hate, life without death. Thats why killing is in games - Without it, life has no point and is dull - Imagine Mario if he had no enemies or purpose. Sure, jumping around would be cool for a while, but what then? My point is, while sometimes killing is taken to a ridiculous level of gore, which isn't always a good thing, as it sometimes detracts from the rest of the game, it does help you get sense of perespctive.
People say that games affect you. Its an old argument. American high school shootings are blamed on games, not guns. Its ridiculous really, as the game is not inviting you to kill in reality itself. Therefore some may argue that deahth (violent) in games should be removed. Why? If you took away violence from real life you would end up with a peaceful world for sure, but one that was full of decadence and corruption, as people simply did what they wanted without any fear of retribution. I'm not condoning violence in reality - in a perfect world, bith it and corruption would be gone, but in games, as long as its not used as a selling point, and therefore glorifies it, it gives you a purpose, not to kill, but to see where good lies among evil. If there was no evil, there would be no good, and so it is true in games. Sure a totlay pacifistic game would be different, but then again, it wouldn't make any money.
So, in conclusion. Killing, while perhaps sometimes horrifcly glorified, gives you a persepctive of your life, in game, and also means that companies sell more games, as most of us get more fun out of GTA3 than Microsoft Train Simulator. Games don't have to feautre violence - I accept that. But those that do, they do so for a reason, whether it be for the story, for a purpose, or such like. Those that portray it as fun are for a different argument. Violence is bad in life, but in games, its there for a reason, and its not to corrupt you to kill.