The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Death is never a good thing in life, it’s something that everyone wants to keep away from during their short stay in this world. Everyday, part of our lives is made to avoid this. Some of us do this, some of us don’t, and when they don’t, it’s the families that pay the consequence. But yet, games and films contain this within them all the time. For every action film out there the death toll is usually sky high, and most games have death as a big factor in them too. And where as in real life we hate this, in games, its something that we thrive up on.
This is something that has bewildered me for some time, in my gaming life I have owned more games that concentrate on killing than I have that haven’t, and in all honesty I have probably enjoyed these games more than anything. Why though is something that I cant really answer, and something that I can only really guess at. As a young boy I was always interested in gore, as im sure most of you were too, there was always something about it that intrigued me, and this was directly given to me in games. At the time of the PS1 I was still rather young, and it offered games like Resi that are well known for there blood thirst. So they were an instant hit with me. Then there was the fact that it seemed fun to be able to kill in games, get away with things that you would be arrested for in real life, everyone likes to be mischievous at times, gaming was perfect for this. But death is a weird thing to like in games.
Death is a thing that crops up in games all the time now, and in my opinion it’s for one real reason. You have a simple genre as a developer right in your hands. You can take the killing genre, and rather than model a genre around a plot, you can arrange a plot around a genre. DMC, Resi, MGS , GTA, all very similar games, your aim is to kill to progress and that’s the same for each of these and the only real difference being is the plot and the slight difference in game play. It’s that simple. The only hard work needed is to make a plot worthy of a good game and then all the previous work has been done for you, all you have to decide is what style game you will model yours on. One main difference between these games though is the way they portray death.
GTA is well known for one thing, the sheer gore that is ever present in one of the most controversial games to date, along side SOE. However, with the quirky characters the games comedy blood the killing was never made to be taken seriously, it was there to be laughed at. The whole game on a whole was not to be taken serious and this could be seen with the story line. The fact that you could batter a poor old woman to death carrying here shopping home at 11:23pm is something that no other game had dared to mess with, and when GTA did, it was something that was to be laughed at. The main reason why this was not taken serious was the lack of detail on the bodies and the comedy like blood, and the fact that the story made no real reference to the killing at all. But a game such as MGS 2 tackeled this totally the opposite.
Although the games are rather different in style, they are both focused on killing, but where MGS 2 is different is that it goes further and plays on your emotions. For anyone who has finished it, you will know that there is a rather sad scene with Emma dieing in it, seeing her brother for the first time in years. The scene wasn’t exactly tear jerking but did more than make me think about death, and killing all the sprites that patrolled around. Throughout the game references are made by Snake on the lines that ‘death is never good, even on the battle field’ which is true. Death is taken a lot more serious in this game, more so because its more realistic, with enemies that look and act real, with blood that behaves just as the stuff that flows around you veins and splats on the walls, this is a game that makes death a real subject, and one that needs to be taken for what it is. And all credit has got to be given to Hideo Kojami for this. He is one of the few developers that has taken time and really put thought into this aspect, where as most of them include it to get the sales up and as a quick solution to make a game. Other games such as Resi and Silent Hill have too tried to make a seriousness out of death too, but none get it quite like Metal Gear, with each scene the game is dealt out to you as the real thing, at times, as Snake gives his speech you really do feel that you have taken away a family member as you shoot away at the guards, and you really feel for Ocaton in his scene. You have to shake your self to remember that this is only a game, and this at times is only because the barrier of the games graphics is there to remind you. All credit to the writers of the game.
So this brings me back to the question of why we like these games more than others? Is it because you are doing something that’s wrong, and you know you can get away with it? Or is it the fact that games like this have an endless number of ways in which you can go about your business and complete the game.
Some people don’t like death related games, and others do, so what’s your opinion?
This is something that has bewildered me for some time, in my gaming life I have owned more games that concentrate on killing than I have that haven’t, and in all honesty I have probably enjoyed these games more than anything. Why though is something that I cant really answer, and something that I can only really guess at. As a young boy I was always interested in gore, as im sure most of you were too, there was always something about it that intrigued me, and this was directly given to me in games. At the time of the PS1 I was still rather young, and it offered games like Resi that are well known for there blood thirst. So they were an instant hit with me. Then there was the fact that it seemed fun to be able to kill in games, get away with things that you would be arrested for in real life, everyone likes to be mischievous at times, gaming was perfect for this. But death is a weird thing to like in games.
Death is a thing that crops up in games all the time now, and in my opinion it’s for one real reason. You have a simple genre as a developer right in your hands. You can take the killing genre, and rather than model a genre around a plot, you can arrange a plot around a genre. DMC, Resi, MGS , GTA, all very similar games, your aim is to kill to progress and that’s the same for each of these and the only real difference being is the plot and the slight difference in game play. It’s that simple. The only hard work needed is to make a plot worthy of a good game and then all the previous work has been done for you, all you have to decide is what style game you will model yours on. One main difference between these games though is the way they portray death.
GTA is well known for one thing, the sheer gore that is ever present in one of the most controversial games to date, along side SOE. However, with the quirky characters the games comedy blood the killing was never made to be taken seriously, it was there to be laughed at. The whole game on a whole was not to be taken serious and this could be seen with the story line. The fact that you could batter a poor old woman to death carrying here shopping home at 11:23pm is something that no other game had dared to mess with, and when GTA did, it was something that was to be laughed at. The main reason why this was not taken serious was the lack of detail on the bodies and the comedy like blood, and the fact that the story made no real reference to the killing at all. But a game such as MGS 2 tackeled this totally the opposite.
Although the games are rather different in style, they are both focused on killing, but where MGS 2 is different is that it goes further and plays on your emotions. For anyone who has finished it, you will know that there is a rather sad scene with Emma dieing in it, seeing her brother for the first time in years. The scene wasn’t exactly tear jerking but did more than make me think about death, and killing all the sprites that patrolled around. Throughout the game references are made by Snake on the lines that ‘death is never good, even on the battle field’ which is true. Death is taken a lot more serious in this game, more so because its more realistic, with enemies that look and act real, with blood that behaves just as the stuff that flows around you veins and splats on the walls, this is a game that makes death a real subject, and one that needs to be taken for what it is. And all credit has got to be given to Hideo Kojami for this. He is one of the few developers that has taken time and really put thought into this aspect, where as most of them include it to get the sales up and as a quick solution to make a game. Other games such as Resi and Silent Hill have too tried to make a seriousness out of death too, but none get it quite like Metal Gear, with each scene the game is dealt out to you as the real thing, at times, as Snake gives his speech you really do feel that you have taken away a family member as you shoot away at the guards, and you really feel for Ocaton in his scene. You have to shake your self to remember that this is only a game, and this at times is only because the barrier of the games graphics is there to remind you. All credit to the writers of the game.
So this brings me back to the question of why we like these games more than others? Is it because you are doing something that’s wrong, and you know you can get away with it? Or is it the fact that games like this have an endless number of ways in which you can go about your business and complete the game.
Some people don’t like death related games, and others do, so what’s your opinion?
Page:
congrats on this winning topic pro!
In the words of "HHH"
Once a person sees a long post, they think to themselves-"Nah I cant be bothered to read all that" and start spamming.
---
Good post PE - yet another GAD win - well done.
No i'm not going to spam - just want to add a little bit.
Death is a very difficult subject for a lot of people - when I were a lad I couldn't bear to think of not making it to 18 and being a man. Then it was not finding a woman - then kids etc etc - there is always something on the horizon that you need to get to in life that you feel is important and that needs to be accomplished before you die.
When we play games death becomes non-important, we are visiting it every time we play. We can laugh at it and ignore it - death becomes Game Over instead which is a hell of alot easier to deal with - but how do we relate this to life. This is where the goodie two shoes censorship brigade come in. Kids are being brought up thinking death is nothing more than game over and are not placing any kind of emotional attachment to it, hence why games are being blamed for people going out with sawn up shotguns and killing people not understanding the true consequences of their actions. "All you need to do is push the reset button".
Virtually every day in my office we spend at least an hour "Death-matching" on Duke Nukem. It's great for taking out your frustrations on the pratt who has pee'd you off earlier in the day. "In your face a*****e" as they explode in a shower of body parts is a hell of a lot better than walking over and lumping the guy and you end up laughing again.
Death has been part of our games since the beggining - forget Pong - the second major game was Space Invaders - what was it about, killing wave after wave of aliens and what happens when you are playing simple games like Bust a Move - u you "Lose a life" It's part of gaming culture and will continue to be.
Sorry if it seems disjointed and too deep in places but I tried to keep it toned down.
Once a person sees a long post, they think to themselves-"Nah I cant be bothered to read all that" and start spamming.
---
Good post PE - yet another GAD win - well done.
No i'm not going to spam - just want to add a little bit.
Death is a very difficult subject for a lot of people - when I were a lad I couldn't bear to think of not making it to 18 and being a man. Then it was not finding a woman - then kids etc etc - there is always something on the horizon that you need to get to in life that you feel is important and that needs to be accomplished before you die.
When we play games death becomes non-important, we are visiting it every time we play. We can laugh at it and ignore it - death becomes Game Over instead which is a hell of alot easier to deal with - but how do we relate this to life. This is where the goodie two shoes censorship brigade come in. Kids are being brought up thinking death is nothing more than game over and are not placing any kind of emotional attachment to it, hence why games are being blamed for people going out with sawn up shotguns and killing people not understanding the true consequences of their actions. "All you need to do is push the reset button".
Virtually every day in my office we spend at least an hour "Death-matching" on Duke Nukem. It's great for taking out your frustrations on the pratt who has pee'd you off earlier in the day. "In your face a*****e" as they explode in a shower of body parts is a hell of a lot better than walking over and lumping the guy and you end up laughing again.
Death has been part of our games since the beggining - forget Pong - the second major game was Space Invaders - what was it about, killing wave after wave of aliens and what happens when you are playing simple games like Bust a Move - u you "Lose a life" It's part of gaming culture and will continue to be.
Sorry if it seems disjointed and too deep in places but I tried to keep it toned down.
Well...erm...too late.
Dammit! I was gonna do a post like this!
Thanks.
And thanks for telling me, i hadnt known till now. :D
And thanks for telling me, i hadnt known till now. :D
Congrats on the GAD, Pro Evo!
Belldandy wrote:
The knowledge that my
> character could easliy be killed encouraged a better skill of play. Either way,
> a game must make a player not want their character dead to be immersive.
True, and only one other game than MGS has ever made me feel so immersed in the game that i didnt want them to die, and that was FF7.It would really annoy me when my character would die, not because i had to start again, just because i was killed and it seemed to spoil the story line for me, i couldnt really imagine that the story was carrying on and it didnt seem right to me.
The only way i could see this being changed is that if you had games where when you die, thats it, game over and no continues, though that would wreck the game play intended.
The knowledge that my
> character could easliy be killed encouraged a better skill of play. Either way,
> a game must make a player not want their character dead to be immersive.
True, and only one other game than MGS has ever made me feel so immersed in the game that i didnt want them to die, and that was FF7.It would really annoy me when my character would die, not because i had to start again, just because i was killed and it seemed to spoil the story line for me, i couldnt really imagine that the story was carrying on and it didnt seem right to me.
The only way i could see this being changed is that if you had games where when you die, thats it, game over and no continues, though that would wreck the game play intended.
Triple_H wrote:
Its as though realistic emotions have been
> inserted into the game to create a certain atmosphere and make the player think
> carefully before attempting risky manoeuvres.
I think this has to be the key to a successfully immersive game, one where player does not do things which will obviously get the character killed because he/she does not want the character to "die".
Games involving teams, even if they are only AI controlled, can be effective in this, though these have been seen more on the PC e.g. Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon. The player controls the whole team and the death of even one team member, especially on, say, Rogue Spear on Elite level, means that the whole mission is basically over.
How many players find themselves trapped in one location on MGS2 because they don't want to alert guards. or courched in a vent waiting for the guards to leave an area. Why ? Because the player does not want to be found, and is prepared to wait to lower the risk of Snake, in this case, being found and killed.
However, in games, some of the most exciting moments can be when you try and beat the odds, risking character death to beath the level. Let me give you an example. Last night I played Rainbow Six on the PC, yes its old but I still love it. 1st Mission the embassy in London. For those not familiar with this game, an unknown number of terrorists are holding two hostages in the embassy, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. Entry points are available on all three floors, one hostage dies and its game over.
My three teams were getting into place to burst in on both ground floor entrances and the first floor balcony, when I noticed a terrorist move on the first floor on the radar - this meant that one of the hostages was going to be killed. Scrapping the plan I took control red team on the first florr balcony, opened the doors, shot the first bad guy dead then ran into the room with the hostage, the bad guy was moving into a firing position, I fired three rounds from a pistol and got him, then I ordered the other teams into the buiding and 30 seconds it was all over.
The knowledge that my character could easliy be killed encouraged a better skill of play. Either way, a game must make a player not want their character dead to be immersive.
Its as though realistic emotions have been
> inserted into the game to create a certain atmosphere and make the player think
> carefully before attempting risky manoeuvres.
I think this has to be the key to a successfully immersive game, one where player does not do things which will obviously get the character killed because he/she does not want the character to "die".
Games involving teams, even if they are only AI controlled, can be effective in this, though these have been seen more on the PC e.g. Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon. The player controls the whole team and the death of even one team member, especially on, say, Rogue Spear on Elite level, means that the whole mission is basically over.
How many players find themselves trapped in one location on MGS2 because they don't want to alert guards. or courched in a vent waiting for the guards to leave an area. Why ? Because the player does not want to be found, and is prepared to wait to lower the risk of Snake, in this case, being found and killed.
However, in games, some of the most exciting moments can be when you try and beat the odds, risking character death to beath the level. Let me give you an example. Last night I played Rainbow Six on the PC, yes its old but I still love it. 1st Mission the embassy in London. For those not familiar with this game, an unknown number of terrorists are holding two hostages in the embassy, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. Entry points are available on all three floors, one hostage dies and its game over.
My three teams were getting into place to burst in on both ground floor entrances and the first floor balcony, when I noticed a terrorist move on the first floor on the radar - this meant that one of the hostages was going to be killed. Scrapping the plan I took control red team on the first florr balcony, opened the doors, shot the first bad guy dead then ran into the room with the hostage, the bad guy was moving into a firing position, I fired three rounds from a pistol and got him, then I ordered the other teams into the buiding and 30 seconds it was all over.
The knowledge that my character could easliy be killed encouraged a better skill of play. Either way, a game must make a player not want their character dead to be immersive.
Some great points there Belldandy. Games developers nowadays try to make sure their games involve the players in the storyline as much as possible. If they manage to create an environment where the gamer feels that he is not just controlling somebody, but is a part of the game, and that he has something to do with the storyline, then the game could be a hit. Especially in games like MGS2, the player is actually feeling that if he cannot help Raiden get past that boss, the adventure will be truly over. Its as though realistic emotions have been inserted into the game to create a certain atmosphere and make the player think carefully before attempting risky manoeuvres.
Maybe it is because in games the player can 'beat' death ?
I've been shot down god knows how many times on Ace Combat 4, but each time I learn more about how to avoid that situation in the game. Whe na player's character dies then, mostly, its a case of just continuing from hte moment beofre death and replaying the situation leading o that death over again, except this time the player knows how they can be killed so they avoid it, hopefully.
Yet this attempt to avoid game death can lead to the player's character dying elsewhere, and so on. In a game the hundreds of possibilities can be played out.
With the advent of next gen console graphics offering, in some titles, realistic characters and opponents, such as those in Max Payne and the those in Final Fantasy titles, it becomes easier to relate to them. They aren't blocks of colour vaguely shaped into a person, but passable as human. As such I think its easier to empathise with them and te situations they find themselves in. It isn't just graphicseasier, it's sound as well. Ace Combat provides relasitic combat radio chatter and effects, which on a decent set of speakers, are convincing. Now you amy think "they're just characters" and they are, but part of playing any game is the escapism of playing that game. You ARE Snake as he explores tanker, you ARE Max Payne as he seeks those who killed his family, and so on. Force feedback pads add to the esperience because you're actions in the gmae can impact on you physically. You fire a weapon and the pad vibrates, simulating recoil. All these three factor combine to make the game more real, whilst you are playing it.
So, we've got the idea that games are real yes ? In these games you, the player, can do whatever you like and know that the consequences will only reach as far as your character dying, that's all. Plus you can always change what you do later. Programs like the Sopranos, films like Fight Club, Gone in 60 Seconds e.t.c show that people love watching fantasy law breaking and violence. Well, if you get GTA3 you can do whatever you like, and it won't harm anyone. Want to ram that gang member off the road and trash his car like George Clooney in The Peacemaker ? Go ahead, have fun, and switch off the console when you're done :) You can choose how you play the game, for instance you don't have to kill everyone in MGS2, and you don't have to shoot that car stopped in front of you in GTA3......
So, they are popular because they have no real consequences, are convincingly real, the games create an in depth fantasy, and allow us, the games players, to do whatever we wish, within the limits of the games programming.
I've been shot down god knows how many times on Ace Combat 4, but each time I learn more about how to avoid that situation in the game. Whe na player's character dies then, mostly, its a case of just continuing from hte moment beofre death and replaying the situation leading o that death over again, except this time the player knows how they can be killed so they avoid it, hopefully.
Yet this attempt to avoid game death can lead to the player's character dying elsewhere, and so on. In a game the hundreds of possibilities can be played out.
With the advent of next gen console graphics offering, in some titles, realistic characters and opponents, such as those in Max Payne and the those in Final Fantasy titles, it becomes easier to relate to them. They aren't blocks of colour vaguely shaped into a person, but passable as human. As such I think its easier to empathise with them and te situations they find themselves in. It isn't just graphicseasier, it's sound as well. Ace Combat provides relasitic combat radio chatter and effects, which on a decent set of speakers, are convincing. Now you amy think "they're just characters" and they are, but part of playing any game is the escapism of playing that game. You ARE Snake as he explores tanker, you ARE Max Payne as he seeks those who killed his family, and so on. Force feedback pads add to the esperience because you're actions in the gmae can impact on you physically. You fire a weapon and the pad vibrates, simulating recoil. All these three factor combine to make the game more real, whilst you are playing it.
So, we've got the idea that games are real yes ? In these games you, the player, can do whatever you like and know that the consequences will only reach as far as your character dying, that's all. Plus you can always change what you do later. Programs like the Sopranos, films like Fight Club, Gone in 60 Seconds e.t.c show that people love watching fantasy law breaking and violence. Well, if you get GTA3 you can do whatever you like, and it won't harm anyone. Want to ram that gang member off the road and trash his car like George Clooney in The Peacemaker ? Go ahead, have fun, and switch off the console when you're done :) You can choose how you play the game, for instance you don't have to kill everyone in MGS2, and you don't have to shoot that car stopped in front of you in GTA3......
So, they are popular because they have no real consequences, are convincingly real, the games create an in depth fantasy, and allow us, the games players, to do whatever we wish, within the limits of the games programming.
Page: