The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do you think the days of genuinely heroic player characters in games are over? Sure, it's a Hollywood thing, where the wisecracking, ironic slaughter of the baddies has always gone hand in hand with action heroes. But is it an irreversible sign of the times that antiheroes get all the breaks these days? Yeah, it's only a game; yeah, the blood and guts are a laugh; yeah, you're only killing bad people. But surely one of the defining elements of a 'good' character is that they will only kill as a last resort?
One entity shooting another entity is a staple of videogaming, I'm not arguing that. It's when it gets to the point of one entity harpooning another, hauling them in to butcher with blades then drinking their blood; or one entity blasting another's leg off at the knee, leaving them shrieking and writhing, that I think something's going wrong. And entity number one is, in both cases, the hero/ine. And the way I see it, that's not being the good guy. I know there were, and are, still games where you play protagonists who aren't completely morally hollow. And I'm not calling for the immediate end of all games concerning shooting every other living thing in the gameworld. But I am finding it harder to identify with, care about or even be interested in antihero-led games where the player is encouraged to be more barbaric than the so-called baddies.
The problem here isn't so much antiheroism - I really don't feel that these characters have enough of a personality to be called anti-heroes. The decision to include gruesome scenes is, I suspect, more driven by the prospect of sales than that of novelty. It's the same old story of shock effect over actual content, as always. But even heroic stereotypes seem to be losing any notion of nobility - take the swathe of cop games like Max Payne, True Crime, Good Cop Bad Cop, Dead to Rights et al. All of them use the character's status as a cop simply to give carte blanche to gunplay. I can't think of a police-oriented game where the player's ever had to consider serving and protecting since back in the days of Police Quest, leading me to believe that being genuinely 'good' in games is out of fashion.
The tentative steps towards player-instigated morality still feel like an afterthought to the carnage. I enjoyed playing MGS2 without killing anyone, but when Snake was out of my control he had no qualms about gunning down hordes of black op soldiers; not to mention my inventory at game's end containing 20 or so intricately-modeled weapons of destruction I never used. Or Deus Ex 2 - on the one hand, you have Warren Spector's mantra that the player must be able to complete the game without killing anyone; on the other, Harvey Smith excitedly describing the new model damage system, including realistic recoil from impact damage and splaying of lifeless limbs. When so much care and attention is lavished on brutality, taking a moral stance is never going to feel like a rewarding option.
An important aspect of these new games is that the choice is there, and as far as Deus Ex 2 is concerned, more people are going to take the killing route, so more effort is put there. The problem is that with a hero who will not kill, the character becomes flat. Sure they could develop it, but video game scripting really hasn't become that advanced yet. The act of killing, no matter how flippantly, instantly conveys emotion. Rage, determination and conviction towards the end goal. And bingo, half the job is done for the writer. Unfortunatly the act does become less shocking. "the death of 1 is a tradgedy, the death of 1000 is a statistic" (Stalin) Is worryingly true. Some games unconciously do promote not killing. Perversely GTA3 is a good example of this, save those missions that require killing, it is in general easier not too, killing means more police after you.
Games that reward you for moral actions, very few games have tried this. MGS is about the only one I can think of off-hand. This however has a lot of potential. It's easy to mow down a group of nazis/aliens/mafia with a machine gun, but it is a lot harder to not, and still complete the level. A game that recognised this and rewarded you well for it would be a welcome break. In Shenmue Ryo never kills anyone, but he's very violent and short tempered. Yes, the game forces you to do this but to a certain extent the game also so tries to teach Ryo (and the player) the fundamentals of martial arts. Learning the Wude for example. Perhaps moralising in the story (as long as it isn't patronising) is one way to go if the basis of the game is violence, after all Ryo's quest is revenge.
Strange one, this. For me, there are some games which seem to be deliberately controversial, and which I therefore initially suspect will be rubbish/uninvolving, but which turn out to be great. I give you GTA3 - possibly my favourite PS2 game so far. And if they'd tried to pitch it with an undercover cop, say, as the Driver series did, it simply wouldn't work as well. And yet, on the other hand, you get gems which manage to take a comparatively non-violent stance and are just as engaging. For example, Ico. Granted, he does like hitting things with sticks, but the things are black shadows which somehow makes it ok.
One thing that I liked about MGS was that you didn't have to kill unless someone was trying to kill you (a boss fight or prescripted chase sequence). And the characters really questioned whether you were doing the right thing by killing, which made Snake a far more "good" character and this was taken a step further in MGS2 by being able to use non-lethal weapons on bosses (even if Vamp and Solidus really, really had it coming). But as I mentioned above, I thought it was a shame that when Snake becomes an NPC, he kills without hesitation. With all of the game's ludicrously intricate tracking of details, I'd hoped that it could pay attention to how the player used Snake in the prologue, and if they chose to use non-lethal force, then Snake would use tranquiliser rounds in the main game.
Thanks for reading,
Flux.
One entity shooting another entity is a staple of videogaming, I'm not arguing that. It's when it gets to the point of one entity harpooning another, hauling them in to butcher with blades then drinking their blood; or one entity blasting another's leg off at the knee, leaving them shrieking and writhing, that I think something's going wrong. And entity number one is, in both cases, the hero/ine. And the way I see it, that's not being the good guy. I know there were, and are, still games where you play protagonists who aren't completely morally hollow. And I'm not calling for the immediate end of all games concerning shooting every other living thing in the gameworld. But I am finding it harder to identify with, care about or even be interested in antihero-led games where the player is encouraged to be more barbaric than the so-called baddies.
The problem here isn't so much antiheroism - I really don't feel that these characters have enough of a personality to be called anti-heroes. The decision to include gruesome scenes is, I suspect, more driven by the prospect of sales than that of novelty. It's the same old story of shock effect over actual content, as always. But even heroic stereotypes seem to be losing any notion of nobility - take the swathe of cop games like Max Payne, True Crime, Good Cop Bad Cop, Dead to Rights et al. All of them use the character's status as a cop simply to give carte blanche to gunplay. I can't think of a police-oriented game where the player's ever had to consider serving and protecting since back in the days of Police Quest, leading me to believe that being genuinely 'good' in games is out of fashion.
The tentative steps towards player-instigated morality still feel like an afterthought to the carnage. I enjoyed playing MGS2 without killing anyone, but when Snake was out of my control he had no qualms about gunning down hordes of black op soldiers; not to mention my inventory at game's end containing 20 or so intricately-modeled weapons of destruction I never used. Or Deus Ex 2 - on the one hand, you have Warren Spector's mantra that the player must be able to complete the game without killing anyone; on the other, Harvey Smith excitedly describing the new model damage system, including realistic recoil from impact damage and splaying of lifeless limbs. When so much care and attention is lavished on brutality, taking a moral stance is never going to feel like a rewarding option.
An important aspect of these new games is that the choice is there, and as far as Deus Ex 2 is concerned, more people are going to take the killing route, so more effort is put there. The problem is that with a hero who will not kill, the character becomes flat. Sure they could develop it, but video game scripting really hasn't become that advanced yet. The act of killing, no matter how flippantly, instantly conveys emotion. Rage, determination and conviction towards the end goal. And bingo, half the job is done for the writer. Unfortunatly the act does become less shocking. "the death of 1 is a tradgedy, the death of 1000 is a statistic" (Stalin) Is worryingly true. Some games unconciously do promote not killing. Perversely GTA3 is a good example of this, save those missions that require killing, it is in general easier not too, killing means more police after you.
Games that reward you for moral actions, very few games have tried this. MGS is about the only one I can think of off-hand. This however has a lot of potential. It's easy to mow down a group of nazis/aliens/mafia with a machine gun, but it is a lot harder to not, and still complete the level. A game that recognised this and rewarded you well for it would be a welcome break. In Shenmue Ryo never kills anyone, but he's very violent and short tempered. Yes, the game forces you to do this but to a certain extent the game also so tries to teach Ryo (and the player) the fundamentals of martial arts. Learning the Wude for example. Perhaps moralising in the story (as long as it isn't patronising) is one way to go if the basis of the game is violence, after all Ryo's quest is revenge.
Strange one, this. For me, there are some games which seem to be deliberately controversial, and which I therefore initially suspect will be rubbish/uninvolving, but which turn out to be great. I give you GTA3 - possibly my favourite PS2 game so far. And if they'd tried to pitch it with an undercover cop, say, as the Driver series did, it simply wouldn't work as well. And yet, on the other hand, you get gems which manage to take a comparatively non-violent stance and are just as engaging. For example, Ico. Granted, he does like hitting things with sticks, but the things are black shadows which somehow makes it ok.
One thing that I liked about MGS was that you didn't have to kill unless someone was trying to kill you (a boss fight or prescripted chase sequence). And the characters really questioned whether you were doing the right thing by killing, which made Snake a far more "good" character and this was taken a step further in MGS2 by being able to use non-lethal weapons on bosses (even if Vamp and Solidus really, really had it coming). But as I mentioned above, I thought it was a shame that when Snake becomes an NPC, he kills without hesitation. With all of the game's ludicrously intricate tracking of details, I'd hoped that it could pay attention to how the player used Snake in the prologue, and if they chose to use non-lethal force, then Snake would use tranquiliser rounds in the main game.
Thanks for reading,
Flux.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Do you think the days of genuinely heroic player characters in games are over? Sure, it's a Hollywood thing, where the wisecracking, ironic slaughter of the baddies has always gone hand in hand with action heroes. But is it an irreversible sign of the times that antiheroes get all the breaks these days? Yeah, it's only a game; yeah, the blood and guts are a laugh; yeah, you're only killing bad people. But surely one of the defining elements of a 'good' character is that they will only kill as a last resort?
One entity shooting another entity is a staple of videogaming, I'm not arguing that. It's when it gets to the point of one entity harpooning another, hauling them in to butcher with blades then drinking their blood; or one entity blasting another's leg off at the knee, leaving them shrieking and writhing, that I think something's going wrong. And entity number one is, in both cases, the hero/ine. And the way I see it, that's not being the good guy. I know there were, and are, still games where you play protagonists who aren't completely morally hollow. And I'm not calling for the immediate end of all games concerning shooting every other living thing in the gameworld. But I am finding it harder to identify with, care about or even be interested in antihero-led games where the player is encouraged to be more barbaric than the so-called baddies.
The problem here isn't so much antiheroism - I really don't feel that these characters have enough of a personality to be called anti-heroes. The decision to include gruesome scenes is, I suspect, more driven by the prospect of sales than that of novelty. It's the same old story of shock effect over actual content, as always. But even heroic stereotypes seem to be losing any notion of nobility - take the swathe of cop games like Max Payne, True Crime, Good Cop Bad Cop, Dead to Rights et al. All of them use the character's status as a cop simply to give carte blanche to gunplay. I can't think of a police-oriented game where the player's ever had to consider serving and protecting since back in the days of Police Quest, leading me to believe that being genuinely 'good' in games is out of fashion.
The tentative steps towards player-instigated morality still feel like an afterthought to the carnage. I enjoyed playing MGS2 without killing anyone, but when Snake was out of my control he had no qualms about gunning down hordes of black op soldiers; not to mention my inventory at game's end containing 20 or so intricately-modeled weapons of destruction I never used. Or Deus Ex 2 - on the one hand, you have Warren Spector's mantra that the player must be able to complete the game without killing anyone; on the other, Harvey Smith excitedly describing the new model damage system, including realistic recoil from impact damage and splaying of lifeless limbs. When so much care and attention is lavished on brutality, taking a moral stance is never going to feel like a rewarding option.
An important aspect of these new games is that the choice is there, and as far as Deus Ex 2 is concerned, more people are going to take the killing route, so more effort is put there. The problem is that with a hero who will not kill, the character becomes flat. Sure they could develop it, but video game scripting really hasn't become that advanced yet. The act of killing, no matter how flippantly, instantly conveys emotion. Rage, determination and conviction towards the end goal. And bingo, half the job is done for the writer. Unfortunatly the act does become less shocking. "the death of 1 is a tradgedy, the death of 1000 is a statistic" (Stalin) Is worryingly true. Some games unconciously do promote not killing. Perversely GTA3 is a good example of this, save those missions that require killing, it is in general easier not too, killing means more police after you.
Games that reward you for moral actions, very few games have tried this. MGS is about the only one I can think of off-hand. This however has a lot of potential. It's easy to mow down a group of nazis/aliens/mafia with a machine gun, but it is a lot harder to not, and still complete the level. A game that recognised this and rewarded you well for it would be a welcome break. In Shenmue Ryo never kills anyone, but he's very violent and short tempered. Yes, the game forces you to do this but to a certain extent the game also so tries to teach Ryo (and the player) the fundamentals of martial arts. Learning the Wude for example. Perhaps moralising in the story (as long as it isn't patronising) is one way to go if the basis of the game is violence, after all Ryo's quest is revenge.
Strange one, this. For me, there are some games which seem to be deliberately controversial, and which I therefore initially suspect will be rubbish/uninvolving, but which turn out to be great. I give you GTA3 - possibly my favourite PS2 game so far. And if they'd tried to pitch it with an undercover cop, say, as the Driver series did, it simply wouldn't work as well. And yet, on the other hand, you get gems which manage to take a comparatively non-violent stance and are just as engaging. For example, Ico. Granted, he does like hitting things with sticks, but the things are black shadows which somehow makes it ok.
One thing that I liked about MGS was that you didn't have to kill unless someone was trying to kill you (a boss fight or prescripted chase sequence). And the characters really questioned whether you were doing the right thing by killing, which made Snake a far more "good" character and this was taken a step further in MGS2 by being able to use non-lethal weapons on bosses (even if Vamp and Solidus really, really had it coming). But as I mentioned above, I thought it was a shame that when Snake becomes an NPC, he kills without hesitation. With all of the game's ludicrously intricate tracking of details, I'd hoped that it could pay attention to how the player used Snake in the prologue, and if they chose to use non-lethal force, then Snake would use tranquiliser rounds in the main game.
Thanks for reading,
Flux.
One entity shooting another entity is a staple of videogaming, I'm not arguing that. It's when it gets to the point of one entity harpooning another, hauling them in to butcher with blades then drinking their blood; or one entity blasting another's leg off at the knee, leaving them shrieking and writhing, that I think something's going wrong. And entity number one is, in both cases, the hero/ine. And the way I see it, that's not being the good guy. I know there were, and are, still games where you play protagonists who aren't completely morally hollow. And I'm not calling for the immediate end of all games concerning shooting every other living thing in the gameworld. But I am finding it harder to identify with, care about or even be interested in antihero-led games where the player is encouraged to be more barbaric than the so-called baddies.
The problem here isn't so much antiheroism - I really don't feel that these characters have enough of a personality to be called anti-heroes. The decision to include gruesome scenes is, I suspect, more driven by the prospect of sales than that of novelty. It's the same old story of shock effect over actual content, as always. But even heroic stereotypes seem to be losing any notion of nobility - take the swathe of cop games like Max Payne, True Crime, Good Cop Bad Cop, Dead to Rights et al. All of them use the character's status as a cop simply to give carte blanche to gunplay. I can't think of a police-oriented game where the player's ever had to consider serving and protecting since back in the days of Police Quest, leading me to believe that being genuinely 'good' in games is out of fashion.
The tentative steps towards player-instigated morality still feel like an afterthought to the carnage. I enjoyed playing MGS2 without killing anyone, but when Snake was out of my control he had no qualms about gunning down hordes of black op soldiers; not to mention my inventory at game's end containing 20 or so intricately-modeled weapons of destruction I never used. Or Deus Ex 2 - on the one hand, you have Warren Spector's mantra that the player must be able to complete the game without killing anyone; on the other, Harvey Smith excitedly describing the new model damage system, including realistic recoil from impact damage and splaying of lifeless limbs. When so much care and attention is lavished on brutality, taking a moral stance is never going to feel like a rewarding option.
An important aspect of these new games is that the choice is there, and as far as Deus Ex 2 is concerned, more people are going to take the killing route, so more effort is put there. The problem is that with a hero who will not kill, the character becomes flat. Sure they could develop it, but video game scripting really hasn't become that advanced yet. The act of killing, no matter how flippantly, instantly conveys emotion. Rage, determination and conviction towards the end goal. And bingo, half the job is done for the writer. Unfortunatly the act does become less shocking. "the death of 1 is a tradgedy, the death of 1000 is a statistic" (Stalin) Is worryingly true. Some games unconciously do promote not killing. Perversely GTA3 is a good example of this, save those missions that require killing, it is in general easier not too, killing means more police after you.
Games that reward you for moral actions, very few games have tried this. MGS is about the only one I can think of off-hand. This however has a lot of potential. It's easy to mow down a group of nazis/aliens/mafia with a machine gun, but it is a lot harder to not, and still complete the level. A game that recognised this and rewarded you well for it would be a welcome break. In Shenmue Ryo never kills anyone, but he's very violent and short tempered. Yes, the game forces you to do this but to a certain extent the game also so tries to teach Ryo (and the player) the fundamentals of martial arts. Learning the Wude for example. Perhaps moralising in the story (as long as it isn't patronising) is one way to go if the basis of the game is violence, after all Ryo's quest is revenge.
Strange one, this. For me, there are some games which seem to be deliberately controversial, and which I therefore initially suspect will be rubbish/uninvolving, but which turn out to be great. I give you GTA3 - possibly my favourite PS2 game so far. And if they'd tried to pitch it with an undercover cop, say, as the Driver series did, it simply wouldn't work as well. And yet, on the other hand, you get gems which manage to take a comparatively non-violent stance and are just as engaging. For example, Ico. Granted, he does like hitting things with sticks, but the things are black shadows which somehow makes it ok.
One thing that I liked about MGS was that you didn't have to kill unless someone was trying to kill you (a boss fight or prescripted chase sequence). And the characters really questioned whether you were doing the right thing by killing, which made Snake a far more "good" character and this was taken a step further in MGS2 by being able to use non-lethal weapons on bosses (even if Vamp and Solidus really, really had it coming). But as I mentioned above, I thought it was a shame that when Snake becomes an NPC, he kills without hesitation. With all of the game's ludicrously intricate tracking of details, I'd hoped that it could pay attention to how the player used Snake in the prologue, and if they chose to use non-lethal force, then Snake would use tranquiliser rounds in the main game.
Thanks for reading,
Flux.