The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
An increasing number of "gamers" today are increasingly obsessed with form instead of function, aesthetics over utility, graphics over gameplay.
Fair enough you might think, in an age where the graphics such people require to make them happy are readilly available. But more worrying than this, in my opinion, is the increasing amount of realism in one particular area: violence.
A couple of examples of this, if you will:
GTA 3.
=======
Obviously controversial since it's predecessors hit the shelves, the 3rd installment went for a 3d view, and a lot of realistic violence. However, the gaming community accepted it as an instant classic, and it is still often claimed to be the only reason to own a PS2.
But is it really that good? If you were to take out the violence, and replace it with fluffy friendliness, would it still be popular? Consider:
No guns, just paintballing.
No pedestrians, just consequences for hitting "point" indicators or something otherwise non-violent
No death, just paintballing people and beaming them up to an orbital holding ship
No stealing, just Oddworld-esque persuasion to acquire things.
None of these changes will effect the gameplay at all, just the way the game looks. However, would it still be popular? I doubt it. What makes it popular is the violence, the death, the stealing, the beating people with baseball bats etc etc. Without these things, the game wouldn't be even a fraction as popular as it is.
Soldier of Fortune 2
====================
Like it's predecessor, again very gory, only now more so. Hack people's fingers off, or feet, arms, head etc. Slash people time and again with realistic looking results. Mutilate, deform, incapacitate, decapitate, whatever.
Yet again, if you took this out, would the game be as popular? Instead of slashing and bashing human beings, what if all there were was robots. You can still take off bits at a time, but there is no blood, no guts, just battery fluid and circuitry.
Do people still love the game? Again, I doubt it very much. Without the masochistic joy of hacking off someone's fingers, a lot of people lose focus.
=================
This is a trend that has been in the limelight since the days of games like the original Mortal Kombat. All the gore and blood, all the controversy, but what does this add to the GAMEPLAY? Nothing! It adds nothing at all!!
A huge number of gamers today aren't particualrly interested in gameplay, only what they can blow up, carve up or otherwise destroy violently. Some developer makes an absolutely class game, drawled with blood, guts and masochistic violence. The game becomes amazingly popular. But if you replaced violence with friendly fluffy bunnies, and guns with pea shooters and magic love wands, is it still so popular?
Of course not. But why??
Why do people value such destructive images?
Conversely, some games which are designed for excellent gameplay are often overlooked because they lack bloodshed. Puzzle games in this day and age aren't greatly popular, and this is tragic. Long ogne are the days of games such as Tetris and even now Bust a Move. People don't want challenge, they want blood.
This sad devotion is forcing the games industry to supply for the demand, and hence is pushing the industry towards a dead-end road.
There is only so much blood you can put in a game.
People need to stop thinking about how much violence thay want in a game, and start thinking instead of how much they want to enjoy it, or be challenged by it. Alas my words are likely destined to be lost in the sands of futility, as more and more "gamers" play only for the joy of seeing polygons bleed. This is a tragedy not only for the games industry, but also for the people who feel so compelled to be entranced by aesthetics such as super-imposed blood, and polygonal guts.
As much as with the modern focus on graphics, gamers need to remember what it is that makes a good game. Sure, some games might require some violence in order to be playable, others might require stunningly good graphics to be immersive, but games like the one's described above are dressed up to cater for requirements which should not exist in a healthy human being.
But how does one sway the masses? How can I address millions of people and tell them that they have their hearts in te wrong place and make them BELIEVE me? I doubt I can, and so the gaming industry is doomed.
Tragic.
Fair enough you might think, in an age where the graphics such people require to make them happy are readilly available. But more worrying than this, in my opinion, is the increasing amount of realism in one particular area: violence.
A couple of examples of this, if you will:
GTA 3.
=======
Obviously controversial since it's predecessors hit the shelves, the 3rd installment went for a 3d view, and a lot of realistic violence. However, the gaming community accepted it as an instant classic, and it is still often claimed to be the only reason to own a PS2.
But is it really that good? If you were to take out the violence, and replace it with fluffy friendliness, would it still be popular? Consider:
No guns, just paintballing.
No pedestrians, just consequences for hitting "point" indicators or something otherwise non-violent
No death, just paintballing people and beaming them up to an orbital holding ship
No stealing, just Oddworld-esque persuasion to acquire things.
None of these changes will effect the gameplay at all, just the way the game looks. However, would it still be popular? I doubt it. What makes it popular is the violence, the death, the stealing, the beating people with baseball bats etc etc. Without these things, the game wouldn't be even a fraction as popular as it is.
Soldier of Fortune 2
====================
Like it's predecessor, again very gory, only now more so. Hack people's fingers off, or feet, arms, head etc. Slash people time and again with realistic looking results. Mutilate, deform, incapacitate, decapitate, whatever.
Yet again, if you took this out, would the game be as popular? Instead of slashing and bashing human beings, what if all there were was robots. You can still take off bits at a time, but there is no blood, no guts, just battery fluid and circuitry.
Do people still love the game? Again, I doubt it very much. Without the masochistic joy of hacking off someone's fingers, a lot of people lose focus.
=================
This is a trend that has been in the limelight since the days of games like the original Mortal Kombat. All the gore and blood, all the controversy, but what does this add to the GAMEPLAY? Nothing! It adds nothing at all!!
A huge number of gamers today aren't particualrly interested in gameplay, only what they can blow up, carve up or otherwise destroy violently. Some developer makes an absolutely class game, drawled with blood, guts and masochistic violence. The game becomes amazingly popular. But if you replaced violence with friendly fluffy bunnies, and guns with pea shooters and magic love wands, is it still so popular?
Of course not. But why??
Why do people value such destructive images?
Conversely, some games which are designed for excellent gameplay are often overlooked because they lack bloodshed. Puzzle games in this day and age aren't greatly popular, and this is tragic. Long ogne are the days of games such as Tetris and even now Bust a Move. People don't want challenge, they want blood.
This sad devotion is forcing the games industry to supply for the demand, and hence is pushing the industry towards a dead-end road.
There is only so much blood you can put in a game.
People need to stop thinking about how much violence thay want in a game, and start thinking instead of how much they want to enjoy it, or be challenged by it. Alas my words are likely destined to be lost in the sands of futility, as more and more "gamers" play only for the joy of seeing polygons bleed. This is a tragedy not only for the games industry, but also for the people who feel so compelled to be entranced by aesthetics such as super-imposed blood, and polygonal guts.
As much as with the modern focus on graphics, gamers need to remember what it is that makes a good game. Sure, some games might require some violence in order to be playable, others might require stunningly good graphics to be immersive, but games like the one's described above are dressed up to cater for requirements which should not exist in a healthy human being.
But how does one sway the masses? How can I address millions of people and tell them that they have their hearts in te wrong place and make them BELIEVE me? I doubt I can, and so the gaming industry is doomed.
Tragic.
You changed your name yet still sign off as Insane Bartender...?
Will the confusion never cease?!? ;-)
Anyway, funny how when someone talks about say Lara Croft in a sexual manner all the 'gamers' will give them funny looks and say she's not a real woman, just polygons, will also get all hyped up about blowing up polygon cars, killing polygon enemies, holding polygon guns.
It's all just an outer visual shell, but it's what's under the shell that matters...
Will the confusion never cease?!? ;-)
Anyway, funny how when someone talks about say Lara Croft in a sexual manner all the 'gamers' will give them funny looks and say she's not a real woman, just polygons, will also get all hyped up about blowing up polygon cars, killing polygon enemies, holding polygon guns.
It's all just an outer visual shell, but it's what's under the shell that matters...
gee, didn't think this was quite "GADable". But it'll serve as a nice welcome back from my holiday!
Many thanks SR!
I'll get round to replying to Pappa later today.
IB
Many thanks SR!
I'll get round to replying to Pappa later today.
IB
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
But you can't very well play a game thats
> about stealing cars and gunning people down without gore, as it
> wouldn't be realistic
*thinks*
But you can't very well play a game thats
> about stealing cars and gunning people down without gore, as it
> wouldn't be realistic
*thinks*
true, true,
but my point is, if you know a film is gory, and you don't like the gore, then don't go and see the film...
but my point is, if you know a film is gory, and you don't like the gore, then don't go and see the film...
Good point, but GTA3 is about stealing cars and killing people because that is what people want. The game's storyline could easilly be accomodated to completely exclude gore entirely, without altering the gameplay itself. But that isn't what "people" want.
Same gameplay with less gore = less popular.
You make the connection with the film industry, but to me this isn't especially relevant. A film loaded with random gore isn't necessarilly successful. Directing, producing, budget, acting, casting and many other things will come into the equation before it can even be considered watchable.
Gore a film does not make, but a game it can.
Same gameplay with less gore = less popular.
You make the connection with the film industry, but to me this isn't especially relevant. A film loaded with random gore isn't necessarilly successful. Directing, producing, budget, acting, casting and many other things will come into the equation before it can even be considered watchable.
Gore a film does not make, but a game it can.
i already created a topic the same as this a while back.
I agree that putting gore in a game doesn't make it good. The test, as you put it is to see if it would be fun to play without the violence.
All this is well and good, but don't forget here that the themes of these games (i.e. mercenaries running round killing for money or whatever) are naturally violent, and the game would not be realistic without gore.
For people who don't like gore, there are plenty of quality games out there without it. You don't play tony hawks 3 and see his leg come off when he lands wrong. You don't play gran turismo3, hit a wall, and see the drivers head hit the steering wheel. Why? Because the game can be fun without it. But you can't very well play a game thats about stealing cars and gunning people down without gore, as it wouldn't be realistic. The real question is : is the percentage of games like this larger than it was 5 years ago. If it is yes, and it probably is, MAINLY due to the fact that our laws allow it now. (Remember all that publicity mortal kombat got), then this doesn't really mean anything.
Horror films have been out since film was invented, but we don't question why they are made, we simply assume some people like that sort of thing. So why question computer games? You wouldn't watch evil dead 2 and then say "That wouldn't be as good without gore", because gore is the whole point. Gore is the whole point people play these games. If that offends you, then don't play them.
I hope I've made a valid point.
I agree that putting gore in a game doesn't make it good. The test, as you put it is to see if it would be fun to play without the violence.
All this is well and good, but don't forget here that the themes of these games (i.e. mercenaries running round killing for money or whatever) are naturally violent, and the game would not be realistic without gore.
For people who don't like gore, there are plenty of quality games out there without it. You don't play tony hawks 3 and see his leg come off when he lands wrong. You don't play gran turismo3, hit a wall, and see the drivers head hit the steering wheel. Why? Because the game can be fun without it. But you can't very well play a game thats about stealing cars and gunning people down without gore, as it wouldn't be realistic. The real question is : is the percentage of games like this larger than it was 5 years ago. If it is yes, and it probably is, MAINLY due to the fact that our laws allow it now. (Remember all that publicity mortal kombat got), then this doesn't really mean anything.
Horror films have been out since film was invented, but we don't question why they are made, we simply assume some people like that sort of thing. So why question computer games? You wouldn't watch evil dead 2 and then say "That wouldn't be as good without gore", because gore is the whole point. Gore is the whole point people play these games. If that offends you, then don't play them.
I hope I've made a valid point.
There's always the Gamecube.
An increasing number of "gamers" today are increasingly obsessed with form instead of function, aesthetics over utility, graphics over gameplay.
Fair enough you might think, in an age where the graphics such people require to make them happy are readilly available. But more worrying than this, in my opinion, is the increasing amount of realism in one particular area: violence.
A couple of examples of this, if you will:
GTA 3.
=======
Obviously controversial since it's predecessors hit the shelves, the 3rd installment went for a 3d view, and a lot of realistic violence. However, the gaming community accepted it as an instant classic, and it is still often claimed to be the only reason to own a PS2.
But is it really that good? If you were to take out the violence, and replace it with fluffy friendliness, would it still be popular? Consider:
No guns, just paintballing.
No pedestrians, just consequences for hitting "point" indicators or something otherwise non-violent
No death, just paintballing people and beaming them up to an orbital holding ship
No stealing, just Oddworld-esque persuasion to acquire things.
None of these changes will effect the gameplay at all, just the way the game looks. However, would it still be popular? I doubt it. What makes it popular is the violence, the death, the stealing, the beating people with baseball bats etc etc. Without these things, the game wouldn't be even a fraction as popular as it is.
Soldier of Fortune 2
====================
Like it's predecessor, again very gory, only now more so. Hack people's fingers off, or feet, arms, head etc. Slash people time and again with realistic looking results. Mutilate, deform, incapacitate, decapitate, whatever.
Yet again, if you took this out, would the game be as popular? Instead of slashing and bashing human beings, what if all there were was robots. You can still take off bits at a time, but there is no blood, no guts, just battery fluid and circuitry.
Do people still love the game? Again, I doubt it very much. Without the masochistic joy of hacking off someone's fingers, a lot of people lose focus.
=================
This is a trend that has been in the limelight since the days of games like the original Mortal Kombat. All the gore and blood, all the controversy, but what does this add to the GAMEPLAY? Nothing! It adds nothing at all!!
A huge number of gamers today aren't particualrly interested in gameplay, only what they can blow up, carve up or otherwise destroy violently. Some developer makes an absolutely class game, drawled with blood, guts and masochistic violence. The game becomes amazingly popular. But if you replaced violence with friendly fluffy bunnies, and guns with pea shooters and magic love wands, is it still so popular?
Of course not. But why??
Why do people value such destructive images?
Conversely, some games which are designed for excellent gameplay are often overlooked because they lack bloodshed. Puzzle games in this day and age aren't greatly popular, and this is tragic. Long ogne are the days of games such as Tetris and even now Bust a Move. People don't want challenge, they want blood.
This sad devotion is forcing the games industry to supply for the demand, and hence is pushing the industry towards a dead-end road.
There is only so much blood you can put in a game.
People need to stop thinking about how much violence thay want in a game, and start thinking instead of how much they want to enjoy it, or be challenged by it. Alas my words are likely destined to be lost in the sands of futility, as more and more "gamers" play only for the joy of seeing polygons bleed. This is a tragedy not only for the games industry, but also for the people who feel so compelled to be entranced by aesthetics such as super-imposed blood, and polygonal guts.
As much as with the modern focus on graphics, gamers need to remember what it is that makes a good game. Sure, some games might require some violence in order to be playable, others might require stunningly good graphics to be immersive, but games like the one's described above are dressed up to cater for requirements which should not exist in a healthy human being.
But how does one sway the masses? How can I address millions of people and tell them that they have their hearts in te wrong place and make them BELIEVE me? I doubt I can, and so the gaming industry is doomed.
Tragic.
Fair enough you might think, in an age where the graphics such people require to make them happy are readilly available. But more worrying than this, in my opinion, is the increasing amount of realism in one particular area: violence.
A couple of examples of this, if you will:
GTA 3.
=======
Obviously controversial since it's predecessors hit the shelves, the 3rd installment went for a 3d view, and a lot of realistic violence. However, the gaming community accepted it as an instant classic, and it is still often claimed to be the only reason to own a PS2.
But is it really that good? If you were to take out the violence, and replace it with fluffy friendliness, would it still be popular? Consider:
No guns, just paintballing.
No pedestrians, just consequences for hitting "point" indicators or something otherwise non-violent
No death, just paintballing people and beaming them up to an orbital holding ship
No stealing, just Oddworld-esque persuasion to acquire things.
None of these changes will effect the gameplay at all, just the way the game looks. However, would it still be popular? I doubt it. What makes it popular is the violence, the death, the stealing, the beating people with baseball bats etc etc. Without these things, the game wouldn't be even a fraction as popular as it is.
Soldier of Fortune 2
====================
Like it's predecessor, again very gory, only now more so. Hack people's fingers off, or feet, arms, head etc. Slash people time and again with realistic looking results. Mutilate, deform, incapacitate, decapitate, whatever.
Yet again, if you took this out, would the game be as popular? Instead of slashing and bashing human beings, what if all there were was robots. You can still take off bits at a time, but there is no blood, no guts, just battery fluid and circuitry.
Do people still love the game? Again, I doubt it very much. Without the masochistic joy of hacking off someone's fingers, a lot of people lose focus.
=================
This is a trend that has been in the limelight since the days of games like the original Mortal Kombat. All the gore and blood, all the controversy, but what does this add to the GAMEPLAY? Nothing! It adds nothing at all!!
A huge number of gamers today aren't particualrly interested in gameplay, only what they can blow up, carve up or otherwise destroy violently. Some developer makes an absolutely class game, drawled with blood, guts and masochistic violence. The game becomes amazingly popular. But if you replaced violence with friendly fluffy bunnies, and guns with pea shooters and magic love wands, is it still so popular?
Of course not. But why??
Why do people value such destructive images?
Conversely, some games which are designed for excellent gameplay are often overlooked because they lack bloodshed. Puzzle games in this day and age aren't greatly popular, and this is tragic. Long ogne are the days of games such as Tetris and even now Bust a Move. People don't want challenge, they want blood.
This sad devotion is forcing the games industry to supply for the demand, and hence is pushing the industry towards a dead-end road.
There is only so much blood you can put in a game.
People need to stop thinking about how much violence thay want in a game, and start thinking instead of how much they want to enjoy it, or be challenged by it. Alas my words are likely destined to be lost in the sands of futility, as more and more "gamers" play only for the joy of seeing polygons bleed. This is a tragedy not only for the games industry, but also for the people who feel so compelled to be entranced by aesthetics such as super-imposed blood, and polygonal guts.
As much as with the modern focus on graphics, gamers need to remember what it is that makes a good game. Sure, some games might require some violence in order to be playable, others might require stunningly good graphics to be immersive, but games like the one's described above are dressed up to cater for requirements which should not exist in a healthy human being.
But how does one sway the masses? How can I address millions of people and tell them that they have their hearts in te wrong place and make them BELIEVE me? I doubt I can, and so the gaming industry is doomed.
Tragic.