Print
Batman’s a bit of an odd case, even as far as videogame characters are concerned. I mean, aside from the tight-fitting latex suit and bat fixation (or should I say Bat-bat fixation), he doesn’t kill anyone. Ever. Oh, sure, occasionally he’ll twist people’s arms for info by breaking their legs, but when it’s all said and done, Batman’s enemies come away relatively unscathed.
Of course, when distilled into videogame form, this strict moral code results in a number of strange, oftentimes chuckle-worthy discontinuities. “So let me get this straight: I hit him with a barrage of pointy metal projectiles, stuck him with a grappling hook and reeled him in Scorpion-style, and then proceeded to jump up and down on his chest like it was a trampoline? And his heart rate sits at… something above zero?!” Doesn’t make much sense, does it? And here I was, all ready to talk about suspension of disbelief and how games still have a long way to go before they create truly believable experiences when I realized something:
At least Batman – a purported “good guy” – doesn’t wantonly murder thousands of people like, you know, every videogame character ever.
I mean, I don’t know about you, but it’s just as hard for me to buy an average Joe mindlessly slaughtering a decent portion of the human population as it is Batman improbably beating criminals within an inch of their lives. Yes, the Dark Knight’s method seems nigh-impossible to actually pull off, but at least his character is somewhat believable. At least he’s not a homicidal maniac in sheep’s clothing.
Now, I’m not saying videogame characters should start aiming exclusively for kneecaps instead of headshots, but I think that – when the enemy’s losses start piling into the thousands – games should try harder to justify their body counts. Short of making your main character a criminal (Grand Theft Auto) or a war hero (Call of Duty, Halo, too many other games), developers have crafted surprisingly few characters with dispositions to match their penchants for wholesale slaughter.
And even in the aforementioned sub-genres, few games have managed to walk the fine line between character personality and death. Gears of War comes to mind as one particularly egregious example, with characters alternatively tearing up over the loss of a companion (“He had a kid!”) and – shortly after -- bumping chests over football, bro. Grand Theft Auto IV, similarly, tried to depict a character molded by constant exposure to death and murder, but eventually, Niko Bellic dropped the “I just want to start a new life” act and reveled in his self-drawn bloodbath.
Comments are closed on this article
quantumnerd
October 16, 2009 at 10:12am
... aren't videogames just escapism?
Young men, and grown men are competitive, so we get competitive games where we get to kill/win/compete etc.
It's just natural for a guy to like that kind of stuff.
I guess one problem with games is when we kill people for no reason. If you're not a criminal, not a hero, or not someone in the violent futuristic arene (quake) you should HAVE a reason to kill people- otherwise you're just a mindless asshole in the game, which doesn't give you a purpose for all the panic you're causing.
Another problem is when there's not enough character to the games. In games, we need character added to the games. A guy who just likes beating stuff up is a lot less fun to play as then a guy you can sympathize with, or actually are unsure of (bordering on good/evil)
jayson001
October 15, 2009 at 6:32pm
It seems like this is more of a consequece of game design than character design. I give all the war games a pass. People shoot each other in a war.
I don't know about casual killers. Does it seem off for Nathan Drake? It does, but thats game structure. Indiana Jones kills a few Nazis per movie. He also punches a lot of people. The way the movie is written he confronts every situation as it stands. It always seems acceptible because he's not out killing people for fun.Likewise take the Jedi. The protagonists of the Star Wars movies seem like pretty decent people, but they all kill. Nice farm kid Luke is cutting people to pieces by Jedi.
The problem is game structure. Most action games are about fighting a ton of enemies. Fighting them usually invovles shooting them. The game structure pits the averge protagonist against more enemies than anyone would 'realistically' see.
You could also go through all the Theif games without killing anyone. You got a lot more money for doing it that way. Somewhat ironically the Hitman games rewarded you for minimizing the bodycount, the best outcome involved only killing the targets.
The Relic
October 15, 2009 at 1:45pm
In the videogames? No, Batman hasn't killed to my knowlege. In the comics....ah, yes he has, at least in the early days. In his debut in Detective Comics 27, he hit a guy (defending himself from the guy's attack) into a vat of acid. A few issues later (Detective 31, I think) he machine-gunned one giant (created by Dr. Hugo Strange) and hanged another from a plane by the neck. Detective 33 saw him shoot a villain in a casket.
And in Detective 38 (Robin's first appearance), he even let Robin in on the fun, by allowing the Boy Wonder to toss a guy off an unfinished high-rise. And that's just the incidents I remember (I used to be a huge comics geek back in the day...now I'm a huge computer geek ^_^).
Mind you, he didn't get to keep on his killin' ways, but his early days were pretty blood-stained...^_<
nekollx
October 15, 2009 at 1:48pm
he also use to carry a gun...
http://everydayislikewednesday.blogspot.com/2007/03/actually-essential-storylines-batman.html
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Scootiep
October 15, 2009 at 11:26am
Not sure how many of the rest of you remember this game, but on the old NES, me and my buddies used to spend hours upon hours playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The only thing you killed were robots and the major badguys you just beat into submission.
To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson
dieselboy914
October 15, 2009 at 11:24am
Remember that game? If I recall correctly, the hardlest levels and setting required that you kill no one, and even more points were rewarded if you didn't even have to knock them out. Lots of suspence and careful planning was involved to succeed...
Yeah, it would be nice if not every game required you to splatter blood and guts all over the landscape.
Who
October 15, 2009 at 11:13am
You get rewarded for no alerts and no kills :)
I think it's that no one's been able to make a game that's interactive and keeps you engaged without nonstop action. Personally I'd prefer less enemies in games. In something like Uncharted 2 when you have hordes of guys coming at you, it takes me out of the experience. I'd prefer it if they made fewer battles but made them more exciting in one way or another. Think Indiana Jones. He doesn't really kill many people but he's always in some form of "action" still. Maybe you have all these guys with guns chasing you but instead of fighting them head on you run to a crowd and start a riot, or disguise yourself as a woman. You could just make a big explosion to scare some guys off. I think game makers need to get more creative in their designs as opposed to just, "here's a hallway, here's a gun, here's some baddies, have at it"
Vahn16
October 15, 2009 at 12:47pm
I really like the Indiana Jones example. I'd love to see a game that doesn't focus on the battles you fight, but rather, a series of encounters and how you resolve them. Games give us plenty of options when it comes to killing people (Borderlands, for instance, touts over half-a-million guns), but what about other methods of conflict resolution? Shame the only decent Indy game out right now sees Indy whipping tiny yellow men until they explode into blocks.
Now, I do think Mirror's Edge did this to a certain extent. You could fight and incapacitate enemies, but doing so was inadvisable. Running was usually the most appealing option. Now if we could just expand on that -- maybe let players choose between running, fighting, hiding, multiple forms of distraction, context sensitive improvisation (using the environment to your advantage) etc. And each choice would heavily affect how the rest of the section plays out. Something like that, I think, would be pretty cool.
AntiHero
October 15, 2009 at 11:12am
Really, the GTA paradox is hilarious. In all honesty, the only game that gives you some consequence for killing is Splinter Cell. Oddly Scarface won't kill innocent bystanders, even if you run them over, same with the Driver series really.
sartan2002
October 15, 2009 at 11:04am
I have to agree and say that it is just a game. Yes killing people for money or just because you can is really wrong. video games are all about doing stuff you can't do in real life. Granted violent games have been known to motivate and inspire the young kids but that is where the parents are supposed to step in and be a moral guide.... unfortunately MOST parents just buy the kids the game they want and once they get home the parents just go and do their own thing; instead of actually looking that the game's rating and not watching the kid actually play the game and saying that games are all fun and games but doing that in real life is wrong.. ect. Even my parents would peak in every once in a while to take a look at the new game i was playing, especially when i could afford games on my own. So when it all comes down to it who cares what you do when playing a game ITS NOT REAL! It’s designed that way so you can have fun doing things that you normally would/could never do.
marudd2002
October 15, 2009 at 10:00am
It.Is.A.GAME. Just as if it were a movie, tv show, or other form of media, it's not real. It's not suggested as being real. It's entertainment. It's a way to have fun. It's a GAME! Did you really feel there was a need for this useless of an article? Who cares about the morals of the characters in a game? Who cares how much "unjust" bloodshed there is? Now, once more with feeling: IT IS JUST A GAME!
----
Fanboys are annoying. Price/Performance is top priority. Patience=Awesome.
Modred189
October 15, 2009 at 9:52am
The problem here lies in the fact that games are primarily geared towards escapism in young men. Now, in terms of psyche, this demographic wants to escape form its own inconsistencies, fears, shortcomings and inability to compete with other men. As such, what is the most extreme opposite of that? Killing a TON of armored, armed, crazed, buff, and well triained baddies. You never really get a chance to beat up on skinny incompetents in video games.
If a game were to remove this sense of "I'm greater than thou", referring to every baddie in the game, you would remove the aspect of escapism. Think about it. In Batman AA, SPOILER SPOILER SPOLER, before you fight the joker (who is far from physically imposing), he has to beef himself WAY up to super-human levels. In The Matrix, you start as an average joe, but to compete, you have to buff up, lose fears etc.
In the games where this is not the MO, there has to be a tremendous gameplay quirk or story line to compensate. Think Katamari Damacy. I (26 yr old male), LOVE me some Katamari. Do one dies, you don;t compete against anyone but yourself, and you never really lose, you just have to try again. The gameplay takes the cake, but there are only so many Katamari's out there.
I think this will continue on all systems until the gaming industry starts to really invest in some great voice acting and writing. Half Life 2 is not as successful as it is because of what you shoot, rather it's because you really do care about the characters. They made you care about a giant ugly robot, and empathize with a character that never opens his mouth. Until there are more AAA games that employ goof VOs and writing, we will continue to see a stream of FPS games that are mediocre at best (UTIII, Darkest of Days, etc), hoping to catch the eye of the buyer with gimmicks like PhysX, time manipulation (bullet time), and probably portals soon, instead of unique, dynamic characters that are HUMAN.
etmishrts
October 15, 2009 at 9:35am
Instead of killing someone for money (which would be stupid) you should be able to beat them so you can keep them in fear and have a nice return profit from them whenever you see them. That woudl make more sense.
nekollx
October 15, 2009 at 9:34am
Fininal Fantasy (uh...10 i think, oh and 7) and Legends of Lugia come to mind. In both of these the "monsters" are humans/animals who are corupted by some outside influence. And you kill MILLIONS of them..also Shinra armored goons/prison guards.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
roleki
October 15, 2009 at 9:29am
My favorite model has to be City of Heroes, where you set purse-snatchers on fire or shoot them with a tactical shotgun until they are "rendered unconscious, then teleported to jail."
HeartBurnKid
October 15, 2009 at 8:50am
Anyone remember GTA: San Andreas? How the plot is driven by framing the main character for the murder of one cop? When, by the time you've gotten to that point, you've probably murdered dozens of cops, gangbangers, and innocent bystanders?
quantumnerd
October 16, 2009 at 10:08am
...is irony, basically saying that the law (which should be just) attacked an innocent man and drove him to be a ruthless killer.
