The Game Boy: Killing Millions Since 1857

18

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

quantumnerd

... 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)

avatar

jayson001

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.

avatar

The Relic

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...^_<

avatar

nekollx

 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.

avatar

Scootiep

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

avatar

dieselboy914

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.

avatar

Who

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" 

avatar

Vahn16

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.  

avatar

AntiHero

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.

avatar

sartan2002

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.

avatar

marudd2002

 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.

avatar

Modred189

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. 

avatar

etmishrts

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.

avatar

nekollx

 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.

avatar

mattman059

its Legends of Legaia....durrr

avatar

roleki

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."  

avatar

HeartBurnKid

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?

avatar

quantumnerd

...is irony, basically saying that the law (which should be just) attacked an innocent man and drove him to be a ruthless killer.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.