Before the slew of incredible violent detail in games, they were just as fun, or in some cases even more fun than the games today. I was just playing soldier of fortune... and I had the incredible tendency to shoot\slash things just for the sake of watching them bleed\explode\squirm. I don''t think im alone in this. It is obvious this was the main objective of their game engine. All first person shooters ive seen are all out destructive. Smash everything that can be smashed then take the keycard, flag or whatever and repeat. This would be rather tough to make constructive. (Building sentry guns is not what I mean) I would like to see more games that has a goal of construction rather than destruction. Games like SimAnything are great examples. Real Time Strategies encourage construction even if its ultimate goal is destruction. Maybe we can make a real time strategy thats goal is to build up to cooperate rather than fight. Where one players success is not ultimately measured in the other players destruction. Im sure someone creative can come up with a way to make this challenging, fun and constructive. Well, thats all for todays rantings. Nihilism sucks.

Those games exist. It''s just a matter of choice.

BTW, there''s a reason why "Id" called themselves "Id"

The average homo-sapien hasn''t quite evolved into their neo-cortex yet.

Yeah, a few do exist, just sayin'' id like to see more so my choice isn''t so limited.

I suppose your right about that Id thing. (It either stands for that or "I''d rather develop engines than games")

Most humans are naturally destructive. They get a thrill out of watching their enemies be obliterated. It''s also a major change (for most people anyway...) to go around killing and destrying things. It allows people to vent frustration, anger, etc. and allow them to satisfy their natural destructiveness. It''s not like those intincts are going to go away just because you make less violent or non-violent games. It will always be there. So if games did eventually become non-violent, and some company made a violent game, that game would go platinum. If you made a game that had an excellent story, and tied the violence in with it, where you''d be doing this violence for a good cause, that would be better than just pure violence. Some people might also choose to be more violent in real life if they don''t have alternate worlds to be violent in because of their natural destructiveness.

This is more a point on originality and creativity than sociology.

We all know the party lines about how violent media effects people in real life. It''s been debated to death.

The intent of this post is inspire a mindset to create games with more *gaming* elements. Unlike the current trend of trying to emulate action movie cliches with the most "realism".

I should have named the topic better.

The only problem I see is that people will probably think it''s too risky to make something new, and that it won''t sell.

I''m still young and can afford to take a few risks. So im going to try this. I hope it''s received well...

The post was on the gaming elements. Maybe you didn''t understand what I was meaning. Violence is a gaming element. I can''t think of very many good games that I''ve played that don''t have violence as some part of the game. Leaving violence in games and filling the game with more story, purpose, etc. would make the game more engaging and still include the violence (maybe toned down) to keep the player hooked with the player''s violent intincts. Adding the game elements would definately make the game better. A game with pure violence is pointless, I won''t play one unless it has some story or good background idea to it. Not many people feel very compelled to do something that would have them cooperate with other players/teams to create something if there was no competition. What would be the fun in that? There would really be no reason for the player to do whatever it was he/she was supposed to do in the game, and would most likely resort to sabotage to make the game more interesting. If there were competing players/teams then the player would have a reason to create whatever it was he/she was supposed to create. Also, the Sim games usually have destructive attributes, such as tornados, fires, riots, hurricanes, etc. If you had a game where you were in an online world where there could be no violence whatsoever, even if you tried to cause it, and you had to help others to do whatever it is the goal of the game was, there wouldn''t be much fun in the game. If you were supposed to help some old woman across the street (this would be contructive and non-violent) where would the fun be in that if you couldn''t be evil and instead of walking her all the way across the street you could leave her half way, run to the side walk and watch her get run over? If the result of taking the old woman across the street was always good and helpful to all, there would be no point in playing the game. If you were not competing or being violent, and you were helping other players create something, after you were done, then what? You finished building the structure, everyone has nothing to do, level or game is over. What now? What do you have to show for your time? You built some structure thar serves no point. You can''t tell people that you''re the best because you wouldn''t be competing and you''d only be helping people. How would creating this thing for the common good be useful to the player? There would be nothing to compel the player to do good if there was no competition, and no way to do what you''re not supposed to do. Both of which would be considered a form of violence.

I think I''d like to see a game where destructive violence had consequences. Violence is being totally trivialised in this industry when it can be a very powerful emotional tool (don''t laugh over here, but I was pretty moved by The Killer). I mean, when someone murders another human being, I don''t want them to be seen as just some "bad dude" I want to see some gang shoot the character in-game''s wife dead for that act of violence towards their gang. I mean it may sounds sick, but will the player take the violent option every time after that? I think not...of course, it could also result in the player feeling this revenge thing and get caught in a loop until his final demise in a film-noir style ending - why don''t we have that? Why not show the player that things can end badly, not by chance, but by the calls that he makes in a game?

Or even better, why not get a player to work hard for something, then to have it torn down or ruined or spoilt and see what the player does from there, see if the "character" loses it in a blind rage or what

On story vs. gameplay. I think the fact that games are basically becoming interactive movies, the amount of gaming done compared to the amount of choosing which path a character takes is being greatly altered. I mean, take Deus Ex for instance, the gameplay there was almost stock standard RPG/FPS style, but the path that you take is what made the game interesting?

I think I''m just sick minded tho. I like to play with ppl''s heads and give them a message see if they learn. I can also see the potential in that kind of product to make insane people snap and get rifles and shoot people. That''s an unfortunate thing that society doesn''t know how to treat insane people, or even spot them.

Violence is not a gaming element.

Chess, Go, Checkers all competitive, never violent. Do you ever imagine the knight butchering the rook?

I don't.. Yet it's still a fun competitive game.

Violence adds NOTHING to the gaming aspect of games. It adds only to plot or asthetics.

As for The Sims, that is comic violence. It's lighthearted. Like road runner and coyote. Like skipper hitting gilligan with his hat.

Soldier of Fortune is obviously not meant to be comic or lighthearted. Even if some people do find it funny.

You know the difference.

Edited by - Caffeine on December 17, 2000 5:42:16 AM