General News - Good Violence in Games

In the never ending discussion on violence in games, Gamasutra weighs in with an editorial on 5 approaches to have 'good' violence in video games.

When, from a design standpoint, does violence "work"?

When it's necessary to the narrative. Some of the moments in games that are most widely remembered and appreciated involve acts of violence, like the plot climax of BioShock or the end of Metal Gear Solid 3 — cases where the player is asked or forced to execute a death in a way that enhances the story.

When an act of violence is a crucial part of a game's story (assuming the story's well-established), the player naturally takes ownership of the action and its implications. That sense of agency is supposed to be one of the strengths of interactive entertainment, so it makes sense to be judicious with it.

Giving players the opportunity to perform any action in a very specific and intentional context virtually requires players to think about what they're doing and be engaged.

More information.

Quite true. Video game violence is essentially the same as violence in movies, novels, TV news or American football games. The only significant difference is that the player has the option to commit the (imaginary) violence, instead of just observing it. That's what adds the engaging element to the story, and, in a certain sense, it is taking on the role and perspective of another character that shields me from the act. I find watching certain movie acts of violence to be far more emotionally disturbing than any FPS game I've played.

After reading the article, the title could have been as well "violence is good in video games"

After his five bullet points, he might have left a few blind spots on when not to include violence, but I have troubles finding situations when violence should not be included for the sake of meeting one of his bullet points.

German gaming mag PC Games reports that the E3 showed that there was seeingly almost no game to be seen without exploding bodies, heads off, limbs flying around, and blood, of course.

Welcome to the Gaming Age Of [Exaggerated] Violence.

Well, it entirely depends on what the game is trying to convey. I think violence is most effective when it's realistic and the game is trying to depict realism - because then it's rather shocking and it should be. When you're dealing with escapist fantasy - I don't think violence is particularly effective, but it will depend on several factors.

Something like Age of Conan, which is supposed to be an extremely harsh world full of violence - wouldn't work well without it.

So, it's really not a clear-cut issue. But I do consider violence for the sake of violence crass and tasteless. A good example would be Postal or something like Django Unchained recently. I detect no rational reason behind violence there.

Good examples would be something like Saving Private Ryan (the movie) and a game like AoC as I mentioned above.

I'm not sure it is about violence so much as it is about resolving conflict. Violence being the most common (and simplest) form of conflict resolution.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
German gaming mag PC Games reports that the E3 showed that there was seeingly almost no game to be seen without exploding bodies, heads off, limbs flying around, and blood, of course.

Welcome to the Gaming Age Of [Exaggerated] Violence.

Outstanding. I love that stuff.