Dethroning violence as the primary game mechanic

[Namdrol]

There is no game without opposition. Opposition requires conflict. Conflict is best and easiest represented as a physical one. Ergo: violence.

Easiest, no doubt, but how can you even use a word like "best"? What does that even mean in this context?

That quote is symptomatic. The audience for non-violent mechanics hasn't been cultivated. For many, violence is videogaming and trying to sell something that doesn't' have killing is a nonstarter. That's partially why a discussion of alternatives to violence-as-mechanic probably don't get very far in these companies.

[Kadayi]

Yet even with virtually every commercial outlet telling everyone how great the game is, it tanked at retail (400k sold, vs 3 million shipped/expected). Gamers suddenly bored of great games? Or is it more likely that market has been oversatured with same old same old, and that the paradigm of 'throw enough marketing dollars at a sequel and it will sell' isn't working anymore?

And before that Diablo 3 sold 6 million copies in a couple of days.

Please, if you think that the big AAA publishers are suddenly going to disappear overnight and that Jon Blow and Phil Fish are going to save the world of gaming sat astride white chargers you are much mistaken.

With the market as it is, we might see some amalgamation (Activision or EA acquiring THQ) but I doubt much else is going to change in the long term.

[zookeeper]

That quote is symptomatic. The audience for non-violent mechanics hasn't been cultivated. For many, violence is videogaming and trying to sell something that doesn't' have killing is a nonstarter. That's partially why a discussion of alternatives to violence-as-mechanic probably don't get very far in these companies.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. There have been lots of exampled cited in this thread of games that don't include (or don't focus intently on) violence. I mean, I love a good bit of the ultraviolence now and then, but it's not going to stop me form playing simcity.

However, I would agree that violence is one of the more visceral thrills you can achieve through media, and it may take more effort perhaps to appreciate a different mechanic with less flashy payoff. But as was stated, easiest doesn't necessarily mean best.

[gwathdring]

I don't think the statistics back Namdrol's statement, either. Violent games are not an overwhelming majority of games sales, nor are they an overwhelming majority of produced games.

I find it much more interesting and useful to look at what others here have been discussing: how specific non-violent mechanics can be implemented better, with more complexity, or with more variety.

[Nalano]

And before that Diablo 3 sold 6 million copies in a couple of days.

Which proves nothing else but that they sold a lot of copies independent of the quality of the product.

[Kadayi]

Which proves nothing else but that they sold a lot of copies independent of the quality of the product.

Not played it myself but as I understand it the actual game itself it pretty damn good in terms of the actual quality of the production, gameplay, balance, etc, etc. The current problems some players have experienced seem to relate to the account side of things. Still quality isn't the particular subject being pushed by Namdrol, game sales are (and this idea that the AAA will come crashing down and the indie games will liberate us or some such), so it's kind of an irrelevant aside tbh Nalano.

[Hypernetic]

Namdrol is apparently upset because every game he played wasn't the same as Super Mario Galaxy. There really isn't a deeper meaning to any of his posts in this thread.

[Kadayi]

Namdrol is apparently upset because every game he played wasn't the same as Super Mario Galaxy. There really isn't a deeper meaning to any of his posts in this thread.

One has to wonder what he's doing on a PC games forum then, Vs some Nintendo board somewhere tbh.

[Hypernetic]

One has to wonder what he's doing on a PC games forum then, Vs some Nintendo board somewhere tbh.

I see part of you still loves me after all.

And yes, one does wonder that.

[perdurabo]

Haven't board games proven that violence isn't needed to express competition between players? Even in video games, sports games sell remarkably well. I see the problem as three fold:

Games need to showy - this is due to it being a medium portrayed via technology. If(when?) this slows down or stops, would designers rely on other methods to express innovation, rather than the way they can show a head exploding?

The gamer demographic - While companies continue to pander to children, the market will always have teenagers as one of the core demographics. This is not so much of a problem with say, television, due to the options available. With games being so expensive to produce, a lot of the time it is a zero sum question for a developer.

Interactivity = agency. What I mean by this is that because the medium is more interactive than most others, the developer/end user expects to have agency in the world they inhabit. The user should make a difference. Rather than reading about WW2, the user should be able to fire the weapon. This is the most difficult problem to solve. Everyone wants to be a hero in their own story.

Again, I think the main problem isn't an overabundance of games geared towards violence, but that it is too financially prohibitive to produce something else. Settlers of Catan continues to sell, yet a game will be old news within months of release, due to how games are produced and marketed.

[Drake Sigar]

Haven't board games proven that violence isn't needed to express competition between players?

I have never participated in a game of Monopoly which didn't turn violent.

[perdurabo]

I have never participated in a game of Monopoly which didn't turn violent.

Hahah, true. But then, Monopoly is a terrible game, there's no legislating for that.

[Fumarole]

Hahah, true. But then, Monopoly is a terrible game, there's no legislating for that.

That's because you've never played Monopoly the way it was meant to be played.

[BillButNotBen]

OP makes a good point, and he's right that combat makes an easily varied and simulated environment for games. I think that sport games (which i personally have no interest in) and racing games are a good example of a non-violent form of conflict that still sports endless possible variations, as they are also based on rules and action/reaction and (at least recently) physics.

I think we keep going down the dead end of "conversation". I like games with story and conversation, but I don't think that well be able to have conversation that's as varied and open as combat/physics in PC games until we develop almost perfect AI.

Games can simulate things like economics, physics, and systems very well, but they can't do personalities and AI.

It's a shame so many gamers have become conditioned to expect, or even demand, violence as a requirement of games. It's also created a self fulfilling loop where devs have focused most of their resources on improving combat elements (and graphics) and things like AI have languished.

It clearly doesn't cover all games (management, sports, sims, adventure games, puzzle games) but it does seem that violence is the core mechanic of most games that "gamers" will consider. We should really demand a little more variety.

As someone said, I think board-games would be a good example. Some of the game mechanics mentioned on cardboard children sound great for video games.

[Namdrol]

One has to wonder what he's doing on a PC games forum then, Vs some Nintendo board somewhere tbh.

With the exception of MG1&2, I've hated all Nintendo games I've played.

As to why I'm here, I guess it's because sometimes I have time to kill and this is marginally more stimulating than looking at Shorpy or emptying my dishwasher.

Why, am I going to be voted off the island?

[Namdrol]

Haven't board games proven that violence isn't needed to express competition between players? Even in video games, sports games sell remarkably well. I see the problem as three fold:

Games need to showy - this is due to it being a medium portrayed via technology. If(when?) this slows down or stops, would designers rely on other methods to express innovation, rather than the way they can show a head exploding?

"what do you do for a living?"

"I’m lead gunshot-wound-to-the-head animator. Currently I’m dissecting the Zapruder film in an attempt to get the most realistic brain splatter patterns on bystander clothing as possible."

"wtf?"

The gamer demographic - While companies continue to pander to children, the market will always have teenagers as one of the core demographics. This is not so much of a problem with say, television, due to the options available. With games being so expensive to produce, a lot of the time it is a zero sum question for a developer.

I don’t think tv is a good industry to compare gaming with, IMO, film is better. The film industry does just fine selling product to women and people not in the 12-30 y.o. bracket, and film is just as risky as videogaming. Maybe it comes down to the fact that AAA game companies aren’t interested in long term cultivation of new markets? Or maybe it is the fact that the film industry already had already created transgender, wide age range markets before the advent of market research driven product creation. I.e. the time when films were created then audiences found for them; vs our era, wherein audiences determine how films are created through the use of things like test screenings, biometric feedback, etc.

Interactivity = agency. What I mean by this is that because the medium is more interactive than most others, the developer/end user expects to have agency in the world they inhabit. The user should make a difference. Rather than reading about WW2, the user should be able to fire the weapon. This is the most difficult problem to solve. Everyone wants to be a hero in their own story.

Again, I think the main problem isn't an overabundance of games geared towards violence, but that it is too financially prohibitive to produce something else. Settlers of Catan continues to sell, yet a game will be old news within months of release, due to how games are produced and marketed.

Do you mean interactivity=/= agency? If you did, then I totally agree. In traditional games, players always have agency, and I would argue that that is an essential component to a game. So when a videogame design team chooses to focus on herding players through a cutscene heavy narrative there can be very little in the way of agency. Maybe that was part of the rage wrt to ME3? Not so much that the ending was bad (all videogame endings are bad), but rather that it broke the illusion of player agency and players didn’t like the fact that nothing they did mattered?

[Hypernetic]

I like how you guys keep pretending good, non-violent games, don't exist so you can continue your pointless arguments.

[gwathdring]

That's because you've never played Monopoly the way it was meant to be played.

I have. And it's just as crap, in my opinion. It's all very well to like Monopoly with the original/official rules, but it's another thing entirely to be elitist about it and pretend Monopoly, whether or not you enjoy it, is some kind of misunderstood marvel. Give people some credit.