Are developers forsaking gameplay for violence?

[RZetlin]

There's a report in CNN on killographic games.

I remember seeing this news on TV and how the spokesperson describes how games are just made for the killing.

The last "ultra violent" game that I played was Solider of Fortune and the gameplay sucked. It was fun for a few hours chopping up the enemies bodies, but the enemy AI was dumb as a doorknob.

Do you believe that developers are forsaking fun gameplay for more realistic and gruesome violence?

[Boltzmann]

My answer is "no". Look at GTA, for instance. It has a lot of blood and gore - and excellent gameplay. The same goes for the Silent Hill games.

It may be true that some companies are making games for violence only while sacrificing gameplay, but they would be a minority.

[Kidd]

I'm with Boltie, usually they're not related at all. An exception would be the Blood series, I guess, where the second one had a lot more gruesome details (that just seemed so ridiculously exaggarated, too) and well... the first is one of my favourite games, let's just say the second one isn't even on my "decent game" list - it plainly sucked imho.

And an example where there's great gameplay along with a lot of gore would be Devil May Cry (first one, didn't try second yet), imho.

I can't seem to cast my vote though, as the vote label sounds like "lots of violence = good", and to me those ain't related at all. And well, "I don't know" ain't true either :P add another option, please? ^_~x

[hushypushy]

we all agree so far i guess, i also think that violence + good games are independent. it can be great with tons of violence/sex/blood/whatever or it can suck with it. and same goes for without it.

btw kidd i hated devil may cry

[Kraiger Drago]

A slow news day. Nothing big was going on ANYWHERE, so they go to one of the old stand bys: "Too much violence blah blah blah."

But as for Violence vs Gameplay... hmm. Postal 2 was pretty over the top. You could urinate on someone, they would throw up, then you could smack their head off with a shovel, and vomit would continue to erupt from the stump where their head used to be. Was it a good game? No.

[Exodus]

i think it just depends on the game. violence is more of a... type of gameplay. you have good violence and bad violence, and each of these will affect the overall quality of the game. violence, in the end, is the best form of gameplay.

[Player-X]

>violence, in the end, is the best form of gameplay.
Pong anyone?

The media can say a kid stepped on someones head was caused by mario and everyone would start a anti-mario campaign,never underestermate a humans willingness to belive the media

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by Player-X

Pong anyone?

hey, pong can get pretty violent.

[Dark Watcher]

Gameplay aye...well nowadays it's not so much the violence..moreso the reality kick. Driving sims, The SIMs themselves, combat simulations, Stealth genres, fighters...all with a kick of reality.

We read a good rant recently from an author at Retrogames. He made a funny point concerning gameplay. Many of you here may be too young to remember Centipede...but his point was :
It's not like I go outside and have to fend off giant bugs eating at my mushroom garden.

His point was that a lot of the retro games were addicting and fun because they were innovative and out of the norm. The reality genre can go only so far. Next thing you know you will be playing a game where the character is playing a game and needs to get his character through Algebra.....fun....

[Kirby]

unexperienced companies sacrifice gameplay for blood and guts, just because they can't make a good game. For example: Conker's Bad Fur Day....it was ultra-violent and I hated it to death. Violence can make a good game even better if used in a controlling manner. Also you have to take into consideration that the average video gamer's age is going up, thus making video game companies trying new ways to appeal to the adult world.

[total_hatred]

It is how you present violence makes
or breaks the game
senseless violence is bad but if you add violence to
thicken the plot is good

[Boltzmann]

In the end, it's all about fun. I couldn't care less for GTA: VC's plot, but it's a very good game. It's a very well made game, with lots of gratuitous violence.

Now take Silent Hill 2 (I still haven't played SH3): it has an amazing plot and lots of violence as well. But on SH2 violence has a different undertone: it's a storytelling device.

A game which is an example of lots of violence but poor gameplay is Postal 2 (which Kraiger Drago already mentioned). But the first Postal was quite good IMO.

It all depends what kind of violence you're talking about. If it is senseless, useless violence 'ala Postal 2 then to me that is just ridiculous. But if the violence is used to depict something like what war is like for instance then I feel it is ok. Look at all the war games out that are based on WW II and Vietnam. The violence in them does not even begin to approach what the actual experience was like. This was said by some WW II, Korean War, and Vietnam War veterans who were shown these games and asked what they thought. They told the developers of these games that there was no way that the true horror of actual war and the incredible amount of violence there in could ever be depicted properly in a video game, no matter how realistic the game was/is. So, depending on how the violence is used and what it is there for makes the difference between whether or not it is good or bad in a game.
sincerely,
sx/amiga

[_E_]

Originally Posted by Kirby

unexperienced companies sacrifice gameplay for blood and guts, just because they can't make a good game. For example: Conker's Bad Fur Day....it was ultra-violent and I hated it to death. Violence can make a good game even better if used in a controlling manner. Also you have to take into consideration that the average video gamer's age is going up, thus making video game companies trying new ways to appeal to the adult world.

Actually, I disagree here. Conker's Bad Fur day wasnt all violence, its was about comedy IMO> Also some parts held a message to the player like the war part, you should check the dialogue when you finish that level More importantly, I wouldnt call RARE an unexperienced company ;p

Yours,
-Elly

[total_hatred]

I believe you
some people has sick sense in defining
comedy and that is when people got hurt

[Kraiger Drago]

Originally Posted by total_hatred

I believe you
some people has sick sense in defining
comedy and that is when people got hurt

Just curious, but what are you talking about? Is there some specific event or what?

But as for the comedy part, I always think of that episode of South Park where they say **** 162 times (<-- Nitpicking from Hushypushy ). Some people got really up in arms about it and totally missed the point of that show. They were satirizing when CBS had **** on NYPD Blue to "make it more dramatic." Which is complete BS because saying **** doesn't make anything more dramatic. So yeah, it is all about how it is used.

After playing Manhunt (one of the games specifically mentioned in the article), yeah, its over the top, but its not being violent just to have ultra-violence. Its a fine line between gratitious violence and justified violence, but the uptight sissies that complain about it are totally unwilling (or uncapable) to discern between them.

"We have to think of the children!!" my ass.

[hushypushy]

200+ times? actually it was 162. i love south park, it seems like you do too...i totally agree with what you said man, good points and good knowledge.

anyway, just a friendly correction.