Why violence in videogames is boring

[Tullaryx]

Reverend Anthony with Destructoid put up quite an interesting editorial about a certain facet of gaming which I never really looked into too deeply. He puts out there the observation and conclusion that violence and combat in videogames has become quite boring and tedious.

Why violence in videogames is boring - by Reverend Anthony of Destructoid

He points out one particular game which is near and dear to many gamers out there: Knights of the Old Republic. This classic rpg using the Star Wars setting gives players a choice of playing the game either following the Light Side of the Force or the Dark Side. There's times when the grey middle will intrude in the choice, but overall it's either Light or Dark. He makes an observation that even when choosing Light Side choices there's sometimes no choice but to use violence and fight one's way through a certain area of the game.

His conclusions that videogames rely too much on combat and violence as not just a selling point but also it's main gameplay mechanics does seem interesting to a point. I do agree that there may be an over-reliance on violence in videogames as a way to solve problems, but sometimes that violence is necessary when put into context of the overall theme and plot of the game.

Do you agree with his assessment of the use of violence (combat) in videogames becoming boring? Do games which have little to no violence attract you into playing them or is the rush given by combat and violence in games exactly what you look for?
_________________

[Yohn]

I'm not sure if boring is the word I'd use, mayhaps. Overdone, yes, I suppose so. There are very few games out there that don't involve some sort of combat when it all comes down to it (with the exception of puzzle games and the like).
_________________

"And as the lion slaughters man, I am the wolf and you're the lamb." ~Blind Guardian

[Himuro]

I disagree. Video games are about actions. Please tell me of an action that is more thrilling and exciting than acts of violence? What else should games mostly revolve around? Even still, there are alternatives. Most adventure games do not use violence and when they do have it, they don't rely on it. Racing games don't have violence. Sports game violence is subjective. Puzzle games don't have violence. Music games don't have violence, ditto to other genres.

Fact is, without violence most games would be boring. It's quite the opposite, really. Also, if you didn't get the chance to fight that often in the light side in Kotor, the game would have required more grinding if you were on the light side. Thus, the game would lack balance.

I think his complaint is silly because there are numerous alternatives. If he doesn't like the violence in games, he should take up another hobby. Videogames are about overcoming odds, victory, and the thrill of competition. Thing is, combat is the best way to express this.

He offers a problem, but no solution. The truth is that it's pretty damn hard to come up with a game that is entertaining where you don't engage in combat with another party. You would rather talk your way out of battle all the time? What normal human being who plays video games wants to do that? It should be an option, but to actually say that you want less emphasis on battle is a tad ridiculous. How, exactly, does one fix this "problem"?
_________________
She knows stuff.

[HarmonianHiccup]

Personally, I am the kind of gamer who looks first for story over anything else. Even then, if the gameplay relies too much on violence and fighting, I get worn out and bored.
I don't play games for bettle mechanics, to be frank, and games that rely almost soley on their battle engine to move things along bore me to tears.
When the fighting is secondary to the rest of the game, such as in KOTOR, the FF series and Suikoden, to name a few, I put up with it so long as is it is not overly reptitive and the story continues to move at a good pace.
For example, I felt like FFVII had a really good encounter rate. I fought enough that I wasn't bored wandering across the map, but at the same time I wasn't feeling like it was just battle after battle. On the other hand, when I was sailing in SuikoIV I almost gave up because the encounter rate was so high I felt like I hardly moved anywhere at all.
I think I'm wandering from my point.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that violence in video games holds no interest for me. Gears of War, Halo, all the myriad shooters and fighters that are only that--the fact that they are centered on fighting makes them not interesting to me.
I can find violence anywhere I want,if I want it O_o, and I'm not interested in being able to do all sorts of outlandish things to kick someone else's face in. The things that ARE hard to find and that I'm going to look for in something I am doing for recreation are things like a strong plot and interesting characters (not to mention good music!), and there's alot less of that around than, say, gun customization features.
_________________

Proud Owner and Operator of The Hiccup's Speciality Grassland Atelier, the only place to find Electric Whiffle Bats!

[Himuro]

[HarmonianHiccup]

[Oppenheimer]

I agree with the writer of the article. I think that conversation trees are much more interesting than shoot outs. I've never been a big fan of first person shooters and enjoy the plot sequences more than the battles. For example I loved the beginning of Suikoden V at the coliseum where you hardly fight at all. The fights that there were only detracted from that section of the game. Also Dragon Warrior VII has a large portion at the beginning with no battles. I found that very satisfying as well.

I think another good example is a game like thief that tries to convince you to not attack anyone. However, even that game forces you into combat even if it's just to knock someone out or destroy undead.

Myst and The Sims were very satisfying games and really make you think. They're the kind of games I talk about with family and friends. I don't discuss games like Halo, "wow I really shot that big thing. . . I really did. . ." doesn't really carry on a conversation.

I think that the article makes a good point that it's not really the video game producer's fault, it's that the technology for really good AI that can have realistic non-scripted conversations doesn't exist, that's why they rely so heavily on violence.

Now, not to say there's nothing wrong with a game that's violent. I think the point here is that it's far too frequent in every game and there aren't enough games that don't have much fighting in them. I wouldn't play Sims 2 all day every day. Sometimes you really want to shoot some zombies. But, I'm getting tired of every game having the cliched final boss battle as the end of the whole thing.
_________________

[Himuro]

Fact is, not a lot of games work with non violent options. MGS is one of the few.

An rpg without battles is not an rpg. If it doesn't have battles and character development through stats, then it is no longer an rpg. If you're simply going from cutscene to cutscene, it becomes no longer a game, but an interactive movie. If you want story based games without battles, play adventure games. In adventure games, all the gameplay is tied to the story in that in order to continue the story, you have to solve story based puzzles.

The author is using the assumption that all games are "art", when that certainly is not the case. Many games are there simply for entertainment reasons, and having a non violent route nullifies being entertained.

[HarmonianHiccup]

I agree that if you took the battles out of an RPG there would be little left to CALL it an RPG (Except that "Role-play" really just means in alot of ways that you are taking on the persona of some character and seeing things, generally, from his or her point of view. That, however is not the market or general definition.).
I adore adventure games. Alot of them tend to be too short, though.
I agree with you that not all video games are art, however, I must beg to differ with you as far as the definiation of entertainment goes.

I do not find violence to be, necessarily, entertaining. To remove violence does not at all mean that something no longer has value as entertainment as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps this is partially because I find my life to be violent enough as it is, and I tend to chose things to do for fun that are fairly removed from my own reality.
What it comes down to is that everyone finds a reason to play games, and just because my reason is different than yours, it does not render it any less valid.

As for the final boss? Meh. It would be nice if it were optional. I find most end bosses to be tedious in the extreme and I just fight them so I can see the ending, dang it!
_________________

Proud Owner and Operator of The Hiccup's Speciality Grassland Atelier, the only place to find Electric Whiffle Bats!

[Ikano]

"boring" might be too strong of a word to use for this
"overdone" would be more fitting...

It depends on what sort of crowd you're talking to basically....considering we're on a Suikoden-based board and Suikoden being more plot/story-based than strictly violence-based...I would think probably most of the people here value plot/story slightly higher than pure violence?
Well....I for one can be counted in that crowd...


ANYHOW...putting that point (that was quickly leading to nowhere) aside....I think another reason violence is used alot in video games is traditionally....Video games are considered "a boy's toy."
Now...I'm not trying to be overly stereotypical but majority of the time boys like what?
They like shoot-em-ups, beat-em-ups, blow-em-ups.

This day and age though the demographic is slowly changing and so has the category/types of games. However boys in general still have not lost their desire to play shoot-em-ups, beat-em-ups, blow-em-ups and some girls have grown to like them too.

...perhaps violent games seem boring to some because it has always been present since the early days of video games and because of that are tired of seeing it.

But a time when all violent-only video games have completely dissapeared from the market would only sooner come if everyone in the whole world became strictly pacifist
ie - a day like that will never come.
_________________

[eXistence of Fly]

He picked bad examples to highlight his point however.

'Violence is overdone, so I am picking CoD which is based on the world wars to debate my argument' as if some British or Russian will persuade some Nazi AI not to man that MG42 and shred your lower torso into itty bitty sticky bits. There is a form of story telling in CoD based off of fact which is the underlying factor as opposed to 'you have a gun, you have ammo, fire away!' which is evident in some FPS', I mean let's all bitch out a WW2 vet because they inspired boring violence, or just punch ET because you know the next step is some form of creature with opposable thumbs.

He does make some fine points as for the overuse of violence to compensate for lack of game mechanics in certain situations (the KotOR Black Vulkar example) but that is simply game companies not giving options to the player for whatever reason. But again, the Star Wars universe is a bad example since it pretty much is 2 dimensional, you are either good and holier than though on a crusade to rid the universe of the Sith, or a Sith looking for carnage, you can't eradicate either because then the series would end or recycle itself to correct itself.

Overdone yes, boring no. There is just something about using a ripper to decapitate someone around a corner (UT) or strapping C4 to a section of corridor where enemies influx from blowing them all up (MGS) which never gets old.
_________________

[Falcon Critical]

While a lot of video games do rely on violence, there are obvious exceptions (Sims, Tycoon games, sport games, dating games) when it comes to RPGs its a way of telling the story. If your story was about a peaceful character that would rather make friends with everyone ... it would fit better as a movie or a book.

The fact is that a lot of games (esp RPGs) require violence/killing as its a part of the whole predetermined system. Is this 'boring'? Sure it is, that's why there are so many games with different battle systems, all the developers are trying to keep their games interesting not only with story but also by acknowledging that a lot of gamers will spend more time fighting than watching the story.

An example of an RPG where lots of fighting is not 'required':
Valkyrie Profile - you 'could' just freeze almost every enemy and just ignore them, you'd then only have to fight bosses. Course this means you'd be grossly underpowered and probably die but there's the option.

An example of an RPG where the fighting -IS- the story:
FF Tactics - The fact that this game has nothing except battle maps means that the two ideas (fighting and story) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However the nature of the game fits this combined system.

Most RPGs however have a lot of fighting that is largely unnecessary. Its become a part of the whole genre that if you're going somewhere, chances are you'll need to fight the wildlife on the way there.

I guess my biggest point here is that if an RPG's story had little scope for fighting, and a lot of story - the story would be better told in a movie/book/anime. Some RPGs like Suikoden know that they are going to deal with a lot of war and death, and therefore use the RPG medium more effectively than others.

MMORPGs are probably the best example of 'violence is boring'. Nearly every quest in WOW is "go kill 20 of those for me"...
_________________

[Ryusei]

I guess I kinda agree with the article, although I don't think "boring" would be the right term to use here. Sure, I agree that the gameplay (or to be specific, the "violent" battles) is an integral part of many of the games today.But when it comes to video games, I prefer those which give emphasis on the story rather than the gameplay. If a particular game has little to no emphasis on the story (say for example shooter games and combat games), I tend not to like them; rather I would play those which has a great plot and story. I don't see anything bad with that point of view, seeing as the main reason why I play video games is to be entertained, and I am pretty much sure I'm having fun playing story-driven games.

My point is, it all depends on what type of game the gamer prefers to play. There are some gamers who enjoy games which give importance battles and violence in particular, and there are some gamers which like to play games which are more story-driven than gameplay-driven.

[Scrooge McDuck]

My favorite genre of video games is visual-novel. Thus, even though I am aware that visual-novels can only be marginally called "games" (which it is, by general consensus), I can still safely say that violence is below in my list of attraction when it comes to video games.

I do acknowledge that in some games violence is necessary to keep it interesting. However, violence does not make a gameplay; it is only a part of the gameplay. It is merely a part of the spice to the cooking, if you will. A game can do just well with minimal violence. Heck, even a bloody game like Tenchu can manage with little to no violence in each stage.

Nonetheless, here is the dilemma: violence offers the widest range of gameplay possibilities. Be it the assortment of weapons, the kung-fu moves, the many ways you can kill your enemies and all those actions can be mix-and-matched to create an at least interesting of not revolutionary gameplay. Ergo, lots and lots of gamemaker includes more and more of these elements into the gameplay, overshadowing any other elements. Furthermore, it promotes the arrival of games that have little substance except the violence part itself (Manhunt and State of Emergency, for example. I would be happy to be informed if there are any other substances within those games). Argh, I stray from the topic...

The author does bring out dome fine points. He does not say that there should not be actions in games. He merely states that maybe it is time to consider removing violence as the one and only solution to problems in games and that there are cases in which the use of non-violence is actually more interesting than merely blasting your way through obstacles. Like I said, it should only be a part of whole, not the entirety.


(Disclaimer:
I hereby acknowledge that most games are not art and just forms of entertainment. Many people actually find violence entertaining, which is fine. Interesting non-violent games are hard to make, which is fine. And so there would always be more ordinary, violence-promoting games out there, which is fine. People who think mindless violence in games is unbearable should simply not play them, which is what I do.)
_________________

[Himuro]

I dunno. Many games allow you to totally skip the combat and some of them (like RE) are totally puzzle based and the action comes second, because it's actually best not to fight in order to conserve ammo.

I think the article exaggerates. Yes, games could use an alternative means to solve things, but there are plenty of popular games who do that already. He just needs to give it time. It's just that, like Fly said, you aren't going to be able to find another means to solve problems in a war game like Call of Duty. This problem will probably be less prevalent when game genres become more varied.
_________________
She knows stuff.