Comments on: Is violence required to make a good game great?

BioWare believes it can create a great game with a compelling story line and no violence. Is that really possible, given today's video game landscape?

[cvaldes1831]

Anyone who says that violence is necessary for good videogaming is an idiot. And they're not hard to find at all.

Exhibit A: Nintendo's Mario. This franchise is one of the most valuable brands in all of consumer entertainment. It is the number one franchise in videogaming. End of discussion.

[usualsuspect87]

How is shooting fireballs at turtle creatures not violent?

I don't really care if there is realistic violence in a game, i just need to know that I can shatter someone's hopes and dreams every time i play a game. Whether i kill them in said game, solve a puzzle faster than them, or score more points, I don't care.

[plbyrd]

The art of storytelling REQUIRES conflict. It's completely accepted and acknowledged that a good story as a protagonist, antagonist and a conflict between the two to resolve. This happens over an act of build up of the conflict, and act of performing the conflict, and an act of resolving the conflict. Video games with stories are simply literature told with a unique medium. The idea that you could make a video game of Gandhi's hunger strike is preposterous as it would be boring as hell to keep clicking on the same button asking the same question and watching your health meter go down until someone acquiesces.

The problem is that the term "video game" is used to broadly. There are independent genre's of video games and they are their own unique art form. The fact that all of them except puzzlers require conflict is simply a function of them all utilizing literature to convey the art of the game.

Even Viva Piñata wouldn't work without violence.

[Benfea]

Bad example, cvaldes. It's not the soft violence that makes Mario a bad example, it's the lack of any compelling story.

There are other examples. In Portal, the player is not responsible for any violence. What violence occurs is either directed at the player or happened prior to the events of the game, and since it does have a decent story, is a candidate.

There have been any number of well-written adventure games (e.g. King's Quest) that offered both decent story and little or no violence.

The interactive fiction game (I'm dating myself here) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy featured both a compelling (if re-hashed) story and no violence (unless you count the Vogons destroying Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass, but again, that's not the player's fault).

[tomcramer]

Don - I don't think violence is necessary, unless it adds to the truth of the experience such as in EA's Madden, or NHL franchises. Within story-based concepts, it is a useful device to express overcoming challenges and establishing other thematic components like drama.

Successful story-based entertainment concepts, whether they are games, television programming, film or written narative seem to relate to audiences along one or more of three dimensions: escapism, expression and education - each of these have both internal and external components.

In this particular case, escapism is about the need for temporary cognitive and emotional release from everyday life and pressures - either personal (internal) or societal (external). Expression is about the need to identify with a sense of one?s self (internal) or relate more closely to a community of real or perceived peers (external). Education relates to the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the context one?s self (internal) or one?s family or broader environment (external).

There are not many successful games that have delivered their story and experience with an absense of violence. This is likely because it is a mirror of real life, the power of violence as a device to convey specific themes and what has historically sold well. I think if a developer committed to it, a successful title could be developed without violent imagery or interactions.

[kareljack]

cvaldes1831, posts such as yours, and the attitude behind it, are the reasons why the internet has become such a frustrating place. People are idiots because their opinion differs from yours??
Your declaration that Mario is the number one franchise plus the "End of discussion" tag line shows that you don't care for anyone's differing point of view and you rather close out any argument by "taking your ball and going home" Sorry but you don't get to declare the final say in this matter.

[cvaldes1831]

The statement that Nintendo's Mario is the number one videogame franchise is not opinion. It's fact based on revenue figures.

It's like saying "the Chicago Cubs play their home games at Wrigley Field." It is not a matter of opinion.

[tomcramer]

kareljack, I agree with you completely. And the Mario franchise did feature violence, albeit very lightweight and whimsical violence. I recall throwing mushrooms to knock enemies off the board and squashing others. It may not be as intense as most games, but it is still there.

[d--keller]

@ cvaldes Then shouldn't your statement have been: "Mario is the number one videogame franchise based on revenue."

Revenue is not the only way to measure number one, and your statement is a decent point but is hardly the end of the discussion. What do you call stoping on poor mushroom men, turtles throwing hatchets, and dropping fire breathing dragons into the lava to save the priinces? Sounds violent to me.

[cvaldes1831]

Argh, let's not get into a debate about whimsical cartoon violence. If we're going to be all-inclusive, then everything is violent.

Breakout? OMG, that's violent! You're destroying bricks! Think about the poor dead polygons!

[plbyrd]

Actually, World of Warcraft is the most successful game based on revenue. You can't beat millions of addicted players at $15/month. That's like releasing a new Mario game every three months, and each being a best seller.

And I've seen a helluva lot more merchandising for WoW than Mario, and I'm old school. Ok, I'm just old.

[kwyrt]

Probably the best (and only) game I can think of that combined a great story with no violence would the Myst (and it's sequels).

[raptor_4]

Perfect example.

[vikinzer]

I think the issue of story and violence and video game go deeper than you are expressing here. There is an inherent element of any "game", and that is the struggle or challenge. You have to have some sort of struggle, or there is no game. The instant you try to apply a story to that model you are immediately going to introduce a situation that ideally fosters combat. Sure you can do a "puzzle" based game, and some of those like Myst have sold well. Though I can't tell you the number of complaints I've heard about them as well. There is an inherent challenge with a puzzle based story game of making it actually move forward. LucasArts did it well in the early days with Loom, and Monkey Island, where sword fighting equaled well chosen insults, among other games. That format seems to be greatly out of style though.

Going back well before video games, all the great classic games are about war. Chess, Checkers, Go, all "strategy" games. Translation, war games. They just didn't have a couple dozen pixel shaders to make it gorey. This is an issue of human nature, non violent video games are always going to be a niche market, and it has nothing to do with them being "video" games.

[Sporlo]

Good point. By definition, a real story must have conflict, and there's no easier way to end the conflict than with violence. Even though "Violence is not the answer!", it's the easiest. Sure, you can solve conflict peacefully, but that doesn't create action. Action is very important to video games.

It does seem to be an issue of human nature the more I think about it. Power, conquest, and superiority are just so appealing. Violence is just an easy medium to use to prove your superiority over others, whether it's other players or enemies in the game.

[Dan7637]

while violence is not necessary, all of the most popular games have some violence

Mario
Zelda
Doom
Wolfenstein
GTA Series
Metal Gear Series
Killzone

[CaptAdventure]

I think the problem is a blur between "competition" and "violence."
People play any game for fun, which typically means being successful at the game, i.e. "winning."

There has to be some sort of competition in the game. The player vs other players, or game characters, or a puzzle, etc. There needs to be something to conquer or reward the player.

Now the issue; is the competition in the game "violent"? Maybe. Is that a bad thing? I mean, look at any sport. NCAA Wrestlers are competing, and it's violent, but it's still friendly competition. Other people cited chess, etc, which at it?s nature is ?violent.?

There's a difference between levels of "violence" be it realistic human violence (i.e. some rated M fps'ers) vs other types of violence (like shooting a red shell at my friend in mario kart).

So, most games have some sort of competitive element. This generally means there may be some level of "violence" - it's just to what degree.

If they made a "Super Pillow Snuggle Off" which had amazing gameplay and was fun, sure, it could be successful. It's just that generally the competitive elements game designers make has something people could list on the "violent" spectrum

[tomcramer]

Conventional "games" are typically one of three types: Skill, Strategy or Chance.

Contemporary story-based games are more immersive and multi-sensory, with visuals, sound and emotion. This is where violence can be a useful mechanic to ampify audience engagement or promote drama.

So, I don't think there is any real confusion in the differences between competition and violence.

[stepyourgameup]

Violence FTW.

Is violence required to make a good game great? I don't think it does at all. And I don't think it's hard to find a game that has a great story and one that doesn't use violence as its primary gameplay mechanic. I think it's safe to say that the majority of adventure games (ex: King's Quest, Sam & Max and Longest Journey 1) are games that feature very little to no violence and have created some most excellent stories in the process. Sam & Max in particular was recently released on XBLA. These games rely on one's puzzle-solving and logic abilities more than anything else.

While these games are typically not made today by many commercial game companies, there certainly is a following for them and they are still produced. Check out www.justadventure.com for an active community of adventure game afficiandos.

For those who want an easier adventure game (as these games tend to have a reputation of being very hard) that is also freeware check out Out of Order: http://www.hungrysoftware.com/#/games/outoforder

Oh, and if you haven't played Longest Journey 1 yet, you're really missing out!

[santellan17585]

It is definitely an interesting concept and one I would jump on immediately. I feel that most other gamers would too as gamers are always craving something new and original, and a non-violent game with gripping story to tell would be the cream of the crop. This is something I will surely be keeping my eyes peeled for.

[Inconnux]

Do you need violence to make a great game? no probably not... not much violence in golf games and they seem to sell pretty well :) Tetris, Guitar hero, Rockband, Dance dance revolution... all good games that sell very well... #1 in sales on the Nintendo DS... Nintendogs!

This being said many great games use violence to setup conflict... My problem isn't with a great game using violence, it is with people thinking that Violence == great game. I can't count how many crappy games have been released that believe that the more violence in the game makes their game more fun. If game developers would concentrate on the great gameplay first and then add the violent graphics they would sell more games! Violence for Violence sake is lame... no matter what the media.

[kelmon]

"Is violence required to make a good game great?"

No. That's probably one of the easiest questions I have come across. All you need is for the game to be fun and challenging, nothing else is really required.

The same is largely true of any media, not just games. Movies and books do not require violence to be good and sometimes it is rather sad to see some thrown in for no apparent reason.

[roachbrain]

I don't think is necessary for some types of games like strategy and puzzle games but I have yet to see a game with a great story that didn't have some form of violence in it. In all honesty I like the violence, and most of the stuff people are into includes some form of it. From sports to movies to books it's in our nature. I'm not going to make excuses for it; violence is just entertaining in game, sports, book, or movie. Now real life not as fun.

[eclipse525]

Peggle rocks! Wait... there's a lot of collisions in that game so that might be deemed violent. Hmmm...

[an0mali]

Violence is not a requisite of a great game. Portal has no violence, a great story, hilarious writing, and innovative gameplay. I'm actually really surprised no one has mentioned it yet...

[MattAnton]

Sex and violence sell, whether in a movie or video game media format. There are some exceptions of course but we are most interested with those 2 main categories. Great writeup. Submitted here http://gamefriends.com/cvs_view_submission.php?sid=294