Avoiding the “Do violent games cause violent children?” debate for a moment, I’d like to point out that eleven of twenty of the bestsellers of 2000 had non-violent game play (PC DATA). Maybe this should send a message to us game designers: Games can sell without violence. Indeed, non-violent game play may have contributed to the high sales figures. Not only will do non-violent games reach a wider audience, but, quite frankly, violence in gaming is becoming stale, much like RTS, first person shooters, and Myst-a-likes. Game designers should consider creating non-violent gameplay as yet another design challenge and a decision that will set their game apart in a field of look-a-likes. Creating games without violence forces game designers to think about new types of gameplay and to be creative. I admit -- when i think of creating a game, my first thought is, "How can i come up with a creative way to shoot someone?" Actively attempting to create non-violent gameplay has forced me to think of different goals and completely different game ideas. Oh and by the way violent games do lead to violent children. Many psychological experiments have shown this. I’ll believe the contrary when contrarians can produce scientific evidence showing that violent games have no causal or correlational effect to violent behavior. . . saying that there is no correlation is crap. Saying that there is no causation is also crap, but a little bit more questionable crap.

[You know the drill CliffyB. No off-topic one-liners, no personal attacks. You'll be barred from this forum until you post a public apology]


Edited by - MadKeithV on March 7, 2001 3:35:59 AM

I think he was joking.

Anyway, I don''t think violence in gaming is a bad thing per se, but certainly making violence the central theme of a game(Soldier of Fortune, upcoming Max Payne, fighting/boxing/wrestling) does seem questionable.

I play games basically to do things I can''t or wouldn''t want to do in real life, such as being a counter-terrorist, spy, alien, etc., and killing things. A central challenge of a non-violent game is making it fun to play without being dull.

Also, what is the definition of "violence"? Is BreakOut violent? You aim a projectile at bricks to smash them. Some versions, like DX-Ball, give you weapons and powerups. Or is it only "violent" if it involves death? What''s the difference between death and destruction, given that nothing in a game is really alive?

~CGameProgrammer( );

that''s the wrong approach. When making games you should not take such things into consideration

"Game designers should consider creating non-violent gameplay as yet another design challenge"

"when i think of creating a game, my first thought is, "How can i come up with a creative way to shoot someone?"


both are equally bad ways to design a game. A good game is about fun, violence is just atmosphere.

I find games like Carmageddon relaxing after a hard day at work.

Children who can't discerne right from wrong or reality from fiction are the ones who become violent because of video games. I prefer to refer to such children and mind *ucked. It's not the game industry's fault they're too inept to handle their issues without real life violence.

I have no pity for such people. I refuse to limit the rights of those who have a grasp on reality because of them.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com



Edited by - KalvinB on March 6, 2001 11:24:15 PM

Hmm. All children below a certain age cannot discern reality from fantasy. . . (Piaget the child psychologist, places the age at some time before 7 yrs old.)

While I do feel that violent games should be restricted to a psychologically fit age (14-15 maybe? Piaget''s Formal Operational stage?) I dont think they should be all out banned. I do however, place much more strength in psychological evidence than some arbitrary person saying, "Violence doesn''t affect us!" or "Violence does affect us!" As far as I know, scientific method is still the accepted way of proving something in the U.S.

But again, the children were a side note. I was just thinking that non-violent games are often the most creative, allowing the game designer to do new things (the Sims for example.) And there are some very creative violent games (Citizens of Kabuto). But i was just thinking that non-violent games are the way of the future as they open up interface and control options as well as opening the market to female gamers (yes SOME female gamers enjoy violent, competitive games, but most females prefer social, non violent games like cards (check out PC DATA: More females play online than men! They just don''t play violent games as much. In general women use media, especially music, to enhance their mood, whereas men use music to get them pumped up. [Christenson and Roberts, 1998] Same thing with games I guess.)

As we all know, in any story as we know it, there must be conflict of some sort for it to be interesting. Most games choose direct physical combat as a conflict, but there are many other options for conflict besides physical combat.


Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

7? Maybe I could tell the difference at a young age because my parents didn''t raise me to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Also whenever I would smack my siblings I was punished. I learned early that if I had a problem I go to my parents. I don''t take it out on other people.

You also have to account for the fact that millions of children play violent games or watch violent shows and most manage not to kill people in real life. If you wish to ban such violence from your own pre adolencent kids then fine. But don''t force unproven statistics on others.

I agree that there are many forms of conflicts not involving physical violence. But the issue is whether or not parents should pass their duties onto the government at the expense of the rights of others.

I say no simply because there is no 100% study done proving that fantasy violence is guarenteed to lead to real violence. In my personal case I was quite aware that violence against others was wrong long before age 7. I also was aware that playing GI-Joe was a fantasy act that was in no way related to real life long before age 7. Somehow I never assumed an "everything shield" was a real thing.

Ben

Funny, I have the same reaction: I think "what a cool types of nonviolent conflict can I come up with?" Then I add lots of lasers and exploding starships to the design. :D As terrible as it is in real life, virtual violence is (for many) both exciting and gratifying. It reaches deeply into our psyche, culture and mythology, and to paraphrase designer Greg Costikyan, I''d rather people beat each other with their minds than their naked fists.


I totally agree, though, that placing a restrictor like this on yourself can make you more creative (design pressure). When I was brainstorming solutions for stealth and trade in my current design I often asked myself, "how woulld this be fun if it were the *ONLY* thing in the game?" I found solutions I think I would have otherwise missed.

But I wouldn''t want to see a game completely exclude violence. The best of both worlds would be a game in which there could be violence, but doesn''t have to be-- and each choice comes as a tradeoff.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

"Best-selling" doesnt tell you how good a game really is. It simply tells you that it sold a lot, not that it was fun to play. Usually the "best-selling" games were unwanted christmas presents that people received, or even birthday presents etc.