David Braben: most game interaction involves killing (unfortunately)

that's funny

AI and people act differently.. you can see it on Gears 2 MP

And if they give me the option to kill milo in any sick manner that pleases me, i'll buy a copy for each of my friends so we can all enjoy our own secret (or not so secret) sick pleasures.

I'd say generally a lot of games are about killing.. but you'd be ignoring all sports titles which are pretty darn popular, not to mention all racing games, which have ZERO to do with killing. Last time I checked, they sell a lot as well.

Oh.. and Wii Sports/Resort.. those are about killing? Oh.. guess not..

There is a very key difference between killing people in games and killing people in reality:

ONE OF THEM ISN'T REAL.

Mass Effect comes to mind as a counter to that argument. Yes, there was killing, but a lot of the interaction was through their very detailed conversational system. I can think of five instances off the top of my head where bloodshed was avoided in that game through the magic of diplomacy.

I don't think the general populous is as desensitized as we even allow ourselves to believe.

I've been killing creatures and people my entire gaming life but the first time I put a revolver in the face of an elderly man in GTA IV and pulled the trigger, I let out an, "Oh shit" at seeing his head pop back and his body go tumbling backwards.

While it's still corny compared to real life, it gave me a very brief sense of having actually shot someone, and it felt very odd.

it's not really the killing that's enjoyable. it's the results. the little "+5" coming up after a kill? listening to the whining of your victims after you no-scope them? the glee of teabagging a downed enemy and then killing them when they come back to the scene to repeat it all again?

you don't get those kinds of results in beat 'em ups, hack & slashes, and racers.

It doesn't matter if you kill somebody in a game its NOT real.

On the other hand the argument is valid in terms of game quality.

It'd be nice to have a game where your choices lead to something different rather than the same old boring bs.

Problem is games like RPG's with big story lines are forming into sub-FPS games with few RPG elements as gaming is getting more popular and starting to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

"I see your point, I just think you're an asshole." - Chris Antista, Gamesradar.com

I get where he's coming from, but then again would you rather have The Fenix have a heated debate with the Locust and realize that deep down inside, they're all the same, or cut the bastard in half? For the people who want the former, aren't the Ace Attorney games filling that niche?

Also, hilarious first paragraph and transition!

Killing is a popular theme in gaming because it makes the gamer feel empowered. There is nothing that makes you feel more in control of something than if you have the power of life or death over it and gaming provides that in a safe, relatively acceptable way. Like it or not, killing makes you feel like God and, for the moment at least, that's a very good feeling.

I'm not exactly in disagreement with this sentiment. I'm the type of player that values non-violent NPC interaction more than the violent aspects. That's why games Fallout 3 are a step in the right direction for my type of player, methinks. You have the option to be violent (and in that post-nuclear, anarchist environment, you have to be a lot of the time), but there are also really good interactions to be had with fleshed out characters in that same environment.

Though a lot of other games that focus only on violence are not entirely gratuitous. War games, for example, probably feature the most killing, but this is the most realistic interaction you'd have...in a war.

I think another reason violence is a prime feature in games is because 99% of the makers and players of games are males, and males tend to be more physically aggressive, period. This could be due to how we raise kids culturally (raise girls to be passive aggressive, males to be active aggressive), but just biologically you can make the argument that males tend to be more physically violent. So it's not surprise that most games feature violence. I'm not saying this is a fault on the males' part, but it may explain the content of the majority of games.

Honestly I think killing is more of a gameplay mechanic most of the time. For instance, what the hell is supposed to happen when you're approaching a goomba? Should it just kind of walk off the screen? Should you start a conversation to reach a reasonable conclusion? Should you have to avoid it completely? No, you jump on it and it "dies", only to respawn later just like in FPS games.

The better argument is that games GLORIFY killing too much. However, to single games out instead of movies is the reason I defend violent games. I am against ANY form of media that depicts explicit, psychotic violence and murder. But honestly, virtually no video games are like that.

mario kills with his ass too... :(
pacman eats his enemies.... :(

Let's face it violence/killing is satisfying, it's part of being sentient, video games let us do this is a safe and harmless way (see no one actually gets hurt/dies). Violence is so common in games not only cause it's easy to do but as I said satisfying. Until the entire universe doesn't enjoy violence games will continue to contain violence and continue to be satisfying.

Yes it does. :)


When can we pre-order those night-vision goggles?

does resident evil count if you're shooting at things that have already been killed?

MEDIC!

What about the sims series, animal crossing and puzzle games? There are several popular genres that don't involve killing as a game mechanic.