Why are most games mechanically centered around violence, attacking or killing?

There are so many AAA games centered mechanically on violence, attacking enemies or killing them and for example so few that focus on humor and even fewer giving you chances to make some humorous interaction through gameplay. Why is it so? It seriously limits the potential of gaming as a medium.

It seems that it is impossible to make a big budget game and not have its core mechanics revolving around doing harm to enemies, unless it's some kind of an adventure game. Why is it so?

Are there any mainstream games which, for example, offer comedic value through gameplay and the interaction with the player? like, you can make amuse other characters through it (not yourself)...

I think cause we grew up playing good guys vs bad guys. Games can be very competitive, those things just so happen to blend well with it.

escapism?

I guess the majority of gamers are 18-35 adult males.

Here you go.

Because we all want to kill most people around us on a daily basis.

Don't act like it isn't true...

Because it was the easier most comfortable thing to develop, and the maturity level of gamers is that of a 5 year old.

Because cheese goes great on pizza.

@Salt_The_Fries: Because no one has figured out how to make a good, playable, RomCom. Unless you count Japanese dating sims...

Bingo. Gamers tend to not respond well to titles that don't focus on killing or destroying something.

As I've gotten older, I can't help but be a bit more conscious towards that level of content. It's not to say it's completely off-putting, but I'd like to see a greater market for games that don't have violence as its selling point.

Ah, sweet sanctimoniousness. You guys must feel awful good up there on your self-righteous pedestal.

Conflict is the essence of all narratives. And the most legitimate form of conflict tends to involve combat and strife. Travel the world and you will find nothing less than greed, rape, and murder. You may or may not also find war, provided that the oppressed has the capacity to continue a prolonged engagement against their tyrant oppressors. Otherwise, you'll find environments of peace where people tend to be forced into a state of legalism-induced malaise in which they're coerced into cooperation by the enforcers of a centralized power. The conflict typically depicted is the disruption of this centralized power, and thus we end up with violence and death.

When I played games like Mario or Spyro when I was a kid, I was always less entertained than when I played games like Starcraft or Resident Evil. The exaggeratedly archetypal and cartoon-y nature of the former always felt less legitimate as a story and was, therefore, less engaging than the latter (Conker being a notable exception seeing as how it satirizes the Mario 64 genre). And Manhunt was just good, old fashioned fun.

Sense of accomplishment, I'd say, is at the heart of the inclusion of death and violence. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Pure puzzle games that don't bother with the pretension of actors tend to be just as entertaining though. That being said, the peripheral inclusion of puzzles as an attachment to mature/violent games like Silent Hill also enhance the dark and violent narrative.

To be fair, those are violent in their own way.

Rape is still the popular emphasis in eroge. And rape tends to be the death of character.

Violence makes money. Look at all the big block busters. All of it involves violence against something. Same thing applies to video games. Publishers aren't going to spend a 500 million AAA budget on a game that doesn't have violence against robots, aliens, monsters, mutants, other people, or dinosaurs. Consumers won't buy it. I bet that if there's a way where they can make a hit game that sells 50 million units that doesn't involve violence against anything... we'll see lots of clones of it.

Or better yet a near clone of that game with just a hint of violence against robots, aliens, monsters, mutants, other people, or dinosaurs. Because it sells.

I think there are psychological as well as design reasons for this. First off we need to realize that games (certainly AAA ones) are actually very simple. Basically what developers are striving towards is the awesome button. The player taps a buton and the result is the most visceral feeling of satisfaction possible. Violence is perfect for this (now I'm being a bit of an amateur psychologist :) ). Seeing violence gets the blood pumping (this I'd guess is a biproduct of evolution). There are many other satisying tasks in life ofc, but they would be way to complex and slow to do in a game. You want the tap-aaah-tap-aaaaaah moment to moment experience. There's just not many substitutes for violence in this regard.

Why does the other option have to be humor? But as others have said it's the essence of conflict and what drives the narrative. And also appeals to the gamers who find joy in seeing yourself be a badass on screen. There's nothing wrong with it.

Humour is heavily based around timing, setting and breaking expectations. Video Games without many exceptions, involve some level of agency, player focus and many possibilities at once. Humour is hard to do when you're totally in control, it's easy to see why so few games even try it. It usually devolves into sarcastic quips repeated ad nauseum.

Why are most games mechanically centered around violence, attacking or killing?

Because it´s fun ?

Of course, it's comfy up here.

I was wondering the same thing when playing SOMA. So many games have violence or action as a means to provide gameplay.

No wonder The Witcher 3 and Undertale got such rave reviews. As action and violence isn't the main part of those games (though still a huge part in TW3)

@Ant_17 said:

Here you go.

Is that the sequel to Luigi's Mansion ?

@R4gn4r0k: Yes, that is the sequel to Luigi's Mansion.

God, my sides hurt.

The vast majority of The Witcher 3's quests come down to go fight things and stab with sword, and the whole joke and story premise of Undertale is built on whether or not you killed things in battle. Violence is absolutely a significant part of those games, you can argue it's not the thing people love the most about the game, but it absolutely is a main part of those games. Geralt's job and main quest is inherently violent.

zombie games don't count, they're already dead

Hahahahaha xD

Good points. What I meant was... violence and action takes more of a back seat in those games ? I mean yeah, it's still a huge part. Geralt does a lot of killing and slashing and merking. However, there is also a very human side to it all. There is a lot of talking, a lot of understanding. Some sidequests weren't about killing or violence at all... Apparently some battles in Undertale are about talking as well.

So yeah, it's definitely still a main part in those games... But less so than your average shoot'em'up AAA game. I hope you see my point.

But it was SOMA that got me thinking about it all. The first few hours I was just walking around and taking in the story and I was wondering: will I get tired of it if this game will offer me no violence ? No shooting ? no action ?

And the answer was: Nope ! The game has a great pacing, lots of things to keep the gameplay interesting until the very end. And in fact, it was one of the few games in the past years that kept me hooked !!! I basically stopped playing other games, and cleared up my free time to get more SOMA done.

Zombie games are the worst offenders. You are basically a mass murderer in those games.

What did that counter say on the top of your screen when you were done with Dead Rising 3 ? :P

Puzzle, sports and simulation are pretty big genres in gaming. Racing games too.

Many of the biggest and most popular movies also deal with violence and conflict.

Dishing out violence (especially towards "bad" guys) is the easiest form of escapism and particularly, a source of empowerment. From whatever they feel is oppressing them in their real lives They get a virtual power trip that harms no one. Except egos in multiplayer.

Humour always had a very strong presence in gaming...

Most people play games to have fun anyway and gaming have broad genres that caters to every needs, including the really weird ones.

I enjoy my Euro Trucking and my violent games in equal measure.

I think a few here need to step down from their horses.

A strange sentiment from the OP who spends most of his life hating a machine that has never done him any harm (PS4) and attacking people who don't like his beloved (Xbox One).

I would have expected a 'why don't you hate everyone who doesn't like what you like?' thread instead of this happy hippy shit.

There are genres that don't revolve around violence:

• Adventure
• Puzzle
• Racing
• Simulation
• Sports
• Visual novel

Two games come to mind that the TC should try, if haven't already:

1. Undertale.

2. Renowned Explorers: International Society

Lack of imagination from developers. Oh, and laziness.

First the terrible bias against Xbox One with its shit exclusives... now this. I'm actually worried about old Salty... does anyone know him, is he okay?

Because thats all most people know. They're creatively bankrupt. If you look at all the short films young and aspiring filmmakers put on youtube 95% of them feature some sort of gun violence because thats all they've seen their lives on TV and to them thats all they know to be entertainment. Its hard to make a game about something other then violence because theres very little else out there to learn from or be inspired by.

OP wants to play Care Bears the game. You go around helping old ladies across the street and you can make pink butterfly's that go around and spread love to all the NPC's then comedy ensues. You win the game by helping Trump see the error of his ways but it's a lot harder than Bloodborne ever could be.

I agree TC. I think developers just develop what sells. Just like the movie business. Except the movie business has humor movies. So that's a bad example.

I don't know why exactly.

I thought that is no longer the case and is now a common gaming myth.

You are spot on.... .

You can have games without it , that is what many (not all) indies have. Plus all the other genres mentioned by other posters. How much fun is a walking simulator, not very fun...imo.

Now games like Heavy Rain, the walking dead, Game of thrones (telltale), Beyond 2 souls, Until dawn etc... are all amazing games that don't rely on your killing anyone...but chances are that many (including these guys) bashed them back when they came out for being boring or something like that.

Oh an Op... What happened to you man? I know you were a major xbox supporter but you seem like you have been defeated and emasculated. Have you been hanging out at that politically correct hugbox of degeneracy and doublethink , the neogaf website?

Why are police and Hospital shows always on TV? Life and death. The highest stakes create the most dramatic scenarios.

Part of it is that this is just the trend right now. Game companies see the runaway success of things like Call of Duty and want a piece. This happened with extreme sports games back in the early 2000s after the astronomical sales of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. I keep crossing my fingers that Rocket League will have a similar effect on the industry. Monster Truck Baseball, make it happen guys.

@cainetao11: I hate reenactment shows featuring those. Worst cr*p ever. And there are so popular nowadays. I personally think they're cancer of television.

That a good question. I don't know, my guess would be the nature of conflict lends itself well to certain mechanics that many find appealing in gameplay. Quick reaction times, situational awareness, adaptation,etc.

Are you not entertained?

Flight sims are always good for soothing nerves. I just fly around to admire the scenery.

FSX has the benefit of customizing accurate clouds. As a weatherman, that capability gives me a boner, especially when I can input real-world weather data.

I think this sums it up nicely.

Kings quest, space quest, and myst are all great series with little violence and killing.

I realize that conflict is the essence of all narratives, and I don't have a problem with violence and killing in games. Hell, I'm playing Wolfenstein tonight and I'm having a lot of fun killing Nazis.

I guess my disappointment is just that there seems to be so little variety in the KINDS of conflict. I mean, conflict is at the heart of movies and literature as well, but it seems MUCH easier to make a compelling movie or novel in which the conflict doesn't require killing anything. You can make a movie about the conflict against police corruption, and easily have 90% of it be talking and not have a single person die. But make a game about someone fighting police corruption, and it's guaranteed that at some point you're gonna have to go gun down some dirty cops.

Let's be fair, I'm not REALLY complaining about this. I'm just SORT OF complaining about this. I understand that the nature of the videogame medium skews heavily towards the kinds of conflicts that involve actively killing dudes or stomping goombas. I also understand that every medium has its strengths and limitations. So if videogames just plain aren't all that well suited to certain KINDS of conflicts, I can accept that. Still, it's a little bit disappointing to kind of see those limitations. I've got no problem with fictional violence or killing. Hell, I've got Aliens, Mad Max series, and Pulp Fiction in my movie library. But I've also got a lot of stuff like Rushmore and Good Night And Good Luck in my movie library. Hell, it would be hard as shit to translate something like Boyz in the Hood into a videogame. Could potentially work for an adaptation to Menace to Society, as long as you lose in the end. But even within the fairly narrow context of "90's anti-violence stories about young black living amidst a backdrop of violence", some stories just wouldn't translate well.

Just as an example, Boys in the Hood. The story critically relies on the fact that the protagonist DIDN'T turn to violence. And you can't just go the standard "choose your own adventure" model and let the "good ending" only happen if you play the game the right way. That allows people to play the game ENTIRELY WRONG, thus forcing the game's writers to effectively have to write TWO equally compelling stories whereas a movie writer could just write one script and that's what the audience gets. If the player chooses the wrong path, then that dilutes the artist's statement. If the game is structured so as to prevent wrong choices from being made, then that also hurts the narrative if the big point relies on the choices that the protagonist makes. And furthermore, you also get gamers (such as myself) complaining that the allowed choices seem arbitrary and that that it seems like bullshit to provide the illusion of choice in order to suit the narrative, only to strip it away once the player screws up.

Games are REALLY hard in that respect. If nothing else, the interactive nature of games allows for players to **** the whole thing up. Therefore, games generally get restricted to the kinds of broad stuff that players CAN'T **** up, such as "Nazis are bad, you win when you kill enough Nazis." More complex and/or subtle conflicts can be totally ruined by player interaction, which means reducing player interaction, which then results in people complaining, "if I wanted an on-rails experience, I would have just watched a damn movie."

I like violence. You mad TC?

Because the vast majority of gamers are in their late teens and older and that is the type of content that appeals to them the most.

Why are so many TV shows centered around crime and violence? Think about the top most viewed shows right now and I bet the vast majority have violent content.

Honestly, I think the violence in most games is too watered down. Where is the realistic gore? An R-Rated action movie on average still shows more gruesome violence than the average M Rated game.

Challange is the answer. There's no game without challange. Beating something or someone in order to progress. It doesn't always have to be guns, Super Mario doesn't use guns, yet he stomps on his enemies.

In the famous words of evil Ryu, "VIOLENCE IS MY ALL"

It's not like there's much else watchable on TV these days. I've personally abandoned TV altogether. Everything you want to watch is on the internet, and you don't need to get attacked by retarded commercials.

Actually the reason is quite fundamental:
In programming, it is easier to let the player delete than to let the player create.

In modern gaming you could extrapolate this to: it is easier to let the player delete creatively than to let the player create creatively.

That is why in games either the state of things is preserved by the player interactions or the player gets to destroy things in some way. And destroying things is fun. So that is why most games are centered around destruction in some way.