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

It's an inevitability. No point in asking a question with an obvious answer..

Nothing wrong with fake violence.

And there you go.

Go play sport/puzzle games dude

Self-righteous? Nah. I just go by what I constantly see.

Not all conflict narratives centre themselves on violence and death. There's the internal struggle, a struggle against traditions/norms and, as you said, a struggle against institutions but in a non-violent way. There's a wide variety of ways to present a conflict in a storyline where the objective for the protaganist isn't to kill something. As to how that can lead to an interesting gameplay experience is another story, but its been well proven in film, television and of course the literary arts.

Of course, as a kid you're going to be more engaged with the likes of Starcraft and Resident Evil, because you're a kid. That level of content is new, exciting even because it's a far cry away from what's catered to your age group at that time. But to say a sense of the accomplishment is the core of death and violence is a tad bit cynical and morbid.

I believe violent and non-violent games can coexist.

because killing is a part of the human nature, we will always wage war and kill one another. Atleast in video we only kill pixels and not real human beings. I rather see people play games then seek "glory" in war. Humans are sadistic creature who enjoy the suffering of others.

Perfectly stated. The reason that most games don't base themselves around non-violent conflict is that gamers actively resist games taking on social issues. They just want them to be pure escapism.

That's what Americans like

No, there are also JRPGs where the whole focus is on how to make the man more girly or how to make the girl look manly. O_o

Simple...

Cause violence is part of life, you think a game with space aliens vs space marines is gonna be about who can cook burgers better?, do you think a post apocalyptic game is gonna have carebears and shit rainbows?. Technically yeah you can have games like "Aliens vs Space Marines Cook off in Space", but honestly it just sounds stupid on so many lvls.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't have violence at all. Major games, too. All sorts of genres from stuff like the craptacular Gone Home, to awesome games like Cities: Skylines. There's sports games, games revolving around politics, driving games. We can even take a look at some games that have options for violence, but you can play them without having to do or see any of it. Minecraft can be played in peaceful mode and games like Medieval Engineers, stuff like The Sims (huge franchise).

As for your question, here:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/274350/

You can go around hugging everyone like you've always wanted to.

The younger fellas like violence en being a hero or a bad guy. If that generation stops loving that genre or if they will get bored out of it then the next generation will love the violence genre. And we all know that the younger people have more free time. In that case more sales from the younger generation. Means targeting that audience. It's all about the sales why even ask the question man.

Or rather, judging according to a derogatory generalization. You, and they, weren't making a point about a disproportionate presence of one genre over another. You outright stated that gamers enjoy violence because they have the mentality of adolescence, as though violence is only relevant to children. Oversimplification doesn't even begin to describe that level of arrogance.

You can argue that a game can involve conflict beyond the physical, but you can't necessarily state that an environmental simulator involving human actors logically refers to any type of narrative conflict other than violence--if not a prelude to violent confrontation. Film and literature, for instance, are self-driven narratives. Neither the reader nor the viewer has any control over the scenarios being played out and, as such, there's no need for a 3D representation to provide the option of a violent confrontation or otherwise. In which case, the question arises: what is the purpose of assigning agency to a three-dimensional, physically-moded avatar if the character(s) are dealing purely with metaphysical issues involving stress and social mores? There's only one real reason to provide a fully featured, 3D avatar when you get right down to it: physical altercation.

This is why I pointed out that puzzle games that either exclude or ignore the presence of actors feel the most natural and are more fun. It's also why David Cage games such as Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain--which use QTEs as a proxy for control over the characters (i.e. the illusion of control; a movie that's trying to be a game)--feel so imbalanced and awkward.

BTW: my opinions of a Resident Evil and StarCraft haven't changed this late in my life (I'm nearly thirty). The only reason I brought up my youth is because that's when Mario 64-type games existed as a larger cause for comparison. It also illustrates why they're less popular now as time went on. It's a natural selection of narratives if you will: one felt more natural and relevant than the other, and so one succeeded while the other failed.

This just in: violence is not all there is to life as we know it. In fact, it's a very small part to most of us. There's so much more out there to explore and ponder and experience.

There's nothing wrong with digital violence, but to say that's all there is to imagine and portray, is nonsense.

Because games are focused on white men who love nothing more then to beat up and rape women and harass people using racist, sexist and homophobic comments online.

According to certain feminists... they have "scientific" studies to back it too. Don't even get me on the cyber touching.

Then why there many violent Japanese games?

Yeah that's a ridiculous thing for him to say considering there are so many more places around the world that are much more violent than the US.

@lamprey263 said:

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

This was a good one.

Well yeah I always wonder why I enjoy all these killing and smashing heads and exploding bodies etc. in video games but mostly detest and am against what I read in the papers about wars, criminality and violence? For one thing, I guess human being is bad at heart but we try to control ourselves all the time. Why people just love crime pages of the papers or watch scary movies all the time? the adrenaline secretion makes you high and feels good.

On gaming, yeah well there were a few funny and humorous in ponit&click adventure genre, to be specific the early Leisure Suit Larry games. But even this genre turned to blood and gore and violence games like Still life and similar. Nowaday most point&clicks are based on some crime story and are horror or bloody as well.

Other games I play with no killing. Plenty of games:

@gamecubepad said:

Simple...

That is good... that is good...

The American games are focused on this disproportionately, Japanese games are less concerned with gun violence.

Well, since there are a wide variety of responses here about why games are violent, I'll just address the use of humor in games through this video

The problem is you are only looking at AAA games where the market research shows this is the type of game most frequently bought by the target audience. There are so many outstanding games featuring no killing at all, you just wont find them sat alongside 'Fallout 4' or 'COD: The Next Version + Map Pack 1 DLC + Pass'.

Shit post is shit post.

I'm more so looking at it as a matter of taste. Gamers have demonstrated time and again that they're unwilling to open up to a game where a sense of development and progression is provided through non-violent disclosure. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but there's a morbid sense of perception that's highly apparent within this group.

While I understand where you're coming when it comes to film and literature, it's a bit narrow minded to think that the sole purpose of a interactive 3D model is for it to serve as a vessel for physical confrontations. It's a notion like that which stunts the medium from reaching its full potential, and it leads back to the first point I made as gamers tend to dismiss interactive games that don't have any "action". The issue tends to fall between either one of two areas: Either the developer is creatively bankrupt and feels violent confrontations are the only source of progression in a video game, or it's the sense that the targeted audience aren't going to be keen on having an experience that doesn't fall along those lines.

Either way, it's shallow. This is an interactive medium, not an inherently violent one, and as a result it's one that's hard to take seriously because it's still in that primitive stage of instant gratification.

Because humans, and human males particularly, and inherently violent animals?

@Salt_The_Fries: There are alot of such games with zero killing or violence or even attacking and are great , you must be blind to not see them and we talking about massive hits also not just your average joe.

Now if you ask why most games using the attack/violence technique ... Its all about the genres.

For example TETRIS dont need any kind of attacking to work. How can you do that with FPS genre ..when as the word states is a shooter ! You need to shoot , therefore attack. What about hack and slash , fighting genres , combat sports and so many different genres that can work without any kind of attacking/violence or killing ( Dead Space anyone ? )

Then you have puzzle and adventure / various sport genres which can be great when the nature of those genres can be able to stand without any kind of attacking/violence. Too many examples to think of. From games like Forza to Gran Turismo , from Fifa soccer to games like Portal which are of high quality and are either AAA or AAA caliber or close to AAA even.

The issue is we have way way more action based games than puzzles/card/adventure/racer games etc because thats what people prefers most ... and thats where money is.

@AzatiS: They are blind. The number of options out there is staggering...all across many genres up to AAA games/studios. Here's the reality, this is not about having non-violent games, this is about what you (or what everyone else) enjoys. That's what's 'problematic' and needs to change.

Anyways, here's a nice olive branch for you guys:

http://www.pcgamer.com/explore-and-paint-in-eastshades-gorgeous-open-world/

Perfect game for ya, you can talk to people, and like draw them pictures and stuff.

Just to throw this out there, anyone who has a problem with what the majority of gamers play/enjoy/buy you should switch to PC ASAP. While there are still a ton of options for non-violent games on the consoles, PC is absolutely overflowing with them.

+1

Although SOMA has violence, it certainly is not from the player. The whole idea is to avoid the violence.....scurry around in the shadows like little mice. I love it!

There are plenty of games without it.

People are savages? Although this savage had just as much fun with Animal Crossing as I did with COD.

Whether you like the actual shows is absolutely personal. I don't watch much TV personally. But one of the things taught to anyone in first year of Acting school is "raise the stakes" for yourself. You must get personally involved and raising the stakes of a given scene will do so. What higher stakes are there then being killed or having to kill in order to stay alive?

Because we're all base creatures who thrive on mayhem and death. Fortunately humanity has formed social rules (At least most societies have) which prevent most of us from delving into our sociopathic tendencies. Gaming, as it turns out, is good way to release those tensions without the danger of harming others in the process.

Let's all gather around with our buddies a few beers and a good exhilarating evening of Must and Journey...shall we?

a video was posted recently on this topic

Satisfaction

The issue is that the most popular video games are usually the violent ones. There are many video games dealing with non-violent conflict (e.g. adventure games, visual novels, puzzle games, racers, simulations, sports, art games), but they're nowhere near as popular as violent games.

Perhaps it's because violence is one of the easiest and most accessible ways to express conflict? Every other entertainment medium is rife with it, why should games be any different? Humans have an insatiable blood lust. It's best we have ways to act out or play into our desires without actually committing some real life carnage.

Video games are way more rife with violence than other media. In the literature, music and sports industries, most of the popular books, songs and sports usually revolve around non-violent conflict, rather than violent conflict. While the biggest Hollywood blockbusters are often rife with violence, most of the critically acclaimed films usually revolve around non-violent conflict, and countless non-violent movies have become big blockbusters. In the film, literature, music and sports industries, there is widespread support for non-violent entertainment media. But when it comes to video games, non-violent games rarely ever become big hits and rarely ever win GOTY awards. Violence is far more central to the video game industry than it is for other entertainment industries.