@jg4xchamp said:
Because it was the easier most comfortable thing to develop, and the maturity level of gamers is that of a 5 year old.
@MonsieurX said:
I guess the majority of gamers are 18-35 adult males.
@drinkerofjuice said:
Bingo. Gamers tend to not respond well to titles that don't focus on killing or destroying something.
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.
Log in to comment