Do you think the harming of innocents in games depends on the genre?

[pulse2]

On to the other point: But you have to bear in mind that MW2 was trying to convey the evil of those murderers, how heartless they were from a first person point of view, in the same way that any other game conveys evil. As someone said, GoW would be classed as fantasy so it's okay, but is it really? What if they had made GoW more about killing innocents and less about killing the gods, just because he's evil, would it still be okay? Would it have been okay if you had to chase injured civilians down and cut out their innards or stab them multiple times as they scream out in agony, just because it was a fantasy game? I doubt it. I think the same rule would still apply, though I'm partial to the idea that MW2 is closer to reality and to "our time" then GoW is, and therefore is probably more disturbing.

You havnt played God of War have you. There are quite a few parts where you are required to sacrifice sreaming civilians, bash their faces onto walls, etc. I believe it was GOW2 where at one point you are forcing this innocent guy to read a book. As he reads the book it slowly drains his life force or something killing him. Every once in awhile he stop and starts crying and begging you. You then have to beat the shit out of him to help motivate him to continue.

As I said before I think the sole reason it is accepted in some games and not in others is because of who you play as. You can chase down and kill off civilians in GTA4 but since your playing as a mobster people dont care that much. They only got so worked up about MW2 because you were playing as a US military soldier.

No, I meant if it was all a little more graphic (everyone was gutted in the same way the monsters and male gods are), or rather if the graphics were more realistic then they were on PS2. I've played all 3 and the PSP versions.

There were moments where you killed innocent females and such, but they weren't always seen, take Poseidon's Princess for example and being crushed by the lever. They could have shown you the death in detail, but they chose not to. Even Hera's death is a break of the neck rather then a gutting in the same way he would slaughter others. This could be because they were female, who knows, but somehow the deaths didn't seem as bad as they would have in a MW game, which goes back to what I was asking in topic, what is it that makes it okay to slaughter innocents in GoW but not shoot innocents in MW for example?

 

[mrdude2010]

it's the personal preference of the developer, it seems.

i suppose part of it is also that in FPS games you tend to be a trained soldier, and mowing down unarmed civilians while on government payroll tends to piss off said government. in RTS games like skyrim and fallout, however, you're ostensibly just another citizen, and hell, some of the NPC's have better equipment and stats than you, especially in the early game. it feels a lot less like a massacre and more like a murder, i suppose is one way of putting it.

 

[Seagoon]

The only game I do this with is Oblivion. And only when I get really bored with it.

OK...and in GTA4 I made a helicopter crash to the ground with Carmen inside while I jumped to the safety of the roof of a skyscraper on my side of the chopper.

So it's not something I would whine about if it was missing from any particular game.

you got bored of oblivion..... i don't believe you...

 

[Kiardras]

The reason you can do it in GTA, Oblivion etc is that you are playing a role that you decide. The reason its frowned upon in FPS' like COD and BF is because most of the time you are attempting to play a professional soldier. And all sarcy comments aside, proffesional soldiers don't massacre civvies.

Now, No Russion fit the story of COD, so I didn't object to it at all, although I can't help but feel they wrote the story to include the massacre, rather than the other way round.

At the end of the day its like sex. If its in there for a good solid reason, then fine. If its showhorned in without even paying lipservice to the plot, then it shouldn't be there.

Deus Ex spoiler -

Spoiler

So far, I've been attempting to play non lethally, albeit without forcing myself. Simply because I'm meant to be head of security, not a murder machine. Gangsters and cops don't need to be gunned down with reckless abandon.

The only time I have broken from this was when I first saw teh same people who attacked Sarif, and then the second time was when Malik died and I went all "REVENGE!!!!" on them. So even when able to kill "civilians" it doesn't always sit right for the game.

 

[Bocaj2000]

A good game makes one feel guilty about killing civilians. An okay game makes them no more than expendable pixels.

 

[Littaly]

I'm uncomfortable with it in all cases, but the reason it's seen as worse in Modern Warfare 2 is pretty obvious: it looks more realistic. If the game has a lighter, more game-esque tone in general (like Fallout or GTA), killing innocent people isn't going to be as bad because it's made clear at every time that it's either not real or not meant to be taken seriously (or both). While a game like Modern Warfare 2, while it's not realistic, it looks, real, it sounds real, and it has a very serious tone to it, so the airport massacre hits much, much harder.

 

[Fraeir]

I'll assume the reason MW2 received such a shitstorm for their mission was because Makarov and the others were there with the explicit objective to kill as many innocents as possible (though you don't have to shoot anyone yourself).

In most games killing civilians is either not allowed, purely optional (a la GTA4) or you tend to rather help/defend civilians.

Thinking about it, have you ever been across a mission (story one) that wanted you to gun down as many people as possible in cold blood?


When all comes down to it though - I don't really care, they're pixellated civilians. I don't feel like grabbing a gun and going out gunning down real people. Noone gets fucked up like that from games alone; You gotta be screwed up mentally already for a game to trigger a violent spaz, and even then, it's the parents' or others responsibility to make sure whoever's that screwed up don't get a hold of whatever game they're playing.

The entire discussion is all-in-all, silly; Religion fucks up more lives than games ever have, for example.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

yes. i'm fine with slaughtering a town full of folks in an RPG for example. unless the developer is doing some kind of 'blindly follow orders' 'makes you do terrible stuff' message about war, i dont expect a soldier to have to mow down a village full of innocents.

 

[Zeekar]

... The main difference is, Skyrim and Fallout are sandbox games (and RPGs at that). A sandbox game requires (neutral) NPCs to make the world interesting and most sandbox games try to give the player a certain freedom.

One more thing: In sandbox games, prop npcs generally are just texture swaps of one another, wandering around aimlessly. They have no personality or character. They are just there to make the world feel more alive.

Killing them is an entertaining diversion at best, but has no emotional weight whatsoever.

In a linear game, the npcs that are included have a much greater chance of moving with purpose and being unique -- more realistic in feel. This is because they don't need to be modeled and programmed en masse.

I'm not saying that the MW civilians seemed real to me, but they acted more realistically than would a bunch of randomly placed townsfolk talking about nothing.

That could be why it was entertained as being more "disturbing".

 

[Da Orky Man]

There's one genre everyone forgets about in this topic. Strategy games.
In Age of Empires, the best way to weaken you enemy isn't by fighting his army. It's by attacking his civilians and villagers. I don't charge right at his well-protected fortress, I go around the back and massacre his resourcing operations.

i get really emotionally invested in rts.

Same. Ever played Homeworld? The third mission will have you in tears.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

In GTA, the death of civilians is trivialized. The game doesn't take place in the real world, it takes place in a weird, almost cartoonish place where actions don't have lasting consequences. The people you're killing in that game are clearly not people, they're just sacks of meat.

MW2, however was attempting to portray the death of civilians in a realistic light, in a terrorist attack. I, for one, applaud their effort. Unfortunately, the writing of that game didn't quite lend the situation as much gravity as it could have had, and disappearing bodies took away from the immersion, which is REALLY important if you're trying to make the player feel uncomfortable with what they're doing.


But I digress. The point is that it's not the genre that matters, it's the context.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

And for good reason too, the entire scene is quite sickening, especially when you start considering what it may have lead to (Norway massacre).

This statement seems to have been put there just to derail it into "Video games don't cause violence." argument.

I only mentioned it because the murderer himself claimed to have practiced on Modern Warfare 2. There's no proof for or against that, but it all seems a little convenient.

I've got proof against that - my proof being that there are almost no similarities between MW2 and real, physical armed combat. Anybody who claims to have trained themselves to shoot on MW2 is talking out of their stupid ass.

Anders Behring Breivik only said that to try and take some of the heat off of himself and fork it over onto the 'Videogames cause violence' bandwagon.

To say that COD taught you armed combat skills makes about as much sense as saying that Viva Pinata taught you how to breed animals, or that Need For Speed taught you how to drive... none at all!

Sorry about that - rant over.

OT: I don't think it really matters tbh - I consider all 'innocents' in games to be nothing more than bits of squishy code put in there for me to kill anyway so why not just go for it?

In short - just have fun with what they give you and don't complain

 

[C95J]

I have never complained about killing civilians in games, and never will.

Seriously, who cares? No-one should, they are fucking virtual characters, who are non-existent. It's not morally wrong to kill something that didn't even exist in the first place. I do agree with your statement OP, I have no idea why people noticed it in MW2, and not any other game. My best guess would be that it is a lot of people getting mowed down at once, in an airport (things seem more serious when it is in an airport).

 

[Dendio]

The music and atmosphere of that level is far darker than those given in any GTA game. The dark music and serious tone make it terrifying more so than anything else. That clip makes GTA seem light-hearted and humorous.

 

[freaper]

If there's one good thing MW2 did right was the airport scene. It's the only game where I actually felt bad for seeing all these people die, for no reason other than the action itself. I remember not firing a single bullet.

On the other hand, in Prototype, I would go around slaughtering civilians out of boredom. Even Asscreed, where you'd get punished, or All Points Bulletin, had nothing holding me back from hitting the annoying civies.

I'm not in favour of "killing civilians in games", but I think if you approach the subject (of massacring innocents) in a sensible way, it can illustrate some situations differently, and maybe better.

 

[Skops]

Try killing nuetral NPC's in STALKER SoC and getting a bad reputation. Seriously, you start getting hunted by the CPU's. It's scary and yet amazing when you just go back to your old stash point for a few minutes just to hide out, look out the window and see 8 NPC's running to your location weapons drawn and fanning out into flanking positions.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I guess the look and feel of a game and its gameplay have a lot to do with the conscious decision to harm defenseless NPCs.

GTA is an example that, while it tries to convey a serious or emotional narrative, still comes across as silly and non-convincing. So the mindless destruction, disregard to for harmless NPCs, and taking on the law really seems inconsequential to the psyche.

BioShock, on the other hand, conveys a certain feel and tone that is played throughout your adventures in Rapture. Not only are fighting to stay alive, but you must utilize every asset you can to ensure your escape, namely ADAM. To harvest a Little Sister is one of the biggest dilemmas that you face (especially in BioShock 2 when you are not only a Big Daddy, but actually have a brief period to bond with the girls). Harvesting a Little Sister will give you a large amount of ADAM, but at the cost of the girl's life (and affecting your game ending).

Killing a little girl, especially one that becomes fond of you, is something I could never do, primarily because you learn the horrors and hell that these little girls go through and saving them seems like the more moral choice.

Referencing the MW2 video, I wouldn't want to play that scenario, primarily because it is pointless. No one fights back, everyone is in a panic and fleeing, and it conveys no form of joy or accomplishment from killing defenseless NPCs.

 

[Snake Plissken]

If there are squishy people around, I will make sure to see what their insides look like regardless of which side they're playing for.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Why are civilians different from the soldiers? I don't understand why people are touchy.

They aren't realy civilians. Obviously it would be totally different if COD4 had you chain down some Russians. But y'know.

I love killing civilians. Prototype is excellent for this. I love watching them ragdolize all over the place, I love causing the mayhem. I love killing somebody, and then acting like I didn't do it. And then chasing after the person I imagined did it.

It's fun, not morbid. They're just 1's and 0's.