Has anyone else grown weary of mindless killing being so prevalent in games?

[Vorpal_Smilodon]

Alpha Protocol had one line in the stats screen that overshadows most of my other experience with the game: Orphans Created. Just that number added the sense that the people you're killing are real in the game world instead of disposable numbers that exist only to be shot.

Playing through Deus Ex Human Revolution I failed a pacifist run because one of the guards I knocked out fell to his death off the building he was standing ontop of.

Some of my favorite games are Fallout New Vegas and Planescape Torment, where you get to go into situations and you actually get to choose what side you're on! You can choose to betray both sides, or abstain from conflict, instead of being mindlessly pointed at the enemies, and its great!

The catalyst for this thread is that I've been playing Guild Wars 2, which is a really enjoyable game, but expects you to kill hundreds or thousands(or more if you keep playing, its a MMO) of sentient beings for little to no reason. Starting as an asura character made me really enjoy npc interactions with skritt (similar to gully dwarves) but elsewhere in the game they're enemies to be slaughtered wholesale and it really sits wrong with me.

Take note that I don't dislike violence in games, or even mindless killing of morality free things like zombies, or mindlessly killing because you're playing an evil character (fun!) I just feel like a small handful of games that present intelligent choices (most stealth games for example) have somewhat ruined for me the majority of games where its just assumed that you'll kill anything designated as enemies.


PS: yes I've played Spec Ops the Line

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm completely fine with killing anything that attacks me first. If they attacked me indiscriminately on their own then it's entirely their fault (even if they're programed to do it), and I will kill them without a second thought because at that point it's self defense. I tend not to kill enemies that surrender or try to escape though. Still, nothing wrong with a little wonton destruction, I mean they are just a bunch of pixels on a screen after all, no matter how lovingly crafted by the developers, it's their entire purpose to be killed.

 

[The Madman]

I'm sick of it. I really really am.

What I want is a game that treats death with the sort of reverence it deserves, even for those you're fighting. A game which doesn't glorify the combat but instead shows death for what it is: Cruel and ugly. Most games just use it as a statistic or worse, as points.

I still await the game where killing even one person will have an impact. Where my character feels the repercussions of that act, the weight behind having just taken something from the world which can never be restored.

It's not as though I hate actiony shooters mind you, but as graphics and quality gets better and better from the days of cartoony violence I do wish developers paid a bit more reverence for death. That's why I enjoy games like Red Orchestra far more than Call of Duty and its ilk, not just because of the supposedly 'realistic gameplay' but because it paints war as violent and miserable, not something to glorify. First time I was playing online and heard another player crying for his mother as he bled to death it genuinely shook me, that's just not something I'm used to in any sort of multiplayer game. And that's good! It sort of grounds the game and brings the perspective back to something more reasonable.

 

[Luca72]

I still like to shoot people in multiplayer, because I'm outplaying the person in front of me. But in singleplayer games, I'm just kind of clicking until the other guy stops moving.

I honestly don't know what it is. I realized while playing Dishonored that it may be the best killing has ever been in a game. But I was still totally bored with it. Maybe I feel like I've seen an NPC killed in every way possible already. Sure, it usually feels silly in the context of the game, since you may kill about a hundred people through the course of a single game, but if the gameplay is good enough I don't mind the logical leap. Maybe I'm just getting older.

What's really strange is I was loving Bioshock Infinite to death at the start. I was actually disappointed when the fighting broke out and I remembered it was an FPS. I still thought the game was great, but that initial reaction stuck with me. In Half Life 2, or Bioshock, I was ready to get whatever weapon I could find and join the party. But now, I kind of wanted to explore the scenery instead of fight.

Oh shit. Am I becoming an adventure gamer?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm sick of it. I really really am.

What I want is a game that treats death with the sort of reverence it deserves, even for those you're fighting. A game which doesn't glorify the combat but instead shows death for what it is: Cruel and ugly. Most games just use it as a statistic or worse, as points.

I still await the game where killing even one person will have an impact. Where my character feels the repercussions of that act, the weight behind having just taken something from the world which can never be restored.

It's not as though I hate actiony shooters mind you, but as graphics and quality gets better and better from the days of cartoony violence I do wish developers paid a bit more reverence for death. That's why I enjoy games like Red Orchestra far more than Call of Duty and its ilk, not just because of the supposedly 'realistic gameplay' but because it paints war as violent and miserable, not something to glorify. First time I was playing online and heard another player crying for his mother as he bled to death it genuinely shook me, that's just not something I'm used to in any sort of multiplayer game. And that's good! It sort of grounds the game and brings the perspective back to something more reasonable.

Well you can hear other players crying for their mothers when they're playing the Call of Duty multiplayer as well, but most of the time it's 12 year old kids screaming for a sandwich or another mountain dew.

 

[The Madman]

Well you can hear other players crying for their mothers when they're playing the Call of Duty multiplayer as well, but most of the time it's 12 year old kids screaming for a sandwich or another mountain dew.

Hah, clever! Not quite what I meant obviously but true enough.

Oh shit. Am I becoming an adventure gamer?

One of us, One of us...

 

[Oroboros]

Yeah, wholesale slaughter really wears thin for me in a lot of games. In Jedi Academy you can use level 3 force choke (hilariously, a dark side power)to disarm opponents easily. They drop their gun, you run up and grab it, and then they don't have a weapon and are harmless. This allowed the player to spare a lot of storomtrooper deaths, which seemed liek a noble jedi sort of thing to do.

For an example that irritated me, Temple of elemental evil has a mechanic for allowign you to do nonlethal damage to opponents, just like in D&D, but it is completely useless. I actually knocked out a boss, striped his unconcious body of armor/weapons and quest items, only to find out that in order to unlock the next area, I had to actually kill him. What started out as an act of mercy turned to one of sadism as I was essentially forced by the game to shank a defenseless naked guy to continue the plot.

You mentioned Guild Wars, and MMO. Another point of irritation for me is how absolutely bloodthirsty even Federation captians are forced to be in that game (and in a lot of Star Trek games in general, for that matter). It seems strange to me that starfleet would willingly trash so many ships with no quarter given and no attempts at disabling enemy ships, talking your way out of conflicts, or evading combat. If anything, Star Trek games should reward avoiding destroying entire squadrons of enemy ships crewed with hundreds of people each, rather than congragulating it. (unless you are playing Klingon, and even in the case of the Cardassians or Romulans I can imagine them trying to take prisoners) In the average Star Trek game the player almsot invariably racks up a kill count in the tens of thousands, which is a bit silly, IMO.

Isntead of developing more ways to kill and destroy your enemies,games should be thinking of more innovative ways to resolve things peacefully. I want to be able to talk my way out of conflicts, disarm and disable opponents 9without having them come at me with their bare fists) take captives etc. How many times have you had an enemy lieutennent in some rpg attack you only to die on your sword? It would be an interesting mechanic if you could have the opportunity to capture and interrogate them for the information instead of having to kill everyone you meet who so much as throws a rock at you.

 

[Vorpal_Smilodon]

I wouldn't say I'm sick of it in THAT sense. I don't feel disgusted in my actions. It's a game.

I like a game that points out how mindless killing is quite disconcerting (Spec Ops: The Line guys. Seriously) and I love a game that manages to entertain me WITHOUT leading to mass murder.

I meant sick of it as in tired of the trope of killing things because they're hostile and you have no choice, though I guess what's really bothering me is that this wanton slaughter ruins the characterization of the player character. Going back to me GW2 example, my character has coem to like skritt. Game sections that require either killing them or avoiding that section of the game takes me out of character, leaving me with the choice of not getting to do that part of the game or handwaving it as forced OOC behavior and doing it anyway.

It works wonderfully AS characterization in games like Spec Ops, or Prototype.

 

[UrinalDook]

I'm not sick of it so much as I am bored of it. Or rather, I'm bored of how prevalent it is as the core mechanic.

As an example, I usually disagree with many of the arguments leveled at latter Mass Effect games for 'dumbing-down' or aping Gears of War, but one of the the few criticisms I do have for 2 and 3 is a steady decline in the number of quests you could solve simply by talking to enough people. For instance, there's a bunch of quests on the Citadel that are resolved with simple conversation; the ones that immediately spring to mind are the quest to get this waitress' sister out of working as an informant, and the quests that reference your origin (the traumatized colony survivor, the old family friend and the ex-gang members). It wasn't even limited to the hubs either, there were a couple of exploration missions that let you avoid clearing out a base of enemies with enough persuade skill.

2 and 3 had opportunities to talk your way out of a fight, but usually only as part of a larger, combat focused mission. And while the shooting mechanics were notably improved, and none of the enemies presented in a way that you felt bad for killing them, I did get a little bored of every mission invariably involving clearing out at least one room full of mooks at some point.

New Tomb Raider was also at its absolute worst during combat. I really wanted to enjoy the game, but it kept throwing out dreadfully dull shooty segments where I did nothing but shoot guns at people. Why they couldn't have released a game that consisted primarily of Lara vs the island, with all that wonderfully animated platforming I don't know.

Skyrim, Dragon Age, even Deus Ex with its mandatory boss fights all suffer from a similar mindlessness in their approach to combat. It got so bad in DA:O that I forgot the game occasionally allowed me a little more freedom. After an agonizing couple of days of sporadic, disastrous attempts at beating the head of the Cult guarding the Ashes of Andraste, I finally realised I could take the option to tell him I'd do what he wanted without actually doing it. The hours I'd spent slogging through that cave system to get that point had been so combat focused, I'd forgotten I could manipulate and lie to people. It was a refreshing realisation, to be sure, but something I wish had turned up more in the game.

Having said all that, though, I still dislike how easy pacifist runs are. In both Deus Ex and Alpha Protocol, there is almost zero penalty and only a slightly greater challenge in choosing to knock enemies out rather than kill them. In both games, knocking mooks out is as effective as killing them - they're incapacitated for the rest of the level - and both give you weapons that enable non-lethal takedowns at range (stun gun and 'tranq bullets' respectively), so you don't always have to use stealth to get in close. I'm pretty sure you get equal XP for killing or subduing in both games as well; even if not, you certainly get more than in if you choose to sneak by them.

Personally, if games are going to give you non-lethal options, it needs to be a significantly more difficult (but also more rewarding) mechanic than outright killing them. Make it so they're more difficult to move, so that if you dawdle on the mission, they'll wake up and sound the alarm. Award equal XP for getting through a room without touching anyone, if you don't even leave unconscious bodies in your wake, no one is going to know you're there. If you use punching people as a means of knocking them out, there should be a small chance of you accidentally killing them (concussion is srs bznz folks). I guess the big one is that stealth should probably be harder than simply dropping into a crouch and instantly being undetectable so long as you stay behind them.

The one element were Deus Ex shone brightest, for me, was the frequent option to simply walk up to the guy at the front desk and talk your way into getting where you needed to go. Difficult, but ultimately the most rewarding and logical way to do a pacifist run. Modern RPGs are definitely lacking in that department (though I am reminded of a fantastic moment in Dragon Age 2 where you simply run up to the mooks guarding a door and yell 'fire' really loudly at them, at which they dutifully abandon their posts for you to just walk on by - SillyHawke sells it brilliantly).

TL;DR. Agreed, I'd like a little less mindless killing in games where it feels like that's an option. Even after Spec Ops, I will still quite contentedly kill my way through armies in FPS games where the shooting is the cathartic point. Tomb Raider should have had way less guns.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

After playing Spec Ops I find it particularly disconcerting when enemies in games like COD arrange themselves into neat little shooting galleries for you to mow down. It comes off as being kinda creepy. Plus in a lot of games you get that weird narrative disconnect between your heroic character and the thousands of people he's murdered. My one gripe with Bioshock: Infinite is that there doesn't feel like there's a whole lot of reason to kill a lot of people. They're just misguided and terrified of you, whereas the splicers were so psychotic that you really couldn't feel bad for them.

So yeah, I'd like more games where you don't kill people just because they're the designated bad guys, and more games where pacifist runs are possible.

 

[Legion]

I wouldn't say I'm sick of it in THAT sense. I don't feel disgusted in my actions. It's a game.

I like a game that points out how mindless killing is quite disconcerting (Spec Ops: The Line guys. Seriously) and I love a game that manages to entertain me WITHOUT leading to mass murder.

This.

I don't dislike violence in games, as I can easily separate it from my feelings towards real violence, but I do find it kind of tiresome in the sense that a lot of games are nothing but shooting people, and it really bores me.

Hell, Bioshock Infinite was a great game, but if there'd been a quarter of the amount of violence, I doubt I'd have enjoyed it any less.

Most games nowadays don't even provide a challenge, they give you regenerating health and plenty of walls, so it's basically a shooting gallery where you occasionally have to sit and wait before you can shoot some more. I think if games provided less enemies, but actually made you have to think and provided a challenge, it wouldn't be so bad.

Spoiler: Most shooters kind of remind me of this (15 seconds in and onward):

 

[Yuuki]

The catalyst for this thread is that I've been playing Guild Wars 2, which is a really enjoyable game, but expects you to kill hundreds or thousands(or more if you keep playing, its a MMO) of sentient beings for little to no reason. Starting as an asura character made me really enjoy npc interactions with skritt (similar to gully dwarves) but elsewhere in the game they're enemies to be slaughtered wholesale and it really sits wrong with me.

The catalyst for this thread was GW2, an MMO? Wait, you mean that ONE game out of countless MMO's where you have the option to do level up without killing anything (if you were really determined), you get a ton of xp just for exploring/vistas. The devs really went out of their way to reward you xp for doing just about anything non-violent, at least half the hearts I've done offer an option to interact with stuff or collect stuff instead of killing anything. Come to think of it, GW2 is easily the most "pacifist" MMO I've played to date...talk about the wrong catalyst

 

[Dr.Panties]

Providing the mechanics are tightly refined, I greatly enjoy killing my way through games. I get immense gratification from killing with skill and/or style, and will nearly always choose the lethal option, unless the target/npc happens to be an innocent or characterised in such a way as to elicit sympathy.

Killing is also often consistent with the protagonist's characterisation, moveset, and equipment. Take Corvo in Dishonored, for instance. There is no way in the world that I am going to refrain from killing with such an amazingly lethal toolset at my disposal. The guy is a master assassin, charged with assassinating fiends and taking revenge. A passive run in such a game seems boring and restrictive to me, not to mention in direct contradiction to his character and the overall tone of the game.

But...to each their own, I guess...ya bunch o' wet sissy fartin' blubbercunts. Aaargh!

 

[bug_of_war]

It's not as though I hate actiony shooters mind you, but as graphics and quality gets better and better from the days of cartoony violence I do wish developers paid a bit more reverence for death. That's why I enjoy games like Red Orchestra far more than Call of Duty and its ilk, not just because of the supposedly 'realistic gameplay' but because it paints war as violent and miserable, not something to glorify.

To be fair, COD MW 1,2,3 didn't glorify war, if anything it showed how bad things can get. They've got a bit of wank to them, but when you have scenes such as the nuke killing your character, slaughtering thousands of civilians, etc. you tend to get the feeling that COD isn't saying (in it's story line), "Look how fun and great war is!". Black ops 1 and 2 glorify it more so than the main series, so if you meant those than I totally back you on your point.


OT: Most games I've played are marketed for adults, as an adult you should be able to determine the difference between a video game showing death and real life. I fully understand that if what I was watching on my screen was actually real footage that I'd be mortified, but it's not. It's a bunch of pixels that depict events that can happen in life and we should be able to understand that while the game may be fun, it is still just a simulation of life. It's almost like saying, "Does a robot have a soul?" not going into beliefs here or anything, but when it comes to fiction vs reality a competent human being should be able to play what they want while still realising,"this is fake, in real life these actions would mortify me/have some negative impact on me".

 

[MysticSlayer]

I wouldn't say I'm disgusted with it, more weary if anything. "Disgusted" sort of implies a FOX News level of hatred for violence in games, and I certainly have no moral qualms with it. On the other hand, I can certainly see how I've become more weary of violence. Once you pop enough guys' heads off without being given even one scenario where there's a peaceful solution, then I begin to get weary of the lack of variety. This, however, can be easily remedied by playing games where violence is hardly present at all, such as a lot of platformers, or playing games where they generally mix in plenty of non-violent segments, such as a lot of RPGs.

Now, if we're talking about how games seem to use it as a crutch because the developers lack faith in gamers enjoying any segment where they aren't causing blood to flow in the kiloliters/second range, then I can see how one might be disgusted, but that disgust probably lies more with the developers lack of faith in gamers rather than in the violence itself.

 

[maninahat]

I'm sick of it being prerequisite to making a big budget, high quality, AAA title. IT was some other journalist who was talking about what Bioshock Infinite would have been like without being based around killing hundreds of people; all that nuance, culture and literature plays second fiddle to iron sights and blood spatter. Then there was Tomb Raider, a girl's bid for survival ruined by the requirement that it has to be a cover based shooter.


Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it.

 

[babinro]

Nope.

I'm fine with mindless murder in games unless it becomes serious padding to lengthen the title.
MMO's do this all time to make the journey to and from your quest area as boring as possible.

Bioshock Infinite is another victim because of it's a story driven game that feels far to combat heavy in some areas just to pad out the game.