I'm so tired of the killing.

[Vale]

Then play a fucking game with no killing.
Guess what? There's thousands upon innumerable thousands of them. Just fucking search around a bit.

 

[kyuzo3567]

Dishonoured is one game you might want to look into if you're tired of senseless killing, OP.

Thanks for the tip. I will check it out

As good as Dishonored is, I would suggest the Thief games first (if you can handle playing older games, I know for alot of people they can't play older games for the first time cuz they're so used to modern graphics) However both games are really awesome stealth approached games

 

[Smeggs]

Amazingly enough, living in a a post-apocalyptic world for 20 years, seeing the worse humanity has to offer, doesn't exactly improve one's moral judgement.

Spoiler: Last of Us spoilers

Especially when your child wasn't killed by the infection, but by humanity.

There's a lot of examples you could have used, but you go and use one of the most understandable reasons?

I lol'd.

Just don't play games that involve killing people, or do we have to play those so we can create threads complaining about them now?

lol This entirely.

His character fits the world they have created around him; an apocalyptic world of chaos and death where most other humans would just as soon kill you for a granola bar as they would be to help you escape ravenous hordes of feral, infectious monstrosities.

In a world where the basic necessities of modern life have been thrown out the window and where common human decency usually leaves you worse off than just minding your own business or killing the next guy, it should be no wonder that he is a "murderous psychopath". That's how you survive.

Apparently you didn't understand that, OP.

Imagine yourself in a situation where you and a total stranger are being chased by wolves. You guess that together there's a fifty/fifty chance you'll get out alive, meaning one or both of you will most likely die. Now, if you were to trip the stranger next to you, the wolves would stop to eat him, and you have virtually a 100% chance of escaping alive. Nobody will ever find out what you did, and if they did, imagine they wouldn't care, let's imagine that this stranger is a murderer. You have a family to get back to, so you feel that makes your life more important. You've done nothing but good all your life save for getting this murderer killed. Do you now think you deserve to die?

You seem to lack the reasoning that most if not all of the people you're killing are evil and the enemy. Sure, maybe John killed some people in his time as an Outlaw, but unless you were playing as a big douche, he shouldn't be killing anyone but murderous bandits and criminals during the game. Are you telling me it'd be better if your character rolled over to die and let these people who are the actual malicious killers continue living? That makes no sense to me at all.

Do you also have a problem with the Vault 101 character killing endless swaths of murderous bandits? Should we be happy that the Vault 101 character dies of radioactivity in one ending, even if they were played as totally Lawful Good and only killed the Raiders and other villains? Does a Soldier deserve to die because he fought for his homeland, and may have killed other men who were just doing the same? Men who also maybe had families? If you say yes, you're ridiculous.

 

[Senare]

I am tired of the killing as well. But know that coming up with other systems that fit games as well as combat is hard.

The main reason as to why combat is so widely used to drive gameplay mechanics is because simulations based on spatial gameplay is "easy" to create and represent with a set of dynamically interacting rules (i.e. physics) that are well established and make for engaging and intuitive gameplay. The immediate motivation and win/lose condition with combat is obvious - kill or be killed. As a story device it is widely applicable because of how common killing is in both human history and the natural world. Everybody can relate to killing. Everyone has done it before, so it is safe, and yet there are so many variations and levels of fidelity left unexplored.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

This is probably why I've always had an affinity for stealth games. I feel better about myself if I can sneak past everyone without them ever knowing that I was there and without killing anyone [other than the target in some games. Like Hitman for example]. I still like having the lethal option because it increases the challenge of dealing with enemies in a non-lethal way and it makes sense that if I fuck up my stealth approach I can do what I have to do to survive.

Coming from the "guy from Deus Ex: HR", I think thats a /thread.

OT: Minus the bossfights in HR, you did have the option of knocking ppl out through your entire playthrough. I believe thats a model for just how to design a game that gives you the option to kill indiscriminately or just knock them the fuck out.

 

[ghostrider409895]

One thing i don't understand is why the writers doesn't seem to grasp that all this killing is hurting their story. Why should I care if John Marston, Lara Croft or that Joel guy dies? They killed hundreds of people already without flinching, they should die! Why should i care about a life if the game doesn't care at all? Is this how you think believable characters act? People don't, and if they do, they're psychopaths, shooting up schools, and probably not someone you would like to pretend to be.

Sorry guys, I just had to vent a bit.

It is interesting that you originally brought up John Marston. He is a criminal who did commit murder in the past, so without ever playing the game you can judge him as someone who needs to die for their crimes. However, the killing in Red Dead Redemption and the story behind it changes that aspect. I understand the player can really go off and start attacking random citizens, but according to the story line itself, Marston is trying to redeem himself. He is only killing because

Spoiler

if he doesn't he will not see his family again

. He doesn't want to live this life, but he is forced back into it after several years of living as a relatively normal person. With that example you really can empathize with the man because unlike other killers, he is trying to become a better person. He is trying to turn his life around, and the killing is a burden forced on him. With this character, you can care for him because of what he tries to do despite him being a killer.

 

[Nocenious]

In games that I can get away with it, I purposely avoid enemies outright or knock them out if I have to. But having violence in some games is necessary. In Spec Ops the Line, the major changing moment for your team does require to

Spoiler

use white phosperous on civies.

In zombie games, the killing of survivors who attack you makes sense as it is already presented that they will use any method to survive. If you spare them, what will stop them from trying to kill you (the character) again? Plot-wise its not like there is an effective way to enforce people to "play nice" in a zombie situation.

But I agree that a lot the games that I play right now has violence without reasonable reasons to have it. Or the character in one scene is merciful is merciful to one mook because of a sense, but you have to kill the rest. This bit exactly happens in one of the last missions in Future Soldier

Spoiler

where you rescue the rebel Russian president.

It comes of to me that the protagonist is somewhat hypocritical. Both groups ( the one spared and the others who are not) are engaged in the conflict for the exact same reason.

I think that this kind of thing should be dealt with games allowing games to be more flexible with the ranges of options that they have to tackle an objective. Kinda how in Dishonored that you can finish the game by using other methods (such as kidnapping or arresting targets) instead of killing them.

Or do not play a game like Saints Row for example. That game takes great joy out of the carnage you can unleash ( which is tons of fun tbh).

 

[___________________]

I understand where you're coming from mate. I'm tired of killing becoming so mainstream and banal. In a movie, if someone resorts to physical violence to save the day, that's considered good. And that would be fine, if people didn't start watching loads of movies like that, where the hero kicks everyone's ass and wins the day and gets a pat on the back for good morals. It's the same in games. Well, you can play a Metal Gear Solid game so you don't have to kill people and can just knock them unconscious or stun them and get rewarded for it rather than killing everything that moves, but there will still be physical violence to some extent, mainly in boss fights and whatnot.

The problem to me is that some people can't dissociate with the fact that a movie/game is just that and you can't just kick someone's ass, or kill them and get away with it without any consequences. At the start of this year something happened to one of my mates and I could tell the guy was acting like one of those characters who solve things by physically attacking people. And what's worse, they do it when your back is turned and think they're being brave. They honestly think it's a brave thing to do. That's the kind of messed up world one lives in now and all that crap in movies and games isn't helping.

If you have a brain, you won't mimic anything like that, but most people don't necessarily have one. Mind you it's not their fault. Not everyone is raised in the same environment, by the same people and don't react to similar situations in a similar way. And then you have to account for the way your genetic code dictates how your physical brain will react to external stimuli and grow, taking into account how your nervous system grows as well and how it sends messages to your brain. And shit like that.

Not sure any of what I said made sense or tied up well together, but it's way too hot for words where I am and stuff....I dunno. Hope I helped you. You're not alone on this. That's all you really need to know right now mate.

 

[Evonisia]

Try Amnesia, you literally only kill one person, and you can't even fight any of the monsters.
Or for that matter any Silent Hill except Homecoming and 4: The Room (1, 2, 3, Origins, Shattered Memories, Downpour) were killing humans is kind of a taboo, in favour of you either running, hiding or whacking monsters with various forms of stick which is optional. Killing humans rarely happens in the game and if Humans die it tends to be not your fault.

 

[Gothproxy]

Sorry to say OP but you seem to have missed the entire point of The Last of Us. To explain why Joel is who he is even after you have played the intro and knowing the world (America) has gone to pot in the 20 years since is really tough. Until you have been put into those kinds of situations (which I hope never happens to you or to anyone) you will never really understand. Remember that the worst enemies in The Last of Us aren't the infected, but the humans that survived.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on about the nature of this beast but I have a feeling it wouldn't do much good. Suffice-it to say that Joel is not the "hero" of the game, but rather the "anti-hero" in a sense. If you understand that, the game makes much more sense with what it does.



Note: Captcha = words of wisdom

*nods*

 

[Maze1125]

The solution is to play games with little to no killing. Certainly games with killing in are rather dominant, but there are other options, including ones with stories.

Here's a quick list of games with little killing but still have a story, from my Steam games list:
Portal
Portal 2
Psychonauts
Analogue: A Hate Story
Sam and Max Adventure games
Alpha Protocol (optional)
Deus Ex games (optional)
Monster Loves You!
Quantum Conundrum
Stacking
Ben There, Dan That and Time Gentlemen, Please! (two games)

 

[gamernerdtg2]

The OP has a point. All the games that I came up on have been transformed into violent games. Yes, they involve guns and dark themes, but the way you handle those themes doesn't have to appeal to a select cult community all the time.

What bothers me is that there is no other option given to play these games, no filter, no choice being given. We're just being asked to accept the context and accept the violence with it. There have been games that have started out bloody. That's fine. But don't take a franchise that had more of a mass appeal and make it violent for the sake of an "M" rating.

It was better when we had to stretch our imaginations. Now, everything is spelled out in crystal clear HD. But I still say that violence is just window dressing. The only time I saw it used effectively was through ICO when he got cut. That was extremely effective.

 

[1066]

And don't tell me "you can throw a bottle to make them look another way". Yes, you can, but it's the harder solution and often you have to "clean" a place out before you can move on. The game wants you to kill. Simple as that.

I hate to say it this way, I really do, but this entire question and quote above are two of the central tenets of the game. One of the points of a wasteland story, especially outside the quarantine zones, is that those who default to the easier and baser answers will often win out.

So, yes. You can be stealthy in many parts (and I agree to being annoyed that it's not always an option), but the point is that the option is much harder, much slower and insanely more dangerous. Confronted with this moral dilemma, did you tough it out and take the high road, or did you throw a Molotov?

From your statement, I'll assume you chose the easy way.

Congratulations, you've been played.

For the record, hitting someone in the head to knock them out is a movie thing that doesn't work unless you really don't mind risking killing them, and restraining someone is a lengthy, extremely dangerous process that is very much something you can't do in real life when there are other people around and without backup. Also, there's a good chance they'll be loud or cry out for help.

Speaking solely to TLOU: If the argument is that you find it unfair that the game would put you in a situation where your options are to kill, evade or die. Congrats, you've been played again and put into a situation similar to the character's.

The other central point and story of the game is that something, for lack of a better term, "pure" can grow out of something so base, and what someone, even someone so tainted, would do for it.

Chie:
I really wanted to play Bioshock for the story and wonderful atmosphere/graphics, but I found that the killing took me out of the experience.

This is what i am talking about (and perhaps Chie describes the problem better). Why build such an amazingly good looking wasteland as they do in "the Last of us" and then just fill it with murder? Yes, it's a wasteland. yes, it's an action adventure game (sort of). But it's far from the first wasteland in games, and far from the first action adventure game. Why not do something different? Why not care more for your characters and for their actions? Yes, Joel is traumatized and he has to do nasty things to get by.. I get that. But, Killing hundreds (of non-infected) without flinching? If he did this for 20 years, im surprised there's anyone left at all.

The reason the wasteland is 'filled with murder' is because the game stops working on the same level without it. A true wasteland story, as described in both of these, is a place where society has fallen, or exists in pockets or is rebuilding due to human perseverance.

Bioshock's wasteland exists solely as a result of the Splicers, and by extension the plasmids, and by extension the concept of objectivist philosophy taken to its base level. The game is framed (arguably ham-fistedly) around the question of whether or not you can survive against those who have 'bettered' themselves out of their humanity without giving up your own, and if you ever had any to start. The atmosphere wouldn't exist without the enemies, and the theme of the game would be instantly neutered.

Trust me, I've seen similar games with enemies modded out. It doesn't work.

The only wasteland-like game I can think of that goes without any of this is Journey, which is a remarkable game on many counts; not the least of which being it's look at human contact without beating you about the head and shoulders with it.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Also to the OP, there are way more games than the commercial ones that are hyped up b/c they look like movies.
Check out 360 Live, or PSN. There's something for everyone these days, and there's lots to go around.

 

[Gronk]

It's all very well to preach, but do you have any ideas for alternative gameplay? Because unless you do I suggest you get off your soap box. Just saying.

When it comes to "The last of us" there is a very simple alternative. When you grab an enemy from behind and hold him around the neck, have an option to knock him out. There. Not very difficult at all. If you want to spare the guy, you can. If you want to shove a piece of glass in his neck, you can do that too. All i ask for is the option.

Would that really ruin the game?

 

[V8 Ninja]

You need to stop looking at the most mainstream of video games. While it is true that the poster children of video games almost always involve killing people, there are plenty of other games which don't contain direct violence. There's racing games, sports games, puzzle games, rhythm games, simulators, and pretty much every other franchise that Nintendo has created.

Also, your example of The Last Of Us is pretty bad, especially due to the facts that...

Spoiler: The Last Of Us spoilers

Both 20 years have passed since the dying-daughter scene and someone just tried to kill the only person that Joel has any emotional attachment to.

 

[Often]

The vast majority of the people you kill in TLOU are either Infected, which means killing them is both a mercy to them and saves other people, or they're murderous psychopathic bandits themselves, which means if you don't kill them, they will kill other, more innocent people just as they've been doing for years. Joel is protecting Ellie through the majority of the game, from people who would at the very least kill her horribly.

.... How does that make him a psychopath again?

(I know his backstory and the things he had to do, I just mean specifically through the gameplay we actually see)

Also, is it me or does Joel actually choke out the people he grabs from behind. Are they necessarily dead if you don't want them to be in your head canon?

 

[ZeroMachine]

It's all very well to preach, but do you have any ideas for alternative gameplay? Because unless you do I suggest you get off your soap box. Just saying.

When it comes to "The last of us" there is a very simple alternative. When you grab an enemy from behind and hold him around the neck, have an option to knock him out. There. Not very difficult at all. If you want to spare the guy, you can. If you want to shove a piece of glass in his neck, you can do that too. All i ask for is the option.

Would that really ruin the game?

First off? That's not in Joel's character. I've only played about 30% of the game, but I can already tell, he just doesn't care if someone dies or not. It's an integral part of his character, so yes- it'd have a negative effect on the game.

ALSO, if you really want the realism of the option there, guess what? Realistically, if you knock someone unconscious, there's an enormous chance you're gonna cause brain damage or hemorrhaging, and they'll die anyways.

You know what, I won't even go into the details there, there's no need, because the characters you've given as examples would all realistically kill in their given situations.

If it really bothers you that much, go play the Deus Ex series. All of them have a no-kill option, and at least the first and Human Revolution are amazing (I've heard too many mixed things about the second one to be able to guess if it's good or not.)

 

[rob_simple]

You do realise there's, like, hundreds of video games that don't involve killing, right? Probably thousands. Generally speaking, if I wanted to avoid games about killing, I'd stay away from any game with a front cover featuring and sort of weaponry, as it's unlikely to be a chess simulator.

I'm sure I remember hearing or reading about this, recently --maybe it was in Jimquisition or Extra Punctuation-- but the reason there's so much killing in mainstream gaming is because most devs can't or won't think of any other way to fill up their game. Scripted, cover-based gunfights are the safest way to secure mass appeal, and even though games like Spec Ops: The Line would have been infinitely better without them, they're sadly here to stay for the foreseeable future.

I'd love to play an Uncharted game that was just about scaling ancient architecture and solving puzzles to get treasures I could sell to improve my equipment and finance trips to more remote parts of the globe; maybe have the occasional stealth section where I'm hired to break into a museum like the start of Uncharted 2, so I can knock guards out but not kill them.

I'd love to play that game, but I don't think it would sell well due to lack of explosions and gun fights, or at least that's what I think the people holding the purse strings probably think.

 

[ItouKaiji]

Also using the Last of Us was not a good example violence and killing fit that world well.

I actually think that "the Last of us" is an excellent example. I accept that it is futile to use games like "Call of duty" or other "whackamole"-style games. The killing IS the game. The game and the story is built to satisfy the generic gameplay.

"The last of us" on the other hand, i get the impression, is NOT built around the act of killing. It seems they aimed for an engaging and emotional story, focusing on Joel and his memories and relationship with Ellie. That story, would not have changed one single bit, if they had chosen to remove the killing. Not at all.

I would go as far as to say that the killing actually hurt this story and it's characters. That's why I used it as an example.

Have you ever tried to stun someone or knock them out? If he tried knocking them out they'd die anyway because if you hit someone hard enough to knock them out then they need a hospital because you've seriously injured them. Same thing goes with using tranquilizer of any sort. If you use enough to get a reliable knock out then you will probably give most of them an OD which again will kill them without medical treatment. There's a reason when you need to get put under there's a specialist there that knows just how much to give you and monitors you the whole time. So your pacifist option of stunning people doesn't actually work. It's just a third option where you expose yourself to more danger and fool yourself into thinking you're not killing.