Serious vs. Non-serious games (aka: Violent vs. Non-violent games)

[Fuselage]

I enjoy both but I hate how most new games come out with "REALISTIC LIMB DESTRUCTION"
For me, too much realism puts a damper on what games are about, Escapism such as the title of this AWESOME site

 

[kingcom]

So over-the-top, ridiculous, childish, immature violence is 'serious', if I understood it correctly?

In that case, I don't give a damn either way. Because I can, out of principle, not acknowledge any Modern Warfare/Halo/Gears of War game as 'serious' or 'mature'.

Gruesome violence makes not for a mature game, in my honest eyes.

As for the more "obviously" childish games... They can be pretty entertaining, I guess. I did love me some Lego Star Wars back in the day.

A 'serious' game is not better, just because of its seriousness. If anything, it easily detracts from the experience because, well... I don't like my intelligence insulted by being assumed to be a 13-year old brat, who would enjoy 'serious' content. 'Serious content' like Modern Warfare.

I side with this, the topic itself is flawed. Enjoyment in relation to level of violence is irrelevent. I enjoy what the game itself has to offer in terms of content (as in quality content).

 

[Caliostro]

There's a difference between "family friendly" and "stupid/childish".

Psychonauts is the first. Mario tends to be the latter.

Coincidentally, being violente doesn't mean it can't be stupid and/or childish. Max Payne and Bioshock are "serious" games. Mad World is stupid and childish, despite having more blood per kill than the aforementioned have through the entire campaign.

 

[nuba km]

who cares whether a game has gore or not and no non-violent games wouldn't be better if they were violent because a game is violent or non violent for a reason. I don't think super smash brose would be better if you cut make Kirby chop Mario's head off and then eat his corps.

 

[Super Toast]

Violence =/= serious.

Would you take Madworld as serious? Dead Rising as serious? Fallout as serious?

So, no to all three questions.

Depends on which Fallout you're talking about. But none the less, this.

 

[Thaius]

Anyone who thinks a game that doesn't include violence and other mature content is somehow "immature," "childish," or "kiddy" is extremely shallow, and completely missing the point. What matters is whether it's well-made: if they made an amazing Dora the Explorer game (a real big "if"), the childish nature of the game would not cancel out the fact that it's fun. The same goes for any other media art forms.

Heck, my favorite show is Avatar: The Last Airbender, and I'm 21. I could have stopped with the childish humor in the first season, but the premise and characters were interesting enough that I kept going. And holy crap does it get good, even if it's intended for children. One of the most epic and well-developed fantasies ever made, and surprisingly mature at times. Had I passed it over because I was insecure in my maturity, I never would have experienced that masterpiece.

 

[Wintermoot]

Do you think your enjoyment of a game is determined by whether it is violent/non-violent?
nope aslong as the game is fun I would enjoy it
Do you like violent games more than non-violent games?
nope (read answer one)
Do you think a non-violent game would be better if it was more violent?
no imagine if you where able to pull off fatalities in SSBB it would take away the charm non-violent games are a change off pace from violent games
PS you might want to remove serious there are allot of non-serious vioent games like Duke Nukem 3D,Dead Rising,GTA etc. it also works the other way around like Portal

 

[Torrasque]

I've already said what my position is
I like violent games as much as non-violent games, and the presence of violence (or absence) has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.

I just want to see if the rest of you feel the same, and if not, why.

 

[freedomweasel]

I've already said what my position is
I like violent games as much as non-violent games, and the presence of violence (or absence) has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.

I just want to see if the rest of you feel the same, and if not, why.

I'll agree with that. Kirby is actually the reason I'm picking up a Wii next week, and as contrast, my last three game purchases were inFamous, MOH and BC2. I'll say that the non-serious/non-violent games are usually more "gamey" and just straight up fun if that makes sense. Neither is better or worse though.

 

[Liminal Dusk]

My feeling on violence is solely related to the material the game neccessitates. This stems from my personal belief that the 1st thing a game should speak from is its story, with the exception of games that deliberately have no story.

For example, I enjoy Super Smash Bros. Melee more than Brawl, because Brawl attempted to weave everything into a story that I felt was incredibly unattractive. Not everyone feels that way (in fact, some think the story MADE that game), but for me, its a good reference to what I mean.

For example, Assassin's Creed is heavily based in realism, down to the architecture and dialogue, so why shouldn't the level of violence be equally accurate.

However, that being said, a "Serious" game does not neccessarily need heavy violence. Braid is one of the most Serious games I own and it has virtually no violence (aside from the Mario "jump on the head" deal)

Also, anyone who says MadWorld is a "serious" game is just silly. Same goes for No More Heroes.

--Edit--

To further answer your questions, I actually DISLIKE some games more based on the level of violence they incur, when it is disproportionate to the themes of the game. This rarely happens, but it helps to explain the relationship between enjoying a game and its violence content.

 

[Torrasque]

I've already said what my position is
I like violent games as much as non-violent games, and the presence of violence (or absence) has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.

I just want to see if the rest of you feel the same, and if not, why.

I'll agree with that. Kirby is actually the reason I'm picking up a Wii next week, and as contrast, my last three game purchases were inFamous, MOH and BC2. I'll say that the non-serious/non-violent games are usually more "gamey" and just straight up fun if that makes sense. Neither is better or worse though.

Well said.
I enjoy my violent games because the gameplay is fun, not because they are violent.
There are a few games I have played that have gore that is just so over the top, like Conker's Bad Fur Day.
When you shoot a teddy with a shotgun, the remains are spread all over the wall, and that is really amusing to see.
No More Heroes is also really over the top because it has that anime "there is 100,000L of blood in this guy's body, and it all wants to get out when you chop off his head" feature.
None the less, the games are fun because they are fun, not because of the gore factor.

but that makes me ask: Would some violent games you play that have alot of gore be just as fun if they did not have gore?
If so, why? If not, why?

 

[freedomweasel]

but that makes me ask: Would some violent games you play that have alot of gore be just as fun if they did not have gore?
If so, why? If not, why?

I don't know if they'd be "less fun", but they would be less good. If the whole game is set up in a semi-realistic fashion, and people don't bleed, it's kind of an uncanny valley effect. In Mario I don't expect the mushroom people to explode, so it fits within the game's rule set. In MOH I do expect the guy to bleed, as that is what the game has made me expect. In short, the game would look censored.

It would look just as weird if the yarn dudes in kirby had brain splatter. It might not make it less fun, but it'd be weird.

 

[alittlepepper]

I don't think so. Case in point: Most of my games are what you would consider more mature, like L4D and Bioshock, and they're games that I love. Saint's Row 2 is a mature game but it's certainly not serious. But my favorite game of all time, hands down?
Harvest Moon 64.

So personally, no, my enjoyment of a game doesn't hinge on how gritty or mature or "serious" it is. I get a bunch of different games in different styles to suit my rapidly changing moods.

 

[Torrasque]

I get a bunch of different games in different styles to suit my rapidly changing moods.

Oh hell yes.
I need games like Mario Kart and No More Heroes when I am sick of lag-deaths in MW2, or "How am I even supposed to do that?" strategy in Fire Emblem.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think a game should be able to stand on its own, geared toward its own target group. That said, the only game that I own that TRULY has no violence whatsoever is DDR MAX 2! I think pretty much every game (yes, I know there are exceptions) has some amount of violence in it. Just depends on the level of violence.