Also, it's interesting to note, that games that don't focus on violence/combat, frequently get criticized for being boring, or "not really a game". Which I find amusing, and also a bit telling about the overall gamer culture mindset, of what they expect from a game.Something Amyss said:
Why all this violence?! - Alternatives to violence in video games?
- Thread starter Gethsemani_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not a movie, but I can name a short sci-fi story by Robert Sheckley: Proof of the Pudding [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50844/50844-h/50844-h.htm] (although I swear I've read it under a different title. Can't find alternative ones, though).Happyninja42 said:
There is no real violence in it.
While I really liked Deus Ex: HR, I think the "non-lethal" option was...erm, somewhate milseading. Sure you don't kill the people but non-lethal didn't mean it was nice - some of the takedowns include breaking the opponent's arm in two places and one of their legs, as well, following up with a heavy hit on the noggin. Sure, they probably survived that, but Adam goes a bit overboard on the force there.Happyninja42 said:
Just something that bugged me a bit when I played it.
By the way - this game is post-apocalyptic.Happyninja42 said:
Also mine. In fact, I've got two copies to give away for free on Steam, if anybody is interested in trying it.Happyninja42 said:
Antichamber - hey, it's a first person puzzle game. It also tries to mind fuck you out of normal habits for a first person puzzle game.Happyninja42 said:
Black Closet - I found this recently and I fell in love with it. It's a school mystery board game-like visual novel. I think. That's how I'd describe it, anyway. You play as the president of the student council of a high class school, and your job is to cover up any scandals that might threaten the reputation of the institution. A the same time, you also have to make sure you're not too hard on the students, or they may hate you. In order to do your work, you act through your minions - 5 other students on the council, each has a different mix of skills - some are good at talking and presuading students, others at examining things, or sneaking and so on. You get assigned "cases" at regular intervals and you have to follow through and prevent a scandal. If it is a scandal - sometimes some school supplies may just have been misplaced by accident, other times, a student steals them. These would each start off the same way, with a "missing school supplies" case, however, you need to investigate, question, and possibly snoop around, in order to find out what is happening. I think it's a really neat idea and quite interesting implementation. I'd love to see more things in this style.
Game Dev Tycoon - it's exactly what it sounds like - you can create your own game development company, starting from you coding in your garage, to eventually getting a big office with your own R&D department and the option of creating Steam and/or WoW. It's quite cool.
Ghost Master is a rough diamond, if you ask me - it's something like Dungeon Keeper, only you control various spirits and apparitions. Each has its own set of skills, strengths and weaknesses (but each is not that unique, though) and most missions revolve around having to spook the humans on the level. Each human also has their own fears that work particularly great against them. I loved the game, though it lacks some polish at times, namely, some levels may drag on, because you're waiting for the last one or two humans to finally get their terror meter filled up and it takes a while. I'd still recommend it, and it is somewhat often really cheap on Steam - less than a dollar.
I am Bread - erm...it's non violent. I think. I found it in my library this week, I can't remember where I've got it from. Might have been some bundle. At any rate, I tried it and...it wasn't really for me. It's pretty much QWOP but your character is a slice of bread. But, hey, I'm fairly sure there is no violence in it. I only played the tutorial to see what it was.
Little Inferno - it's something, but it's not based around violence. The point of the game is literally to burn some stuff. Yeah, that's it - get stuff, chuck them into the fireplace. You get money depending on what you've burned with which to buy more stuff to burn. Some combinations give you achievements. That's about it.
Postmortem: One Must Die - I really liked this one. Here is the premise - you play as death. You need to kill somebody. You are sent off to a party and you can choose any one of the participants. Despite what it might sound like, the game actually doesn't focus on the kill part - you're repeatedly told that it doesn't matter who you kill, however, it actually does. You can talk to people at the party to find out about the setting and then your choices can lead to different results down the line. It's fairly short to play it the first time - probably about an hour[footnote]or it could be 5 minutes - on my first playthrough I literally just killed the first person I met to see what would happen[/footnote] and later ones can be shorter. Still, the game has interesting things that it explores.
SOMA - which...erm, it was actually Talos Principle with less puzzles and with Amnesia-lite monsters. I liked it but I agree with Yahtzee that the monsters feel sort of odd being placed in the game - it's like they are thrown in just for the hell of it.
The Stanley Parable - this is a brilliant game and a very good take on non-linear story telling as well as exploring game/player expectations. It's one of my favourite games ever.
The Beginner's Guide - made by the same person who was behind the Stanley Parable. This game is in some aspects the exact opposite of Stanley's parable, in other spects, looking at the exact same ideas from a different angle. I can't really explain it much better. It's fairly short, though - it takes around 3 hours to complete, so I'd recommend having a look at it.
Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist - another game by the same guy as the above two. This one is free and really short - you should finish it in 15-20 minutes. No violence in it, and it is humorous. It's like a really cut down version of SP.
The Swapper - it's a puzzle platformer. Actually, a lot of platformers can probably qualify as non-violent games. Still, at any rate, this is one of them. The central mechanic is that you can create clones of yourself and "swap minds" with them (well, they are mindless without you, though). And you use that to solve puzzles. It's also set in space and stuff. Looks very pretty.
Who's making video games, and who controls video game content through providing capital for the games they want? Who's buying video games?
The United States is the largest market for video games, and a lot of the creative side (both productive and financial) also comes from the US. So the first question we could ask is - What's an American?
Most Americans, especially the ones who control video game content, are European immigrants who extended European civilization in the "New World" from "sea to shining sea". They owe much of their ability to have done so to firearms.
Debts have to be repaid - the debt that Americans owe to guns is paid back one day at a time - in the number of registered guns to Americans (300 million), the paranoia, fear, and machismo that such a gun culture inevitably entails (defending the home (fort, castle) from besiegement by evil forces (criminals, the poor)), and most importantly the continuing imperial domination of the world in the name of the "American way of life", by which is meant American economic supremacy, particularly in the corporate world.
For our purposes, this debt as well as present and future imperial utility is paid through video game content - 80% of mainstream video games feature killing as the primary form of gameplay, usually by means of firearms.
Genocides are not so much an option in video games as their fundamental ideology. RPGs, FPSes, and even most strategy games are genocidal - the purpose is to cleanse the world of evil and/or one's enemies (usually one and the same) to enable the "chosen ones", aka the "civilized humans", aka the "European immigrants", aka the "settler colonials", to dominate the gamespace. This is the meaning of Leveling in a video game - one gains more and more power to cleanse the world of more and more evil, eventually "breaking the back" of the resistance to one's own goals, often represented by the Big Bad, sometimes the King Terrorist in modern games or sometimes the Giant Dragon. Whatever stands in the way of the expansion of the power of the Good Guys. This ideology can be summed up as Saving the World, One Corpse at a Time, just as true in Syria, Honduras, New Orleans, or Mexico as it is in video games.
The structure of this ideology takes the form of the Hero's Journey - it's not good marketing to call the protagonist a psychopath. The Good People are simply too cowardly to exterminate the "monsters", so the lowly Hero with nothing to lose due to his minimal possessions (similar to the recruitment strategy of the American military, targeting the poor) takes up a gun or a sword and with the extreme help of the game developer who grants him and the player superpowers (reload function, special abilities) proceeds to Save the World, One Corpse at a Time, celebrated by the Good People for enabling their domination of their enemies, by which they mean people with possessions that they have now transferred to themselves.
Imperialism is of course not limited to either Europe or the United States - it's a perpetual function of power in a world which has not stopped it. Game content merely reflects the reality of the world. The imperial dominators who make, finance, and play video games have benefited from an imperial world, and the celebration of imperialism through game content is not surprising.
The United States is the largest market for video games, and a lot of the creative side (both productive and financial) also comes from the US. So the first question we could ask is - What's an American?
Most Americans, especially the ones who control video game content, are European immigrants who extended European civilization in the "New World" from "sea to shining sea". They owe much of their ability to have done so to firearms.
Debts have to be repaid - the debt that Americans owe to guns is paid back one day at a time - in the number of registered guns to Americans (300 million), the paranoia, fear, and machismo that such a gun culture inevitably entails (defending the home (fort, castle) from besiegement by evil forces (criminals, the poor)), and most importantly the continuing imperial domination of the world in the name of the "American way of life", by which is meant American economic supremacy, particularly in the corporate world.
For our purposes, this debt as well as present and future imperial utility is paid through video game content - 80% of mainstream video games feature killing as the primary form of gameplay, usually by means of firearms.
Genocides are not so much an option in video games as their fundamental ideology. RPGs, FPSes, and even most strategy games are genocidal - the purpose is to cleanse the world of evil and/or one's enemies (usually one and the same) to enable the "chosen ones", aka the "civilized humans", aka the "European immigrants", aka the "settler colonials", to dominate the gamespace. This is the meaning of Leveling in a video game - one gains more and more power to cleanse the world of more and more evil, eventually "breaking the back" of the resistance to one's own goals, often represented by the Big Bad, sometimes the King Terrorist in modern games or sometimes the Giant Dragon. Whatever stands in the way of the expansion of the power of the Good Guys. This ideology can be summed up as Saving the World, One Corpse at a Time, just as true in Syria, Honduras, New Orleans, or Mexico as it is in video games.
The structure of this ideology takes the form of the Hero's Journey - it's not good marketing to call the protagonist a psychopath. The Good People are simply too cowardly to exterminate the "monsters", so the lowly Hero with nothing to lose due to his minimal possessions (similar to the recruitment strategy of the American military, targeting the poor) takes up a gun or a sword and with the extreme help of the game developer who grants him and the player superpowers (reload function, special abilities) proceeds to Save the World, One Corpse at a Time, celebrated by the Good People for enabling their domination of their enemies, by which they mean people with possessions that they have now transferred to themselves.
Imperialism is of course not limited to either Europe or the United States - it's a perpetual function of power in a world which has not stopped it. Game content merely reflects the reality of the world. The imperial dominators who make, finance, and play video games have benefited from an imperial world, and the celebration of imperialism through game content is not surprising.
Great, a short story broke the mold. xD Still, I think you would agree that the most common form of post-apocalypse story involves violence.DoPo said:
Fair point, however many of those opponents were just as augmented as he was, meaning they were far more difficult to harm. So it might be that the amount of damage he inflicted, is the minimum force necessary to take down a cyber-augmented super soldier. I mean many of them had very obvious cybernetic limbs. And while I'm sure it sucks to have those ruined, it likely wouldn't kill the person.DoPo said:
True, though like I said, my statement about non-violent games and the common trends wasn't a 100% statement. I fully acknowledged that some people are trying to expand on the common expectations from video games, mostly the indie developers, like the ones behind Talos Principle. It's still an exception to the rule about post-apocalypse stories. When I said "tell me one post-apocalypse movie that doesn't have violence" I was mainly referring to popular, mainstream titles. But I would point out, that even you couldn't list one, and had to go to a short story for an example. xDDoPo said:
\m/ (-_-) \m/ Woot! New ME game coming out soon! Yus!DoPo said:
Well, it doesn't have to. It's sort of the default expectation, though. Then again, I suppose a game about spending hours and hours threading the wastes, pondering the futility of existence (assuming most, of not all, of the population is dead), isn't really that engaging as sort of wild west wasteland shootout.Happyninja42 said:
I suppose some sort of less violent post-apocalyptic story would revolve around the remnants of humanity banding together and trying to rebuild the civilisation. This could be a strategy/simulation of some sort roughly similar to Dwarf Fortress and/or Don't Starve, in the sense of you having to manage resources and trying to survive in the ruins of the civilisation. The only enemy you have to face is running out of food, water or other supplies, however, the fate of the human civilisation rests on your shoulders. It might work - the tone would be misery but with a glimmer of hope.
In case anybody thinks of suggesting Fallout Shelter - no, I've played it and it's more along the lines of "tedious with a glimmer of bugs", so it doesn't quite fit my vision.
Eh, in all fairness, even if there is a movie about a non-violent post-apocalypse, and even if that movie is mainstream-ish, I would probably not know it. I'm not really that much into movies. Sci-fi short stories from 60s and 70s, however - I grew up with them reading all of my father's, and uncle's books.Happyninja42 said:
Sort of side-tracking here, but whatever - old-ish sci-fi doesn't really glorify post-apocalypse, either. In fact, around the late 40s and 50s, there started to be a surge of grim and dark tales of the future - I don't mean Warhammer, I mean humanity destroying itself in various means. It was mostly motivated by the end of WW2 and more specifically, the atom bombs. There is a lot of sci-fi written as a cautionary note of how dangerous such a weapon can be. Not all of it directly referencing A bombs but there is a lot of self-inflicted humanity catastrophes.
Actually, one of my favourite short stories is Weapon [http://lib.mn/blog/john_christopher/178374.html] by John Christopher. It deals with a similar theme. I just found it really good and I think it's worth a read.
I really, really hope they don't screw it up. EA has been saying how much they care about Mirror's Edge being correct and not focusing on combat this time, and yet they said that as they released the trailer that starts with Faith beating up some guys, as if she was in Mortal Kombat or something. Sure, the trailer need to mean anything for the final game - it was released last year (or in 2014?) and the game is not scheduled for release for quite a while still, so that should be taken as in no way a representative trailer...but you know, still, I'd not just trust EA to do what they claim. They've been doing fairly OK for some time now, in that regard, yet I'm still wary.DoPo said:
On the other hand, I'm still excited about the game. Definitely something I looking forward for in the far future. Barring any new information released that would make me less interested.
Interesting, because I played the first one, and it didn't feel "combat focused" at all. It felt parkour focused. Yeah there were people shooting at you, but you didn't have to engage with them. In fact, that was usually the worst option you could take. Are you referring to "combat focused" when she would nut kick someone to disarm them and then keep running? Because that felt pretty low violence. And I've seen playthroughs where people just mostly bypass every guy with a rifle, using a far more indepth use of the parkour system then I was able to do. But it was doable. Would you say the game was "combat focused"? 'Cause I really don't see where that is an accurate representation of the first ME game.DoPo said:
OK, sorry, "focused" was probably too strong a word. It was definitely present and pushed at times, as you had to fight in some situations. And combat most definitely felt as something that wasn't included in the core game, given how awkward the mechanics were - sure, you could say it was to discourage you from fighting, but that's not really the case, it was more like the developers were "encouraged" to add it.Happyninja42 said:
Fallout was a table top game. It's not actually that hard to move from a table top game to a video game. Some things are easier in one form then another, but most things will translate. I mean we make games out of movies and books, but they don't even have gameplay.Happyninja42 said:
We're talking about a game where you need gameplay and conflict for a player to overcome, the only other option would be like...Crap the game where you're the detective in the 50's or something. Whatever you question people and have to sort if they're lying or whatever, but even then you're still a cop and they deal with violent things.
There are games without violence, or at least where you're not the one committing the violence.
Alien Isolation, you don't have to kill a single person. Infact they have an achievement for just that very thing! Despite my insane love for killing badguys and whatever I still managed to do it.
Outlast, violent game but you don't attack anyone ...everyone else is trying to kill you though.
...Yeah they're both horror games.
There's Journey and Flow on PS3/4, just gotta look for the games without the murder frenzy. My patronizing advice is...avoid the ones with the strong white dood with a gun on the cover
There are games without violence, or at least where you're not the one committing the violence.
Alien Isolation, you don't have to kill a single person. Infact they have an achievement for just that very thing! Despite my insane love for killing badguys and whatever I still managed to do it.
Outlast, violent game but you don't attack anyone ...everyone else is trying to kill you though.
...Yeah they're both horror games.
There's Journey and Flow on PS3/4, just gotta look for the games without the murder frenzy. My patronizing advice is...avoid the ones with the strong white dood with a gun on the cover
Fallout wasn't a tabletop game. The SPECIAL system is based on GURPS. This is because Fallout was supposed to use GURPS as the for the mechanics in-game, but in the end, it didn't. I've not looked into why it didn't - whether it was some sort of licensing issue or if the devs just decided to not go with GURPS but at the end of the day, that's what happened.nomotog said:
Fallout never was a TT game at its roots. It is deeply rooted as a video game, in fact, as its beginning can be traced back to Wasteland.
Which I think is another "problem."Happyninja42 said:
And that's in quotes for a reason.
The people who play games generally seem to want combat. Maybe not graphic violence and heads exploding, but even games like Mario promote violence against turtles. Yes, MarsAtlas, you've showed it enough times it's stuck in my brain.
So...perhaps it's a case of "if it ain't broke?"
Pretty much yeah, if it ain't broke. I don't have a problem with violent games in general, and I still enjoy me some violent video games. Hell I'm posting this after playing Shadows of Mordor for a couple hours. And I lubs me some of that sneaky sneaky, stabby stabby fun. But it's not the only thing that I look for in a game, just like action isn't the only thing I look for in a movie. But I think there are plenty of non violent, or at least violent lite games out there to choose from. I think the OP's main gripe is there aren't any AAA titles that don't focus on violence as a primary mechanic.Something Amyss said:
nomotog said:
So, after DoPo's information, I'll still ask you nomotog, even if it came from a tabletop to a video game, so what? It's still a game rooted in violence. My comment about tabletop is that the rules are much more flexible. You usually have multiple stats that let you do things socially, or through 2nd and 3rd parties. Video games rarely give you that much flexibility. Most video games, when presenting you with the challenge of "get rid of this crime syndicate in this neighborhood", don't allow you the ability to influence the local government by setting up puppets of your own in the positions of power, and then influencing them to then apply pressure where it's needed to have the gang members blackmailed, or put up on charges. They don't usually give you the option to make a deal with fear spirits, to invade the criminals mind, and drive him slowly insane with insomnia and panic, until he's so weak, that you can just intimidate him out of town. They don't let you set up a sting operation to find an illegal wolf hunting group in your pack's territory, by deciding to have one of your pack pretend to be a wolf you caught, to sell to the poachers, and then use your pack magic to track her back to their base of operations, so you can kill them all. That last example with wolves did include violence (but hey, it's Werewolf, it's a violent game by design), but my point is that there is no conceivable way for any development team to plan for every player contingency that might come up on how to resolve the situation. All 3 of those examples, are things I've done in various TT games, to resolve a challenge the storyteller presented us with, that didn't require violence, or at least not any violence directly on the players part. The cops busting the gangers did involve violence, but it was 3rd party violence. Every other player in those examples, considered how to go about killing the threat directly, I went for the alternate route. And the only reason I could, was because the storyteller was able to mediate and say it was a viable course of action, and let us go that way. They can improvise, they can adapt to the unpredictability that is a player. Video game designers can't do that, or at least, not as much. They are restrained by the available toolset they have, and what contingencies they think up before the game is released.DoPo said:
I'm not knocking video games for this, and some of them try really hard to give you a diverse set of options, like New Vegas for example. As much as I don't like that game, I do applaud their effort to allow multiple ways (many non-violent) for you to play that game and even win it. Many A True Nerd did a No Kill run of that game, and it was awesome. He didn't use companions, and he didn't kill anything, and he was able to complete the main storyline, with like..85% of the NCR quests completed. That's damn impressive. It's also the exception to the rule. And it still only allowed for a handful of solutions for each problem. It's just a limitation of the medium, plain and simple. And if you are on a deadline, and over budget, and the devs are chewing your ass off because you're taking so long to release it, yeah, you're going to take the easier route, make the conflicts combat related, and move on, this game's gotta hit the market next week.
Part of it is like someone else said with Shadows of Mordor and how it'd be great if you could get such a reputation that your enemies just fled at the sight of you. Like, I like alternatives, but a lot of why I play games is catharsis in the first place. Well, and making my friends rage at me before I rage at them. Because yeah, I like the game, and the chief/warlord/whatever system is a cool idea, but it can't sustain me long term.Happyninja42 said:
But yeah, this seems to be about major games, and I'd like to see more variety. I remember when games weren't afraid to try more new things on a AAA scale, even if they didn't necessarily work. And it seems like fighting over the shooter pie is generally a bad way to go these days. Actually, that's true with almost any genre. It seems pointless to try and take a piece of that Mario pie, or the GTA pie (does Saints Row count?) or the COD pie, or the WOW pie. At the same time, people seem reticent to try new games from the major publishers because we've got used to their tricks. Maybe that's another slice of the problem pie.
...mmmmmmmm...pie....
Most super mutants aren't like Marcus, I'm afraid. Also, all raiders suck, feral ghouls are always savage, and Deathclaws are still Holy Jesus Fuck. Exceptions may exist, but not many. What IS good is that a number of animals are merely territorial, and so you don't have to deal with them if you're just not too close. Animal-related perks make that even easier on you. However, the dedicated bad guys are bad guys, period. Raiders are raiders because they chose violence over reason to get their way. Super mutants of the East Coast are FEV experiments who - lacking The Master's influence - decided they were superior to the human race and decided to prey upon them. Feral ghouls...appearantly are either regular crazy to the point of degeneration, or - as I've heard claimed - going through actual brain-rot. In either case, they're completely unreasonable. They only leave thinking ghouls alone because they look and smell right. And Deathclaws? They're obviously getting smarter, but it's a long time before they achieve naturally what the Goris clan had in Fallout 2, so they're largely vicious as hell. These things won't change, ever. Like War. War never changes.
Yeah, it's a fun sporadic game for me. I bought it when it was released, and I only recently loaded it back up. So it's got a short duration of enjoyment. But when that duration is active, damn it's fun. xD Funny thing though, you mention having a system where the enemies would be afraid of you and run. I might be remembering wrong, as I said, the last time I played was when the game was initially released, but, I could swear one of the captains had a "Fear of the Gravewalker" weakness. And that he would just lose his shit whenever he saw me, and start running right away. So they kind of did what you wanted? But not with an ever increasing Fear Factor about it. Which I agree, would be awesome. The only game series I can think of that did that, or at least close to it, was the Batman Arkham series. Where in each room where you did the stealth takedowns, the enemies would get increasingly more afraid as you took out more and more of them. But yeah, I would like in SoM, for the deeds you do, to not just show up as random chatter from the uruk "Did you hear about how the Gravewalker cut off the captain's head? His blood shot into the air like a blood soda!", but actually have them develop a fear trait, that would go up and down, depending on how good you did. If you ran into a long streak of deaths to the captains, it would lessen your infamy with them, and in fact would bolster them against you, making it harder. But if you play for hours, killing captain after captain, without going down, they would start to panic when they see you....yessss....yessss I approve of this idea. *steeples fingers*Something Amyss said:
Yeah, it seems to me that it's like going to a Michael Bay movie, and complaining "Where is the deep character development?! Where is the nuanced discussion about the frailty of humanity and the transitory state of love?!" Um...it's a Michael Bay movie, just expect things to blow up, and slow motion low shots of people in front of American flags. Expecting anything else from this is kind of silly. xDSomething Amyss said:
That latter bit is what I was talking about. There is the taunting, and some captains are afraid you regardless (because the traits are up to RNGesus rather than any sort of story), but that would be epic if the way they approached you actually changed based on the play style. But even that sort of brushes against the point. Killing is easy, programming more elaborate systems is hard. And maybe it wouldn't be all that appreciated, though I'd like to see the SOM model adopted personally (the captains/war leaders, not the whole game). I'm just not sure if even that's popular enough to make it worth adoption.Happyninja42 said:
I suppose the big difference is that you get prestige films every year, but AAA games are pretty much all Michael Bay films.
Oh I agree, that would be a cool system. I could see it working well in some kind of political game. Where the various "Captains" are various people of power, and you do various things to work them against each other. Allying some with you, and then having them ally themselves with the more powerful figures (the bodyguard mechanic in SoM), and then have them turn against the more powerful figure to enact your own agenda. So yeah, I could totally see the system being used for non-violent games. But I also agree with your statement of just having that mechanic, without the Middle Earth setting. In fact, I was considering doing a separate thread discussing why we don't see more "clone" games of popular ones. Like more SoM clones, using the Infamy System, but with a totally different setting. I'd enjoy the hell out of that stuff. And I recall the game was pretty popular when it came out.Something Amyss said:
Pretty much yeah. Sure we have our Michael Bay's, but we also have our King's Speeches, and 12 Years a Slave, and all those other movies that are Oscar material, but commercially don't do as well as ASPLODEY ASPLODEY BOOM BOOM! movies. We get a few games like that, but they aren't as popular, or as widely received as the CoD's, and Halo's.Something Amyss said:
DO IT.Happyninja42 said:
But yeah, it could make for an interesting game of political intrugue to do something like this.
They're also generally not promoted, which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the equivalent of 12 days gets a fraction of the marketing and then sees a fraction of the sales, is it much of a surprise? Hell, it was a shocker that From Software did as well as it did with the Souls series (which admittedly, I do not like, but that's not the point). It was a niche game (despite still being a combat game) with limited marketing and a smaller budget and it managed to get traction, as did the sequel.
Prestige flicks may not always get the same marketing as, say, The Avengers, but it's not anywhere near the disparity in terms of coverage. And if Hollywood did treat its movies this way, we'd have to go to indie cinema to get anything other than superhero flicks, action movies, and sports movies.
And, I mean, I like action flicks and I like action games. I'm not saying that these are bad things. I'm just paralleling to Hollywood and saying I'd say there was a problem if I had to go to the indies to get pretty much anything else.
I agree with the Hollywood comparison. I think it's getting better in the gaming industry, it's just really slow.Something Amyss said: