The Content of Video Games

What you will see is excerpts from my posts in the Consolevision General Board forum. I may end up rewriting this commentary with the points herein, but for the record, here it is.

Posted by: Debeautar Posted on: Feb 12th, 2002, 3:06am
Hello! Debeautar here, back again to start another topic; I hope this goes over well, and draws positive responses.

Over the past few days, we've all seen the postings on the board regarding WHurricane16's views and opinions on Grand Theft Auto 3. Also, if you chimed in there, your views have also been included on the issue. After taking the position that I did on that issue (if you need to see it, please find it), I decided that perhaps my point of view needed a separate topic to cover.

When I worked at a video game store this past Christmas, I noticed a trend; the highest selling games were that of a graphically violent nature, and most of that draw was coming from the youth, the pubescent, or the young adult. Not all of it was towards the heaviest, being GTA3, but that was certainly a top-seller at my store... but anything dealing with killing a human in graphic ways that were as realistic as you could get, sold. Obviously, not all violent content sells, because many gamers out there have the presence of mind to see a title that just BLOWS and avoid it at all costs. Anyone who took bought (and/or took back) Bouncer knows what I'm talking about.

With this Christmas, came the launch of the Gamecube and the X-Box, both which did very well. I did hear some startling things out of this, though. I, myself, was not very impressed by the lineup and the marketing pitch of the Xbox (and an ADD-ON DVD... but I digress), but there were many who reserved and bought it. I asked them why they bought it, and they told me because "the Xbox is for Hardcore gamers, not kiddy gamers." I asked them to clarify what they meant, and they told me that they NEED graphic violence to be able to enjoy their system.

Enjoy violence. Need violence, even. First off, Microsoft will put out ANYTHING that sells, because that's what they're about. You can't call Shrek NOT a kiddy game with a straight face, can you? Secondly... was there actually an understood 'code of the hardcore gamer' that I never heard of, that mandates graphic violence in the best video games? That type of stuff (graphic violence, that is) has only been around for maybe 8 years or so, but video gaming (and console gaming) has been going on for much longer than that. At what point did this happen, where we were required to kill men to enjoy a game?

I'm gonna re-define 'kiddy games' for those of you who need a better definition than the general one these gamer-drones are spewing: Kiddy games are those where the challenge of the game does not apply to someone of age. Not dexterity, not endurance, not patience, not maturity... these factors have nothing to do with it. Simply put, the "Sesame Street 1-2-3" games of the eighties and nineties do not apply to people of age... but Super Mario Bros. does... no matter HOW many times you beat it, eyes closed or not, it was a challenge. StarTropics was no kiddy game... how many times did those spinning starfish beat you down, eh? Who CARES if the same games are playable for children? It's still a GAME! A GAME, people! Not an escapist tool used to simulate death and the release of aggression. Besides, you were once children as well.

This is the same style of thinking that made people sneer when they saw Link from the Legend of Zelda in cel-shaded (cartoonist) animation. Why sneer? It looks totally KEEN! And, apart from Cel Damage, Bomberman Online and Jet Grind Radio, it's a fresh idea... and, to use it in an adventure game? Whoo-haaa, it'll have you ALL in check! And, you know what? Kids will play it too.

I state my opinions here to pose some questions to all of you. First, why is graphic violence a necessity for a quality action game (or is it)? Second, at what point did SOME gamers decide that Rated-E games were uncool, or not worth playing? Third, can there be new games out that will get welcome applause from the gaming world... without the 'mature' plot, or the 'mature' violence, or even the 'mature' language? Fourth, can somebody PLEASE bring back the "Rescue the girlfriend" plot for me, at least once? I miss it so.

Oh, yeah... with that note, I must ask yet another question: When did a good game require a good plot, to be enjoyable? Say ALL you want about the 'skill' it takes to complete any RPG... but, to some of us, they're simply movies with push-button progress. Don't agree? How many times did you wear out your X button on your playstation controllers, playing an RPG? And, in doing that, you were looking for the all-glorious ending to the story... many which some would argue aren't worth the price of admission. Grandia 2, anyone? Even with an action game like Super Mario 64, it ended with Peach making a cake for Mario (sorry for the spoiler, if some of you never completed it)... and soooo many complained that the ending was terrible.

So WHAT? Did any of you care about the frog you were supposed to be saving in Blaster Master? I didn't think so. Did the ending of that game even look cool? Probably not to most, and probably not now. Did you ever complete Ghosts and Goblins (first OR second time around)? You either get a message saying you fell into a trap devised by satan, or you lived merrily ever after, until they say that you KNEW you had to go back and play it again.

It's about the ride, people... the journey to the end, not the end that makes the game.

Can there be gaming with simple plots and WAAAY better games? I certainly hope so, for the 'old-school gamer's sake. As far as violence, it has been there since the beginning (laser shots 2 pixels long is still violence), and it's looking better and better, and way more realistic for every new game that comes out. It will never go away, and I don't want it to. But, can the gaming community's focus change from violence that sells, to games that entertain?

Posted by: Debeautar Posted on: Feb 12th, 2002, 11:25am
I will not negate the effects of desensitization; one, I flatly refuse, and two, I'd be stupid not to recognize. But, instead of mirroring the type of discussion had in the Grand Theft Auto 3 topic, I would like to go a different route with how we look at this subject.

When you talked about the THINK portion of MGS2, I must admit that it was great. I didn't like that the game led up to the biggest advertisement for a third installment I've ever seen (summed up in the last phrase you'll ever see in the game, "What the hell?"), but as far as the intelligence of the antagonist, it was insanely proficient of deducing things much like a human would, in the same situation. It's almost bridging between AI and, well, I.

However, MGS2 did something that a lot of games of its kind do not: focus on non-homicidal objective. You could go through the game without killing anyone, and brag about it. If only the focus could actually change in the action genre to something of this type, that would be refreshing. Not to say we need a bunch of tactical espionage titles... but that we need to ween ourselves off of useless violence, and get back to better gaming.

Posted by: Debeautar Posted on: Feb 18th, 2002, 2:28am
All right... now it comes time for me to chime in once again.

First off, to TreyDay; I prefer to type this way, with the words that I choose. I could use slang or whatnot, but I think that in doing that, my 'voice' becomes inconsistant. I sound quite a bit more knowledgable (which I am) when I speak like this, rather than when I speak in short spurts and squeaks, as it were. I go to a junior college, and I want out of this f-ing cesspool. These people make George Bush look like a Nobel-winning scholar.

Second, about our lad TreyDay; if you've read his post, you now have an example of the mind of a mainstream gamer. A mainstream gamer is NOT a bad thing, but it is something that plagues the gaming industry simply because those folks bring the money to buy the product, and the products are geared towards them. Mainstream gamers need something that captures them, much like Hollywood uses violence to intrigue the youth with blockbuster hits. A game can be solid, but it's not attractive to them without some form of violence or explosion, etc.

He's one of the few folks that has touched on one of my most-desired-to-be-attacked arguements; I was waiting for this. I want to challenge his way of thinking, because he says things like Super Monkey Ball had the potential to be 'so much more' if things were added to it, his statement almost saying that the game feels empty without it.

I don't think so.

Marble Madness is still the undisputed champion of the rolling-ball/marble-esque games... and there was nothing empty about it, save lack of stages. Super Monkey Ball (although I haven't played it, because most video stores in my area only carry HOT titles, or VIOLENT titles therefore) seems to be the most logical step forward in such a genre. I've heard it plays more like a labyrinth board, but STILL! The idea sounds really good, and can do WITHOUT the 'needed violence.'

And yet... here comes Deb to smack this all into perspective:
THIS ISN'T THE POINT, EVERYONE! The point is, a lot of us 'old-school gamers' have seen our hobby turn into a mainstream fad, and with it went its core: the game. If you took the violent nature out of GTA3, it wouldn't sell, and not many would give it credit... it would be much like Driver, and just be looked over... but yet, there ARE technical marvels in this thing. INGENIOUS things, I tell you. But, the problem is... the game is not the focus of the industry any more... it once was, way back when I was still in public school. I would almost go to say that money became the biggest factor in gaming when Sony got into the mix. Sony made a LOT of money out of their grey box, and they did it with titles that were more accessible to the mainstream gamer, moreso than the Super Nintendo, or the Genesis. Those consoles were still for the 'old-schoolers' out there... or, at least, they were geared for them. I will not negate Night Trap (or, Night Tripe), or even Death Race or whatever... yes, they existed before Sony gaming, but their focus wasn't clearly on money, as it was with Sony. Sony wanted things to SELL, because they sold lots of hardware and technologies, and figured that they could get into the video game business and make a bundle. They were very right... and what they did damaged hobbyist gaming at its very core; gaming was second, money was first.

That's why you saw Tomb Raider. If any of you say that the engine for that game was great, I'll make you play it with your eyes taped open and your hands glued to a PSX controller, and WATCH you play those titles one by one[Deb edit: when you read "one by one," read it as would be sung by Radiskull and Devil Doll; "I am the Radiskull... I will kill you one by one (ONE BY ONE!)!" Don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up online. Deb out]. Lara Croft was a marketing icon. YES, I will admit that Eidos is ultimately responsible for the series, but Eidos was a fledgling third party for Sony from their start.

With all of my barrage of questions, I wonder... can the hobbyist gamer still get his treats, or are his days gone forever, only to be relived in emulation?