More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

December 28, 2009 -

A comic book writer has opined that he is interested in seeing more realistic violence in videogames, but he isn't sure if the gaming public is ready for it.

Landry Walker, a writer who writes "Batman: the Brave and the Bold" and has also written for "The Incredibles," was watching a friend play Batman: Arkham Asylum and was a bit incensed that his friend was not phased when Batman got shot. His thought was that because he was Batman, he was not supposed to get shot, despite the body armor.

According to an editorial he posted on Elder-Geek.com, he is concerned that bullets in games don't phase people. If you get shot at in real life, you'd panic:

I’ve been shot at a couple of times. I don’t mean I was sitting at the TV waving a controller around so a little pixel person could dodge cyborg powered armor piercing poison tipped bullets. Nope. These were just bullets from a simple and boring hand gun. In each instance, the bullets missed. Lucky me. Because there were no handy first aid packs or carefully planted green herbs lying around waiting. If I had been shot, I expect it would have been amazingly unlike a video game. Assuming the bullet did not inflict irreparable harm to my body, the experience of actually being shot (let’s assume a grazing strike to the shoulder) would have likely done irreparable harm to the cleanliness of my pants. Yes. I realize the imaginary bullet hit my imaginary shoulder. You do the obvious math on how that correlates to the un-cleanliness of my pants.

He goal is to get more of an emotional response as a gamer:

I don’t want any of this out of some overbearing concern that we as a society are allowing ourselves to become numb to the grim realities of blah blah blah. Nope. I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline or whatever it is after hearing a simple bullet crack past your ear. That’s what games should be. So real that I just have to put down the controller for a minute because some part of my lizard brain is shaking in disbelief over the scenario I somehow managed to survive.

GP: Do you get enough realism in your videogames? Do you get an adrenaline rush when the bullets start to fly? Personally, when I'm going up against a live player, I must admit my heart races faster and my actions get a bit more frantic. I don't get that playing against the AI.

Posted in

Comments

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Dude they're videoGAMES! As in not real.

I can tell the difference between reality and fiction. If I (or someone else) got shot in real life I'm sure I'd crap my pants in terror. But because it's a game I know it's not real, and so my usual response it just minor annoyance because it usually means starting over.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I think we need to tell a bit more realistic stories before we go for realistic violence or realistic sex.

start off having the fun being realistic, as in enjoying a great game because of the fun of it, then add in the realistic stuff later on that would make it fun for those who want the game to be realistic.

Am I making any sense here?

TBoneTony

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I think it's about high time for even half-way realistic sex in video games before we go to fully realistic violence. There is no balance, whatsoever. 

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

 I was just thinking about this the other day while playing inFamous. Most of the "moral choices" in that game have no lasting or poignant impact because you, as a gamer, know that there's no need to sacrifice civilians to protect yourself because nothing will ever kill you, ever, or even cause irreperable harm. However, when I play Dead Space I find myself very on edge the entire time, and when some abomination pops out of the vents and I'm low on health I certainly freak out a little bit more than usual. The way you die in that game is so gruesome and detailed that I think it makes the gamer want to avoid death even more than normal to avoid the intense unpleasantness of seeing your avatar ripped to shreds. Of course, towards the end of the game I had so many large medkits and so much ammo that it became sort of a non-issue at that point...

 

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

A game that would show the realities of getting shot, I have to admit, would be a nice gimmick game.  But by no means should it be the bulk of this or any other medium.  I mean seriously, would you play a game like Uncharted where the first bullet in the first one minute of the game has you in physical therapy for a year?  Only to go back to where you were before, take another bullet and end up there again?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Shouldn't it be "fazed", not phased?

"De minimus non curat lex"

"De minimus non curat lex"

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I don't know about Arkham Asylum, but in Fallout 3 I get a good sense of panic when my healt hgets low and I have a crippled limb and am low on stimpaks.

Not to mention, a game where you die after one gunshot and are made to restart, or worse, your game becomes unplayable, that woudln't be fun, it's be retardedly frustrating.

Back o nthe original Xbox there wasa game called Steel Battalion. I remember it for having a stupidly expensive but cool controller. Anyway, if you forgot to close the cockpit or you died when you mech got blown up, all your save data was deleted, making you restart. I didn't even want it just for that reason.

 

Also, not castign Mark Hamil as The Joker in The Brave and the Bold = FAIL

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Actually, some specific realism might do society some good.

One of the side effects of 'movie physics' is people are starting to develop a gut reaction how things 'should happen' based off what they see in movies, to the point that rare events (like people getting shot) look 'fake'.

I once saw a press release from a government (law) official talking about an international insodent that had been taped. The official pointed out that that how being shot effected the person obviously was fake in the video because it looked wrong.  The video actually looked RIGHT, but it did not look like a movie 'being shot' so everyone thought it was fake.

Video games could potentially be a reboot here.... a chance to inject real physics back into the public mind.

*sigh* though sadly, this is also an example of where, as much as we like to say 'we can tell fantasy from reality', the fact is that for rare events, you build patterns off what you see.  If all you ever see is movie versions of how things pan out, one does NOT have an easy time telling fantasy from reality.

Moving away from physics, you see this in all sorts of movie themes.  How relationships work, how politics work, etc.  Looks at the JFK assasination! Most modern conspiracy theories and hype can be traced back to a specific movie that told a warped view of events, but to many people that IS reality now.  Never forget, our lower brain DOES interpert what we see as reality, and it does not distinguish between what is inside a box and what is not.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I agree with Mr. Walker, to a point.  I certainly wouldn't buy a game that blew up my XBox whenever my character got shot, even though that would be an incedible fear-inducing penalty.  I also don't really want a game that makes me start over from the beginning as a different main character whenever I get the first one killed.  That'd be retardedly frustrating.  However, game designers could definitely do more to get the player to treat his character with more respect.

One of the main genres where this bugs the hell out of me is driving games.  I don't care how detailed the interiors of the cars in Need For Speed: Whatever The New One's Called (or whatever the latest racing game is) are, if I can ram a wall at 200 mph and then simply back up and have another go, it just doesn't do anything for me.  Yeah yeah, sure sure, the front bumper and hood might crumple a bit, but that's just not going to cut it.  If there is little or no potential danger, then excitement doesn't exist.  What makes barreling down a twisty track at insane speeds exciting is the idea that if you make any sort of mistake, something bad (and potentially cool-looking) might happen.  If you can just hum along at near top speed sliding around guard rails the entire time, then driving well doesn't really matter.  Sure, you might make better time around the track if you drive well, but that's just numbers at the end of the race, it's not excitement.

In order for me to get excited about a driving game, I need to know that if I make a mistake, especially one at high speed, my car and myself will be obliterated in a very cool-looking fashion.  I'm not talking about slightly crumpled exteriors with scratched-looking textures swapped in, I'm talking about my car being in several pieces, with the engine over there, a seat or two over here, two hunks of burning metal over there, and where the hell did the tires go?

This serves two purposes:  First of all, it'd look really cool, and Youtube will be loaded up with videos of crashes from your game a few hours after it's released.  Secondly, it makes something dramatic happen when the player screws up.  If the player is trying to play the game well, it's a punishment, and for the casual gamer, it'll at least be something neat to look at.  But the idea that screwing up = big dramatic thing happening will always be there, making a perfect run all the more satisfying, a not so perfect run all the more memorable, and both more exciting.  Exceptionally great games can be great without this, as Gran Turismo was/is, but I think any driving game would benefit from it.

"But UncleMidriff!" I can here someone saying, "That would be all kinds of frustrating!  Not every driving game needs to be a hard-ass sim!"  I agree, but that still doesn't mean developers should skimp on dramatic consequence for actions in their games.  It just means they need to tweak the severity of what those consequence mean to a level appropriate for the game.  Hard-ass racing sim?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = end of race, no restarts.  Plain ol' racing sim?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = end of race, with ability to restart.  Realistic arcade racer?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = press a button, you're all fixed up and back on track, but with some sort of time penalty.  Completely arcade-y racer?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = press a button at any time during the crash to be set back on the track, with the car fixed and already back up to speed.  In any of those cases, the dramatic, cool-looking crash is there, it's just what that ultimately means to the player that is different.  In any of those cases, excitement is preserved because no matter what the severity of punishment for screwing up is, something big and dramatic will happen, at least visually, if the player is not on top of things.

And this transfers over to other genres as well.  If you want a game to be exciting for the player, then make the consequences of his or her actions at the very least visually dramatic.  Then, depending on how "realistic" you want the game to be, you can start tweaking things like numbers of saves, restart points, length of disability from player-character injury, etc.  And no matter the level of "realism," the player should not be able to walk right up to an enemey that is currently shooting, and not missing, the player, unless there's a damn good reason for that being able to happen in the game's story. (I've not played the new Batman game, so I don't know if this is the case in that game or not.)

Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Current Status: Awesome

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

<i> "But UncleMidriff!" I can here someone saying, "That would be all kinds of frustrating!  Not every driving game needs to be a hard-ass sim!"  I agree, but that still doesn't mean developers should skimp on dramatic consequence for actions in their games.  It just means they need to tweak the severity of what those consequence mean to a level appropriate for the game.  Hard-ass racing sim?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = end of race, no restarts.  Plain ol' racing sim?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = end of race, with ability to restart.  Realistic arcade racer?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = press a button, you're all fixed up and back on track, but with some sort of time penalty.  Completely arcade-y racer?  Dramatic, cool-looking crash = press a button at any time during the crash to be set back on the track, with the car fixed and already back up to speed.  In any of those cases, the dramatic, cool-looking crash is there, it's just what that ultimately means to the player that is different.  In any of those cases, excitement is preserved because no matter what the severity of punishment for screwing up is, something big and dramatic will happen, at least visually, if the player is not on top of things. </i>

 

 

I like to add in another one, Cool dramatic crash where your car is obliterated in plumes of fire and smoke with one half of the car flying off one way and the other part of the car going the other way and it is obvious that you have died in the crash = player can press the button like in The Sands of Time and rewind backwords up to the point where he or she could continue the race from the moment before the crash in order to avoid making the same mistake.

Therefore it will be realistic but also awesome knowing you have at least 6 to 8 Sands of Time uses where you can rewind from a dramatic crash and preventing your burning death in order to save the race you are currently driving in. If you run out of those Sands of Time uses and then crash again in a burning ball of flames, THEN you have to start the race all over again.

 

I got that idea after playing Prince of Persia Sands of Time and thinking of other ways to use that rewind gameplay mechanic.

 

 

TBoneTony

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I like your racing game example. It would really make people play differently if they had to pay for repairs after a race and have the risk of totalling and losing their brand new car that cost them $500,000 to purchase. It would add the to the reality of the game as well as have the added benefit of players improving their race times and income level for their team.

The only problem with trying to do something like that is licensing deals. A lot of racing games pay a licensing fee to car manufacturers like Ford and Toyota. Part of the deals in most games is that the cars cannot appear damaged at any point in the game. So game developers would have to loose out on that income stream and create new cars from scratch and raise production costs.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I've read about the brand licensing issue, and I understand the auto companies' point.  Personally, I don't really care either way.  Sure, it's fun to start up a driving game and hop into the same model/year WRX as the one I own and then do stuff I could only dream of doing in my actual vehicle that cost me actual money... but then again, Burnout: Paradise is all kinds of fun too, and there's not a single licensed car in that game.

To be a little more abstact about it:

I've spent way too much time thinking about why some games just feel right to me while other games, of the same genre and sub-genre, just don't.  The best I've been able to come up with so far is that a game feeling "right" to me is a function of the relationship between player actions and game responses, and the closer that relationship is to being 1-to-1, the more the game feels "right" to me.

To use a silly example to explain what I mean, take death animations in first-person shooters.  I started out playing Wolfenstein 3D.  In that game, the same death animation played every time you killed an enemy (of the same type), no matter how you killed him.  You could should a Nazi with a pistol while running, and it would look exactly the same as if you shot him with a shotgun while crouching.  I still enjoyed the game, because I was young, and hey, who doesn't enjoy turning Nazis into bloody messes?  Doom was slightly better, in that you could shoot people or blow them up, but other than that, all manner of your actions, no matter how different they were, resulted in the same death animation.

Skip forward to Goldeneye.  Holy crap was that different!  It had a seemingly unlimited number of death animations, and for the first time I remember, it mattered how well you aimed at a guy before you shot him.  Shoot him in the hand or foot, he won't die; shoot him in the chest, he'll fall back; shoot him in the chest when he's close to a wall, he'll fall back against it and slide down.  All the sudden, it wasn't just a hit or a miss that mattered, it mattered how you got a hit.  Still though, eventually, the player sees all the different death animations the game has, and even worse, frequently sees the wrong death animation play at the wrong time (think: shooting a guy in the back of the head and then he flies towards you), and the 1-to-1 connection between what the player does and what happens in the game is weakened.

Skip ahead some more, and we get ragdolls (some of which, I'll admit, are done very poorly).  Now everything matters.  The weapon you use, the distance between you and the enemy, where the enemy is standing, what the enemey is standing next to, where you shoot the enemy, from what angle you shoot the enemy, etc.  The 1-to-1 connection between what the player does and what happens on-screen is strengenthed in a subtle but visceral way.

Okay, I've just spent 3 paragraphs talking about death animations, and now I feel silly, and maybe just a little bit creepy.  But something even as silly, and, as most probably see it, inconsequential as that, does make a difference.  When I play an FPS that doesn't have ragdoll deaths now, I, in short order, begin to feel as though I'm not killing an enemy dead when I shoot him, but rather that I might as well be telling him to dance (a dance I've seeing a hundred times before).  That visceral connection between what I do and what happens on-screen is weakened or lost.

In an effort to bring this back 'round to the topic at hand:  It may not be that the makers of the new Batman game need to make more realistic things happen to the player if the player gets shot, but rather that they just need to make something different happen.  If the game is meant to played in a stealthy fashion, make it so that charging ahead and conking a guy who's just filled you full of lead doesn't work, or at least leads to a different and less desirable outcome.  (This is a problem that the Hitman games, one of my favorite series, has; you can play it how it's meant to be played, or you can equip some big guns and beat most level in a few minutes).  If you don't, the player might not get the sense that what he or she does really matters, and then the game has a good chance of becoming boring.

Of course, that's a whole lot easier said than done.  But, I'd prefer game developers to focus on that rather than bump-mapping the characters' nose hairs*.

 

 

*Requires 16-way SLI set-up.

Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Current Status: Awesome

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

HEELO!!!......I am not playing a game for realism......



Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Given your (lack of) relationship with reality I'm not surprised. But some people do.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I don't think you'll find many ways to actually give rise to a direct emotional response from current gaming systems.

Let's face it, you are ALWAYS the third person.  Pretend all you want when playing a character on the screen, it's STILL someone else.

In the early days, new tech might have give rise to a bit of surprise.  I remember one of the very, very old Test Drives being played by an old friend who, when the car crashed and the windshield shattered, she screamed.  But it only happened the first time.  After that, the shock value wore off fast.  Very much like Sixth Sense was for me.  You can only be surprised the first time. 

Only advanced tech that literally puts you into the game (a holodeck, a body suit with physical reactors to stimuli, or even neural connections) to receive physical responses may succeed.  Even then, it may last only a little while before the player becomes used to the un-reality of the game. 

Even actual training simulations, such as police and military training, can not prepare you truly for the real thing.  Especially when you KNOW it's a simulation.  No matter how physical it becomes, you know that reality has its limitations when it comes to those simulations.

It's just not going to happen.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Out of curiosity, do you think they should even try to make it happen or focus their efforts in other areas of game development?

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I think the overall technology is going to need to advance to keep the interest high.  Not just impact technology such as from weapons or fighting, but other tactile stimuli.  We always end up wanting more. 

Some immersion efforts failed to an extent to meet the desires of the consumer based.  VR glasses, 3D online shopping malls, PowerGloves, even the Rumble controllers started or are starting to fade.  Certainly VR glasses just didn't live up to the expectation.  3D online shopping malls looked cool in the beginning, but just became a waste and hassle and faded entirely. 

We're always working towards the total experience, but it will never totally exist without risk to the player.  Reality will always leave a limitation.  People who are looking for the ULTIMATE highs of exposure to stimuli are out climbing mountains without ropes.  Sky diving.  Looking for the ultimate underground fight club.  Driving high speeds around dangerous curves.  And they are doing it because they KNOW the risk is real.

In a holodeck or a body suit, we can experience SOME aspect of reality.  We could feel a touch.  Perhaps, even discern between what we are touching (skin, metal, grass, wood, etc).  And this will work in many genres of games.  But for the serious violent games, you can NEVER go that far without risking a player's life.  A rumble or thump thump stimuli on any part of the body to represent a weapon of any kind, even a fight, just doesn't do it.  The game may be programmed to register something more, but the PLAYER won't.

A good boxing simulation that you exert yourself on moves might stimulate a physical response similar to exercise, but not feeling getting punched in the face or the abdomen... just isn't the same those those looking for that experience. 

Should we keep advancing closer to the more realistic experiences that we can?  Of course.  But we still need to realize that reality causes limitations.  Not in the technology.  But in what the companies, the consumers, the legal system, society, etc want to do, can do, should take the risk to do or be done to them.  It's the same with the aforementioned training simulations.  You can even fake a reality but it be a simulation, but the trainer is still limited to the reality.  Do you really want to put a bullet in someone you're training to gauge their reaction, short and long term?  And if you use blanks or even non-lethal ammo, will the response by the "victim" still be the same every time?

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I was playing Gears of War yesterday and in the most of the time, I keep cool when I get shot, but I still jump when they kill me.

In Arkham Asylum is the same. You are very vulnerable in that game, and with a few shots you get killed. I think it depends on people if they stay focus when they get shot or they get "oshit-oshit-oshit" state.

In comics, I´ve seen Batman getting shot with a shotgun in many books and he barely reacts to pain. He is the kind of character he don´t get affected easily by emotions. So if the player can imitate that, I think the game is not so bad.

This, anyways, has nothing to do with realism. You get shot in real life, and it´s over in the most of the times. I games, you always get a chance because they are just games.

I´m surprised that a comic book writer is complaining on this. I´m sure if he tries to do that on Batman, their bosses just will say not. 

My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I've got no problem with games that amp up adrenaline response in players.  I do have a problem if every game made getting hit with bullets essentially kill your character.  Would Devil May Cry be any fun if taking a demonic slash to the face killed Dante?  Would Star Wars be any fun if all it took was one light saber slash to kill anything or be killed by anyone?  Would CoD be worth playing if one bullet took you out? 

 

We have tactical shooters where getting hit a couple times will in fact kill you.  I find them boring.  I don't play videogames for realism, I play them for fantasy.  CoD gets my blood pumping just fine, it's hard enough with 10 guys shooting at you.  Mirror's Edge had me leaning into the screen during jumps.  The hand to hand combat in Condemned was visceral and when a baddie smacked me with a wrench I would flinch.

 

I'm not sure exactly what the author wants, more realistic reaction to damage or a sense of danger or what, but I know that most people in real life would die from a couple bullet wounds and I'm not interested in playing that game.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Yeah, he's not saying we need more realism because we don't know what reality is. He's saying (basically) games are getting boring. It's getting harder and harder to get that adrenaline flowing with bigger and bigger guns, when a plain, old, boring bullet should be making us crap our pants like real life!

What if, when Batman (or any hero for that matter) was nearly put out to pasture with a 9mm to the shoulder? It would have to be under the right conditions, when we don't have a lot of fighting to do; otherwise it would just be frustrating, not exilerating.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Like I said above, part of that problem is definitely because of the rise of regenerating health as a gameplay mechanic.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Regenerating health itself is not the problem. It's the fact that it regenerates so quickly and that there are usually no other forms of healing in games that use it. You will see that it can be properly used once you play STALKER Call of Pripyat. Healing over a number of in-game hours is fine, but healing completely in five real seconds is ridiculous.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Actually I think that was where his point stemmed from. In the Batman game, he watched one of his friends play the game using that as their play tactic. They would fight closerange with guys who had guns get to a certain point in their health go and hide until their health filled up and repeat. Batman would never do that.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I tend to do the same thing too when playing a game that allows it (not played AA itself though), and I do feel a game suffers for it.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Because as gamers we OF COURSE can't tell the difference between game worlds and what might happen in the same circumstances in real life. I'm planning on suing THQ because I shot at my dog after playing STALKER and it died after only 1 bullet instead of the 4-5 it took in the game. Idiot.

As for saying that AI in games doesn't give you a rush or a feeling of "ohshitohshitohshit" when the bullets start flying, I say "Try playing something less dumbed down". Of course you're not gonna be scared of bullets when all you have to do is duck out of sight for a couple seconds and *ting* full health is back.

 

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

I don't think he is saying that gamers can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I think he is saying that as game designers, they could do a better job at tapping the emotions around real life threats. He is looking at this from a storytelling point of view.

I don't think there is any game on the market that really tries to get to the play to panic in such a way as they would if they were really being shot at.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Any of the STALKER games. ESPECIALLY on Normal or higher difficulty. The second part of my reply was in response to GP's closing opinion and not the guy being quoted anyway

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Haven't played any of the STALKER games. So I can't comment on that. But I do remember some games from the NES days that had one hit kill and/or one life to live. Those were always a pain in the butt to beat, but I found them fun.

As for AI, it really hasn't reached a level of combat that feels like you are playing a real person. So that may be a ways off.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

STALKER also crossed my mind while reading the article. It is one of the few games to give me the described sensation. Sure it's a way off from realistic (or even what the devs initially described it to be), but it is one of the few trying to push such boundaries while still keeping the game fun. Almost every encounter feels like you're just scraping by, which makes success incredibly satisfying. STALKER is what I would call a true role playing game; not a 'roll' playing game like the pen and paper adaptations that have somehow stuck around since the 8.

Even though it's not a shooter, there is also Bushido Blade on the PS1. One well placed strike is all it takes to kill or die. Plus an arm and leg for each combatant can be injured and disabled, making it even more intense.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Good old Super Probotector (Contra 3 to those of you in the U.S.!)

As for AI vs real people, I think you'll find real-life combat is not the bunny-hopping circle-strafing nade-spamming that real people playing online would make it appear.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: More Realistic Violence in Videogames?

Why, did someone patch those out?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Have you visited a video game arcade in the last year?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonfirst, that crap is wrong. second, isnt this the 3rd time he has quit?08/22/2014 - 12:11pm
Zenhttp://levelsave.com/phil-fish-polytron-doxxed-phil-fish-quits-gaming-sells-fez-polytron/ , https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bvnhvz5IIAAAVc5.png:large08/22/2014 - 12:03pm
ZenHere are some links to the story and images. http://playeressence.com/polytron-and-phil-fish-hacked-tons-of-personal-info-leaked/ , https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bvnx8sQCIAAwumB.jpg:large , https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bvnj_zmCUAAlYWm.jpg:large08/22/2014 - 12:02pm
ZenSo...Phil Fish was apparently hacked on both his Twitter and the Polytron site along with all of his personal information has been given out in a zip file. He has since closed his Twitter and stated that Polytron and the Fez IP are for sale. He wants out.08/22/2014 - 12:01pm
Papa MidnightThe Verge says the sequel to Flappy Bird is nearly impossible. http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/21/6053297/swing-copters-flappy-bird-sequel08/21/2014 - 12:22pm
SleakerPC-Gamer wrote an article on what's going on with the Minecraft stuff: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/21/minecraft-bukkit-team-lead-tries-to-end-development-but-mojang-steps-in/08/21/2014 - 11:55am
SleakerEVE had a high-profile ban today: http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/08/20/eve-online-lottery-site-somer-blink-shutting-down/#continued08/21/2014 - 10:26am
SleakerBut where have all the Ethics gone?08/21/2014 - 9:08am
Sleaker@EZK - one of the bigger things is that since Mojang has owned Bukkit for 2 years now, people contributing to the project have basically been doing work for them pro-bono. On top of never formalizing support. They hid the fact probably to prevent support08/21/2014 - 9:07am
SleakerIf you've played on a server with mods/plugins, you've almost for sure played on a Bukkit-based server.08/21/2014 - 8:56am
SleakerHere's Bukkit's explanation attempt at shutting down due to EULA changes: http://forums.bukkit.org/threads/bukkit-its-time-to-say.305106/08/21/2014 - 8:55am
SleakerEZK - it's the largest server mod for MC, in actuality without it minecraft for sure would not have been as popular (#1 game now).08/21/2014 - 8:54am
SleakerTo the point that it seems they have completely lost what it means to be for-community, and having transparency. Along with dumping restrictive EULA's onto people.08/21/2014 - 8:53am
E. Zachary KnightWhat is Bukkit and why should I care?08/21/2014 - 8:53am
SleakerMinecraft community exploded again today. Apparently Mojang owns all of Bukkit, and never put out a statement saying as such 2 years ago when they acquired them. I have to say, their transition from indie has been rough.08/21/2014 - 8:52am
james_fudgeThere aren't many left in America08/21/2014 - 1:50am
MechaTama31I sure have. Dorky's barcade in Tacoma, WA.08/20/2014 - 5:56pm
Matthew WilsonI have not been to a arcade in years. I know arcades are still big in japan.08/20/2014 - 5:38pm
Sleaker@AE - Ah no it's called GroundKontrol - I was just referring to it as a Bar-Arcade.08/20/2014 - 4:39pm
Andrew EisenStill looking for confirmation that High Moon Studios (dev behind the PS3/360 versions) isn't working on it.08/20/2014 - 4:38pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician