Can we NOT murder things? I'm so fucking sick of it. I've never liked it, but I've been finding ways around dealing with it as best I can, trying to ignore it. ...but even ignoring it gets tiring, and with the advancing graphics, the demand - the fucking DEMAND - for extreme gore, just becomes inescapable. I know there's Train Simulator and other boring games, but why can't we go on adventures without killing stuff? ...and the double standard is so obvious: Where is Link's Rape Quest? What do you mean "Rape is bad."? Link is a reknowned mass murderer! You're telling me him going around fucking Goombahs up the ass would be worse? Just fucking stop it with the killing. It's gone beyond gross at this point, and it's just dumb and boring. I am not brain damaged. Make me a game.
This is the reason I love the horror genre - the part of it that isn't full of idiotic jump scares: In a genuine horror game, violence isn't an option. It's something you're trying to avoid and run from. Usually it's gross none-the-less, but at least I don't have to do despicable things in it. It just goes to show how much I'm prepared to put up with, to not play violent videogames. "But anon, Resident Evil has guns in it." Resident Evil isn't horror. It has never been horror, maybe with the exception of RE7. Silent Hill isn't another gore fest where most of it is just violence pretending to be horror. The moment you're given a firearm in a game, it stops being horror, and starts being a small scale war. That's not "survival horror" - that's bullshit horror.
>>4835 Typo: >Silent Hill isn't another gore fest where most of it is just violence pretending to be horror. Silent Hill IS another gore fest where most of it is just violence pretending to be horror.
>>4834 Killing is the most basic sort of conflict in real life, it is hard to base games that are not around the concept of destruction. Anything that is not destruction, is either a puzzle, strategy, rhythm game or a creation/creativity game
>>4849 >Killing is the most basic sort of conflict in real life, See, I disagree. My goto solution for a problem is NOT to kill people, or rip the vending machine out of the wall. In real life that's the LAST option, which makes it the WORST option. ...but why it's in games, is because it's easy to have a point and click mechanic that provides a common denominator: Maybe nothing everything likes your icecream, but basically everything dies or is somehow affected by bullets. What it is, is lazy game design. ...and it's lazy game design to such a degree that reality has to bend over backwards to accomodate it: Being able to take multiple bullets, instant healing health potions, regenerating health, being able to carry ten guns around effortlessly, et cetera. Serving people icecream isn't "a puzzle", or "strategy", or "creative". It's just not bullets. It's not overly complicated to just not be handed a universal tool of "problem solving", and if it is complicated to you, then maybe you're that special needs kid who shouldn't be taught how to use a gun at all. To be continued.
If gamers were taught social interaction in a game, or some sort of real world skills, they'd be more integrated into society. Instead we have legit gotten mass shootings, where guys just went "I don't get how to solve this real world problem at all, but I do know how to fire a gun like a marksman, and so when you get lemons, you make lemonade.". ...but it's not about the dangers of video games. It's about the tediousness of it all, when 90% of all games are just "Point and click at this guy. He's gone now. There's another one! ...and another!". I'm so looking forward to System Shock 3 breaking some conventions, because although it's probably not going to be an instakill stealth sim, it's going to invent SOMEthing. Something that isn't just point and click. Something that will make DSP ragequit his pants because he can't figure it out.