Do you think game content is improving? Why is violence so prevalent in games?

Hello everyone,

I was wondering about something...

Are game console companies getting better at diversifying their content and genres? As a proud owner of several retro game systems, and having fond memories of playing on an AMIGA 1000 & playing DOS games, I can appreciate just about anything if it's presented in a unique & interesting way. (Including violent games)

But I was recently playing "Journey" and watching some clips of a game called Echochrome II (Both for the PS3), and started thinking to myself how rare these types of games are. At least in my experience, it seems like most game consoles have content that falls under the umbrella of a "shoot, slice, dice, fight-and-defend, head-bonking" extravaganza. Is there a reason that most games on consoles take part in so much violence? Is this still the case with modern console gaming, or is the content improving across all platforms? I would love to hear your opinions on this!

Thanks again,

**ArchimedesNose**

Edited by ArchimedesNose, 06 July 2021 - 11:59 PM.

I think this is true of computer games in general;  I recall an article in a gaming magazine over twenty years ago commenting that roughly 80% of new games involved combat or destruction in some form.  In real life any sane person decries the use of violence, though many still consider, or at least fantasize, it when provoked;  computer games provide an "acceptable" outlet for this;  though the argument is also made that such games promote violence in reality, particularly among those who grew up with such games.  While I do enjoy an occasional hack-and-slash game, my preference is games where I build things, or racing sims and flight sims;  though I also enjoy an online survival game except for one aspect,  it is full PvP  ...players may murder each other for no other reason than they are capable of it;  this engenders a non-social style of play among peaceful players of running and hiding whenever another player appears on the map (many players have lobbied for a second server, same game but without PvP, but the devs aren't interested).

The years have shown that such games are the most popular, and developers are there to make money, so they'd be foolish not to cater to the largest market.

Hello originaljgf,

Thank you for responding to my thread.  It sounds like you are open minded as I am about video game genres. I can't say that I have a preference, although I do enjoy several games that are admittedly in the violent category, and similar to you, I like building games (Sim City and Theme Park come to mind), and while I haven't played a flight simulator in a number of years, I remember adoring them.

The years have shown that such games are the most popular, and developers are there to make money, so they'd be foolish not to cater to the largest market.

From a business perspective, I am inclined to agree with you. It does make sense to give customers what they want (as long as it's legal) if there is a high demand for a type of product. On the other hand, using the PS1 Wikipedia game list as an example...if 80% of games cater to violence and destruction, this means that the PS1 alone had 3,284 games that fill that quota out of its total 4,105 games. Dividing the total number of games into 4 and it averages to approximately 1,026 games per region (Assuming there's 4 regions) which means approximately 821 games fill the violent and destructive quota per region.

It is my opinion that this is more than catering to the market; it's force-feeding media without giving players much of an alternative. Also, considering that a lot of modern consoles are not region locked, and players often times have more than one gaming console, this allows for an expansive catalog that lacks variety.

What I'd be curious to know is how many staff members & marketing dollars go into the violent genre games vs. the non-violent genre games, and how much money they have to actually make each individual game.

Less advertisement dollars would account for a lack of popularity.

Jenova Chen (the director of Journey) says in this speech here at the 0:36 mark & the 31:52 mark that with a team of about twelve people he ran out of money while finalizing the project.

Edited by ArchimedesNose, 09 July 2021 - 03:14 PM.

Money follows demand

....

It is my opinion that this is more than catering to the market; it's force-feeding media without giving players much of an alternative. ...

If you are making soft drinks and 75% of your market prefers cola and 25% prefer something else, you will concentrate on making cola;  or you make no cola at all and try to be the best at everything else for a niche market.  It is the same with any product.  Why so little native software for Linux?  Because it's doubtful Linux users are even 5% of the market, yet it will take you just as long to develop for them as it would for windoze.

We've had this discussion in the race sim community.  A good team with decent funding might take a new sim from clean slate to store shelves in a year, and have a niche market game that may, possibly, sell a few hundred thousand copies its first year;  that same team in the same time could produce three or four arcade games or combat games, any one of which would sell many more copies than that race sim.  (Many of the most popular race sims still in use are well over ten years old, produced by small "prestige" teams that moved on to other things.)

The gamers' side of the market has also changed.  Again using race sims as an example, players no longer want to take time to learn the driving style or how to create setups, they just want to hop in a car, get on a track, and win ...all the while making high-res 4k videos to post on youtube.  Forums no longer discuss setup philosophy or handling issues, instead they are rife with "will this display on three screens?" or how to configure an ENB filter.  For them an arcade racer with questionable physics but superlative graphics is sufficient.  So again developers play to the masses - racing games where the cars are equipped with rocket launchers and land mines and you win by eliminating your opponents.

And most development teams today are funded by marketing companies, so quick turnaround and high profit (more sales) are paramount.  So more and more variants of hack-and-slash, whether with fists and feet, stone axes, or laser guided rockets;  the majority of the market has bloodlust.

Can you actually picture any major developer today releasing something like "The Incredible Machine"  or "Theme Hospital"? ...unless they could put grenades in it.

Hello wee-eddie,

Welcome!

you will concentrate on making cola;  or you make no cola at all and try to be the best at everything else for a niche market.

Or just try to be the best!

I understand what you and wee-eddie are saying about meeting the market's demands. Though, in terms of your analogy, Sprite receives marketing dollars behind it, celebrity endorsements, and offered many variations of the drink while being in the Coca-Cola company.

Can you actually picture any major developer today releasing something like "The Incredible Machine"  or "Theme Hospital"? ...unless they could put grenades in it.

Stranger things have happened. I would even go so far as to say that if an indie company got enough momentum behind them to create game systems, and chose to focus on making a console that was exclusive to puzzle games, exploration-themed games, collecting games, hidden object games, point-and-click adventures, and even educational games...it might actually put up decent numbers if the games had top tier graphics, great design concepts, and a budget with marketing dollars behind them.

I would be willing to buy one, especially if it was heavy on puzzle solving.

Oh there are many smaller companies creating those games, such as Alawar or Playrix, but these are smaller games (rarely more than 300meg or so, most much smaller) which can be churned out several per year.  By having dozens of games available at any given time (you will often see several games identical except for graphics, sound, and "plot"), they do quite well.  And big budget versions of exploration/puzzle games occasionally appear, they sell well to their niche market ...but but never in the numbers an average hack-and-slash achieves.

The fact remains that for many (most) gamers if a game doesn't contain mayhem and violence it is boring.   Perhaps, at risk of sounding elitist, it is because puzzle games, construction games, etc., require you to stop and think, to pause and just stare at the screen as you solve a puzzle or problem, while action games are just that - non-stop punching, stabbing, and shooting (I've bailed some of the latter because they were too frantic, no time to pause and catch your breath;  and hate mods for rpg/fps games where the goal seems to be how many opponents can we get on the screen before the vid card crashes).

I've never heard of those companies. What I mean is a reputable indie console maker that becomes the next big contender with the likes of Nintendo or Sony.

At the very least, I don't see why game companies can't wait a few years longer before advancing to the next system. This would allow them to continue making popularized violent games (and profiting) the same way they've been doing, but also increasing the output of games that have puzzles and less common themes...essentially offering a more balanced collection.

I agree with you by the way. There are definitely some games that make me feel uncomfortable playing...I had to quit on a game called "Manhunt."

Edited by ArchimedesNose, 11 July 2021 - 11:05 AM.

AN: If you can find someone who doesn't mind losing money, such games will be made.

To make money a game needs to shift vast numbers of copies, or have a large online audience. That Market is "mostly" young men and they want excitement, which easily translates as violence

Even in the days of DOS games there was a fair amount of violence - Space Invaders, Pacman and so on. When I was introduced to computers, in the mid-90's at college, Doom was the game of choice, I think virtually every student accessible computer had it installed. I was never very good at it but there was a certain stress-relieving effect of just going and blasting things !

Chris Cosgrove

AN: If you can find someone who doesn't mind losing money, such games will be made.

You might be right, but I hope in this one instance that you're wrong. lol I don't think it would make an incredible amount of money. But, I don't think it would lose money either.

Still, I would much rather see game companies balance out their genre selections, than see a new console company form. As someone who likes to play video games, I got into it because of just that; I like all kinds of video games. Plain and simple.  

Even in the days of DOS games there was a fair amount of violence - Space Invaders, Pacman and so on. When I was introduced to computers, in the mid-90's at college, Doom was the game of choice, I think virtually every student accessible computer had it installed. I was never very good at it but there was a certain stress-relieving effect of just going and blasting things !

Hey Chris Cosgrove, It's been a while. Welcome!

lol...I know what you mean. I love those games. And I can play Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Uncharted and Grand Theft Auto games all day. But would you say that those types of games you mentioned, would be the only ones to hold your interest?

And this next question goes to everyone: Would you say that game content is improving, staying the same, or getting worse?

Edited by ArchimedesNose, 12 July 2021 - 11:20 AM.

For my tastes content is getting worse, simply because gamers today are so obsessed with graphics that new releases are visually impressive ... but quite lacking in game play.   For example, Morrowind, released ca. 2002, presented a vast world to explore, ten or twelve guilds to join, thousands of NPCs to interact with, you could easily play 60 hours and never touch the main quest;  its sequel, Oblivion, released a few years later, had wonderful graphics, better animations, even horseback riding ... but only four guilds, a few hundred NPCs, and could be played through completely in about 25 hours (including the most monotonous, repetitive, redundant, main quest ever;  many players finished it once and never touched it again);  a few more years and Skyrim was released, beautiful graphics and animations, ability to have a platoon of companions if you wish,  and so little to do that it seems little more than a framework for the community to hang mods on.  (I'll never forget a blog from someone who tried Skyrim, it is so indicative of many gamers today - "I did a couple of quests, visited a dungeon, a small town, and went to a larger town.  At this point I noticed i'd been playing three hours!  I don't have time to look in every nook and cranny for loot, I don't have time to talk to every NPC to get quests.  I like a game I can play through in 12-15 hours and move on".)

But it is just like movies and TV shows, accountants rather than artists are in charge so there is no room for creativity and innovation, just crank out variations on a theme of whatever sells the most.

It has been said that there only a dozen or fifteen unique plots in all of human literature, all the thousands of story lines you see are just variations on these basic plots and for this purpose games are a form of literature.

Possibly for those who enjoy 'hack and slash' games the frequency of incidents is probably a major determinant of popularity which explains why in the minds of some "video games are getting more violent". But that is a cry that has been going up since the days of Pacman !  My own preference is for simulators, flight and trains, and this is an area where improvements in CPUs and graphics have made a huge difference to the play. I have seen a video on YouTube of the first ever MS flight sim and the aircraft are just recognisable as aircraft.

In combat type games it is difficult to improve on the story line, you can only create variations on the theme. I am reminded of a British Army training pamphlet I was exposed to in my youth. The first paragraph read as follows - "AIM. The aim of the infantry is to close with the enemy and kill him." That says it all.

The complaint about Morrowind v Oblivion is a complaint about value for money. I have never played either but different gamers seek different satisfactions in gaming. For some it is racking up the highest body count, for others it is about solving problems in the game, and for others it is in completing a particular task as accurately and efficiently as possible.

Each to their own.

Chris Cosgrove

My point with the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim  progression is that with each new iteration there was vast technical improvement (graphics, animation, sound, etc.) but less and less to actually do in the game.  And modern gamers, who first came to the series with Oblivion or Skyrim, will not even try Morrowind because "it looks so old" ;  these new gamers are so intent on impressive graphics that they won't even give older titles a chance because they aren't visually impressive by today's standards.

And, true, any genre of game is eventually just variations on a theme ....though chess can be a lifetime of enjoyment - same board, same 32 pieces.  But i think we are discussing the preponderance of violent computer games;  whether kickboxers or SWAT team members or  futuristic rangers with plasma weapons or P-51 pilots strafing a rail yard, the vast majority of computer games involve combat/violence in some form.  And it has always been so;  I recall 25-30 years ago when Doom was released, half the people were hooked playing it and the other half were on TV or writing magazine articles predicting the downfall of civilization from this horrible violent game.  I've nothing against such games but, as with TV shows, I want more variety.

And then along came GTA 1 and the cries of 'downfall of civilisation' got louder, much louder !

I take your point about variety but there is a fair amount of differing types of game around, it's just that, as has been pointed out above, the money follows the market and the biggest part of the market currently is for 'shoot'em ups' of one sort or another. And if you are old enough to remember the fuss about Doom then you are also old enough to remember the 640x480 resolution monitors that were standard at the time.

Today probably most would accept that the minimum acceptable resolution is 1920x1080 and this requires more capable hardware to provide the data rate, which allows better quality graphics. Wash, rinse and repeat. The life of a hard core gamer is difficult and expensive !  There are times I am glad I am only an occasional gamer.

Chris Cosgrove