Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

147 comments

  • julian-watkins - June 23, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    As I grow older, I am 32 now, I find that I lean more towards the direction of games like Dishonored, in which you can choose who lives and dies, and can even quite literally kill no one. The only people I killed in the most recent Deus Ex were the annoying bosses because there wasn't an option not to. And also because, well, c'mon those fuckers were assholes. My favorite part of Hitman was obtaining the Silent Assassin rank. I often take a few moments to weigh in on whether or not to kill a baddies when given the choice to actively pull the trigger or what away. More often than not, unless I feel 'justified' I walk away, it's more badass.
  • psycros - June 24, 2013 12:52 a.m.

    There's no way to complete Dishonored without killing numerous enemy AI. Try playing the game before you comment on it.
  • nick4ever7 - August 27, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    What are you even talking about, have you ever even seen any footage from it? Let alone played it? The whole main selling point of the game was the fact that you choose who lives and dies
  • LovingLife139 - June 23, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    It is refreshing to see so many gamers agreeing with this concept of unnecessary violence in video games. I played Bioshock: Infinite just long enough to get the first couple of weapons, and I have to say, I enjoyed the game UNTIL I began killing people. It's a beautiful and intriguing world, and then when I began to kill human beings in the most disturbing of ways I realized: playing this game bothers me. It is one thing to play a game where you kill and it is realistic (war shooters, or games that aren't all decapitations and random gory tidbits), it is another to make it so graphic and so outlandish that it feels disrespectful to the human race to partake in it. First person shooters are, admittedly, in my top three favorite video game genres because warfare intrigues me, I genuinely enjoy many games in the genre, and I also am exceedingly good at playing them. But it seems that over time killing for a justifiable cause has turned into killing for revenge and/or no reason at all, while also killing en masse and in ways that try to serve as eye candy instead of for realistic purposes. Violence is always going to be in video games, as it has been in any form of entertainment throughout human history. In saying that, it's nice that gamers are choosing less violent or non-violent video games over excessively violent games. Also, as one poster noted above, more games are making you think about your choices. Spec Ops: The Line was not only a great game with a unique environment; it also succeeded in being the first shooter I've ever played that forces you to stop, remember all those you've killed, and realize there are consequences. Let's hope that in the future, more games take the mature approach of violence; wherever there is violence, there are consequences and repercussions. Truly mature games will learn to recognize this and relate this to the player.
  • julian-watkins - June 23, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Great comment. I would have preferred if there was really no killing at all, or at least now where near as much in a game like Bioshock, which seems designed to offer a more contemplative narrative structure. I kept waiting for Booker to quite literally say "Hold that deep thought, Elizabeth, I have to kill these 25 non-descript enemies because we just entered an arena. Ok, you were saying..."
  • arietandio - June 23, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    That's why I like Metal Gear Solid series. And the new Deus Ex. We could opt to finish the game with no kills.
  • raphael-zens - June 24, 2013 5:23 a.m.

    Well, not quite. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution you had to kill in the "boss fights" (there shouldn't even have been boss fights; small flaw in an otherwhise great game).
  • gamerdad23 - June 23, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    I am also really tired of murdering people in games. I guess that is why I love indie games and Nintendo games so much. They offer different experiences. I take Animal Crossing and Papers Please as a prime example.
  • leonardo-j-ceballos - June 22, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    Deus Ex: HR was an awesome example of how to have a game where killing isn't necessary; and the game tells you how bloody you've been. If you want to restrain yourself and take the high road, you can... though its certainly not the easiest way to play.
  • someonetgsn - June 22, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    I agree that there is a little too much murder, but in many of these games, murder is the only viable option for gameplay. Sure it is possible to create a game that tells a great story without murdering a small town's worth of people, but if you are not killing things, then what will the gameplay be like? Where will the conflicts be? It seems that only indie titles have this freedom to pursue clever ideas, whereas AAA titles NEED to be successful to turn a tidy profit, it is easier to rely on reliable gameplay mechanics, than to take a risk trying something new. Despite this, I never really mention it, because I have no suggestions to make gaming less violent. Unless of course we flood the market with puzzle games, in which it will devalue the genre, and that will not help.
  • michaelshodge - June 22, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    the thing i thought that was weird about bioshock infinite was that it felt like the thousands of people you fight were just added so that the game was a game and that's why the game wasn't completely satisfying for me it felt like i would've rather just watched bioshock infinite the movie
  • KA87 - June 22, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Yeah, there is way to much of this in gaming today. While I was playing Bioshock Infinete I actually started to wonder if they were going to run out of people. Also, On a side note, how many cops can a city of like 6,000 have?Seriously, you take out like 200 in the first hour. What did they just put up signs and everyone was like "I want to be brutally murdered by the false shepard today because it might help to prevent him for leading our lama astray and my wife is a strong independent woman that don't need no man"?
  • raphael-zens - June 24, 2013 5:29 a.m.

    In the first two games i allways wondered how many citicens rapture must have had. I mean, they had companies, industry, vacation-resorts, a bank-system and much more... Makes you think there lived at least a few hundred thousands, if not millions of people in the underwater city.
  • Spectre - June 22, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    I know what you mean. I often think during a long game where you get lots of powerups and abilities, it's like: "I just ripped dozens of dragons out of the sky and carved into bits (before eating their very soul), single handedly settled your stupid civil war, and I wield incredible god-like power that everyone knows I have...but this bandit, THIS is the guy who has my number, THIS is the guy who thinks he's going to take me down with a dagger and a frontal assault...okay...." I'd like to see more stealth titles where you CAN kill if you want but it's not the main objective. Think how cool prototype would have been as an open world stealth game. Sure you'd still be killing people but not an army that thinks it can take down a super-virus with rifles or defeat a shapeshifter with CQC. (or 53,596 infected for one stinkin' trophy WTF?!?" To be honest the whole industry is due for a major shake up. Everything is just shooter shooter shooter.
  • 8bitBaby - June 22, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    i know what you mean henry. it's taxing. depending on how old you are/how long you've been playing video games means you've probably been exposed to a fairly high body count. but the fact that you can say that you're getting a little exhausted by it all means you haven't been desensitized and that's good. your humanity is intact, the second you believe there should be more killing in the games is when you've lost one of the parts of yourself that really separates humans from wild animals. we can feel pity and guilt, lament for the dead, even if they are virtual people they are an extension of something very real that is very personal to us. something we identify with every day. this is why i don't watch the daily news, or even crime dramas anymore, it has the same affect on the human psyche. it's taxing, it's a form of stress, and it's depressing when you're exposed to it for too long.
  • neosapien - June 22, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    In Hitman games you dont kill so many people, in fact the less people you kill the better!
  • RSQViper - June 22, 2013 6:01 a.m.

    DRM has proven again and again to be a bad idea. To name two recent biggies: SimCity, Diablo III. Both published by renown publishers and made by respectable and overall liked developers. Both a complete launch catastrophe which pushed away a large % of their fanbase. Also, it is Microsoft's fault that they tied a lot of these features to DRM. Not to mention a large % of people DO have their consoles connected to the internet and XBOX can EASILY and ACCURATELY count how many people are online at any one time, how many individual XBOXs are connected, etc, etc. If they give that info to the devs, devs would make the games suited to those people. It ISN'T LIKE people that WERE going to get XBOX ONE are suddenly NOT going to connect to the internet... If anything this now increases the amount of people who will buy the X1 and connect to the internet, giving devs a LARGER audience than if X1 rolled with DRM since so many people were literally shoved into Sony's camp.
  • BaraChat - June 22, 2013 5:15 a.m.

    I've yet to play The Last of Us (PS3 is being repaired) and I have to say I didn't mind the killing in Bioshock Infinite. I did mind it, however, in Tomb Raider. I think Tomb Raider does a better job making you feel guilty for the amount of people you kill (at least, in the first few hours) more than almost any other game I've played in my life. This has to do, of course, with Lara's own attitude towards killing people, particularly at the beginning of the adventure. Perhaps it's also the fact that so many kills (in my case) came in close quarters combat or with the bow, which feels more visceral than any gun. Or maybe because the people I had to kill were imprisoned on the island as well, which made them victims basically as much as my crew. Even my wife, who watched me throughout the whole game, said at one point something along the lines of "It's sad you have to kill so many people, because the game is so much more than that". We're talking about exploration, survival, a bit of platforming, some (easy...) puzzles. Anyway, I understand the point of this article, and I totally agree with it.
  • RSQViper - June 22, 2013 1:38 a.m.

    How else is it supposed to get a mature rating? Sex and/or violence. Violence = killing. If you aren't removing the opposition in a mature video game, you are fucking the opposition. What the heck do you think a mature video game is? Riding unicorns and hugging cuddly bears? And to say that killing breaks immersion and caring about a character is so impossibly wrong. Private Ryan is an amazing movie and you give a shit about every single character in that movie and there is absolutely TONS of bloodshed. AND they do it in 2 hours, not 12+ as video games do. If movies can do it, video games can. Trying to think of a SINGLE mature movie without bloodshed or nudity in it. HMMM... NOPE.
  • Rub3z - June 21, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    Killing for entertainment is harmless. Violence has provided the basis around which some of the greatest stories of all time have been or can be told, and in many cases the presentation of violence has also evolved to such an astoundingly expressive degree that its execution (no pun intended... okay, maybe it's absolutely intended) in some cases evokes an engrossing majesty. The violence on display in games like Bioshock Infinite and Bulletstorm is nothing short of gorgeous, and other games like Max Payne 3, Left 4 Dead, the Grand Theft Auto games or various military games pursue a more understated, gruesome and subtle stroke of death that can be as beautiful as it is capable of provoking. Games like Team Fortress 2 even bring forth a comedic take on violence, while a game like Vanquish can subvert its vicious and wantonly destructive mode of play towards completely non-human entities that can be undone in fantastically explosive fashion... to the point that dispatching human enemies in the game's conclusion feels mediocre. In fact, I could make an argument that the proliferation of violence across the medium and other art forms in general is the best thing to ever happen to the concept of violence and humanity's treatment of it. Our bombardment by its sensational presence in our media has stolen away our understanding of it to the point that we hardly ever even worry about actual violence anymore unless we see it in the news, or are one of the brave few who are consigned to confront it personally in far, far off places. Most of the violence we ever experience nowadays is confined to a glowing screen. Violence isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and as long as the mere concept exists it will continue to astound and entertain us, and all the while its actual consequences will continue to gradually, increasingly avoid us. Isn't that just grand?
  • aberkromby - June 21, 2013 9:54 p.m.

    By the end of The Last of Us, I had almost 7 times as many kills as all 4 Rambo movies combined.

Showing 21-40 of 147 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.