Ben-DutkaViolence is a given in video games these days, especially with shooters being so popular.
But one developer is currently developing a "nonviolent" FPS and they say that violent games are actually against the "spirit" of the hobby.
Trackmania developer Nadeo is currently working on Shootmania , which obviously isn't designed to be bloody. In speaking to Strategy Informer , Managing Director Florent Castelnérac had this to say:
"Gaming is about linking people together from different nations… having people playing together; with themes like terrorism/counter terrorism… it’s the complete opposite of the ‘spirit of gaming.'"
I’m not against restricting anything, but we wanted to provide an alternative. If the games industry says 'It's ok, violent games aren’t an issue,' sure, but if there are ONLY violent games, then it becomes an issue."
There's something to be said for that. In the eyes of many experts, violence in our entertainment is problematic and has long since begun to dominate certain industries. However, there are still plenty of games out there that have nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with either colorful, simple fun, or progressive, innovative drama. And personally, I'm not on board with this supposed universal definition that games are about playing with other people…
Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I don't want to live in a world where the entire purpose of video games revolves around multiplayer.
I prefer single player games that have co op gameplay options.
The "Spirit of Gaming" couldn't possibly be about linking with people across the globe since gaming's only had that dominantly for this generation.
Basically, he's wrong about it being only about linking people up across the globe, and he's wrong about violent games being the only games we have. Sure, he's right it shouldn't JUST be about violence, but it isn't.
Basically, he had an idea or opinion once that he liked, and he let it get away on him. Time to step back and re-evaluate, dude.
What I think is really strange is that multiplayer has taken *this* long to arrive on the consoles.
Multiplayer gaming for the masses was essentially introduced along with the spreading of Internet access, but even before that with LAN parties. "Doom", anyone? So essensially he is right in that it has been a core part of gaming for decades already, just not console gaming.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/21/2012 11:39:28 AM
agreed, and it's called the wii dude play it.
i don't understand why he thinks video games are more violent now, when most of the games are sequels of games dating back 15 years plus… i clearly remember ripping my bro to shreds in mortal combat on the n64
@ Beamboom, it was really only in the mid-1990s that multiplayer gaming (beyond shared screens, which did exist on PC back in the dim, distant past) really got anything of a following, and it was relatively niche for some time – even on PC, it only became a large, core component in the second half of the 1990s. Console gaming was only about five years behind (less than if you count the Dreamcast).
That it only started really taking off in the late 90s is hardly a surprise, given the generally atrocious quality of MP gaming when it started off (a 'laggy' game now would have been a top quality game back then, and the software wasn't designed anywhere near as well to cope with it – no criticism of the software, everything's got to start somewhere, but from a gameplay perspective the early non-LAN (ie, internet) MP gaming on PC was pretty low quality, simply due to lag issues). And consoles got into the act not long after the technology for faster internet (and better quality gaming) became more widely available.
As for his core contention that gaming (ie, the whole damn hobby) is about "linking people together from different nations", that is very much having a somewhat narrow view of history. Gaming did not start in the mid-1990s, but in the 1970s, and the whole internet thing has been around for less than half the life of the hobby – I'd argue not enough to completely hijack the point of it.
Note – I'm not saying that online MP isn't important or great, just that it's not the be all and end all, which seems to be what the dev is saying, as long as they haven't been taken out of context.
Last edited by Axe99 on 2/21/2012 3:28:00 PM
Whether you played LAN in the 90's or split screen even before that, it doesn't change the fact that "the spirit of gaming" couldn't solely mean "linking players across the globe".
When I did LAN games or local split screen, it was with dudes in the dorm or a buddy on the couch beside me. It wasn't "globa". It wasn't even out of town. Heck, it wasn't out of ROOM!
Anyways, my points were on violence and "global" connections. Not multiplayer. If you want to get picky beyond the relatively new high-speed internet, I was playing multiplayer on the original Super Mario Bros. A friend could be Luigi.
@Axe: You may be right, I might indeed be a bit rusty on the details here, I do however have these clear images in my head that I were introduced to – and enjoyed – networked gaming a good while before I got internet access. Only you had to rig your PCs in one place and create a LAN party – but that was anything but uncommon back in those days.
If my memory serves me correctly.
And when I looked up Doom in Wikipedia I see that was released in 1993, so I don't think it was too uncommon with multiplayer first half of the 90s either.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/22/2012 7:46:10 AM
@Beamboom
So then, you in fact agree with me that it hasn't been about connecting -globally- until recently?
LAN connections, if I remember right, didn't always work the way you want them to for all games. I remember Lords of the Realm 2 giving me a gigantic headache with it's LAN settings…
As for multiplayer, I've been playing with a player 2 since I was like… 5.
What? Violence is what built gaming.From Mario,Zelda and Metroid to Castlevania,Megaman and Metal Gear.He can make none violent games all he wants to,but his comments lack logic.There is no spirit of gaming other than creativity.
You're not a dinosaur. I have long preferred the single player experience for most titles. I do enjoy couch co-op and the occasional LAN party, but I always want the best solo game possible.
And, for what it's worth, I don't want to be linked to people across the globe. I don't want to play with people I don't know. I'll take my local friends list, thanks.
So what's an assassin to do, start killing 'em with kindness?????
"It's a good thing I got this Kleenex tissue in my pocket, it's gonna make a great noose"
I don't have a problem with multiplayer now. Ask me about it a couple of years ago I would have felt a lot differently. Some of the best gaming experiences I have had this gen have come from thrilling and highly competitive mp matches in games such as KZ3. I admit I became an addict. I literally pitched a fit when PSN went down for a month. Side effects of withdrawal I suppose but I was one unhappy gamer.
I totally understand what is driving the mp craze now. Gamers do like competition. Accomplishing goals with your friends is a lot of fun. There is a social dynamic in play when it comes to mp games that adds to their appeal as well. Friends are made and bonds are formed. Sometimes I just play because I miss talking with my friends. Sounds kind of corny but I know a lot of others that do that as well.
I still like sp games like Mass Effect 2, and Fallout3….but I would miss my MP gaming sessions a lot if they were taken away.
I have zero issues with violence in videogames. Games are hardly the only source of violent influences when it comes entertainment.
I didn't say I had a problem with multiplayer. I said I have a problem with gaming being defined by multiplayer.
I was talking about myself. Not reffering to you. My first two sentences made that pretty clear….at least I thought they did. I don't even worry about games being defined by mutiplayer come to think of it. It looks like there is a place for both mp and sp games in the market. Skyrim sold 10 million copies without any mp. There are still great single player games out there that do very well.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 2/21/2012 12:03:00 PM
Yeah, lots of violent games. But so much of life seems to have opposition. Opposition over ideals of right and wrong, security and danger, virtue and vice etc. I'm not really saying I'm for the idea of violence. But seeing that there's an opposition in all things, for me there is a more engaging, more interesting quality about games that place us in human circumstances. So, basically, it doesn't surprise me that many games involve violence. Some of the greatest milestones in Earth's history where achieved with the shedding of blood. It's just how it is.
… but "that time will come. one day you'll see where we can all be friends" =)
hehe. Humans have accomplished a lot…especially when they were at each others throats. Sure, we can all be friends…later. 🙂
Non-violent FPS? I didn't think such a thing existed…
Portal.
It Cant exist….
And Portal was voted by MOST that it was NOT a FPS at gamespot. More like FPP
Yes it can and I don't care what Gamespot says, it's still classified as a FPS. It's in the first person. And you shoot stuff with a portal gun so therefor it's a FPS.
Jawknee, I'd really hesitate to categorize Portal as a "first-person shooter."
Yes, you technically "shoot" something but I mean, come on…the implication of the term FPS is obvious, in that you're firing a weapon.
Portal would never be in any "Best FPS of the Year" discussion, you know? In fact, it won our Puzzle Game of the Year…it's a puzzler, plain and simple.
I completely agree with you once you get deep into the game but the basic gameplay mechanic is the same as most FPS's on the market. I agree it's mostly a puzzle game but I still think it can serve as an example of a non violet shooting game.
It s a puzzle game with an fps view .
You can t classified a game as a certain type if it barely have anything to do with it .
It got the same view and same kind of control and that s it .
To me none violent fps games is like team fortress .
Cartooney graphics , no blood ( seeing damage reflected as point instead ) , red vs blue ( feel more like a game then real life stuff that way ).
a" first person platform puzzle" how bout that ?
I don't think anything gets under gamers skins more than the topic of violent videogames. I think this dev's premise there ONLY being violent videogames is incorrect, but I think we as gamers should accept the fact that violent games do have some effect on us in desensitizing us to violence. Of course, it applies to violent media as a whole.
Define violence. Is Mario violent? Zelda?
This is an important point – just because it's cartoony, doesn't make it not violent ;). It could be that the dev is confusing graphic with violent. Or not :). But I'd argue Mario and Zelda are very much violent (just ask a Goomba/Ganondorf!) – but it's also stylised violence, so not likely to be associated with killing Goombas in real life :).
Still alot of people these days get to wrapped up on playing violent games. A lot of crap that these people did to innocent people, damn what a tragedy. So yah, u can definately blame violent games.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 2/21/2012 1:55:24 PM
No you can't. You blame the person who committed the act. Not the game. Your comment makes about as much sense as blaming large spoons for making people fat.
@Jawk
best analogy on the violence in media debate yet! I'm gonna use that in RL from now on. Hope you don't mind if I forego the copyright. ;p
… Or is it more like blaming large portions for making people fat?
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/22/2012 6:38:10 AM
Or our devilishly good looks for the making of our children?
OT: Just reminded me of a Flight of the Conchords qutoe… "My rhymes are so potent that in this small segment I made all of the ladies in the area pregnant."
In the past in the newspapers that I read, these people were highly influenced on violent games so they used that as a weapon to innocent people.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 2/22/2012 1:29:57 PM
Alex, don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially the Daily Mail…
There is limited evidence regarding any causal relationship between video games and violence. The evidence that there is tens to suggest that they can cause a level of desensitization that results in more aggressive – not necessarily violent – behavior. Of course for people predisposed to violence, that pushed them closer to the edge, and when people behave more aggressively violence does become more likely. However that does not mean that video games cause violence.
I dont mind a single player only experience in a game. Im just against paying $60 for ONLY a single player only experience. Multiplayers like bf3 is a difference since i play it for months on end are worth $60. Mgs4 im still playing mgo i put over 1000 hours between multiple accounts. Games like skyrim are worth the big 60. But lets be honest most big games with multiplayer define weather a game sells or bombs. Big rpgs and muliplayer experiences add replay value significantly. And almost actually all contain violence. Little big planet dont have violence but look what makes it sucessful, muliplayer! And U3. Awsome single player AND muliplayer.
Violence has been a staple of entertainment since humans came onto this planet, and has been ever since. Why is it now an issue?
If we only have BORING games. That's a problem.
some games need MP some dont.
but to say the spirit of gaming is social is just ridiculous!
gaming is about escaping reality, and doing something you would never be able to in real life!
experiencing things you would never be able to in real life.
got nothing to do with sociality!
statements like this make me worry the whole industry is going to turn into freaking farmvile!
how facebook destroyed the gaming industry!
Sports games played online don't involve shooting people. The vast majority of racing games online dont involve shooting people.
What's this idiot going on about? (I'm talking about Florent, for clarification)
My gaydars going off, the developer who made this statement is clearly trapped in a closet of massive proportion with a tiny door
uh…….
wut?
Gee, you're a jerk.
I think a lot of people are not getting what is being said in this article, and that's fine, you're all welcome to continue on your bloody kill sprees, that's what freedom in gaming is about. But if someone wants to create a game that preserves a great deal of game play with sacrificing itself on the altar of gritty realism and blood and gore, that's fine with me. Let's say – for example – something akin to R&C or Spyro, but in first person.
I'm just saying (as I suspect the MD of Nadeo is) that games don't have to be bloody and about killing in the most violent ways possible to be fun. Nor does making an action game without the blood, gore and gratuitous violence make it a kids game.
One last thing. The Pentagon has spent $100s of millions on computer aided training tools that look a lot like squad based shooters. Now, you don't think that the military would spend all that money for nothing, do you…?
Last edited by TheHighlander on 2/22/2012 8:57:51 PM