🔒 Locked

Kids, Violence, and Crappy Games?

Started by Nayus Dante Nov 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM 28 replies 4.4k views

Original Post

Nov 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM

First of all, let me explain what gaming USED to mean to me. When I was a kid, I would while away hours (sometimes entire weekends) in front of a single game, because it was just that much fun, or the story was just that good, or I was on Ritalin, or whatever reason you pick. Back then, you KNEW what was going to be a high-quality game just by looking at it. Megaman? There's another 12+ creative, original levels with quirky bosses and amazing music! Mario? It CAN'T be bad! Final Fantasy? Two weekends with next to no sleep, plus sidequests! Heck, even the "bad" games were awesome. Such oddities as Total Distortion, Commander Blood, and others were strange as anything, but surprisingly fun and creative. Then came middle-school. At this point, I was hearing about Columbine and all the "games are bad" hoopla. The only FPSs I really cared for up to this point were Goldeneye, Quake II, and Unreal Tournament. I could care less about gore, the weapons were balanced and the gameplay was fun and frantic. Me and some friends played the open beta for Ragnarok Online and had the time of our lives dungeon-crawling. Games were getting kinda shaky, and there was definitely a trend of violence and unsightly themes. I held on to what I knew was fun, and stayed entertained. High school was where I started turning backward. Freshman year, Megaman X7 came out. The series was dead for me at that point, with the Zero series being a last hurrah. The Squenix merger and the events afterward scattered the Final Fantasy team, meaning that FF wasn't FF anymore. Mario took up soccer, Luigi won a big house, and Donkey Kong took up bongos. Suddenly, the perfect hitters weren't guaranteed 10s. The only games I really enjoyed throughout high school were Deus Ex, UT200X, and FFXI. Console gaming didn't offer me very much, with Katamari as the only worthwhile exception. I started looking to OLDER games to find innovation. The whole abandonware scene and fan-translated JRPGS kept me entertained. Now I'm out of high school and things are getting worse. The genres are WAY too defined, so there's literally nothing that interests me. I have no desire whatsoever to play another FPS, aside from UT3 for series loyalty. I tried GTA, and it was crap. Same with Halo. They're definitely full of the sort of things that young kids want, violence and cliches. Halo is a Metroid rip-off gone FPS, and not a very good FPS at that. I almost sympathize with Jack Thompson, because the games that he's attacking really DON'T have very much value, but I'm evaluating from a gameplay perspective. So we definitely live in a society in which entertainment targets our primal urges. I'm a rebel that likes to think while I'm being entertained, so I find it all very boring. It's a side effect that kids eat this sort of thing up, and the ESRB isn't helping that. The M rating makes kids want the violence, and the game studios see money coming in and act on it without regard for quality. The casual gaming "bubble" won't last forever, and when it pops, what are things going to be like? 8-year-olds will be playing Halo 4, simply because it's Halo 4. Sims expansions will generate millions in sales, but not very much happiness for the end user. Very soon, things will degenerate into a competition to see who can pack the most sex, drugs, and blood into a DVD-Rom and call it a "game." Still, I remain stuck in my ways and I'll be damned if industry trends want to change that. I was in a GameStop a while back, and I saw something that I'll never forget: Kid (maybe 8 years old): Do you have San Andwayus? Clerk: Uh, yeah. *turns to father* You do know that it's rated M for blood, violence, sexual themes... Father: Yeah, he has all the others. *smiles* Is that kid going to be influenced in a negative way? I played Quake II when I was 8, but I knew the difference from fantasy and reality (and made fun of kids that didn't, heh). This generation is being raised on utter crap, whereas I had such gems as King's Quest, Day of the Tentacle, and a huge list of others. I fear that at this rate, gaming will never return to the days of variety, which deeply saddens me. Can somebody please tell me, what is this industry coming to? (and I apologize for my rant... >_<)

Isnorx

Nov 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM

Wow, you just spit out everything I've though for the past year and half, I'm impressed...

Trapper Zoid

Nov 1, 2007 at 9:57 PM

It sounds like you've on the way to joining us old gaming curmudgeons. Don't worry, the ranting is expected; it's a perfectly natural thing to go through [smile].

You've probably reached the point where you're looking at your gaming past through rose tinted glasses. For example, out of the games you've listed as gems I agree with you on Day of the Tentacle, but the King's Quest series frankly was pretty crap (King's Quest VI was okay, and I have a soft spot for III, but the rest were pretty lame).

There's a surprising amount of variety out there if you look for it. Sure, the big hyped titles tend to fall into the classic genre moulds, but there's a awful lot more out there beyond the titles that are plastered in posters on the Electronics Boutique walls.

Skimming through your post I'm not sure what you mean by the casual gaming bubble bursting; my impression is that casual gaming is building up steam. It's moved from what a somewhat periphery role to a gaming segment you can't afford to ignore. I don't think it's going away any time soon.

I'm also not sure you can make a judgement call on what kids are playing today. I'm not sure the games around when I was eight could be considered graphically violent (they were hardly even graphic), but I did introduce my little brother to games like Doom, mainly so I'd have someone to play against. I'd say the content of the game didn't harm him as much as the experience of being schooled by an unsymphathetic big brother.

Isnorx

Nov 1, 2007 at 10:06 PM

I remember playing games like Quake, Doom and Wolf3D. They never destroyed me mentally.

Like Trapper said... they really weren't that graphic, but did it really matter when you were that young?

I can't help but think how things would have been different growing up at 8 years old watching the Stroggification in Quake 4.

instinKt

Nov 1, 2007 at 10:11 PM

I think something we're seeing more and more of lately is that games are becoming big business, and these companies are finding out more and more of "what works" or sells, then they proceed to flood the market with clones. This happens with TV too.

In the early days of gaming, there was very little money in games if any at all, so the games that were being developed were more a exercise of passion rather than a product. It also cost a lot less to develop a game, and so creating something that was a flop wasn't a big deal, so people could toy more with ideas.

At least this is how I see it. Someone may have a totally different view.

I think that although the larger companies are sticking with what works, there are some great independent developers around creating some amazing and completely different types of games. I'm hoping that this is what we'll see more and more of as independent development continues. Then the big companies will buy out the things that work and continue their "magic".

Edit: Oh and Doom wasn't graphic? I can still vividly see the zombies splitting in half leaving a wide gaping corpse laying on the floor with that amazing sloppy sound effect that came with it. Kind of like reaching into someones abdomen and pulling out their intestines. Still makes me feel warm and fuzzy these days.

Salsa

Nov 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Quote:
Original post by Nayus Dante
Is that kid going to be influenced in a negative way? I played Quake II when I was 8, but I knew the difference from fantasy and reality (and made fun of kids that didn't, heh). This generation is being raised on utter crap, whereas I had such gems as King's Quest, Day of the Tentacle, and a huge list of others. I fear that at this rate, gaming will never return to the days of variety, which deeply saddens me.

I feel you. However, I must also point out this: When I was growing up, I was raised on Ghostbusters, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, New York's WPIX Saturday Afternoon Movies, Transformers, and Mighty Max.

What do youngins these days get? Yu-gi-oh (sp: don't care), Pokemon, and 3D versions of Spiderman from MTV. Sure, it's all just commercialized cartoons trying to sell shit down your throat, but I'm convinced our time prepared us better for fun-loving games like Quake I/II and pixelated gibs.

Note: I have nothing to prove this, but.. I know it.

_the_phantom_

Nov 1, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Quote:
Original post by Nayus Dante
Kid (maybe 8 years old): Do you have San Andwayus?
Clerk: Uh, yeah. *turns to father* You do know that it's rated M for blood, violence, sexual themes...
Father: Yeah, he has all the others. *smiles*

This is the problem, right here.
Not the violence, the blood, the gore or the rating system but parents who aren't being parents. Who are using the computer to look after their kid, who don't care what their kid is doing or playing.

End of the day if given the information the parents make the call that they want their kids to play it then it is up to them; however the content itself isn't a problem because, shockingly, not everyone is like you.

Yes, I like games which make me think, however I also like games where the walls run red with the blood and guts of the people I've slaughted. In Vampire:Bloodlines one of my favorite tricks was to sneak up behind people and do the finishing move; be it sliting their throat with a knife, snapping their neck or, my favorite, shoving a sword clean thru them and watching the fountain of blood come out of their chest.. ah, good times.

Why do I enjoy this? *shrugs* I could list you any number of reasons from pent up agression to just wanting to kill people. The thing is, it's not like I played violent games like this when I was young either, so it's not like their is a cause-effect there for me.

The point I'm trying to make is that, just because you and some others don't like the content doesn't make it "bad"; don't like it? Don't buy it. Simple as.

Quote:

Can somebody please tell me, what is this industry coming to?

Simple really, it's doing what every other industry does; gives the people what they want (or at least what they think their want, but that's a whole other issue).

People want sequeals, they want blood, they want fighting and guns and death... they industry provides. If it was a minority that wanted this then it wouldn't happen, the fact that it does proves, imo anyways, that the majority want it.

Also, it's not like this is a new thing; Mortal Combat.

End of the day, you might not like it or the effect it might have on children; but while the demand is there it'll be produced and the children are the responciblity of their parents (sure, you could blame the fact that both parents have to work to raise a child on having to use the computer to look after them but I would say if you can't afford a child you shouldn't be having one, and as part and parcel of 'afford' is the time required to raise them). Also, as noted, no one ever considers the good violent games have done; I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seriously considered harming someone but instead turned to a nice violent game in order to squash such reactions.

Trapper Zoid

Nov 1, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Quote:
Original post by Isnorx
Like Trapper said... they really weren't that graphic, but did it really matter when you were that young?

Heh, I didn't catch the double meaning in "graphic". Yes, the games when I were eight weren't that explicit either, but that's because "monochrome" was state of the art. You young'ns spoiled with your EGA colour graphics...

Quote:
Yes, I like games which make me think, however I also like games where the walls run red with the blood and guts of the people I've slaughted. In Vampire:Bloodlines one of my favorite tricks was to sneak up behind people and do the finishing move; be it sliting their throat with a knife, snapping their neck or, my favorite, shoving a sword clean thru them and watching the fountain of blood come out of their chest.. ah, good times.

Off topic, but my favourite was the sledgehammer, purely from the absurdity of choosing that weapon to stealth attacks with. Good time indeed.

Isnorx

Nov 1, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Quote:
Original post by instinKt
Edit: Oh and Doom wasn't graphic? I can still vividly see the zombies splitting in half leaving a wide gaping corpse laying on the floor with that amazing sloppy sound effect that came with it. Kind of like reaching into someones abdomen and pulling out their intestines. Still makes me feel warm and fuzzy these days.

Thats the thing, when I was a child I would look at games like Quake, and Doom and think "wow this is so graphic and cool" *chainsaw* "How could this get any more real?"

Has anyone ever taken the time to play quake 1, then 2, then 3, then 4? Just to see the huge jumps that id software made with the series, I couldn't possibly imagine what would come next when I was a child....and I loved every bit of it!

eedok

Nov 1, 2007 at 11:11 PM

The one thing that pisses me off is people that play the games for the immersion factor, "I want to feel like I'm in the game" is what they say, am I weird for being I want to be in front of my computer playing the game? I play video games as games, not as immersive engaging experiences(I go outside/camping for that), and I can't think of people who complain that monopoly isn't realistic enough or that the cards in poker are too much alike.

_the_phantom_

Nov 1, 2007 at 11:44 PM

No, but then again it's different things for different people; I like to lose myself in a game, just like a would in a book or a film. It's just another form of entertainment to distract me from the world as such an immersive experiance helps.

@Trapper Zoid
Hmmm, I never tried the sledgehammer, if I got one I'd just sell it pretty quickly. I tend to favour the speed attacks... I'm probably due a replay soon so I might give that a go.

RivieraKid

Nov 3, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Quote:
Original post by eedok
The one thing that pisses me off is people that play the games for the immersion factor, "I want to feel like I'm in the game" is what they say, am I weird for being I want to be in front of my computer playing the game? I play video games as games, not as immersive engaging experiences(I go outside/camping for that), and I can't think of people who complain that monopoly isn't realistic enough or that the cards in poker are too much alike.

immersion is about suspending disbelief. Crysis does this by providing you with a state-of-the-art tech suite instead of just "oh, your very strong in this world".

sheep19

Nov 4, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Quote:
Original post by Nayus DanteI tried GTA, and it was crap. blah blah blah

Vice city isn't crap. It's very funny and stylish xD

RSC_x

Nov 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Quote:
Original post by sheep19
Quote:
Original post by Nayus DanteI tried GTA, and it was crap. blah blah blah

Vice city isn't crap. It's very funny and stylish xD

vice city is near of the line.
its style is bad and some other things.
what makes it good then others is its interactive face.
which you can chose any car unlike half-life which i was allways pointing.
whenewer i was plaing haflife i was saying something like "heh is this a car or trash bin?"

Cypher19

Nov 4, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Quote:
Original post by sheep19
Quote:
Original post by Nayus DanteI tried GTA, and it was crap. blah blah blah

Vice city isn't crap. It's very funny and stylish xD

Vice City sucked. It wasn't funny, it wasn't stylish, and overall was pretty unforgivable. The city was boring, the missions ended up feeling far too repetitive, and the glitches got to the point of annoying (pop-in included). I got 100% on GTA3, but didn't even finish VC's main story missions, and have absolutely refused to play a GTA game since.

Extrarius

Nov 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Welcome to the desert of the real.

Oluseyi

Nov 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Meh. I thought Megaman was mediocre even as child, and I never cared for Final Fantasy's stats-obsessed tedium. I thought Metroid - specifically, Super Metroid - was interesting, but the excessive backtracking suggested gross design failures to me, even as a tween. The games you thought were excellent bored the crap out of me.

In other words, you haven't identified any trend or attained any insight. You've just aged. Go back and play the games of your childhood, and you might find that they weren't as much fun as you remember.

Now, as to the profusion of violence, it's concurrent with society as a whole. Everything you've said about video games applies to movies - compare movies from the 40s (even though they were violent, they weren't graphic) to the 70s, then those from the 70s to today's sex-and-violence-soaked trash. The biggest evil, though, is advertising.

Advertising, especially in the US with its lack of limitations and controls, its unbridled greed and capitalistic free-for-all, makes people feel like they need things they don't need. It makes people think they might be sick with ailments that they don't have. It makes parents feel that they're failing their children if they deny things they are told "all the other kids have" (they don't).

Advertising is rampant, and Americans are buying into its myths. Debt is up because people feel they have to have the things that signify success. Shitty games make major moolah because they are tie-ins with movies, or parts of franchises, or promoted in McDonald's happy meals and the kids "just have to have them" and parents who can't deny themselves can't deny their hellspawn either.

Does that mean games suck as a whole? Hell, no! There have always been trash games sold on the strength of their recognition/hype/brand (in this case, literally trash). But there are dozens of great games out there on all platforms to suit all tastes. You just have to look harder because it's a more crowded marketplace, distorted by louder marketing messages.

Extrarius

Nov 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
[...]Does that mean games suck as a whole?[...]But there are dozens of great games out there on all platforms to suit all tastes. You just have to look harder because it's a more crowded marketplace, distorted by louder marketing messages.

I certainly haven't found "dozens" of games I like on the PC over the last 5 years. I love diablo and diablo 2, for example, but games that share many aspects (most cRPGs and MMOs) get just enough details wrong to be completely uninteresting to me. I love Puzzle Fighter 2, but the new version isn't on the PC and other puzzle games are not at all interesting to me. I like Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, but it's not for the PC and I haven't found any other fighter games I liked at all (for PC or otherwise).

There are plenty of games out there that are similar to eachother ("genres"), but they're pretty much never close enough to be substitutes because they do the small (but very, very important) details differently. When great games do come out (I like ET:QW, for example), the player base is such that it's very difficult to actually play because the market is oversaturated and existing popular titles (such as CS and CS:S) keep enough players that new games don't get a real chance.

Oluseyi

Nov 4, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Quote:
Original post by Extrarius
Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
[...]Does that mean games suck as a whole?[...]But there are dozens of great games out there on all platforms to suit all tastes. You just have to look harder because it's a more crowded marketplace, distorted by louder marketing messages.
I certainly haven't found "dozens" of games I like on the PC over the last 5 years.

The plural of anecdote is still not data.

Way Walker

Nov 4, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Meh. I thought Megaman was mediocre even as child, and I never cared for Final Fantasy's stats-obsessed tedium. I thought Metroid - specifically, Super Metroid - was interesting, but the excessive backtracking suggested gross design failures to me, even as a tween. The games you thought were excellent bored the crap out of me.

In other words, you haven't identified any trend or attained any insight. You've just aged. Go back and play the games of your childhood, and you might find that they weren't as much fun as you remember.

I've had a different experience. Going back to the classics that I loved when I was younger, I tend to still like them. Mega Man 2 and 3 were fun last I revisited them. Final Fantasy's only fault is the grinding that's somewhat required at a few points, but otherwise enjoyable, and I'd say the same about Dragon Warrior. Also, I actually like the original Metroid better coming back to it (I didn't understand it when I was younger). I'll admit that they're no longer as sophisticated as their current counterparts, but I have no problem thinking of Final Fantasy as, say, a stripped down modern RPG. You could say that I view them like I view the better flash games of today.

When you get to the SNES, I think Super Metroid, Mario World, Final Fantasy VI (and to a lesser degree IV), Zelda:LttP, Secret of Evermore, and Chrono Trigger are as good as anything I've seen today.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be bored by them, but I am saying that I believe many of the games I enjoyed in the past I still enjoy today. I will agree, though, that the games I thought were "just all right" in the past look pretty shabby today.

On the other hand, I also don't think that the games of today are any worse than the games of the past. Genres too defined today? They were too defined back in the day. How many side scrollers in the past were essentially the same game with different sprites? I also remember there being plenty of Zelda knock offs. I remember being a bit confused when I first saw the abbreviation FPS because I'd always heard them referred to as Doom-type games. (After I figured out they were talking about Doom-type games I initially thought that FPS meant "frames per second" as a reference to the obsession people playing FPS's had with that metric.)

There's no less variety now, there's just less of the sort of games I started on. Before I started listening to Korn, I had trouble telling their songs apart. I used to say that they had one song and just put different names on it (I still think this is what Buckcherry does). I've started getting into bluegrass and old time music which all sounds the same to a lot of people. The games on the shelf all look the same to me these days because I don't play many. All I see are the genre differences, so one new FPS is as good as another to me.

Does that mean games as a whole suck? Well, I don't know if it follows from what's been said, but I do think the majority of games suck today, just like they did back in the day.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.