should (fictional) heroes kill/be violent?

Most people who are concerned about video games don't cite things like Elder Scrolls because there aren't dragons or other man-like humanoids around. They go after games like Grand Theft Auto and Call Of Duty.

You can steal a car or shoot an AR-15 in real life.

(Personally, I think they need to get over themselves and just be a damn parent.)

Except for one flaw in your argument: Both games that you mentioned don't let you play a hero. You're either a felon (GTA) or a nationalized lifetaker (Call of Duty), both of which have no peaceful way out of their course of actions

For more fitting examples in this topic, Deus Ex and Metal Gear series come to mind

edited 13th Jun '12 5:18:24 AM by Cassie

You wouldn't call a spy a national lifetaker? They're going to be killing people (and more likely than not causing a lot of death indirectly) a decent amount anyway.

Snake's usually a soldier too.

I believe Cassie is talking about having the option to not kill or be violent. Presumably she/he'd be fine with GTA or Co D if you could sneak past enemies or be otherwise nonviolent.

Dungeon Keeper offers a strange, messed up nonfatal (but certainly violent) option - you can capture and torture all the enemies until they join your side.

A non-violent COD would, actually, be less ethical.

It would be rather disrespectful to the Real Life soldiers who have fought, bled, and died in battles against real threats to let players go around and play-fight in a game which is meant to simulate a real firefight experience.

For other games, like Splinter Cell or Gears Of War, where the combat is meant to be unrealistic or entirely fictionalized, it would be less distracting.

edited 13th Jun '12 6:17:11 AM by KingZeal

A game where not being violent is an option? Hmm. I don't think there's any game like that. Is there?

Grand theft Auto and Call of Duty have been the two most cited series antigaming groups have used as examples to try and say games create violence in kids.

That's why I mentioned those two.

The Fallout series is one.

Tetris. You can choose not to clear the blocks into oblivion. You can spare their lives.

In all seriousness doesn't Iji enable a pacifist run that affects the girl's state of mind? As well as how people react to her? Though apparently later builds involve two plot related kills...

"Playing Postal 2 without ever killing anyone gives you the end-of-game rank "Thank you for playing, JESUS!" "

...heh.

edited 13th Jun '12 8:40:29 AM by Aondeug

If I remember right, it's possible to beat most Sonic games without killing anything. And most enemies are being FREED from slavery when you defeat them, anyway.

Yes the delightful little animals that are being used as BATTERIES. Or weapons of mass destruction/batteries like in Colors.

Funnily enough, the white chamber is an example where the player doesn't kill anyone while the main character is under their control, at least.

edited 13th Jun '12 8:59:06 AM by RadicalTaoist

You know, a lot of people consider Nationalized Lifetakers to be heroes, donchaknow.

Speaking of GTA, is Rockstar making another one anytime soon?

edited 13th Jun '12 10:32:16 AM by Barkey

GTA 5 has been announced but nothing more.

There's a fair few heroic felons too :)

edited 13th Jun '12 1:55:23 PM by betaalpha

Huh, I didn't know Ghandi said that. It seems like the cultural divide was just too great in that case.

For me, my view on pacifism is that it's not about how groups react to external pressures but to internal ones. Internal pacifism means societies get led by peaceful leaders but it also means that societies can react when attacked or invaded.

And that's the one thing I find with heroes is that when we talk about pacifism, the gulf between actual pacifism and non-lethal crime solving is very large. But largely speaking, heroes are usually specifically put into "kill/be killed" situations that most people are not normally in. I think it always superior if the writer is creative enough to make a convincing non-violent solution but if they are violent, show the full consequences of doing so.

But you know, writers are always all over the spectrum of views and I'm wary of restricting that. There's writers who will make situations where the hero doesn't kill a guy, so then horrible things happen. In others, a hero kills a guy and then horrible things happen. Those extremes are usually very crappy contrived works.

I'll just say that protagonists don't automatically become heroes. Some protagonists are outright villains. Some protagonists fall into a grey area. But there are always protagonists whose means of violence doesn't always involve lifetaking. Depends on the situation and the writing

Sometimes, the heroes would sneak past the enemies without doing anything, 'No Detection Run'. This not only avoids suspicion, but also ensuring that an illusion of 'non-intrusion' is being kept on the outside. The reason why the sneakers are heroes is revealed later on : his / her actions decide the fate of the world at large more than just soldiers holding guns given the order to kill, or a mobster trying to challenge law

The funniest part is when people gloss over Elder Scrolls with that mindset, "yeah, who cares about killing Argonians and Khajiit, they ain't real people", turns out that's a major running theme.

Space racism is still racism. Star Trek told me so. Fantasy racism is still racism. Elder Scrolls told me so.

SO MUCH RACISM. And batfuck nationalism.

Forget shooters then, go for strategy games. Batfuck nationalism is the way to go. I've won all my Civilization and Master Of Orion II games by, essentially, being Dick Cheney.

edited 13th Jun '12 5:45:17 PM by RadicalTaoist

Civ 4 and Civ 5 allow peaceful victories much much easier. Actually in Civ 4 because I'd always go a super-tech route, alongside pacifism, I'd always become some super advanced pacifist state... until about the 20th century when religion stops working and then all hell breaks lose. But before then, usually no wars at all!

By "much much easier" you mean "possible at all", because it was ridiculously impractical in previous games. While a good pacifist game can get a high score, for the same effort you can conquer the world before the invention of the printing press.

There's always Master of Orion III where war would never end in anything other than complete genocide because the AI was bugged to never surrender.

@ Radical Taoist

I don't think that at the higher difficulty levels that remains true, while remaining pacifist actually increases in relative ease. You have to a lot more compromising with the computer AI (you'd still pull ahead massively and you still need to be aggressively expansionist at the beginning), because AI diplomacy in the civ games amounts to grovelling at various levels.

Not having to maintain military units saves you tons of money which you can funnel into research and infrastructure.