Yahtzee is concerned about the killing in video games.

Yes, you read that right. Motherfucking Yahtzee has an article about how much killing triple AAA video games involve now. It is a very interesting read.

Huh, an extremely interesting read. I mostly agree with what he's saying (ignoring the 'two thirds die to save one' Black Comedy bit at the end), though I personally avoid games where you're expected to kill things (even monsters or comically over the top humans or just regular humans to contrast how much of a butthole the protagonist is) in graphic and unpleasant ways anyway 'coz it makes me squeamish and uncomfortable.

But yes, a good read. There's not much else to say, really. o_O;

...Well, that more or less disqualifies every actual game I play or intend to play from this article's point. Yeah. Way to go, Yahtzee for pointing out why I don't actually play uber-"realistic" gritty games in the first place.

edited 11th Jul '13 6:10:26 AM by Raidouthe21st

It's a good overall point, but his insistence that the protagonist in a 'serious' game should be a moral paragon and/or the plot needs to deliver a message is a bit... eh.

It's like he never played The Last Of Us, but a different game entirely.

It just makes me think he's lost a lot of credibility in that way of thinking.

I agree that killing is too easy, but in a different fashion. I believe that if you're going for a gritty, realistic setting, you need gritty, realistic mechanics. It's hard to say, "Yes, this is realistic," when you walk away with a body count over 500 at the end. It's become an industry standard that no matter how realistic and believable your story is, your protagonist still needs to be able to take out three dozen men simultaneously in a firefight.

Even in Last of Us, which did a great job being realistic and believable on every other front, you're still slaughtering dozens of heavily-armed mooks left and right. No matter how realistic the game is, this one element never changes.

edited 11th Jul '13 7:44:50 AM by TobiasDrake

I'm wondering what purpose this thread is meant to accomplish. Don't we have a general topic about video game violence that it would be apropos in? I'd suggest looking around in OTC or starting one if there isn't one already. Threads about such narrow topics as this rarely go anywhere.

Alternatively, the article could be linked in our Zero Punctuation thread.

Here's something that relates to The Last of Us alone, which I posted as a comment in the Escapist article:

There are no accessible hospitals in this world. There are no medical clinics, drug stores, or medical campuses. Surgeons must be pretty rare. Even school nurses and vets can't be all that common.

So why are so many people willing to endanger themselves just to screw over others? Even if we buy that they're so hungry, poor or destitute to try anything, why do they fight to the last man? Their ENTIRE survival would require that they maintain as much of a numbers and arms advantage as possible. Getting even ONE of their crew killed would be a setback in a world where every person you meet either wants to mug you or eat you.

Every injury, no matter how slight, could be life-threatening. Antiseptics, clean bandages, sutures, and other things are not common. And no, even if we blend gameplay with story, Medkits don't count—Joel has been surviving in that hell for decades and when starting out, he hardly knows how to use one. And even then, it seems strange for a game to want to maintain such a realistic and dark look at death and survival and include MEDKITS as a canonical staple of its plot.

That bothered me more than once. Why do I have to kill every bandit, hunter, and soldier to a man? Even if I killed just one or two and the rest booked it rather than throw their lives away against someone who is clearly picking them off would have been welcome.

edited 11th Jul '13 9:14:10 AM by KingZeal

I want there to be more games where enemies go, "Screw this," and flee once their numbers start dropping.

But you lose loot/exp/etc if they do that. Now if they also had them drop their guns/you still get experience points/etc then sure.

edited 11th Jul '13 9:27:12 AM by lordnyx

For some reason I find that post hilarious, sorry.

It's just such a crunchy look at a fluff problem.

A fluff problem that arises from the crunch, mind.

edited 11th Jul '13 9:33:11 AM by ShirowShirow

"Stays morally questionable, even in milk!"

A game where you only get XP for killing rather than "defeating" is a game with bad XP rules anyway.

edited 11th Jul '13 10:41:49 AM by Medinoc

That's actually kind of the standard, though. It doesn't really jump out at you unless you think about it, maybe.

That's usually because you CAN'T non-lethally defeat enemies.

Only in Video Game though. Pretty much any tabletop game will award XP for defeating enemies, even if they rout, die, or surrender.

I like games where you gain experience by actually doing the things you intend to get better at. You know, like practice.

Next Gen games will include a mechanic where you get better EXP/loot for incapacitating/defeating enemies instead of killing them.

Or alternatively...

RPGs will feature a system where the way you defeated your enemies determines your reward. Defeating them without killing them gives you more EXP, but murdering them gives you better loot.

(No, I'm not serious)

I never gave out XP for fighting in my Tabletop DM's. Rather, I just gave a big chunk of it whenever they completed a goal. If they wanted to fight every monster on the way out to retrieve the crown of kings more power to them, and if they found a way to avoid every single encounter and snag the Macguffin nevertheless then the feat was no lesser a victory for it.

It got a bit complex whenever they started deciding their own goals, but that's the fun of being a GM.

Human Revolution already gives more EXP for unconscious enemies.

I hate that so much. It is broken.

edited 11th Jul '13 11:08:29 AM by ShirowShirow

I swear we have a trope for this, but I can't find it.

In any case, yeah, the "learn by doing" system has its own problems.

EDIT: Stat Grinding. Found it.

edited 11th Jul '13 11:16:23 AM by KingZeal

I need to save that text before someone decides to make it more "Neutral"

I've decided that if I ever run a D&D game again, I won't be handing out exp per kill, or even non-combat encounter.

It's a broken system. It works fine if you only want to run a dungeon crawl, but otherwise it restricts how you can plan your sessions. Rather than just design a world with a problem and let my players have at it, I have to set up "encounters" that give out X exp each. Sure, it's good to have planned encounters, but relying on them to be the player's exp source cuts down on what you can do on the fly.

Me and my friend have been experimenting on an end-of-quest-based system that awards players based on:

• How efficiently the threat was dealt with versus how rushed or bluntly it was handled.

(Example: Painstakingly figuring out the contagion's origins, method of contamination, and alternate means of containment, rather than just killing everyone.)

• How much extra effort was put into dealing with or minimizing the consequences of their own actions.

(Example: Choosing not to kill a group of raiders that beg for their lives, but giving the local peasant village some means of calling or summoning help should they return.)

edited 11th Jul '13 12:08:32 PM by KingZeal

I don't think that's really what he's getting at. More like, "Don't expect me to sympathise with a protagonist who does horrible things without acknowledging it".