PDA

View Full Version : Lethal or Non-lethal?



operative x
13th Aug 2003, 10:08
Do you think that there are too much violence in games? And that they might cause kids to go crazy? How would you like future games made? Would you like them to be really gory or start to push to a more hand to hand non-lehtal type of play? Or should it be both but up to the player to decide? How would you play through a game?

ginger_grunger
13th Aug 2003, 10:33
when i play Deus Ex, i liked the challenge of tryin to complete each mission using the least amount of lethal force possible, as it added a new dimension to the game that i personally enjoyed..however, i can't see why people are moaning about violence in computer games, there is no solid evidence that violence in games IS making kids go crazy...in fact, i think that the more violent a game, the LESS likely someone is to go out and kill someone, because they can take thier anger out on life-like AI, instead of go on murderous rampages GTA style. If you want to see what's really causin today's youth to go crazy, just look at wrestling.its all a bit of fun, but kids all over the world take it way too seriously, and thats a problem that needs to be addressed.

anyway, enough of my essay, i think that people should be able to decide how to play a game, and there are such things as Violence locks for those of a nervous disposition

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
13th Aug 2003, 11:45
Do you think that there are too much violence in games?
no. there are types of games that are violent, but you don't have to play them. Apart from FPS, there are not so many violent games. RTS are not violent, they are simulation. Sims (sport, simcity, the sims,...) are not violent. I don't think the majority of video games are violent. it's only that they get a lot more advertisement.


And that they might cause kids to go crazy?
definitely NO. nore do RPG cause players to get schizophrenic. I think Education (or the lack of it) makes kids crazy. if a kid doesn't understand that what he sees in a game isn't reality, there is a problem with his education, not with the game.
(and by the way try to find catharsis in a dictionnary)

and for the rest of your question, I think the player should decide how he plays. consequently, it is not the games that should have to think wether they are violent ore not, but the player himself.

games don't kill people, players do. (virtually, at least)

PDenton
13th Aug 2003, 12:24
Do you think that there are too much violence in games? And that they might cause kids to go crazy?
I agree with Le Sauveur. You can't blame kids going crazy on what type of games they play. If a kid goes crazy with a gun, you can't say that he did that just because he played a computer game that involved shooting people. More than likely he played the game because of his problems, not has problems because of the game.

Take a situation where a kid is getting bullied at school, one parent is on drugs and often in prison, the other is an alchoholic they argue and want a devorce. The kid goes mad and starts killing people. This is obviously due to his like for playing Deus Ex!!!:rolleyes:


Would you like them to be really gory or start to push to a more hand to hand non-lehtal type of play? Or should it be both but up to the player to decide?
Some people may like to have really gory games where you see blood splayyer everywhere when you blow off some bad guy's head, but pesonally I don't think this would really suit Deus Ex. As to hand-to-hand combat, This just wouldn't work in the first person view. I think punching has been discussed in another thread and so has matrix style moves.

I think that possibly a gore function could allow players to change how much you can maim and defile the dead bodies, however I don't think fighting with fists or kicking would work.


How would you play through a game?
I prefer to play through the game using lethal weapons to begin with to get a feeling of how the game works and what the limits are. I then move up the dificulties and use less weapons ands evntually only non-lethat. Not for ethical reasons, but because it makes the game harder.

Catman
13th Aug 2003, 13:18
Considering that people have gone mad since the dawn of humanity, I find it rather humorous that folks go out of their way to find things to blame.

Music, philosophers, stage plays, dancing, movies, television, and now video games. Next week, it will no doubt be transfatty acids, or possibly Cher. ;)

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
13th Aug 2003, 13:30
yes, it makes you wonder how they explained crimes a century ago, when there wasn't RPG or video games.


or possibly Cher
damn, I thought Cher was the only good thing on this planet! (except for DX1, of course)

Trollslayer
13th Aug 2003, 14:13
Originally posted by operative x
Do you think that there are too much violence in games?

Actually i think there's two kinds of violence in games. One, the one that's needed for a game (example: Max Payne). Two, the one that's tasteless and is more in amount than gameplay (example: Postal).

If its needed, or relevant to a game, it should obviously be used. Thats why blood and a certain amount of violence works in Max Payne, and doesn't work in Mario games.


And that they might cause kids to go crazy?

Hardly.

The trick is that kids who commit criminal acts are not under any parental guidance most of the time, and tend to blame it on something else to avoid punishment. Also, people are very quick to point the finger and judge without analysing themselves.

A quick wikipedia.com reference on a gent called Frederick Wertham:

Dr. Frederic Wertham (March 20, 1895-November 29, 1981) was a German-American psychiatrist and crusading author who protested the purportedly harmful effects of mass media (comic books in particular) on the development of children. His best known book was Seduction of the Innocent (1954), which led to a U.S. Congressional inquiry into the comic book industry, as well as a revision of the Comics Code.

To add into the comment, this gentleman was responsible for book burnings, and pigeonhole an entire industry as guilty of bad influences. This spawned not only the Ethics Code for comic books, it also spanwed various associations of so called "concerned parents" who, amusingly, spent more time in the streets burning books than at their homes, properly educating their children. The punchline to this kind of attitude is that Wertham, in the last years of his research, found out that children used comic books as scapegoats for their agressive tendencies. His last work on the matter (which i fail to recall the title), claiming that he was wrong, came too late. In the same way it was easy for people to blame comic books, its equally easy to blame videogames, and people haven't learned from their mistakes.

Meanwhile our own contemporary Joe "LieBigMan", self-centered and hypocrit senator, has his own petty crusade against the gaming industry (and several other industries). He has actually labelled, some years ago, the 3 worst things in America as being: Postal 1, Marylin Manson and Calvin Klein underwear commercials. Of course he forgot the proliferation of easily-obtainable weapons, sexual abuse and disrespect to women in their own homes, and violence of all sorts against children. And lets also give a big round of applause to the information channels for their glorification of televised violence on prime time.

And no, i doubt very much the CK commercials have had an impact on any of those.


How would you like future games made?

More ways to handle things, on all aspects. I want genres to give me ways of succeeding in them by giving me solutions previously unused on said genres.


Would you like them to be really gory or start to push to a more hand to hand non-lehtal type of play?

I never payed much attention to gore. 'Tis merely a byproduct of the fact im using lethal weapons. Gore exists in videogames for a long time, recent "concerns" are only mediatic, and made by people who just want to attack something.

The good thing about non-lethal ways is that its a diversification on gameplay. When you look at RPGs, the vast majority is clear - you have multiple ways of dealing with quests, but only one way in combat. Its good to know that there are games like DX:IW which give you various ways to handle both quests and combat, be it with brute force, finesse, stealth, or simply avoiding it. Not only that, games which actually reward players for not killing only shows that some people (like Spector) are more concerned with branching players into new types of gameplay instead of funelling them into the "kill only" idea.


Or should it be both but up to the player to decide?

I think limiting an outcome to a prevailing condition in a game (in this case, limiting or removing gore despite the fact its expected to exist due to the nature of a game) is ridiculous. The gore filters existant in games are all we need. A three-way option of No Blood, Regular Blood and Maximum Blood are the only thing needed.


How would you play through a game?

In DX:IW? Preferably starting with non-lethal weapons (or as lethal as possible - DX1 had a slight flaw in the beginning, at the very start you were already being issued excellent firepower, the Sniper Rifle and the GEP Gun - i believe this shoud be considered) at the start, moving up to stealth only, then only using weapons.

gareis
13th Aug 2003, 16:06
What would I like in a game? I'd like a detailed, realistic world with which I can interact realistically (including planting a LAM on a brick wall and blowing a hole in it through which I can crawl). I like levels with one or a few points that you have to get to in order to win and no set way to get there.

At the ocean lab, there was too much direction, I think. You had about three ways to get to the computer to open the doors, then a couple ways to get to the minisub, but after that there's only one way.

Anyway, interactive environments are a must. Perhaps there could be a function based on the texture and thickness of a wall that gives a strength, which in turn yields hole size per LAM.

And how about vehicles and running people over? :D

~gareis dhasen an

Dragosani
14th Aug 2003, 05:09
Originally posted by operative x
How would you play through a game?

With a game like DX, I like to use both lethal and non-lethal weapons. I've played through the original without killing anyone. I've also played through it where I killed everything that moves (well almost anyway). Having choices like that gives me a reason to play it again and again.


Originally posted by Trollslayer
DX1 had a slight flaw in the beginning, at the very start you were already being issued excellent firepower, the Sniper Rifle and the GEP Gun - i believe this shoud be considered) [/B]

Agreed, that's too much firepower to have on the first mission.

chaos_Kn
19th Aug 2003, 15:46
you know as well as we do that the success of the first was partly due to the choices given to the player. lethal or non lethal was a major part of that.

However i would like to comment that there different ways of taking people out non-lethal got a bit limited. crossbow, riot prod and baton got rather boring after a while and ammo wasn't so plentiful for the tranq darts. Maybe a hand to hand combat skill (coz i still think they would be best way of doing this) would spice things up a bit!

"Judo Chop"

*Chaos*

exo
23rd Aug 2003, 15:07
Originally posted by Dragosani
With a game like DX, I like to use both lethal and non-lethal weapons. I've played through the original without killing anyone. I've also played through it where I killed everything that moves (well almost anyway). Having choices like that gives me a reason to play it again and again.



Agreed, that's too much firepower to have on the first mission.

Um how is that too much firepower? If you're gonna go play with a rocket launcher go right ahead that's your choice, or a sniper rifle, or a gep gun.

It's about choice, what you're talking about is LIMITING choice. No players shouldn't get sniper rifles til level 6, not when the situation warrants a sniper rifle</end sarcasm>. I mean come on, it's a game. And yah, a nano enhanced agent starting off with a tranquilizer dart gun and a pistol vs. dozens of terrorists assaulting the statue of liberty makes so much more sense. Not to mention a state of the art piece of work, and full backing of an agency to boot with a stealth helicopter. God forbid we give our newest agent out of training with top marks an excellent weapon to accompany his skills.

What you're saying is, everyone should play your way, that's not what deus ex is about.

Where some traps are laid it's your choice to either use an emp or a grenade. Whether you want to go in stealthed, or gung-ho. Who is it unfair to? Noone. This is one of those games that you play a certain way that YOU want, not how other players do it. You do it your way. Your buddy beat this guy easily with a rocket launcher, you want to take him out with a tranq and keepem alive, or not even fight him at all and possibly join him. That's fine for my buddy but I play my way, my choice of weapon load out, not his. And if I do want a huge weapon load out it's my choice. Have I repeated myself enough?

PDenton
23rd Aug 2003, 17:00
I'm in the middle, maybe they are a bit too much for the first level. I mean who would give you a rocket launcher on an agent's first mission. I think possibly what would have been better would be the tranquilised darts, silent pistol and the assault rifle. Maybe GEP guns and sniper rifles should be used when the agent has heavier resistance (i.e. larger bots or lots of troops) and more experience so he can actually aim the sniper rifle. :D



What would I like in a game? I'd like a detailed, realistic world with which I can interact realistically (including planting a LAM on a brick wall and blowing a hole in it through which I can crawl). I like levels with one or a few points that you have to get to in order to win and no set way to get there.

This would be good, in some areas as it would add more possibilities. You could actually blow a hole in one of the walls at the level above the mistile base. However to make this apply to all wallst would be very difficult to work, for example in the underwater levels you would let the water in, or if there are barriers stopping you going somewhere, eg the warehouse district, you could just blow them out. Also the physics would be awkward, e.g. if you blew oult the bottom storey of the 'ton hotel it would have to fall down, etc. Some games such as Red Faction have managed to do this, however it only works because it was all based deep underground with miles of nothing in all directions.

sneelock
23rd Aug 2003, 17:22
I agree with Exo, the best part of the game was that you could do the missions anyway you wanted. just cause you had the sniper rifle didnt mean you had to use it, but if there was a guard up on a balcony then you might want it. and if unatco actually wanted you to make it then they would other you some real guns.

exo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:57
I'll also add that using the sniper rifle is a total chore considering it's level one. Even fully pumping sniping skills the crosshair is shaky as hell iirc because it's nowhere near mastery rank.

I mean come on, the level is huge and has high verticle to it. Oh, I don't think our nano enhanced agent who is a skilled marksman should use a sniper rifle, he isn't ready to handle it. I mean seriously. And the robots patrolling the back as well as the annoying mini-gun one patrolling the entrance are things that I would call ample reason enough to be issued a rocket launcher.

I never played deus ex the uber way with guns toting, rockets blazing. It's not my style. Whether they take away that choice has no affect on me. I always liked the cattle prod, knife in the back, dart in the neck/head approach. But when there's a full head on battle coming up, it's always nice to have that assault cannon/shotgun.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 20:02
Definitely, without a doubt they should stay with lethal though letting you use non-lethal for sneaking around/etc. It should also be realistic about it. If you knock someone unconcious by slamming a blunt object into their head, they might not take until you leave the area to wake up and start running around screaming that something is afoot. Heh, I remember when I first played Thief I always worried they'd do that, so I dragged them far away from the area after I knocked someone unconcious, then beat the unconcious body to death with a sword. (Hey, you might say that's pretty sick, but, it's better to repeatedly stab an unconcious person until they are dead than to risk being repeatedly stabbed while concious until dead d-: )

crimson_stallion
26th Aug 2003, 13:23
tens, maybe hundreds of millions of fps games are sold worldwide. Over 10 years, you might get 5 kids who go crazy. These 5 kids may happen to play games (how many kids these days don't?).. These kids also no doubt watch tv, go to the movies, listen to the radio, listen to music, get dvd's, hang out with friends, ride bike, swim, walk, play sport, etc.

Yet it is somehow the decision is made that it is the GAMES which make these 5 kids every 10 years go crazy (not all the other aforementioned things that most, if not ALL of them do as well). If anyone can explain to me how this works in a way that makes sense, then i will say yes games make kids go crazy. Personally, i'd doubt that anyone can. So my answer is no there is not too much violence in games.

On to the question, the best game should allow a player more freedom. If you want to play stealthy imagining you are a stealthy assassin, or a silent moral guy who refused to kill, then you should not HAVE to run in with the biggest gun you can find and shoot everything that moves.

If you dont have the patience to be stealthy, or want to pretend you are a big army grunt with a temper, and want to get your biggest gun and shot everything that moves, then you shouldnt be forced to be non lethal and avoid violence.

Sometimes a decision isnt suitable, as story or environment may make either option unsuitable. this is fair enough. However, the fewer of these cases there are the better. By giving the option of either, you are basically pleases everyone, rather then just one person. I say give us the choice. If half life gave the choice of going through with stealth without killin a thing, I would have played it much more then once.

agent008
28th Aug 2003, 18:33
omg the raitings are terrible. i say lets all have a blood lust and have a killing spree:rolleyes:

but it is good not always trying to kill someone b/c thats not how life works out;)

CodyLamp
6th Sep 2003, 02:33
Have you played Deus Ex???? It lets you play in a non-violent AND violent way!!!! Thats one of the billion reasons its great!!!

Nazo
6th Sep 2003, 05:44
Well, the game is violent whether or not you are. For one thing, you still have to run around knocking people on the head with a club or shooting them full of tranquelizer darts (which, btw, is more violent than it seems at first since the dart could still hurt someone pretty badly) or you wouldn't last long at all. You might say that you could try sneaking around and running from everyone, but there's just too many at times to hide from them all.

Anyway, about the kids going crazy, I very strongly believe not that it's violence in movies, games, etc that makes them do it. It's a combination of many things, such as the fact that they just plain have issues to begin with, and our society, etc. In other words, I am completely sure that even without those movies and things, those same kids would still do the same things. The biggest problem here is human nature.

AlteredGlyph
6th Sep 2003, 15:49
Originally posted by Nazo
Well, the game is violent whether or not you are. For one thing, you still have to run around knocking people on the head with a club
I'd like to note a little piece of useless information here. It was actually more effective to whack the enemies in the small of the back than the head. Get your facts straight, man.

Added an omitted word Catman

DarkPhoenix
7th Sep 2003, 02:10
I'm kind of curious on what happened here. From a discussion on the lethality or non-lethality of weapons to one on violence? I realize the issue was presented in the first post of the thread, but I gathered it was more of a secondary concern. At any rate, I like having the option. Sometimes, it's better to use lethal weapons to keep enemies from following you and surprising you later.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
8th Sep 2003, 08:27
in reply to Nazo : nope, you don't have to.

you can pretty well play most of the game without using any weapon, even non-lethal. for this you just have to avoid guards. Ok, that means you have to be a lot more careful, it may take a little longer, but it's definitely a very good challenge.

(did you try to get to the little undergroud bunker near the statue, at the beginning, where you can take a few upgrades, and other things, and take EVERYTHING without the guard noticing, and of course without knocking him out?

exo
8th Sep 2003, 09:13
Originally posted by DarkPhoenix
I'm kind of curious on what happened here. From a discussion on the lethality or non-lethality of weapons to one on violence? I realize the issue was presented in the first post of the thread, but I gathered it was more of a secondary concern. At any rate, I like having the option. Sometimes, it's better to use lethal weapons to keep enemies from following you and surprising you later.

Yeah I was wondering this too... why the "violence" issue?

I mean, come on. If we actually gave a damn about violence we wouldn't be playing video games would we? Let alone avoid watching tv and any graphic novel.

crimson_stallion
9th Sep 2003, 13:22
Originally posted by AlteredGlyph
I'd like to note a little piece of useless information here. It was actually more effective to whack the enemies in the small of the back than the head. Get your facts straight, man.

Added an omitted word Catman

I found that the quickest way was to crawl behind them and zap them in the a$$ with the prod :) It was the only was i could get them to fall instantly every time. Or a sniper round to the head works...

AlteredGlyph
9th Sep 2003, 16:23
Yeah, it was wierd. A headshot wouldnt take them down, but a buttshot would. Go figure.

The Corinthian
9th Sep 2003, 18:38
Well, I have to say I've always liked just how free form the original DX was. I'm definitely hoping to play through the game both ways, and be able to go through without using a single weapon again... And if I can't switch between lethal/non-lethal as needed, or the player can't decide, I'd be very disappointed with it. And, on a side note, Dr. Wertham (see post by Trollslayer) is a complete ass who I'd definitely go lethal on for making comics a scapegoat for bad parenting.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
10th Sep 2003, 11:36
Originally posted by AlteredGlyph
Yeah, it was wierd. A headshot wouldnt take them down, but a buttshot would. Go figure.

something about the place they think with?

Trollslayer
10th Sep 2003, 11:38
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
something about the place they think with?

:eek: You mean they think with their butts? :eek:

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
10th Sep 2003, 11:44
you see a better explanation?

Trollslayer
10th Sep 2003, 13:52
Well i don't see a better explanation as to why a bullet in the head may not kill them immediately at times :confused: , but i see a good reason as to why they crumble immediately to the floor when you prod their legs: the legs' control fails. An electric current flowing trough your legs (obviously depending on its intensity) can throw you immediately to the ground because it makes you lose control of them.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
10th Sep 2003, 13:58
more realistic, but lacks poetry. (hmmm poetry... sort of)

Trollslayer
10th Sep 2003, 14:02
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
more realistic, but lacks poetry. (hmmm poetry... sort of)

:D

AlteredGlyph
10th Sep 2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Trollslayer
Well i don't see a better explanation as to why a bullet in the head may not kill them immediately at times :confused: , but i see a good reason as to why they crumble immediately to the floor when you prod their legs: the legs' control fails. An electric current flowing trough your legs (obviously depending on its intensity) can throw you immediately to the ground because it makes you lose control of them.

Yes ,they would fall down. But would they be unconcious is the real question.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
10th Sep 2003, 14:17
hmmm, with enough electricity, I think they would. Or at least paralysed, which would be the same for the gameplay (except they might be able to scream, maybe)

Trollslayer
10th Sep 2003, 14:25
Doesn't the Riot Prod act like a taser? If it does, then they'll most certainly fall flat. Perhaps they shouldn't become that stiff, and stay asleep the rest of the game, but that's a different thing entirely ;)

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
10th Sep 2003, 14:32
but if the riot prod acts like a taser, why would you need two shots to make someone unconscious?

does it mean the voltage is not as high?

(or maybe the guards have a isolating armor?)

Trollslayer
10th Sep 2003, 14:34
Could be.

[~DeH~]_LeOn
11th Sep 2003, 14:53
even the melee weapons had accuracy...see,head is small and hard to whack with crowbar(denton is a moron at first levels of weapons)but butt,huge and unmissable and hurts too,they are most likely to get embarrased and play dead on floor.who knows
what kinda guy you are...come up from behind with crowbar and do such thing!

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
11th Sep 2003, 15:06
and do they think by playing dead they will prevent you from doing such things?

that's a pretty weird logic

Trollslayer
11th Sep 2003, 15:40
Mayhaps their uniforms have some reinforced part on the torso and back areas, but not on the legs (for mobility). Thus shocking is more immediate on the legs...

Or it could be just that this is a videogame with its own set of rules of engagement which we have to live with ;)

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
15th Sep 2003, 10:45
Originally posted by Trollslayer
Or it could be just that this is a videogame with its own set of rules of engagement which we have to live with ;)

why od you ALWAYS have to ruin the fun?

Trollslayer
15th Sep 2003, 11:06
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
why od you ALWAYS have to ruin the fun?

Because of the high salary and added benefits? :p

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
15th Sep 2003, 12:51
OK, let's say I go on elucubrating, you go on working, and you give me part of your salary?

/*still elucubrating, even daydreaming*/

Trollslayer
15th Sep 2003, 14:16
Good idea :D ;)

Catman
15th Sep 2003, 15:09
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
elucubratinghttp://www1.iastate.edu/~wsthune/cps/mrchimps/scare.gif

Now look what you've done. That word made poor Lester go and spill his popcorn.

Trollslayer
15th Sep 2003, 15:43
:D :D :p

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
16th Sep 2003, 07:49
I don't have my dictionnary in my office. wasn't it english?

(I don't event think it the translation I thought of was french, after all)

Catman
16th Sep 2003, 12:54
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
I don't have my dictionnary in my office. wasn't it english?

(I don't event think it the translation I thought of was french, after all) It's just that the word is rarely used in day-to-day conversation. I call these fifty-dollar words when correcting student papers. ;)

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
16th Sep 2003, 13:00
hmmm

I don't have a lot of vocabulary, so I have problem to choose my words. when I find one that fits, I usually don't try to find an other.

(god, 50$, I might even get richer than Trollslayer. Or am I supposed to PAY 50$ to use it?)