Rated S, for Shot in the Face
by ted2112 HSM team writer
The character crouched behind a short wall, and then sprung into action.
He rolled and then took aim and shot the other man in the face. Blood splattered in gory detail, never possible in the consoles of the past. This had the crowd on its feet, cheering and howling in delight. The game preview at the 2012 VGA video game awards further whipped up the crowd when the character threw a grenade at the feet of two men and blew them up, scattering their mangled remains all over the room. This preview was just one of the games offered up to fulfill our blood lust, and take our money. The host, Samuel L. Jackson smiled his approval and clapped; he knows what we want.
We want blood.
There were ten games up for nominations this year, and all but one was about killing people. The only stand out was Journey, which won a few token awards, but let’s face it: what chance did a peaceful game that encourages friendship have against an avalanche of death and destruction? None, I tell you.
We want blood, and we want it badly. The more detail, the better – oh, and if it can have a catchy or witty line or two before we pull the trigger, even better. We need a gritty, stocky, middle-aged, muscle-bound protagonist that can wade through a sea of gore and love every minute of it. Not only do we need to kill, we need to be creative in our killing; we need options that can also make us laugh when we kill. I feel that the worst thing about this trend of violence is that it is just what the establishment is endorsing. They are saying to the industry, yes, make more of these games.
Videogames, we have come so far, or have we?
It seems the variety that those old games had are gone and we are concentrating solely on killing. Those old games did nothing to fill our primitive need for violence. Exploring, using your imagination, story telling – hah! Lame! We want to shoot someone in the face, with a sawed-off shotgun, if possible. I know it seems harsh, but it seems the establishment is actually agreeing with this. It’s seems almost embarrassing to them that Journey tarnished their near perfect list of bloody violence. Maybe next year they can achieve perfection and have a mandatory kill count from all the nominees. The juvenile voices for blood have been heard, and the gaming industry is delivering in spades by pumping out a non-stop killing spree for us to revel in.
Nor will they let the naysayers deter them by listening to to the fact that video game sales are tanking.
Yes, we are in the worst sales drop ever in our industry, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with our market flooded with blood and gore. I’m sure if the industry made gratuitous violence a prerequisite in a game, we would all see this sales plunge turn around, and hey – all the more killing for us!
Even in Home the need for violence has started to satisfy. Do we miss the Dead Island game with that awesome baseball bat covered in barbed wire? Well, since the revision of Home, we now have our own variety of sexy first-person shooters. Blood, blood, blood – yes, indeed it’s here. I find it amazing at how up in arms people get about trolling, but hacking a person to death is A-OK. We most certainly have our priorities straight, here.
I’m sure an even bigger wave of violence is coming. After all, this is the year of the game for Home, and as the VGAs have taught us: good games equal violent games. This is sad, because this little peaceful corner of the PlayStation Network has been happy and quiet for so long. Yet it seems we have been sorely behind the times. How about we make up for this by adding a holiday Santa-shooter game for Pier Park?
It seems as if there is an ever shrinking population of companies that are trying to be creative. These small groups, like Media Molecule, thatgamecompany, Giant Sparrow and Minority Games seem like freaks for trying to produce a non violent game. Maybe we will see one of the big companies make a shooter that goes to war with these small independents for tarnishing the perfect image of our beloved death and destruction.
My friends, let me close with this. The revolution is almost complete. It’s over; those of us who don’t love death and destruction, and prefer games that stimulate more than our trigger fingers have lost with this generation of consoles. This natural evolution of escalating brutality is escalating so fast. Companies are pumping them out as quickly as they are able, and making sure the video game store shelves are stock full of violence. I fear this has major consequences for our industry and culture. There are still some of us who want family friendly, creative, artistic beauty – without being childish – but our voices aren’t being heard anymore, thus we are being crushed by an ever expanding tidal wave of our own worst nature. It’s only a matter of time before the first person shooter comes for us.
Its one extreme to the another, the shelves are either filled with Shoot Everything 5 or Dance Off Singalong Fairy edition.I know what im buying, Unfortunately a lot of the games of old, wont stand the test of time. How do we bring Pac-Man into todays gaming world without it being rubbish. Violent games have always been there but as the consoles have got better, the expectations of the user have grown, take the basic shootout thats was on atari when 2 cowboys stood either side of a cactus has now become RDR. Space Invaders is now Dead space. We have gone from the blocky square space ship shooting the square alien, to a movie like experience but its still the user shooting an alien. These show off the consoles ability,it gives the console owners bragging rights over his friends other brand of console. There is a place for other types of games, but the it isnt the top end consoles. Would Angry Birds been as popular if it was released on ps3 first. I think each genre of game is finding a format it works on, and sticking to it. Are the current generation of top end console too top end for the simpler game to be successful on. good read
We are indeed saturated in this market with FPS’s, but there are others out there that manage just fine without it being another case of Get to A ( while shooting people) to shoot target B in the face, then shoot more people to come back to A to be told where C is to be shot in the face…
Sadly, games like Shadow of the Colossus, Ico or The Last Guardian are slow to make, because it’s not just a case of whipping a dark map together with generic corridors and enemy spawn points thrown in. There’s a lot more that goes into something like Flower than say, Bullet Storm. But the general demographic for gaming are males from 14-30. On consoles anyway. I did read that the social side of gaming are filling up with women though, but what they’re playing tend to be just as lazy, badly regurgitated gunk like Farmville clone No.145.
Truth is, originality is hard to come up with, and it’s even harder to convince an investor to take a chance on something new that might not be well received. The blood-lust of the masses of teenage boys that scream the loudest for gore is what the executives hear. It’s a simple formula and takes little effort to give, so why try hard on a new IP when you can just get money for old rope?
Until the attitudes of the “core gamer” changes, and we stop baying for blood and start asking for FUN, or (god forbid) HUMOR in our *entertainment* the stream of shooters will just keep flowing. I know of a few games that do not depend on gore and guns and happen to be fantastic if you want any pointers Ted.
Oh, and BTW, well said mate.
Bloody death in real life is not fun (or applaudable at least I hope not but maybe by some in certain cases. “Hey! We killed the enemy”. is real war is hollered and there are cheers. Understandable I think.).
THis article and it’s point of view could just as easily have been written about some movies or perhaps even novels. Yes? No?
There are non-shooter games still popular even on Home so the revolution is not won or lost.
I found Home about the same time the tide turned toward games mostly being gory FPS and that’s where I switched my “gaming” money. I may not be a Home “whale” but I spend a certain amount of money there. So I’m letting it be known now, if Home turns with the tide, I’ll be taking my money elsewhere. And, Sony, dear, please remember I am a representation a lot of girls my age who are NOT interested in blood and gore and would prefer an intelligent gaming experience.
Well said! I for one do not like games with blood and violence. Even though it is not real, it still makes me ill to see on screen. I like adventure games that don’t involve killing and shooting and sometimes even fighting. I stay away from all that stuff online and on Home. I like games with puzzles and quests where you have to find things etc. I miss all those simple games like pacman and even space invaders (which had shooting but not violence). I can imagine if pacman came back, he would have a gun and shoot at the ghosts, they’d explode with blood and gore all over the screen!
Anyway, I like your point of view and way of thinking.
The gaming industry is just a snapshot of “the grand scheme of things”
1st I think the decline in games sales is mostly due to 1. Economics aftermath of the 2008 crisis. 2. Any products have to reach peaks, decline and “plateaus. Sure the saturation in FPS might play a role, but that will only be the tip of the iceberg.
Thanks to “all out” capitalism, almost everything is lead by accountants and graphics now. You can see the same trend in pretty much everything. Profits are king, and if you dare question a company social psychology you will be quickly reminded that. If they can increase the profit margin, than they are right.
You can see the same trend everywhere. A good example is radio. More and more station are turning to be either a commercial top 20 or a trash radio of some sort. The general appreciation of radio is at a all time low, but the ratings are holding… barely, but holding.
The thing is, you make more money with a moderate success in a big market than with a huge hit in a niche. Times are at big company eating each other more than financing new, innovative, small ones.
And if you think that gore is the new thing gaming company invented to lure the masses. Just remember the roman coleseum…
Nope Gary, this has nothing to do with the capacity of a gaming console.
Your right its not the console, its the escalation of the next big thing. the games that sell extremely well on consoles are violent, the next big thing has to be better so if violence sells, then more violence should sell. Do I like it, certainly not, so i dont buy the games. My favorite genre tends to be driving but even that genre has got more violent with racing games that reward you more for how violent you drive with weapons etc than for 1st place. Call of Duty black ops 2 grossed 500 million in 24 hours, this years twilight movie 142 million in its first weekend, harry potters last movie 484 million in first weekend. With those figures I cant blame the business for going for what sells in an industry where developers disappear or get bought up regularly.
While I dislike the amount of extremely violent games myself (I find them gross, even though I’m old enough to buy them), I get the feeling you’re getting a tiny bit too pessimistic in that article.
Okay, I might say this because I usually play on the Nintendo consoles, and Nintendo franchises appeal to both younger and older players, and even the games who are targeted at slightly older players don’t rely on extremely gory violence. Metroid and Zelda are arguably the best examples for this: In both games, you encounter and fight enemies, and of course, you often have to kill those enemies to proceed. But doing so doesn’t involve endless streams of blood and gore. It’s all obviously unrealistic and fantastic (in some Zelda games it’s even slightly cartoony), and that’s the reason why I’m okay with it.