Why is there so much death in video games?

[Adrian-kun]

I was watching the latest trailer for Dishonored on gt.com and at one point the video turned into a macabre spectacle where the main character would be shown slitting the throats of his victims over and over and over. And it's not just this. Most games out there focus on killing human beings (virtual as they are). Why so much death? I don't think there is a single person out there that wants to die. So why remind ourselves of something that comes for each and everyone of us? The whole point of video games should be to forget that we are all going to die at one point or another and simply have fun.
Another point would be that games like Call of Duty sell by the billions because people like to murder other people, but can't in the real world as they are too afraid.

[321jassman]

Because the real and virtual world are totally different from each other and you can retry in video games? I suppose video games are to enter another reality? I dunno. :l

Out of curiosity, are you a philosopher in life and death?

Oh, and Sakura Note looks really interesting as I'm interested in Japanese life so it seems.

[Adrian-kun]

Out of curiosity, are you a philosopher in life and death?

Well, I'm always asking existential questions such as 'Why are were here?' and 'Why is everything so unfair in this world?' so I guess I could call myself a 'philosopher in life and death'

Oh, and Sakura Note looks really interesting as I'm interested in Japanese life so it seems.

I'm glad you like it. Western publishers didn't want to pick it up because they thought it was 'too Japanesy'. People only play Call of Duty and Battlefield so they can't be bothered with anything else.
I think you might like this:

[321jassman]

I'm glad you like it. Western publishers didn't want to pick it up because they thought it was 'too Japanesy'. People only play Call of Duty and Battlefield so they can't be bothered with anything else.

Yeah, sad isn't it? All these life changing games out there and everyone would rather play stuff with BAM! BAM! KABOOLEY! HEADSHOT!! in it...

Well, I'm always asking existential questions such as 'Why are were here?' and 'Why is everything so unfair in this world?' so I guess I could call myself a 'philosopher in life and death'

Ah well, for me, I keep myself onward because I still want to play all those great games out there...mostly.

Wooo. 0_0 I could just see myself kicking back and relaxing while playing this. Though I gotta get a 3DS/DS first. And I just might should this ever be localized...hopefully.

[GeekyJuuu]

Sakura Note looked interesting from the get-go. :/ I really like the sort of laid-back style many Marvelous games follow, such as Harvest Moon and River King and such.

I think Call of Duty and its ilk are popular because they're actually pretty simple. If it moves, hit it. This is why so many kids play too, imho-they don't need to worry about puzzles or whatnot, and it's VERY clear cut who is "the best," providing them lots of fodder for competition with friends. And to be fair, isn't "KILL EVERYTHING THAT MOVES" a pretty simple goal? The notion of Hero Defeats Enemy is just a really common device for games, I guess.

Anywho, I don't think it's necessarily BAD that there's many games featuring death as a key element, either as a plot-point or part of the gameplay. Truth be told, one day, you may be mad. I hope you get mad one day, or I may suspect you're a robot incapable of understanding some human emotions [scary!!]. And when one is mad, sometimes, it feels nice to button-mash a fighting game, play an FPS, or vengefully hop on goombas until there are no more goombas to stomp. Some FPS games have interested me, even. I quite enjoy Bioshock and Left 4 Dead, and CoD's zombie mode is a lot of fun with a friend. I think the REAL problem, and the question I often ask myself, is "Why can games ONLY be viewed as 'AAA' games if fighting/death is a major component?" Because seriously, does anyone call Harvest Moon or Fishing Resort or Animal Crossing AAA games?

The problem with today's game industry, in my eyes, is a lack of variety and creativity. Yes, gaming has always had "Cycles." When Final Fantasy hit it big, EVERY studio had an RPG. When Guitar Hero released, plastic instruments were popping up everywhere, and more and more music game projects were getting up off the ground. I liked these genres, so I didn't really mind/notice the influx of one sort of game-I was more than happy to buy them all! With FPS, however, I'm more picky. So now I notice and write tl;dr posts like this one. :P I guess what I miss most of all is the opportunity for ALL kinds of games to be made, or in other cases be localized. Not just what's popular. That's why I really dug the PS2, for example. I've got my Harvest Moon, side-by-side with my Silent Hill, next to some RPGs, next to DDR and Guitar Hero and Pop'n Music, along with completely left-field titles like Katamari. Lots of variety back then, and today, it all seems to be about the rush to make the next million-seller, and if it is not a million-seller, it's worthless. And I think that's a shame. :c

[321jassman]

Agree, a whole lot of games really need more variety these days and back when everyone wasn't trying to strike it rich and stuff. :/

[Chaosblade]

Lots of variety back then, and today, it all seems to be about the rush to make the next million-seller, and if it is not a million-seller, it's worthless. And I think that's a shame. :c

I think this resonates with me most. The whole "middle class game is dead" concept. It's getting to the point where you're either a low budget niche/indie title, or a AAA blockbuster, and the gap between the two is ever-increasing. This is part of the reason why I'm not really looking forward to next-gen. I expect even less variety and unique titles, but fortunately the PC has plenty of games now and upcoming to keep me occupied. WiiU might also be good since it will probably be noticeably less powerful than other next-gen consoles and might pick up some interesting/unique games, but given how people wrote off the Wii this gen, it probably won't make a difference. And most of those sort of games will probably end up on the 3DS (and maybe Vita) anyway. With big question marks for localization, because us westerners hate portables.

[GeekyJuuu]

Agreed!! I think that's the reason why I've expanded my gaming horizons so much to include imports, as well as started using Steam more. More gems and good developers who just wanna make fun games when you look in several places, right?

EDIT: Because I missed Chaos's post and it's a really darn good post at that.

THIS. Forever, this. THAT is what I loved about last gen, and the PS2 in particular-the mid class game THRIVED. That's why I wanted a Wii as my first "next gen" console-I saw it as the one with the most potential to house all different types of games.

Personally, I almost prefer mid-class games, since they're often the most interesting. Yes, they often come with limitations, but they're often [like indies] willing to try new things and new gimmicks, or interesting stories/characterization moreso than a by-the-book AAA blockbuster which is so carefully constructed to be "the best." When you ask me about games I remember fondly, I'll be much quicker to talk about the comparatively mediocre Rule of Rose or Haunting Ground than a large-name horror title like Resident Evil 4.

The American stigma against portables also frustrates me, as portables aren't the end of all gaming as some people claim. Now that the 3DS and Vita are so powerful, they can easily offer console experiences. Just look at P4 Golden, or the other Persona remakes. Yes, the games are "low tech" in general, but still REALLY great games. SMT IV is continuing on the trend. I daresay I PREFER portables, since I can play in a wider variety of places. I also can't bring all my consoles up to my dorm due to space issues, but I will ALWAYS have my 3DS with me. I can honestly say I have more desire for a Vita than any next-gen console right now.

Another problem is that mid-class games also don't see localization because they're not "block-buster-quality." :/ and that's irritating too. I suppose you're right though-the PC has been on the upswing lately.

[Raguna]

It really is a shame but still most games tend to copy from other games. I personally think those "Blockbuster material" games that are trying to be made to become "the best" are really just copies of something that has already been alarmingly successful. I don't say that everything big and successful is like that but most games are like that these days.

Even though I bought a PS2 late in its life cycle the variety of games in there was amazing. There was a little bit of everything for every type gamer.

Now a days people won't even look at a title if its not Mario or Pokemon. Yesterday I was speaking to a friend of mine about Pokemon Conquest. He had never even heard about it until I told him. He's planning to buy the game just because it has Pokemon. He also told me that conquering places was a new concept he had never seen before when many games have already delved into that before. He ended the line saying "It doesn't have the best graphics but I'll buy it". Heh... I really don't understand people.

[321jassman]

Personally, a lot of people seem to think graphics are everything these days, though some developers like Falcom proved you don't need high-end graphics to play a terrific game like Ys and TitS.