Why Does It Feel Good To Kill In Video Games?

[xdarkmasterx]

14 hours ago, Rudolph said:

 

From what I read about Spec Ops: The Line, it tries to have its cake and eat it too in the sense that it does feature solid dopamine-dispending third-person action gameplay, but at the same time it tries to shame you for playing the game the only way you are allowed to. You play an overpowered three-man squad that can somehow murder its way through dozens after dozens of fairly mindless enemies without problem, only to be thrown into scenarios where you suddenly cannot afford to do that anymore and you have to commit some kind of war crime - as if gunning down so many people in cold blood was not enough to convey the developers' supposedly anti-war message. This strikes me as a bit intellectually insulting.

 

 

I don't see Spec Ops as a generic "violence is bad" message, it's much more particular than that - specifically an attack on a particular line of thinking that says that engaging with games (or media and art in general) is a reflection on one's moral character, and furthermore that one can at the same time engage with a violent game yet avoid the "stain" on one's character through justifications in the game's story for said violence - "I'm saving the world", "My character has no choice", "I'm only killing bad people" and so on.

 

What Spec Ops is doing is basically saying that all those justifications are bunk - The world isn't in any danger, it's a game you can choose to stop playing at any time you want. You are choosing to play a violent game because you want to kill digital characters.

 

If the game had in it a straight and narrow path, one that let you avoid doing "bad things" by choosing the right options, the game's premise would fall to pieces, as that would let players sidestep the issue entirely without really thinking about what they're doing or why they choose to play these games in the first place.

[dyshoria]

it depends on what enemy you kill. if its a boss it feels very nice but if its a regular one its not as nice

[Rudolph]

2 hours ago, xdarkmasterx said:

If the game had in it a straight and narrow path, one that let you avoid doing "bad things" by choosing the right options, the game's premise would fall to pieces, as that would let players sidestep the issue entirely without really thinking about what they're doing or why they choose to play these games in the first place.

But that is what Undertale did, to great acclaim.

 

Again, I do not see the point of selling a full-price AAA game that shames you for playing it the only way you are allowed to; it strikes me as very self-indulgent, but also self-defeating, as it ends up accidentally sending the message that if for whatever reason you find yourself in an armed conflict, you might as well just stop caring and be as ruthless as you can be, since there is apparently nothing else you can do - which is not true. If anything, I find myself wishing that the developers had used that time, efforts and resources to make a game about avoiding and defusing conflict instead.

[xdarkmasterx]

46 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Again, I do not see the point of selling a full-price AAA game that shames you for playing it the only way you are allowed to; it strikes me as very self-indulgent, but also self-defeating, as it ends up accidentally sending the message that if for whatever reason you find yourself in an armed conflict, you might as well just stop caring and be as ruthless as you can be, since there is apparently nothing else you can do - which is not true. If anything, I find myself wishing that the developers had used that time, efforts and resources to make a game about avoiding and defusing conflict instead.

 

Like I said, the game is a dialogue with a specific kind of player and way of engaging with gaming itself. I doubt the game is about actual real-life war except in a very facile sense, and isn't trying to accurately simulate it. It isn't trying "to shame" you for playing it, unless you're the kind of person who thinks that playing violent games is something to be ashamed of in the first place (hence the need for the justification it wants to dismantle). That would be more characteristic of the kind of simple "anti-violence" stories I specifically said that it is not (in fact, ironically, that's essentially the message of a lot of the kind of military shooters it is lampooning).

[gwain]

this thread changed my whole perspective on life pretty much seeing idiots argue was the first nail in the coffin into my Revelation about the modern world and to this day there are people arguing over stuff in this thread lmao

[Gez]

3 hours ago, xdarkmasterx said:

What Spec Ops is doing is basically saying that all those justifications are bunk - The world isn't in any danger, it's a game you can choose to stop playing at any time you want. You are choosing to play a violent game because you want to kill digital characters.

I always took it less as a critique of "playing a video game" in general, and more as a critique of the military shooter genre in particular, and more precisely the generally indulgent and indigent storytelling it generally goes with. "You're Corporal John Goodman of the Good Guy Force. The bad guys of Badguyistan, led by Abdul Badman, are doing something bad, like probably planning terrorism or whatever. Go there and shoot them all, in the name of FREEDOM" (a crying bald eagle appears subliminally overlaid on the image while the cry of a red-tailed hawk is heard).

 

The point therefore was to make it a game about war and its impact. A game equivalent of Full Metal Jacket rather than of American Sniper. Something where the main character is put in a horrible place where there are only bad decisions to make, and how do you live with what you've done, what you've been driven to do, afterwards.

 

Of course this doesn't translate as well to an active medium. Instead of watching a character be put in a horrible place where there are only bad decisions to make, you are put in a horrible place where there are only bad decisions to make. Ultimately, simulating a terrible experience results... in a terrible experience. Which is why there's not going to be a Spec Ops 2.

[xdarkmasterx]

23 minutes ago, Gez said:

I always took it less as a critique of "playing a video game" in general, and more as a critique of the military shooter genre in particular, and more precisely the generally indulgent and indigent storytelling it generally goes with.

 

 

That's true, my point is the message applies more broadly to violent games in general and the way some justify them while still believing that violent media needs to be justified in the first place. Modern "jingoistic" military shooters are just the most egregious example of what breeds the sort of viewpoint they're critiquing (especially when you consider how they'd have been seen at the time if you were ex: an insurgent in Afghanistan fighting vaguely western soldiers) :p

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Gez said:

A game equivalent of Full Metal Jacket

I would think the game equivalent of Full Metal Jacket would have to be a graphic adventure game like Life Is Strange, as again, the movie is mostly remembered for its dialogue scenes and the character interactions and not so much its action - which there is surprisingly very little.

 

Even then, the movie is mostly remembered for the late R. Lee Ermey's performance as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. I mean, I know for a fact that both Half-Life: Opposing Force and the unfortunately-named VietCong pay direct homage to the movie in their respective tutorial level. However, what was meant to be a chilling portrayal of the military's treatment of its recruits was turned into an entertaining ride.

 

If anything, with Spec Ops: The Line, the developers' stated goal was to make a video game based on Apocalypse Now (which I know is based on the novel "Heart of Darkness"), ironically the very "anti-war" movie that reportedly ended up being used by the military to pump their soldiers up for war, if the following scene in Jarhead is any indication:

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Rudolph

[ax34]

For me it doesn't feel good - that's why i like infighting in Doom/Quake/Blood.

But my thoughts:

- In game you know that the enemy is just a bunch of polygons and a script.

- In game you know that the enemy remains on your SSD/HDD even after being killed.

[Gez]

25 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

If anything, with Spec Ops: The Line, the developers' stated goal was to make a video game based on Apocalypse Now (which I know is based on the novel "Heart of Darkness")

I think if the antagonist in SOTL is named Konrad, it's a homage to the writer of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad.

[Xcalibur]

I think one of the more interesting things about games is how they immerse you in situations unlike your real life, and let you explore moral choices and consequences. As a male human in particular, I find games satiate certain base drives and instincts I have that are ill-suited for the real world. Honestly, killing stuff in an FPS is fun, and so is conquering the world in a grand strategy title. Obviously, going on a killing spree is bad news (and the kind of bad news we've had too much of in recent years). And of course, waging aggressive wars and slaughtering people just for glory, wealth, and political/cultural mastery is orders of magnitude worse in a moral sense. Yet you can do these things in games without being a monster irl. I don't think there's anything wrong with indulging in such impulses, whether through games or other media. The key thing is to distinguish between entertainment and reality, and not take it to excess.

 

Besides, I'm opposed to censorship in general, since it's fundamentally dishonest and puts shackles on creative expression. Naturally this means that some rather disturbing & upsetting things get published, but that's the way of things. Everyone has different limits, theoretically anything can be offensive to someone out there, so the only limit should be flat-out illegal content IMO.

 

As for aggression in general, it causes quite a lot of trouble, but ultimately it's there to help us survive, as individuals, groups and as a species, just like our other innate attributes.

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Xcalibur said:

Naturally this means that some rather disturbing & upsetting things get published, but that's the way of things.

I sort of disagree with that. Not that I do not think people should not be allowed to creatively express themselves, of course, but I believe the Ian Malcolm quote from Jurassic Park applies to this situation very well: again, if your own developers end up suffering from PTSD because they had to look at so many disturbing images in order to design "realistic" gore, you might want to rethink your approach and ask yourself if it is really necessary. 

[Rudolph]

Okay, so I have rewatched the second half of Full Metal Jacket, which was a bit of a blur to me, and I was reminded that there is an extended action scene towards the end. Being a Stanley Kubrick film, it is very well shot, directed, acted and scored, but also, and I hate to say, it makes war look... fun? Like, do not get me wrong, I would absolutely NOT want to be in the characters' place in real life, but at the same time, the whole sequence is tense and exciting, the soldiers all look badass - including Animal Mother, which the movie previously framed as some sort of antagonist - and I definitely would not mind experiencing all of that in a video game. In fact, I am pretty sure I did already!

 

I guess the late François Truffaut was right after all: there is really no such thing as an anti-war movie, let alone cultural product. :(

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

I guess the late François Truffaut was right after all: there is really no such thing as an anti-war movie, let alone cultural product. :(

Try this:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/282070/This_War_of_Mine/

 

[Sena]

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

Okay, so I have rewatched the second half of Full Metal Jacket, which was a bit of a blur to me, and I was reminded that there is an extended action scene towards the end. Being a Stanley Kubrick film, it is very well shot, directed, acted and scored, but also, and I hate to say, it makes war look... fun? Like, do not get me wrong, I would absolutely NOT want to be in the characters' place in real life, but at the same time, the whole sequence is tense and exciting, the soldiers all look badass - including Animal Mother, which the movie previously framed as some sort of antagonist - and I definitely would not mind experiencing all of that in a video game. In fact, I am pretty sure I did already!

 

I guess the late François Truffaut was right after all: there is really no such thing as an anti-war movie, let alone cultural product. :(

Jarhead comes to mind as an actual anti-war film. If I'm right in my recollection, Truffaut's reasoning that anti-war films don't convey their intended message is for the reason you stated, they still manage to make war look thrilling, and WW2 films in particular are guilty of making war look morally righteous. Jarhead barely depicts warfare, and it certainly doesn't glorify war or make it look fun; look for a plot summary or review online, see how long it takes until they use the word "boredom".

[Maribo]

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

I guess the late François Truffaut was right after all: there is really no such thing as an anti-war movie, let alone cultural product. :(

Apocalypse Now and Come and See both spring to mind immediately.

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Sena said:

Jarhead comes to mind as an actual anti-war film. If I'm right in my recollection, Truffaut's reasoning that anti-war films don't convey their intended message is for the reason you stated, they still manage to make war look thrilling, and WW2 films in particular are guilty of making war look morally righteous. Jarhead barely depicts warfare, and it certainly doesn't glorify war or make it look fun; look for a plot summary or review online, see how long it takes until they use the word "boredom".

Oh yeah, I love Jarhead! Earlier in this thread, I have shared a scene from that movie where it shows how Apocalypse Now was used to motivate soldiers.

 

However, the movie still makes you empathize with the soldiers to the point where you end up sharing their frustration when they are ultimately robbed of their chance to kill enemy combatants. And then, for some inexplicable reason, some people in Hollywood thought it would be appropriate to make barely-related direct-to-DVD "sequels" that are reportedly straightforward action thrillers. Why... -_-

 

@Nine Inch Heels I have heard of this one. It looks interesting indeed, especially since you are playing as a non-combatant. 

 

I guess maybe that is the key to a true anti-war movie/game: you have to follow the victim rather than the victimizer!

[snapshot]

spec ops the line had a story? all i remember of it is how godawful the cover controls were lmao, don't think i ever finished it

[Rudolph]

They were? I remember playing it during my Mass Effect phase and having no problem with them at all.

[Sena]

16 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Oh yeah, I love Jarhead! Earlier in this thread, I have shared a scene from that movie where it shows how Apocalypse Now was used to motivate soldiers.

 

However, the movie still makes you empathize with the soldiers to the point where you end up sharing their frustration when they are ultimately robbed of their chance to kill enemy combatants. And then, for some inexplicable reason, some people in Hollywood thought it would be appropriate to make barely-related direct-to-DVD "sequels" that are reportedly straightforward action thrillers. Why... -_-

 

I guess it depends on what elements you think you need to make it properly anti-war, I'd probably opine that the two main factors would be making it not look fun (e.g. Full Metal Jacket), nor depicting war as something morally just (e.g. any WW2 film).

[Rudolph]

@Sena Well, that is the problem: Full Metal Jacket does make war look fun, as it shows these badass-looking soldiers toting big fucking guns heroically standing their ground, laying waste to their cowardly enemies and blowing shit up to avenge their fallen comrades.

 

And I say that as someone who is very much on the side of the Vietnamese and now cringe whenever the word "Vietcong" is uttered unironically. :S

Edited February 11, 2022 by Rudolph