Can we really talk about"hypocritical violence" when enemies you fight and kill in a game are "bad"?

[fireflame]

A common criticism adressed against many games is that enemies youfight have to be seen as bad people. In GTA-likes, people complain that cops you kill are corrupted. But in many novels and movies and real world, enemies are often morally wrong. I feel it is harder to get involved in a character who would kill innocents and good people. Certainly, it might be done for the sake of being subversive.But once you get past that, to what extent is it hypocritical?

Yes we want to spend our energy and time in a hobby where there is some violence, and yes, the fact enemiesare bad makes us more comfortable(often).

But then now how would we call the extremeopposite stance, if we only played games where we only killed innocents?Andif we played a game where we kill both inocents and bad people, this would be about being a mercenary, a soldier, a corrupted cop?

Exception can be madee about games without story, but otherwise, this criticism of "hypocritical violence" is made ina society were we alsotry to justify violence in general. No country invades another country saying it does it for fun or that the enemy is a good guy.And out of the context of war,society only accepts violence if it is done in necessary situations, like defending someone froma rapist,murderer,etc.

 

[Cactuar]

You need to provide some examples. I'm finding it hard to make any type of point out of what you're attempting to say.

 

[BDS]

I don't know what strawman you're addressing but generally when people complain about violence in games they're asking for more games that don't revolve around killing people at all.

 

[dancingphlower]

I was always uncomfortable with the violence in previous God of War games because Kratos was a literal monster killing innocent civilians for health, and he was no better than the gods he was killing.

 

[Hawkster]

Tbh with you, OP, your topic kinda reminds me of Spec Ops The Line and how much I soured on it.

Last thing I need is a shooter trying to make me feel bad for killing people.

Funny how Ghost Recon Breakpoint is one of my most anticipated games of this year despite the baggage it carries.

 

[Manmademan]

A common criticism adressed against many games is that enemies youfight have to be seen as bad people....

But then now how would we call the extremeopposite stance, if we only played games where we only killed innocents?Andif we played a game where we kill both inocents and bad people, this would be about being a mercenary, a soldier, a corrupted cop?

Click to shrink...

 

[Toxi]

I am very confused as to what point you are trying to make OP.

 

[danmaku]

I don't get where the "hypocrisy" is supposed to be. People that complain against violent games usually don't like violence at all, or they don't like how violence is glorified or shown as "cool".

 

[TransEuropaExpress]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but...I just like to gorily kill shit in games, it's satisfying. I've been hooked ever since:

 

[The Unsent]

In many games the hero kills many poilce officers and security guards. Many people on here thought Athur Morgan was a good man in a recent poll or at least sympathectic despite him being a mass muderer. And Nathan Drake famously threw a security guard off a museum ledge, knowing he likely wouldn't survive the fall. It's open to critism imo.

 

[fireflame]

You need to provide some examples. I'm finding it hard to make any type of point out of what you're attempting to say.

Click to shrink...

The list of examples is quite large I feel.Most of games depict your enemies as bad. In heroicfantasy games youa re going to fight demonsindaing your lands, evil sorcerers, mad kings...You are not going to kill peasants in general... Unless we talk about dungeon and dragon games with choices,but geenrally the story is more built in favor of a "good" character.
In military fps, your enemyies will be terrorists or politicians with over inflated ego

Very few games are about killing onpurpose kind or good people, and in games where it happens itmaybe intended to make you reflect on subjectivity, absurdity of war,etc.
As soon as there is a bit of story, it is hard to find example of games where you kill ordinary people.
Some critcized hitman for having a lot of targets who are not good peole. While you may kill innocents in Hitman, your targets are often corrupted to some extent

 

[Deleted member 873]

Do you agree with the death penalty?

 

[staedtler]

good...bad....i'm the guy with the gun - ash

 

[Morrigan]

Very few games are about killing onpurpose kind or good people, and in games where it happens itmaybe intended to make you reflect on subjectivity, absurdity of war,etc.
As soon as there is a bit of story, it is hard to find example of games where you kill ordinary people.
Some critcized hitman for having a lot of targets who are not good peole. While you may kill innocents in Hitman, your targets are often corrupted to some extent

Click to shrink...

Yes.... and?

What is your point exactly? Where is the hypocrisy?

 

[Redcrayon]

The list of examples is quite large I feel.Most of games depict your enemies as bad. In heroicfantasy games youa re going to fight demonsindaing your lands, evil sorcerers, mad kings...You are not going to kill peasants in general... Unless we talk about dungeon and dragon games with choices,but geenrally the story is more built in favor of a "good" character.
In military fps, your enemyies will be terrorists or politicians with over inflated ego

Very few games are about killing onpurpose kind or good people, and in games where it happens itmaybe intended to make you reflect on subjectivity, absurdity of war,etc.
As soon as there is a bit of story, it is hard to find example of games where you kill ordinary people.
Some critcized hitman for having a lot of targets who are not good peole. While you may kill innocents in Hitman, your targets are often corrupted to some extent

Click to shrink...

Im not sure what your point is here. Are you disallowing enemy units in warfare that are combatants from being 'kind and good' by virtue of them being capable of defending themselves?

Sure, some enemy forces are depicted as having signed up for a dubious cause of their own free will (often mercenaries working for villains, terrorists, nazis, conveniently inately-evil fantasy factions or black ops units in modern games). But various other fantasy/strategy and shooter games also pit you against an enemy army where the people are no more or less 'moral' than you. It's just that your commanders and theirs (either of whom might not be telling the whole story) have competing strategic aims that can't co-exist. You could also take a step further into the murk where some of those troops are conscripted civilians forced to take up arms against you- I don't think they are suddenly not 'good' or 'kind' people when they don't have much choice and are forced to take on the overpowered player character in endless hopeless battles (from their point of view). At that point, the conflation of 'enemy' and 'bad' is often at least part of the point. Fire Emblem: Three Houses illustrates this on the fantasy end, with various characters pushed into battle they don't want and framed as the enemy by some and a faultless victim by others. In wargames like Total War, whether those people are 'good' or 'kind' is something none of the competing factions care about, moral superiority falling way behind strategic dominance as the player fights to colonise further with troops conscripted from the lands they conquer. It's hard to find much 'good' on any side there.

Where there is a story involved, there's usually some attempt to frame the player as being in the right (Fire Emblem does this heavily, as whichever faction you choose is shown as acting fairly reasonably while sanctioned by a higher power, with the others eagerly jumping the moral event horizon in response to your victories). However, I don't agree that 'being good' or 'kind' is something that a character loses just by virtue of being on the wrong side of the battlefield to the player. That's equating being the protagonist with always being right and good. It's in the players interest to cast them as a 'baddie' and of less moral worth so you can cut them down while feeling sanctioned by whatever higher authority is pulling the strings. Sure, there's loads of actually truly 'less good' or 'evil' opposition forces in games, but really them being a situational opposing force might not have anything to do with morality at all, more just competing geopolitical objectives that leave a lot of dead npcs on the ground at the end. That's what the commentary on war in various games about it often tries to get at, some with more elegance than others.

 

[Sharivan]

I was always uncomfortable with the violence in previous God of War games because Kratos was a literal monster killing innocent civilians for health, and he was no better than the gods he was killing.

Click to shrink...

This. I did like the first two God of War games, but I felt a bit guilty playing them. This is also the main reason why I don't like games ike GTA.

 

[Fredrik]

I don't get where the "hypocrisy" is supposed to be. People that complain against violent games usually don't like violence at all, or they don't like how violence is glorified or shown as "cool".

Click to shrink...

Or they have kids and don't want to wait until late at night to play games :/

Seriously, violence in AAA games is slowly killing the hobby for me. It was fine when the kids were young and went to sleep like 19:00, but not today... I sacrifice my own health and simply stay up at night and sleep too little just to be able to play through some games.
Thank god for racing games!

 

[freakybj]

I think that violence in games (and media in general) is sanitized by the fact you are killing bad guys that are trying to kill you. Even in media where the bad guy killing innocents is a protagonist they often face their comeuppance at the end when they are killed or sent to prison. If games that glorified murdering innocent people were more mainstream (like Hatred) then the video game industry would not be able to shrug off criticism from law makers. This is why that content depravity line shouldn't be crossed by mainstream game companies.

 

[Ralemont]

I am unsure whether the point you're making is that we shouldn't mind violence in games because it's usually done against the morally corrupt, or that we should have more games with violence against "good" people as it would make us question our preference for violence in video games?

 

[Deleted member 37739]

Not sure what the thrust here is, but I've always found it weird to have heroes who indiscriminately dispatch hundreds of opponents in ordinary gameplay and then come over all noble and refuse to finish off the game's big bad, as though they have some kind of moral code.

 

[Mirage]

Not sure what the thrust here is, but I've always found it weird to have heroes who indiscriminately dispatch hundreds of opponents in ordinary gameplay and then come over all noble and refuse to finish off the game's big bad, as though they have some kind of moral code.

Click to shrink...

There definitely is a weird disconnect between the gameplay and story when that kind of thing happens.

 

[Sylvie]

A common criticism adressed against many games is that enemies youfight have to be seen as bad people. In GTA-likes, people complain that cops you kill are corrupted. But in many novels and movies and real world, enemies are often morally wrong. I feel it is harder to get involved in a character who would kill innocents and good people. Certainly, it might be done for the sake of being subversive.But once you get past that, to what extent is it hypocritical?

Yes we want to spend our energy and time in a hobby where there is some violence, and yes, the fact enemiesare bad makes us more comfortable(often).

But then now how would we call the extremeopposite stance, if we only played games where we only killed innocents?Andif we played a game where we kill both inocents and bad people, this would be about being a mercenary, a soldier, a corrupted cop?

Exception can be madee about games without story, but otherwise, this criticism of "hypocritical violence" is made ina society were we alsotry to justify violence in general. No country invades another country saying it does it for fun or that the enemy is a good guy.And out of the context of war,society only accepts violence if it is done in necessary situations, like defending someone froma rapist,murderer,etc.

Click to shrink...

the cops might be seen as "corrupt" in GTA, but i don't think many are mistaking the intent to play as a criminal and committing various heists/crimes.. the lawyer that gets you out of prison in VC, is portrayed as corrupt for getting you out of custody/charges constantly. i prefer games though, where the morality is either complex/absent

 

[Thera]

First, OP, your space key is broken.
The thing is, most game don't represent what it is to shoot / kill someone. The screaming and crying and any manifestation of fear and pain are not represented. So in your mind, you still shoot AI because they don't react much when you are done with them.
This is one of the focus of TLoU2 and it is unsettling to watch. At one point in the demo, you kill someone and one of his friend scream his name, "Eddie". So you didn't some random AI, you killed Eddie, and one of his friend is pretty sad / furious about it.

 

[fireflame]

Yes.... and?

What is your point exactly? Where is the hypocrisy?

Click to shrink...

depicting antagonists as bad a a "pretext" for the player to quench a thirst for violence.

 

[gebler]

depicting antagonists as bad a a "pretext" for the player to quench a thirst for violence.

Click to shrink...

With that clarification I believe I understand what you mean in the OP. I wouldn't call it it hypocrisy, at least not without knowing more about the stated and actual/suspected motivations. You can make cops corrupt so that the player will have less qualms shooting at them (actual motivation), without being hypocritical about it. Pretending that your motivation was totally different, or maybe criticizing others for similar things while doing it yourself, that could be seen as hypocritical. I also think people can enjoy playing violent games without being motivated by a thirst for violence, so if that is part of the assumption I'd question that as well.

I basically agree with what you're saying in the OP, but haven't actually seen this type of criticism first-hand, so there might be more to it than you conveyed. Things can be bad for other reasons than being hypocritical.

 

[ThreepQuest64]

So, what are we gonna discuss? Why there are so few games where you kill innocents and why we need the moral assertion to kill bad folk? I don't quite get the point yet.

What is this hypocritical criticism and what's the relevance and established ground in this discussion?

 

[fireflame]

So, what are we gonna discuss? Why there are so few games where you kill innocents and why we need the moral assertion to kill bad folk? I don't quite get the point yet.

What is this hypocritical criticism and what's the relevance and established ground in this discussion?

Click to shrink...

the argument I read was basically "if they were not hypocritical, you would kill enemies regardless of their ethics/morality"A form of "manichaeism" in the violence and the use of morality as a shield to make it more acceptable.

I for myself don't share that view and admit I would be ill at ease with kiling good guys in a game. Does it make me hypocritical? According to such criticisms, maybe.I admit that I feel more comfortable knowing enemies are "on the wrong side", even though this is just fiction.

 

[Secretofmateria]

Playing shadow of the tomb raider. Its odd how lara talks about what murderers trinity are while she hunts them from tree tops and literally strings up and displays their corpses from the branches like the she is the predator. The next tomb raider game needs to tone that stuff down. It doesn't fit her character at all.

 

[fireflame]

Playing shadow of the tomb raider. Its odd how lara talks about what murderers trinity are while she hunts them from tree tops and literally strings up and displays their corpses from the branches like the she is the predator. The next tomb raider game needs to tone that stuff down. It doesn't fit her character at all.

Click to shrink...

I feel that's the direction the series took in a weird way.Even the advertising of the game felt more "antagonistic" with Lara saying "time to end this".They say thety wanted Lara to get rid oof past clichés and lok strong, maybe they have exaggerated those elements? I have only played the two first games of the "reboot", in those games the enemies are shown as clearly not respecting people they meet? Is it enough to justify Lara's violence?

 

[KushalaDaora]

depicting antagonists as bad a a "pretext" for the player to quench a thirst for violence.

Click to shrink...

In games like Dishonored and Deus Ex, many mook enemies (mainly guards) are not necessarily evil, they just don't know that they are following orders from the big bad. I refuse to go lethal on these guys.

Honestly I wish more game offer non-lethal alternative (I like in MGSV you have the option to use rubber bullet for example). RDR2 is really frustrating in this regard.

 

[Wulfram]

Not sure what the thrust here is, but I've always found it weird to have heroes who indiscriminately dispatch hundreds of opponents in ordinary gameplay and then come over all noble and refuse to finish off the game's big bad, as though they have some kind of moral code.

Click to shrink...

It can be weird if done incorrectly, but there's a difference between killing a surrendered or incapacitated enemy and killing someone who is fighting back.

 

[Aztorian]

I don't feel bad for killing anyone or anything in videogames. I am very capable of keeping reality seperated from fictional videogames.

 

[Secretofmateria]

I feel that's the direction the series took in a weird way.Even the advertising of the game felt more "antagonistic" with Lara saying "time to end this".They say thety wanted Lara to get rid oof past clichés and lok strong, maybe they have exaggerated those elements? I have only played the two first games of the "reboot", in those games the enemies are shown as clearly not respecting people they meet? Is it enough to justify Lara's violence?

Click to shrink...

I would get killing out of necessity for self defense, it actually made a little more sense in 2013, given that she was fighting for her life against people who wanted to murder her. In shadow it feels like lara has taken on the role if the hunter instead of the hunted, and it makes her come off as a little more sadistic. I would be lying if i said it wasnt fun at least, but it feels out of character. Combat isn't inherently bad, but the way she kills in this makes her seem like a blood thirsty killer rather than someone who is simply defending themselves

 

[fireflame]

I don't feel bad for killing anyone or anything in videogames. I am very capable of keeping reality seperated from fictional videogames.

Click to shrink...

I do as well from a rational point of view. But from an emotional point of view I guess we are different maybe.. There is this "I know this is not ture, but this does impact me" feeling.

 

[Aztorian]

I do as well from a rational point of view. But from an emotional point of view I guess we are different maybe.. There is this "I know this is not ture, but this does impact me" feeling.

Click to shrink...

I never really felt guilty or bad about NPC's. Although not entirely true. If the game has a good and long story and you build a relationship with a character I would rather not do anything bad to them if I had to. But for random guards, police, or civilians.. Not really.