Why retro is better than new gen gaming (this topic again?!!!)

[Flam]

Okay, so I know this topic gets brought up about every month, and we hear the same arguments everytime. However, I never really hear much discussion on one aspect of why retro gaming is better than curent gen. gaming. That one aspect is the lack of violence in retro gaming as compared to current gen. Am I the only one that is distrubed by the graphic volence in current gaming (disclosure: the last system I owned was a Dreamcast so I don’t have much exposure or experience with newer systems). I thought of this last week while searching for videos of the new Bioshock game. I’ve seen these commercials and heard all the hype over this game so I wanted to check it out, and I will say some of the stuff on this game was pretty graphic. The sad part is I’m not sure if what I saw is considered mild or the norm, but it’s just not something I want to be a part of. I remember when Mortal Combat came out on Sega and I learned the coded to decapitiate your oppenant (I was always Scorpion), so I guess you can say it’s all relative to the age we live in, but gosh, it seems like a big leap from then. I’ve never played Grand Theft Auto or any of the other ‘mature’ rated games, but retro gaming has a innocense to it and allows more escapism from the real world to me (there is already enought violence in the news, tv, and film; do I really want to play violent video games too?). Maybe I’m just getting old, not sure; and I’m not sure why this thought just occured to me last week as it’s always been a hot topic for discussion. Just thought I’d throw my thoughts out there.

[sloan]

I agree with you on the graphic violence aspect. I don't want my conscience seared by graphic images, so I only play games up to PS2 generation, and no military FPS or GTA titles for me.

[ApolloBoy]

I don't want my conscience seared by graphic images
Uhh what

[8-Bit Archeology]

I really dont mind the violence. I grew up playing Quake, Doom and Duke Nukem. When DN3D came out it was considered one if the worste. There was violence in retro games. It just seems worse when instead of pixelated guts on the wall in doom you are seeing vivid veins and gore from a decapatation on Skyrim. I remember when ragdoll hit games and people on the news freaked about how it was to mimick human death. But i feel its all relative to what your used to. Granted I love my retro games. But having or lacking violence wasnt on my priority to finding a good game. I just miss the querky 80's-90's jokes and humor.

[ProjectCamaro]

Maybe it's because I'm a cop and no matter how great the graphics become they are still nothing like real life so it doesn't bother me at all. If it's a war type of game I prefer it to be as realistic as possible, otherwise I won't be able to get into the game nearly as much.

[Edmond Dantes]

For me its not so much the violence itself, it's... the context, the meaning, I guess.

I mean, Mortal Kombat was brought up, but that was different. It was goofy, silly, and done in an environment where it clearly had no greater meaning or consequence than cheap thrills. So it was dirty, stupid fun. Like a mud fight.

But Grand Theft Auto bothers me. I'm supposed to believe these are people in a world, and that my crimes actually matter (which they don't, which creates a huge disconnect for me, but that's another issue). It's like, I might not like hookers but I can't justify callously running over them just for thrills.

Of course then there's the games that are trying to drive home the terror of war and all that, and basically... unless you're Hideo Kojima, I don't want it.

[Polygon]

The problem with the violence in a lot of today's games is not just the fact that it's graphic, but in a lot of games it's way over the top and embellished. It's the reason I don't like a lot of new horror movies. It's just gore, for the sake of gore and shock factor. It shows a sever lack of creativity. You can relate to to movies that have some expletive, namely the F bomb every other word. Or a random sex scene or nudity that in now way builds to the plot. Or a lot of what passes for music these days. In the end, they all share one thing in common. They lack substance.

You could use that argument about games like Doom. However, it made no pretenses for what it was. The story was simple. You're a marine, you're on Mars, kill everything. That was fine because it was a hell of a lot of fun. The violence was there but it was never over the top. Compare that to the over regurgitated games like the Call of Duty franchise. I just don't find those games fun at all. Violence doesn't bother me, but for me it shouldn't be over the top and in the end, it doesn't matter if you're game isn't even fun.

Also, I think that Edmond had an awesome example with Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto.

[Flam]

Or a lot of what passes for music these days.

Like 'chip' music.

[Aswald]

Actually, there was plenty of violence in retro gaming: Front Line, Battlezone, Bump `N Jump, as well as Spy Hunter, being examples.

But even Clowns, Space Invaders, and Galaxian were violent too- as was Gunfight, Venture, and Warrior.

But there was an abstract factor to it all; it was unrealistic enough that it was not unlike Daffy Duck being hit by an anvil. This was especially true of vector games. The situations were also usually fantastic enough that even deep down there was a sort of insulating layer between it and reality.

It also lacked the "in your face" look of modern violent games. Video gaming back then was certainly less realistically violent than movies or television shows.

So overall, agreed. But I'm not blaming modern gaming itself for today's problems.

[Bojay1997]

I'm sorry, but the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous and ignorant. There are many, many modern game options out there that don't involve violence, sex or anything else that someone might be offended by. There are also many, many games out today that have the same focus on simple mechanics and addictive gameplay that many of the best classic games had. As someone who lived through the early classic era and owned and played many console and computer games of the time, I can say with great certainty that there were plenty of crappy games back then and plenty of games that portrayed violence in a very graphic manner. Classic games aren't better or worse than modern games, they are simply different and neither era should be lumped together as each individual game should be evaluated on its own merits.

[o.pwuaioc]

Like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6X9Yj5ct88

[Atarileaf]

Death Race came out in 1976 and was a pretty violent game despite the lack of graphics. The premise was to kill people by running them over with a car. (Yes I know people say it was supposed to be zombies or something but I think that was just Exidy trying to spin the controversy)

[Atarileaf]

I'm sorry, but the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous and ignorant. There are many, many modern game options out there that don't involve violence, sex or anything else that someone might be offended by. There are also many, many games out today that have the same focus on simple mechanics and addictive gameplay that many of the best classic games had. As someone who lived through the early classic era and owned and played many console and computer games of the time, I can say with great certainty that there were plenty of crappy games back then and plenty of games that portrayed violence in a very graphic manner. Classic games aren't better or worse than modern games, they are simply different and neither era should be lumped together as each individual game should be evaluated on its own merits.

Pretty much agree 100% (only a lot less angrily)

[aryoshi]

I didn't actually see this one mentioned, but there was a lightgun game in the late 80's that was in the arcade which was also ported to the NES, albeit unlicensed, still: Chiller. That game, to me, defines pointless violence next to Mortal Kombat. Yeah, from an outside perspective, it's graphic, violent, maybe disgusting to some, but to others it's just pure simple dirty mindlessness, like what one member in this thread said, like a mudfight. I think that the violence of today's games is in response to the advances made in media: movies have grown somewhat more violent, graphic and suggestive than they were, as have TV shows; most gamers today are exposed to the internet which allows consistant access to graphic, verbal, mental and emotional violence all the time. The minds of most, thanks to the internet and the way media has gone as such, have grown a tolerance to graphical violence, so to speak. But the reality is, violence in video games has always been there, even something so simple as Space Invaders or The Legend of Zelda: you are given a weapon, be it projectile or melee, and to reach your goals, you must kill your way to victory. You are taking not just a life, two lives, or even three, you are taking multiple lives to reach your goal. Killing. Violence. It's always been there.

Yes, graphically it's become much more intense today, but that's only to meet the standards of today's soceity. Violence has progressed from fairly miniscule to very graphic, and it's done so at a steady pace through the last four decades, we are exposed to so much everyday, it won't phase most people; not to say it wouldn't in real life, but there is a fine line between video games and real life, and I wish more people could understand that.

Do I think video games and violence have had a negative impact on our soceity today? Yes and no. Yes, it might inspire, it might give ideas, it might, it might, it might. Does it? Maybe. But the reality? It's up to us, the parents, the adults and the guides to our children of tomorrow, to see to it that they know the difference, to know that it is not okay to use violence in real life. That is entirely on us, the adults, the parents. Education is unquestionably the most important thing when it comes to violence and video games, and it is our duty to make sure this education is carried on. Whether we want to see it or not, seeing how innocent games seemed then, some are still violent, as I said, no matter how miniscule. To take a life is to take a life, and that is that.

Needless to say, I love video games violent or no, and I'll play them to the very day I die.

[ThatMan]

The thing is, its all fictional. Its not actual people shooting at each other, its lines of code getting other lines of code thrown at them and then disappearing. Like seriously, that's how most gaming works. Whether it be violence or sports.

The reason there's so much video game violence isn't because the devs want to put a lot of blood and fire in there, its because its the easiest way to show physical interaction in a game.

We've really reached the epicenter of violence in games. There are actual horror games with exploding zombie kids.

And really, I find the prospect of a mad plumber stomping on turtles, officers, and other living/sentient things more creepy then a soldier doing his job.

[JakeM]

Uh, Id say a huge part of our favorite games list have games on it which involve us acting out some kind of violence. Mario curb stomps things to death, for instance. People playing games back then could just imagine things you kill in Atari games as not humanoids, so they didnt feel bad about shooting them. But practically every video game character is a cold blooded killer at heart. I think thats why games are so appealing to guys, were not out every day killing animals for fur and meat, so our genetically built in violence is attracted to these things. Some people dont like to admit that, but survival is a violent thing, and were naturally violent beings. Still, not every game should be Mortal Kombat, and I enjoy Mario way more than Scorpion. I dont care for modern FTS games, but I wish more side scrolling shoot em ups were still in style. Fighting games I prefer Japanese made ones like the Capcom ones, or Persona 4 Arena is cool.

[Koa Zo]

It is entirely perverse for people to be getting their jollies from simulated killing of other human beings.
The top-sellers lists of the modern software shows just how perverted the industry has become.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

It is entirely perverse for people to be getting their jollies from simulated killing of other human beings.
The top-sellers lists of the modern software shows just how perverted the industry has become.


But thats the thing, no one is getting their jollies so called, from killing human beings, because you are not in fact killing human beings or anything else for that matter, its just lines of code expressed graphically thru your tv screen.

[Flam]

But thats the thing, no one is getting their jollies so called, from killing human beings, because you are not in fact killing human beings or anything else for that matter, its just lines of code expressed graphically thru your tv screen.

not so much getting their jollies, I just think it adds to a gradual desensitization of violence.

I also think the comments on the horror of Mario are pretty far flung

[JakeM]

I also think the comments on the horror of Mario are pretty far flung

Well, wheres the line? You say that seeing people killed is terrible, and networks wont even show kids Looney Tunes anymore.

[Atarileaf]

Comparing the Mario games or Space Invaders to Call of Duty, Madworld, or Mortal Kombat is like comparing loony toons or the old black and white westerns to the latest Tarantino flick or a Saw movie.

[Daltone]

do I really want to play violent video games too

As various other people have pointed out - there is plenty of non-violent stuff lurking about, so you don't have to.


That one aspect is the lack of violence in retro gaming as compared to current gen

There's plenty of violence in older games - you're nearly always blowing things up, shooting something or repeatedly punching your opponent in the face. There were perhaps more overtly child friendly games in the 16 bit era when the gaming demographic was generally a little younger, but that doesn't reduce the number of games out there where you had to kill, conquer etc to get to the end of the level. There was even a little thread on the subject in 2009 - http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?137890-Most-violent-classic-console-video-games-nothing-past-16-bit-era


[About Doom] The violence was there but it was never over the top. Compare that to the over regurgitated games like the Call of Duty franchise

Doom - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pTxSoTYNuo monsters disintigrate in to bloody mush as they die, chunks of chest explode etc

CoD - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMaG0EFGmjc little puff of blood and they fall over.

Edit: You probably kill people people per level in CoD, but compare that to (for an easy example) Contra - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91-LoDomOB8

[Final Boss]

not so much getting their jollies, I just think it adds to a gradual desensitization of violence.


This is one of the things that irk me about killing in Resident Evil nowadays. In RE4-RE5, the enemies were innocent people infected with the parasite and I felt bad about killing them. That was a good thing, because I don't like feeling good when I kill people. But they started ruining that when your hits on them started including stuff like stomping on their chests. And worst of all, having your partner praise you with praises like "good shot" or "nice one" when doing a head shot. In RE6, it's less bothersome, because the enemies are either zombie-like or military instead of old farmers or African villagers.

BioShock 1-2 are similar. The splicers are pathetic shells of human beings, not faceless zombies or aliens that you can just blast away and not thing of it twice. But let's not plate the past with gold; there were some sick games back in the day. I don't know how "retro" we're talking about, but games like Harvester or Chiller..they're pretty bad even by today's standards.

[JakeM]

Comparing the Mario games or Space Invaders to Call of Duty, Madworld, or Mortal Kombat is like comparing loony toons or the old black and white westerns to the latest Tarantino flick or a Saw movie.

Well, if people read my whole post then youd see why I wrote about Mario. And you need to read up why Looney Toons was removed from broadcasting. You can make the argument that Looney Toons is more desensitizing to young people than a Taratino film caliber of violence since the characters are always ok in the end and/or in the next episode they dont have a scratch on them.

I have no problem with violence in media, the only people who go out and kill others because of a game have chemicals in the brain which are unbalanced. If theyre the types to be serial killers then it doesnt matter if they played a game or watched a movie, they were going to do these things anyway. There needs to be more funding for psychologists in schools, not just councilors.

[bb_hood]

Am I the only one that is distrubed by the graphic volence in current gaming (disclosure: the last system I owned was a Dreamcast so I don’t have much exposure or experience with newer systems).

Um, non-violent games do exist on current platforms. Violent games do exist on consoles pre-dreamcast. How can you complain if you dont have experience playing more current games? Maybe you should stay away from anything rated M for mature if you cant handle these violent games.


Classic games aren't better or worse than modern games, they are simply different and neither era should be lumped together as each individual game should be evaluated on its own merits.

Yup, not better or worse just different. Making blanket statements about current gen games is kinda silly when you admit you havent played many..

[Final Boss]

Non-violent games do exist, but I think it's safe to say the majority of them rely on violence. And I don't mean the "better" kind (like in the Arkham games where you just knock enemies out). I mean the maim and/or kill type.

It's easy to make. What requires more effort is action without violence.

[Polygon]

Doom - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pTxSoTYNuo monsters disintigrate in to bloody mush as they die, chunks of chest explode etc

CoD - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMaG0EFGmjc little puff of blood and they fall over.

Edit: You probably kill people people per level in CoD, but compare that to (for an easy example) Contra - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91-LoDomOB8

Yes, but CoD looks far more realistic than Doom. Doom is far more cartoon like. I mean, Looney Tunes was very violent, but it wasn't an issue because it doesn't look real.

[Bojay1997]

Yes, but CoD looks far more realistic than Doom. Doom is far more cartoon like. I mean, Looney Tunes was very violent, but it wasn't an issue because it doesn't look real.

Actually, the violence in Looney Tunes was an issue. Just like today where people claim their kids engage in violent acts because they see it on TV, there were plenty of people who claimed the same thing about Looney Tunes back in the day, as well as other cartoons. If you don't want to play violent games, there are many, many non-violent options out there. This whole idea that just because people enjoy playing a shooter that somehow it makes them more likely to be a killer or act violently has been debunked repeatedly. Frankly, this topic has gone nowhere and it makes me kind of sad that there are people on this forum that are so closed minded and apparently have bought into the idea that all modern video games are violent or promote violence.

[Daltone]

Yes, but CoD looks far more realistic than Doom. Doom is far more cartoon like. I mean, Looney Tunes was very violent, but it wasn't an issue because it doesn't look real.

For it's time, Doom wasn't doing too badly in the realism stakes (for a game where you kill the denizens of hell). It had scary lighting and everything!

EDIT: Oh, and yes, obviously COD looks a lot more realistic these days, which makes Doom look a bit twee and silly. At the time though Doom didn't seem as cartoonish.

EDIT EDIT: I think I get what you (and others?) are trying to say though - even if Doom seemed pretty realistic when it was released there was still that gap between the and reality because the graphics were, well, badly animated chunks of pixels at the end of the day. Where as today less extreme graphic violence is presented in a fashion that is more easily recognisable as "real" and the gap between the game and reality has shrunk. If I've got that wrong please feel free to correct me.

Anyway, I don't go for all that Jazz. I know what's real. I'm wearing a +8 INT ring.

[Koa Zo]

But thats the thing, no one is getting their jollies so called, from killing human beings, because you are not in fact killing human beings or anything else for that matter, its just lines of code expressed graphically thru your tv screen.

Thats is the most disconmected from reality rationalization I have ever read.

Recall the excitement of people doing "headshots" in Goldeneye? That is getting your jollies.

This "lines of code" rationalization reveals a severe diconect from a real world view.
Lines of code create a simulation. Simulating something repeatedly and especially with pleasure, excitememt and joy will prepare and desensitize the participants for more and similar behavior in other aspects of life.