I think it's clear what this thread is in reference to lol
But I'll give some more context as to make sure this thread makes sense:
From the game's second trailer it was clear that, when the topic of 'how violent do we want to make this game?' came up in Naughty Dog's offices Druckmann put his foot down and declared that it was time to shift into (paraphrased) "maximum overdrive." What we've seen since then (and I'm going purely from official material, no spoilers) has been, to put it lightly, very violent. Violent to an extent literally never before seen in games as no developer in the past has been given the budget, graphical fidelity, and artistic freedom to pursue it. Not even RDR2, a game both praised and criticised for its extreme focus on realism, featured the same level of violence.
As a result, some people were turned off by it. Whether that's because they were personally turned off by it or whether they were turned off by it due to the potential negative effects it may have on other people, some simply didn't like it and that's continued on with every showing the game has had.
Predictably, many others have seem that dislike as an attack, as a 'wrong' opinion that needs to be corrected. This usually comes in the form of a few key 'types' of argument:
- The "Words and Deeds," Argument - This is where the violence is justified, and therefore the negative reactions to it deligitamised, due to how it 'makes sense' for the world that the game is set in. Now I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong here but, basically, the text can always justify the text. Therefore, the text should not be used as a justification for the text, especially when it's used to try and 'shut down' people who have had a genuine negative reaction to it.
In the specific example of TLoU:P2 the argument is usually "it's a doggy dog world so it 'makes sense' for the violence to be exactly the way it is in this game!" Considering the fact that Naughty Dog made that world, Naughty Dog wrote the stories within that world, and Naughty Dog decided on the 'tone' for that world, it should be clear why that kind of argument is flimsy at best. I'd also add that the general themes of the game that ND seem to want to be exploring aren't exactly themes that I feel are too pertinent to the real world; they're not exploring the horrors of war, or racism, or actual human-on-human violence, but the 'effects of revenge and the cycle of violence' in a fantastical zombie apocalypse where society has broken down in a way literally unseen throughout all of human history.
Don't get me wrong, you may personally be OK with the violence because of this, I would be a hypocrite for suggesting otherwise (as there are certain stories where I feel realistic violence is necessary and/or justified), but the issue comes in when you're using that judgement to try and dictate how others should feel. When you argue that the people complaining about the violence should be, quote, "Ashamed of their words and deeds."
- The "There Must be Something Wrong With You," Argument - This is where there is some sort of 'character judgement' placed on those who feel negatively towards the violence. These come in two forms, the first is when a person's whole character is judged as inherently 'wrong' because they're feeling the way that they're feeling. This often comes up in discussions surrounding violence towards animals, with people arguing that others are "hypocrites" or worse for "caring more about animals than they do humans." But it's also seen in phrases such as "I know it's not real so it's fine," or "It's just not for you." It's often an exercise in trying to rationalise what is essentially 'irrational' behaviour, and in these cases the 'irrational' behaviour is having a negative emotional reaction to what is, literally, fake video-game violence.
The second type comes in the "you should know better!" point of call, where the blame is placed not on the developers who included the violence but on the people who consume, or decide not to consume, said violence. I've had many a discussion regarding TLoU:P2's violence and the claim often comes up that "It's not for you, you should have known about it, just don't play it!" It's even come up in my concern for the developers creaitng this violent content, with the claim that (in a cutthroat industry with barely any union support) developers could just "choose to move elsewhere," or "should have known better."
Whilst it is 'technically' true that people can know better, I think that the arguments', excludes the people who may buy this simply because it's a sequel to TLoU without knowing about the violence (it's more likely than you think), or the children who are 100% going to be playing this (especially in lockdown where digital sales are going to be more prevalent), or the people who may go in knowing everything but be triggered emotionally anyway. Basically a game like this, which is made to sell to at least 10m+ people, is released there are going to be a lot of people who simply "don't know better," whether you like it or not, and I feel that it's perfectly fine to respect those people as not all of us are so on-the-ball as to have both 1) understood the violent content in the game (which is impossible considering how we haven't seen a massive, massive chunk of thegame) and 2) predicted our reaction to it before release.
Similarly, that last point neglects the fact that people might want to play this game for reasons other than its violence. The first game was a heartfelt, emotionally-complex tale of a father figure forming a bond with his surrogate daughter and the trials and tribulations the pair come across along the way. It was violent, incredibly violent at times, but it wasn't 'about violence' and even the violent scenes it did have rarely lingered on it in the same way TLoU:P2 is doing during regular gameplay. TLoU:P2 represents a massive shift in tone even for the series, and seeing that as an issue is a valid viewpoint.
- The "Other Mediums! Argument - The final of the three is when people use other mediums, mainly film, to try and justify what a game is doing. Now i personally don't think this will ever work as, despite sharing some similarities, games are simply so very different to any other medium out there that to directly compare the two is misguided at best and disingenious at worst.
The primary reason is simple: Runtime. Now to use TLoU:P2 as an example again; it's clear that this game is going to be the longest Naughty Dog game to date, with estimates clocking it around 25-30 hours total. With both general gameplay violence and cutscene/cinematic segment violence it's clear that the game is going to have at least 40% of its runtime dedicated to scenarios where we either see violence or are given the opportunity to undergo it. However to be even more 'fair' lets say that the game has 5 hours of 'violence' within it. Even that, which is an absurdly low estimate, is more violence than literally every single film known to man. A film that is literally three straight hours of 'torture porn' without any context whatsoever will still have less violence than TLoU:P2. That holds true for many other games, of course.
However there are also many other reasons. Interactivity is a fairly significant one as you are not the one inhabiting movie characters as they commit horrific acts of violence. Yes, that may be 'corrected' by those acts being made optional, but in many cases the 'optional' side of it comes not from a toggle or a settings menu but from high-level play and/or intentionally ignoring the game's systems. Very few people are going to be able to get through TLoU:P2 without shanking someone in the throat in the same way very few people got through the MGS games with no kills. Others that I can't really be bothered to fully get into would be audience, context, etc. Maybe I'll edit this further I don't know lol.
Though I must say that, in the end, I think this does stem somewhat from general 'Gamer Defensiveness'. There have been many instances in the past of people trying to blame violent video-games for many societal ills, and that kind of thing doesn't tend to be directed towards other mdiums anymore, so gamers tend towards defensiveness whenever negative opinions regarding game violence comes up. However I think that people need to look past that to see how others may geninely dislike some violence in video-games and, more importantly, the reasons why.
TO CONCLUDE
Now that I've gone over the three main types of arguments that I feel are 'weird' when it comes to how people react to other's reactions to violence in video-gmaes I'd like to make my main points. Basically, I think that we all need to be a lot more empathetic when it comes to how people react to violence in video-games, especially in exceptional circumstances like TLoU:P2. It may not be as explicitly problematic as other things such as sexist or racist content, but it can still be a major and legitimate trigger for many people and a simple turn-off for many others. Of course, like with everything on the internet, there will be people acting in bad faith, but generally:
People complaining about video-game violence are not a threat
They are people expressing their concerns over the content in their video-games, and they should be respected whether you agree with them or not. The likelihood that they're a '*Rival Console* fanboy' looking to 'take down' your own team is so low compared to the actual possibility that they may, you know, just not like it. Same goes for people supposedly being psychopaths if they care for dogs dying but not humans, or people 'not knowing better' for disliking the violence in a game like TLoU:P2, or someone being 'disingenious' when they bring up the potential ramifications of developing and consuming the violence.
Or to put it simply, I think that we all just need to be a bit better to each other when it comes to this.
But I'll give some more context as to make sure this thread makes sense:
From the game's second trailer it was clear that, when the topic of 'how violent do we want to make this game?' came up in Naughty Dog's offices Druckmann put his foot down and declared that it was time to shift into (paraphrased) "maximum overdrive." What we've seen since then (and I'm going purely from official material, no spoilers) has been, to put it lightly, very violent. Violent to an extent literally never before seen in games as no developer in the past has been given the budget, graphical fidelity, and artistic freedom to pursue it. Not even RDR2, a game both praised and criticised for its extreme focus on realism, featured the same level of violence.
As a result, some people were turned off by it. Whether that's because they were personally turned off by it or whether they were turned off by it due to the potential negative effects it may have on other people, some simply didn't like it and that's continued on with every showing the game has had.
Predictably, many others have seem that dislike as an attack, as a 'wrong' opinion that needs to be corrected. This usually comes in the form of a few key 'types' of argument:
- The "Words and Deeds," Argument - This is where the violence is justified, and therefore the negative reactions to it deligitamised, due to how it 'makes sense' for the world that the game is set in. Now I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong here but, basically, the text can always justify the text. Therefore, the text should not be used as a justification for the text, especially when it's used to try and 'shut down' people who have had a genuine negative reaction to it.
In the specific example of TLoU:P2 the argument is usually "it's a doggy dog world so it 'makes sense' for the violence to be exactly the way it is in this game!" Considering the fact that Naughty Dog made that world, Naughty Dog wrote the stories within that world, and Naughty Dog decided on the 'tone' for that world, it should be clear why that kind of argument is flimsy at best. I'd also add that the general themes of the game that ND seem to want to be exploring aren't exactly themes that I feel are too pertinent to the real world; they're not exploring the horrors of war, or racism, or actual human-on-human violence, but the 'effects of revenge and the cycle of violence' in a fantastical zombie apocalypse where society has broken down in a way literally unseen throughout all of human history.
Don't get me wrong, you may personally be OK with the violence because of this, I would be a hypocrite for suggesting otherwise (as there are certain stories where I feel realistic violence is necessary and/or justified), but the issue comes in when you're using that judgement to try and dictate how others should feel. When you argue that the people complaining about the violence should be, quote, "Ashamed of their words and deeds."
- The "There Must be Something Wrong With You," Argument - This is where there is some sort of 'character judgement' placed on those who feel negatively towards the violence. These come in two forms, the first is when a person's whole character is judged as inherently 'wrong' because they're feeling the way that they're feeling. This often comes up in discussions surrounding violence towards animals, with people arguing that others are "hypocrites" or worse for "caring more about animals than they do humans." But it's also seen in phrases such as "I know it's not real so it's fine," or "It's just not for you." It's often an exercise in trying to rationalise what is essentially 'irrational' behaviour, and in these cases the 'irrational' behaviour is having a negative emotional reaction to what is, literally, fake video-game violence.
The second type comes in the "you should know better!" point of call, where the blame is placed not on the developers who included the violence but on the people who consume, or decide not to consume, said violence. I've had many a discussion regarding TLoU:P2's violence and the claim often comes up that "It's not for you, you should have known about it, just don't play it!" It's even come up in my concern for the developers creaitng this violent content, with the claim that (in a cutthroat industry with barely any union support) developers could just "choose to move elsewhere," or "should have known better."
Whilst it is 'technically' true that people can know better, I think that the arguments', excludes the people who may buy this simply because it's a sequel to TLoU without knowing about the violence (it's more likely than you think), or the children who are 100% going to be playing this (especially in lockdown where digital sales are going to be more prevalent), or the people who may go in knowing everything but be triggered emotionally anyway. Basically a game like this, which is made to sell to at least 10m+ people, is released there are going to be a lot of people who simply "don't know better," whether you like it or not, and I feel that it's perfectly fine to respect those people as not all of us are so on-the-ball as to have both 1) understood the violent content in the game (which is impossible considering how we haven't seen a massive, massive chunk of thegame) and 2) predicted our reaction to it before release.
Similarly, that last point neglects the fact that people might want to play this game for reasons other than its violence. The first game was a heartfelt, emotionally-complex tale of a father figure forming a bond with his surrogate daughter and the trials and tribulations the pair come across along the way. It was violent, incredibly violent at times, but it wasn't 'about violence' and even the violent scenes it did have rarely lingered on it in the same way TLoU:P2 is doing during regular gameplay. TLoU:P2 represents a massive shift in tone even for the series, and seeing that as an issue is a valid viewpoint.
- The "Other Mediums! Argument - The final of the three is when people use other mediums, mainly film, to try and justify what a game is doing. Now i personally don't think this will ever work as, despite sharing some similarities, games are simply so very different to any other medium out there that to directly compare the two is misguided at best and disingenious at worst.
The primary reason is simple: Runtime. Now to use TLoU:P2 as an example again; it's clear that this game is going to be the longest Naughty Dog game to date, with estimates clocking it around 25-30 hours total. With both general gameplay violence and cutscene/cinematic segment violence it's clear that the game is going to have at least 40% of its runtime dedicated to scenarios where we either see violence or are given the opportunity to undergo it. However to be even more 'fair' lets say that the game has 5 hours of 'violence' within it. Even that, which is an absurdly low estimate, is more violence than literally every single film known to man. A film that is literally three straight hours of 'torture porn' without any context whatsoever will still have less violence than TLoU:P2. That holds true for many other games, of course.
However there are also many other reasons. Interactivity is a fairly significant one as you are not the one inhabiting movie characters as they commit horrific acts of violence. Yes, that may be 'corrected' by those acts being made optional, but in many cases the 'optional' side of it comes not from a toggle or a settings menu but from high-level play and/or intentionally ignoring the game's systems. Very few people are going to be able to get through TLoU:P2 without shanking someone in the throat in the same way very few people got through the MGS games with no kills. Others that I can't really be bothered to fully get into would be audience, context, etc. Maybe I'll edit this further I don't know lol.
Though I must say that, in the end, I think this does stem somewhat from general 'Gamer Defensiveness'. There have been many instances in the past of people trying to blame violent video-games for many societal ills, and that kind of thing doesn't tend to be directed towards other mdiums anymore, so gamers tend towards defensiveness whenever negative opinions regarding game violence comes up. However I think that people need to look past that to see how others may geninely dislike some violence in video-games and, more importantly, the reasons why.
TO CONCLUDE
Now that I've gone over the three main types of arguments that I feel are 'weird' when it comes to how people react to other's reactions to violence in video-gmaes I'd like to make my main points. Basically, I think that we all need to be a lot more empathetic when it comes to how people react to violence in video-games, especially in exceptional circumstances like TLoU:P2. It may not be as explicitly problematic as other things such as sexist or racist content, but it can still be a major and legitimate trigger for many people and a simple turn-off for many others. Of course, like with everything on the internet, there will be people acting in bad faith, but generally:
People complaining about video-game violence are not a threat
They are people expressing their concerns over the content in their video-games, and they should be respected whether you agree with them or not. The likelihood that they're a '*Rival Console* fanboy' looking to 'take down' your own team is so low compared to the actual possibility that they may, you know, just not like it. Same goes for people supposedly being psychopaths if they care for dogs dying but not humans, or people 'not knowing better' for disliking the violence in a game like TLoU:P2, or someone being 'disingenious' when they bring up the potential ramifications of developing and consuming the violence.
Or to put it simply, I think that we all just need to be a bit better to each other when it comes to this.
Last edited:
