在大多数游戏中，没有什么意义的暴力才是正确的。但如果任何人想要关于电子游戏暴力不具有潜在价值的辩词，Pope便能够立刻将其呈上。游戏能够传达故事，而优秀的故事需要冲突。当我们着眼于任何其它故事媒体时，很显然，暴力能在有意义的冲突间帮助阐述一个有价值的故事。在某些情况下，使用暴力甚至能够证实这些媒体存在的重要性。Quentin Tarantino（游戏邦注：美国后现代主义电影导演，被誉为“电影鬼才”）将这一元素融入自己的电影中。Eminem（上世纪末涌现出的白人rap音乐代表）也在饶舌音乐中整合了这一元素、Anthony Burgess的小说《The Clockwork Orange》也为现代文学证实了这一元素的重要性。如果游戏足够成熟，那么接触的故事作者便也会将其添加到游戏中。
这些出色的作品与《侠盗猎车手》，《使命召唤》以及其它暴力游戏的却别在于：在这些游戏中，暴力才是乐趣的关键点。就像在小说《The Clockwork Orange》中，Tarantino的电影《被解放的姜戈》中，或者Eminem的经典说唱《Stan》中，暴力都只是与文化相关的冲突的一种边际效应。
如今已经出现了许多有关这一话题的尖锐的产业思想，就像Quantic Dream（游戏邦注：创造了《骤雨》以及即将发行的《Beyond：Two Souls》）的首席开发者David Cage。他在Tribecca Film Festival上明确地说出了有意义的暴力与愚蠢的残暴间的区别。
游戏产业中的大儒派也许会说，并不存在对于这种游戏的需求——玩家对于情感或深度智力内容的渴望太低了，像《骤雨》这样的游戏实属违反常规。这些人应该看看《The Last of Us》的销量。
这是一款阐述着牵强的科幻故事的游戏，但是其写作技巧却很棒，表演也很让人信服，所以玩家都会在前15分钟内抛开怀疑感。当游戏创造了带有人类情感与求生意志的角色时，他们便会遭到零同情的残酷对待。但这是合理的。实际上如此设置是必要的，因为如果缺少角色被打或被杀的场景，《The Last of Us》便会失去现实性。让人信服的暴力内容能够描述人类境况变得多可怕，并能够有效地反应人性。
如果电子游戏将加入电影和文学联盟中，那么像《The Last of Us》和《骤雨》这样的游戏便非常必要。暴力是一种非常强大的视觉刺激，能够帮助人们看到，甚至是意识到他们之前从未想过的内容。这能够激发出他们的同情心，共感和愤怒。这会让人们对权威产生疑惑并思考道德标准。而限制暴力在电子游戏中的表现不仅会约束开发者的表达自由，同时也会剥夺他们描绘并扩展人类体验的能力。
Why violence is good for games — and storytelling
By Josh Finderup
When video game violence makes headlines, it’s usually at the expense of geekdom. Such was the case with Vice President Joe Biden’s recent comments that he sees no legal barrier to prevent a tax on violent games. But in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, former Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne producer Jeremy Pope recently brought up one word that has everything to do with why video games need violence if they want to ever be considered a more culturally valuable form of expression. That word is conflict — more specifically, meaningful conflict that propels a story forward.
“I do agree that we need to be pushing ourselves [as an industry],” Pope said. “With any storytelling medium or any medium at all, you want to have conflict because that’s how you can generate interest, and oftentimes the simplest or most base way to do that is through violence that isn’t necessarily tied in to a deeper, more meaningful story.”
The implication that violence in most games is relatively meaningless is absolutely correct. But if anyone wants a bulletproof defense against arguments that video game violence has no potential value, Pope served it up on a platter. Games tell stories, and great stories need conflict. Look at any other storytelling medium, and it’s obvious that violence can be used amidst meaningful conflict to help tell a worthwhile tale. In some cases, the use of violence can even help validate why those mediums exist in the first place. Quentin Tarantino’s movies do this for film. Eminem’s lyrics did it for rap music. Anthony Burgess’s novel The Clockwork Orange helped do it for modern literature. If games are to ever mature — and I mean really, really mature — then a brilliant storyteller must do it for games.
The Weinstein Company
Tarantino’s film about racism and freedom, Django Unchained.
What sets those brilliant works apart from games like Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, and nearly all other violent games is this: In those games, violence is the point of interest. In The Clockwork Orange, Tarantino’s film Django Unchained, or Eminem’s breakout hit “Stan,” violence is a necessary side effect of a culturally relevant conflict.
It’s no secret that some of today’s sharpest industry minds are on to this — such as David Cage, the head developer at Quantic Dream, which produced Heavy Rain and the upcoming Beyond: Two Souls. Speaking at the Tribecca Film Festival, Cage articulated what separates meaningful violence from senseless brutality.
“I’m fine with violence as long as it comes with a meaning,” he said. “If it means something, if it allows you to tell something about the character or to create a specific emotional state, I’m fine with that. When you look at films, there are some incredible films from talented filmmakers that are incredibly violent. It’s not gratuitous, not just for the sake of being violent. It serves the story, it serves the characterization. I’m against violence when it’s free, when it’s gratuitous and there is no reason for it; when it’s just about showing blood or showing sex.”
For an example of how meaningful violence can exist within a video game, consider the scene in Cage’s own Heavy Rain, in which the player must choose between shooting a drug dealer in the head or letting the protagonist’s innocent 10-year-old son die. Which action is the right one? Can one life be more valuable than another? Is murder ever justifiable? These are powerful questions that lead the player toward introspection and were brought into consideration through the use of brutal, in-game violence.
A choice in interactive-drama game Heavy Rain.
Contrast that effect with the multiplayer mayhem of today’s first-person shooters, where the challenge is not to overcome some moral dilemma but to kill other virtual humans as efficiently as possible. Yes, these games have a story, but it’s the multiplayer matches that have been called out as a training ground for potential terrorists. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that if developers want to invite criticism and discussion of taxing violent games, they should keep doing what they’re doing until they release Call of Duty: Black Ops 12 (mark your calendars).
That’s not to say that violence as a form of borrowed interest doesn’t have its place in games. At the very least, controlling a roid-raging marine who makes entire populations of alien scum explode at the pull of a trigger is a boatload of fun. But instead of defending the games that already exist, perhaps developers, publishers, and gamers alike should spend more energy on creating a demand for ones that portray violence within a more meaningful context. This would not only go a long way in establishing a reasonable defense for why violence belongs in interactive entertainment but also help video games finally grow the f**k up.
Cynics in the game industry might say that the demand for such games doesn’t exist — that the appetite for emotionally or intellectually deep content is too small and that games like Heavy Rain are just an anomaly. Those people should look at the sales numbers for The Last of Us.
The hit new release The Last of Us.
Here’s a game that tells a far-fetched sci-fi story, yet the writing is so good and the performances so believable that players are all but forced to suspend their disbelief within the first 15 minutes. Once the game establishes that the characters are human beings with feelings and a will to live, they are then brutalized and tormented with zero sympathy. But that’s OK. In fact, it’s necessary because without scenes where the characters are beaten and even killed, The Last of Us would lose its realism. The violence believably and accurately portrays how horrible the human condition can become, and a more reflective depiction of humanity than that would be hard to come by.
If video games are to graduate into the same league as films and literature, then games like The Last of Us and Heavy Rain are an absolutely necessity. Violence is a powerful visual stimulus that can help people see and even realize things that they had never previously considered. It can induce sympathy, empathy, and anger. It can make people question authority and ponder morality. Violence, for better or worse, is human, and to limit its presence in video games would not only restrict developers’ freedom to express themselves but also strip them of their ability to portray and expand on the human experience.(source:venturebeat)