Hideo Kojima discusses videogame violence

PALGN News | States it should be tackled "head on".

We’re under a constant barrage of results from studies stating violence in videogames is/isn’t good/bad for us, but if creator of the Metal Gear series Hideo Kojima had his way the harm we dish out whilst in these virtual worlds would carry much more weight than it does currently. Interviewed by Assassin’s Creed Producer and host of G4’s the Electric Playground, Jade Raymond, for Famitsu magazine (and translated by Develop) Kojima had some interesting thoughts regarding violence in videogames.

“I don’t think there are many games that tackle violence head on,” he said. “When you hit someone or inflict pain, faces get disfigured for example, and I want to make games that show that sort of thing."

In order to explain his seemingly callous lust for substantive results to killing sprees he went on to say, “If you don’t see the pain, you can’t understand what you’ve done, and you’ll pass through battles without taking responsibility for your actions. I don’t want to ignore that. I want players to think, even if it’s just a little, about what violence and war are.”

Many gamers may be ready for content designed for those with a sense of moral and social responsibility, but it appears that both game designers and society at large have a long way to go before this interactive medium fully realises Kojima's dreams.

Related Content

E3 2007: Sony E3 press conference
12 Jul, 2007 Bringing it Home?

Kojima wants to do 360 and PC games
23 Jan, 2007 There's nothing he wouldn't develop on, basically.

Kojima talks MGS4 functionality
25 Nov, 2006 Wanting rumble in motion.

12 Comments

emech

4 years ago

The problem is that the very same anti-violence protesters have an outcry when "real" consequences are shown, and so the consequences of in-game actions are modified to present unrealistic conditions. On a side note, true death is one of the things that make fire emblem great. A when you are dead, you are dead approach has a massive effect on taking game violence and consequence of actions seriously (of course this means that developers have to make character death situations obvious)

ShadowOnline

4 years ago

The problem is (is it a problem?), at the end of the day we all know it isn't real. At the time of playing our emotions may be manipulated, but then we switch it off and get on with our day.

Generally, our moral compass is already set before we sit down to play, thanks to our upbringing, (especially since we need to be 15+ to play these games). This has a greater influence on how the player is going to react to situations and their playing style. Same with movies, some people "get off" on the gore and are not affected, while others find it hard to stomach and ride the emotional roller coaster.

Hey emech, So no saves? (what is fire emblem?) Once you're dead you have to start the game again, that'd be interesting. Better still, only saves for progress sake, so you don't have to play through the game in one sitting, but if you die, those game saves are no longer available, you can only load them for that "life".

Kurupt

4 years ago

I find is amusing how people get all worked up over video game violence, when none of it looks real, compared to that of movies, which does look real.

Watch any Arnie movie and look at how much violence there is, then play GTA, and compare.

emech

4 years ago

I'm not saying limited save points. I'm saying character death / injury having in-game consequence.

ShadowOnline

4 years ago

OK, cool. I still like my idea as well though

But what are you referring too here? ---> "On a side note, true death is one of the things that make fire emblem great. A when you are dead, you are dead approach" because if your character is "dead" there is no more game, right? And if you're only talking about the people YOU kill, then what, what would be a suitable consequence? No more game? You go to jail?

Eyce

4 years ago

Kurupt wrote

BUT YOU CAN INTERACT WITH VIDEOGAMES!~!!~!1one!@!~!

ShadowOnline

4 years ago

BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK REAL!~!!~!1one!@!~!

tootie_kicks

4 years ago

Fire Emblem is (at it's most simple) Advance Wars with specific characters. Once those characters die they are gone, whereas in Advance Wars you could just build another tank.

emech

4 years ago

tootie_kicks wrote

Fire Emblem is (at it's most simple) Advance Wars with specific characters. Once those characters die they are gone, whereas in Advance Wars you could just build another tank.

And often the dead character is the only one with a certain skill / benefit. Making each decision critical. As long as a game has no "cheap" death/AI traps it works well.

Jellyfish

4 years ago

ShadowOnline wrote

BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK REAL!~!!~!1one!@!~!

But neither does animation

If I cut off my hand I'm not going to drown in blood like most Animés portray.

brad_sickness

4 years ago

Are you sure about that? Maybe we should test out this theory.

...where's corder when you need him?

Fetidchimp

4 years ago

It all reminds me of a little story involving a certain film called The Horror Show (House 3 to you). The director went with a long and exaggerated scene involving the execution of the main bad guy, he was semi paranormal and it took a long time for him to die. Anyway, the censor got involved and demanded that the scene be cut, so obligingly they went and made the cuts. So what they ended up with was a scene that was meant to be over the top and cartoonish, but with the censors cuts it looked like a real execution instead.

Quote

Watch any Arnie movie and look at how much violence there is

i counted 98 deaths at the hands of Arnie in Commando

View as forum topic

Add Comment