I like a bit of everything same as movies, sometime i want to play something soft and kiddy like mario other times a bit of condemned.
Poll: So do you actually like "violent video games"?
- Thread starter Araksardet
- Start date
i really cant say i like gushy gore but i do love mortal combat! and pokemon...cuz im a total nerd lol. its the stylized kills that mean the most to me
im not a huge fan of massive ammounts of gore (for example the bone breaking system in the new mortal combat kind of turned me away) but then again im cool with prototype but its kind of unrealistic so i guess im kind of a double standard and so long as the game isnt a glorified jack the ripper surgery sim im cool with violence in games if the game is good without it
so in follow up so long as the game is good without having 'TONNES OF GORE' as a selling point im cool
so in follow up so long as the game is good without having 'TONNES OF GORE' as a selling point im cool
It all depends on the game really. Mario wouldn't feel right if when ever I jumped on a goomba it exploded into a mess of blood and gore. It also wouldn't feel right if in Gears of War nothing happened when I too a chainsaw to a guy.
It is all dependent on what the game is and trying to do.
It is all dependent on what the game is and trying to do.
I like violent videogames, but only if the violence is within reason and if it actually makes sense in the type of game it is in.
Basically, what I mean by that is that I enjoy games that involve violence. I have played Prototype where I slashed appart thousands, and I have played Half-Life 2, where I took down hundreds of Combine soldires. I think these kinds of games are fun, but I do know that there are some occasions where the violence reaches that point that it might be too unnecessary (I am not referring to these games). I cannot think of any real good examples off the top of my head, but my meaning is that while a game can have blood and gore in it, the blood and gore cannot be the only thing the game has going for it. If I am ripping peoples heads off every minute or so, sure it may be fun at first to be able to do that type of thing, but after a while it may seem repeated, and somewhat silly. For any type of thing to have a meaningful effect - violence in videogames included - there has to be some sort of pacing, where the violent moments acutally hold some weight. Otherwise, the violence loses its importance and hold, and the game no longer has any serious meaning to it, other than a game that you occasionally play to blow off some steam.
The other point I made is that the violence has to have a reason to be there. There are some games where punching a person's head clean off makes sense, and there are games where anything more than a comical slap seems over the top. Games are different depending on the subject and nature, and the violence needs to be adjusted accordingly. In a game like Mario, or Pac-Man, unless the goal is to make a gritty reboot of the series like "There Will Be Brawl," adding blood and guts to the game would not improve it. In fact, making either of those two games more violent than what they really are will turn me away from them. On the other hand, the main God of War trilogy of games has very violent situations. In the third game you tear off Helios' head and use it as a flashlight. However, the game trilogy revolves around Kratos, the killer and eventual God of War. The game is about a man trying to get revenge and redemption. It is about a man getting angry and willing to destroy the world just to try and carry out his anger. In that game violence makes sense, and it would be ridiculous not to have violence. Looney Tunes: Back in Action was a game about the Looney Tunes movie of the same name. Looney Tunes is meant to be the kids' cartoon show. Violence would have made the game inappropriate for the younger audiances, and would feel out of place in a cartoon world. Constantine - a game based on the movie of the same name, based on the comic series Hellblazer - is about a chain smoking American (English in comics) who fights demons from Hell. It makes sense to have violence in a game where evil demons from Hell come to Earth and kill people.
Basically, I like violent videogames, but only if it makes sense in the context of the game, and if the violence is not pushed too hard. Otherwise, the violence becomes silly and out of place. Violence does have its place in gameing, but only if it drives a story or is used with pacing. I do not think you can have a whole game with nothing but violence, unless of course it is a very short game - the type you occasionally find online, and play after you had a really bad day.
Basically, what I mean by that is that I enjoy games that involve violence. I have played Prototype where I slashed appart thousands, and I have played Half-Life 2, where I took down hundreds of Combine soldires. I think these kinds of games are fun, but I do know that there are some occasions where the violence reaches that point that it might be too unnecessary (I am not referring to these games). I cannot think of any real good examples off the top of my head, but my meaning is that while a game can have blood and gore in it, the blood and gore cannot be the only thing the game has going for it. If I am ripping peoples heads off every minute or so, sure it may be fun at first to be able to do that type of thing, but after a while it may seem repeated, and somewhat silly. For any type of thing to have a meaningful effect - violence in videogames included - there has to be some sort of pacing, where the violent moments acutally hold some weight. Otherwise, the violence loses its importance and hold, and the game no longer has any serious meaning to it, other than a game that you occasionally play to blow off some steam.
The other point I made is that the violence has to have a reason to be there. There are some games where punching a person's head clean off makes sense, and there are games where anything more than a comical slap seems over the top. Games are different depending on the subject and nature, and the violence needs to be adjusted accordingly. In a game like Mario, or Pac-Man, unless the goal is to make a gritty reboot of the series like "There Will Be Brawl," adding blood and guts to the game would not improve it. In fact, making either of those two games more violent than what they really are will turn me away from them. On the other hand, the main God of War trilogy of games has very violent situations. In the third game you tear off Helios' head and use it as a flashlight. However, the game trilogy revolves around Kratos, the killer and eventual God of War. The game is about a man trying to get revenge and redemption. It is about a man getting angry and willing to destroy the world just to try and carry out his anger. In that game violence makes sense, and it would be ridiculous not to have violence. Looney Tunes: Back in Action was a game about the Looney Tunes movie of the same name. Looney Tunes is meant to be the kids' cartoon show. Violence would have made the game inappropriate for the younger audiances, and would feel out of place in a cartoon world. Constantine - a game based on the movie of the same name, based on the comic series Hellblazer - is about a chain smoking American (English in comics) who fights demons from Hell. It makes sense to have violence in a game where evil demons from Hell come to Earth and kill people.
Basically, I like violent videogames, but only if it makes sense in the context of the game, and if the violence is not pushed too hard. Otherwise, the violence becomes silly and out of place. Violence does have its place in gameing, but only if it drives a story or is used with pacing. I do not think you can have a whole game with nothing but violence, unless of course it is a very short game - the type you occasionally find online, and play after you had a really bad day.
My favourite games mainly involve robots being blown up, alien rectums twitching and exploding (no blood, just fire), and white-haired guys getting impaled by oversized swords. Nothing quite on the calibur of say, Mortal Kombat. The most violent game I own (I took a while to remember what it was when I saw this thread) is Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, complete with first-person, close-up views of zombies' heads exploding into a gushing fountain of red.
Violence completely doesn't matter. I feel absolutely no emotion for my marines in Starcraft when they die.
If a game is violent and it doesn't disrupt gameplay, I don't care.
If a game stops everything that is going on to show you how someone is being killed in the most creative violent way, that game sucks.
I don't mind if there is violence in a game, but I hate it when the whole point of a game is violence.
If a game is violent and it doesn't disrupt gameplay, I don't care.
If a game stops everything that is going on to show you how someone is being killed in the most creative violent way, that game sucks.
I don't mind if there is violence in a game, but I hate it when the whole point of a game is violence.
I don't have much of a preference either way. A little over-the-top gore here and there can be fun, but it's not a selling point for me and I can play anything from Dead Space to Flower in terms of violence levels and have an equally enjoyable experience.
Yeah, pretty much this. I've never bought a game on the basis that it's violent. It's never the sole or even the determining factor in why I buy a game. It's because I hear it's fun, or the action is good, or because it's scary as shit, or the story is brilliant, or some other thing. If they happen to be violent, then I'm fine with that, but, yeah, it's usually an incidental factor in a game that I don't think about.BoredDragon said:
I do own the newest MK but I actually do think it was my worst purchase. I just didn't find it fun for too long. Gore isn't an attraction to me. I'm more of a fan of the visceral combat but more in terms of up close combat or just good sound and animations.
I voted the top one. However, a better poll might have been "is the violence in your games actually important to you?" I like a lot of games that just happen to be violent and gory. It's not necessarily the blood and gore that i like, it's just that the things i do like tend to be, but don't have to be, accompanied by violence.
See, the people who really push the "video games are horrible, violent, corrupted tools of the devil" nonsense refuse to believe those games matter. They believe that because the violent ones exist, that nullifies any and all good any others could do. Trying to argue that there are "good" video games to them like trying to argue there are "good" kinds of birth control to the Pope. In their eyes, they are bad by their very nature. There is no middle ground. There is nothing to argue.Araksardet said:
Video games are the rock n roll of our generation. They're a big, fat scapegoat. It's the thing that the old and scared blame when they can't find any other way to give reason to the bad things that are happening in the world. If it's not Elvis causing promiscuity, it's Hendrix causing hippies. If it's not 80s rock causing anarchy, it's Marilyn Manson causing school shootings. If it's not rap causing kids to join gangs, it's Grand Theft Auto causing the Norway bombing.
When people can't find a cause for the chaotic things going on around them, they find whatever they can and say it's a cause. Finding a cause gives them a feeling of control over the problem. Because the only other alternative is accepting there is nothing they can do, and for some people that is just too scary to admit.
As for your poll, I really wish there were just an "I don't care as long as the game is good" option. Violence and gore are not deciding factors for me. It's quality and entertainment. If it's fun and peaceful, that's fine. But if it's fun and bloody, that's just fine too. I really don't care either way.