Violence in games

[The Broodlord]

why should we care?

in life there is violence just look at the iraq war photos. so why should we take it out of games. same with sex (although i know most people posting in here will never get any).

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Violence is fine, but like that unnecessary sex scene in a movie, it can detract from the experience. I look at the blood in the screen shots of Ninja Gaiden 2 and think "and the point of all that is?" Did they really intend to make a game about blood flying about?

In Ninja Gaiden 2's defense I think the point of it is if you slash someone with a razor sharp sword something is going to come off, rather than them just recoiling with the impact. While it may be a bit over the top, it is true to life.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Violence?? Who sees violence?!?!?!?!? Not ME!Not ME!Not ME!Not ME!Not ME!Not ME!Not ME!I'm off to find what ever Australia's version of a squirrel is and KICK IT TO DEATH!

That would be a possum; and there is plenty of them. The question is ringtail or brushtail?

 

[evilone oblivion]

What we need is a game called super mario fun, in which the goal is to kick baby hamsters as far as possible, bonus points if it dies.

 

[shaboinkin]

not all games need it, but if you look at todays games, they wouldnt be the same without it.
TF2 and its gibs.
Gears of war and its chainsaw gun
blah blah

then there's Madworld for Wii.
IF anything, the blood and gore makes the game.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Art reflects life, and humans became dominant through violence. We had big brains, and we used them to kill the other big, dangerous mammals, including the Neanderthals (the most popular theory says that, anyway). So, yeah, if you want any story to be realistic, it's going to have violence.

But it has to be...tasteful. Even GeoW is necessary, because it's a gritty war game. The blood is never really over the top. And comedy gore can be good too, a la Half Life and TF2. But I don't like 'shock violence', which is violence done for violence's sake, and becomes sadistic. Manhunt, soldier of Fortune and the recent splatter flicks like Hostel, Creep and Saw, which mainly come from immature directors, and are bought by immature people.

So anyway, yeah, violence is necessary.

 

[Tryzon]

To say violence is necessary is like saying that a novel must be written in a certain language; it's not that simple, and the answer is probably a no. I, however, could hardly be a bigger supporter of violence. Where would the FPS, beat-em-up and run-around-freely-killing-folk-because-you-can genres be without that sweet little spice? Violence towards a character who annoys you more often than not gives you that *gneee* feeling that encourages one to continue. Obvious stress-relief potential aside, maiming and torture are fun in their own right, and can be extra tasty with some Hitman-style strategy in the works.

 

[Kikosemmek]

Violence, along with twisted, over-the-top brutality and gore is awesome.

It will always be awesome. So is Metal.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

It will always be awesome. So is Metal.

There is a difference - you can kill bad guys. You can't kill The Metal.

Back on topic: In games such as Manhunt, I feel the violence is a bit overdone, like some roast beef that has been cooking for a week. That's not to say I don't like violence in games. My favourite genre is the FPS, and even in RPGs I find the most inventive ways to kill off irritating characters (read: The Adoring Fan falls into the pits of Oblivion).

 

[sean09]

I just hate the double standard that exists with movies.

 

[jdog345]

It depends. in games like Manhunt 2 and Fallout 3,(still going to get it,looks fun) that is overdone, but still won't stop me from getting it. The best blood effects in any game in turn of amount is Halo 3.

I think the reason I (and many other people)play games like GTA and Fallout 3 is because we can't do this stuff in real life. It's fun to do things you would or should not do because,(a) it's wrong (b)you could die.

 

[ZakuII]

Nice topic, i had a similar one typed out myself, but it never got past the preview button. Intended to refine my points a bit first. Though i'll certainly dive into this one.

First off, you want to know if violence is nessecary. Are lightbulbs nessecary? No, you can do without. A lot of things arn't nessecary, but they're aesthetically appealing or convenient, like patterned wallpaper rather than simple paint. So no it's not nessecary, but having said that, it's not like we suddenly gain new insight into if it should be used or not. A better question for this topic would probably have been about the duplicity of violence in games. Is it more harmful to not include it in your game?

There's a lot of factors at play as to why it gets used at all. Battlefield 2s lack of it could be chalked down to wanting to appeal to a wider age demograph. Ninja Gaidens use of it could be called an essential mechanic to gameplay. Both totally valid points. It's certainly not as if developers owe anyone those justifications though. They put it out on the market for you to enjoy, and if you don't like it you don't buy it.

As for drawing the line. There basically is no line that anyone can prove should be the line. We all have a limitless imagination, so calling something 'over the top' is personal opinion and nothing more. I actually preffer to play games that have realistic violence concequences. Programmed for Damage called Ninja Gaiden 2 over the top, when in fact it's highly realistic. One thing i do think can be said for 'limits' is that when something is realistically portraying violence, it can't be called over the top by any stretch of the imagination. That's as ridiculous as witnessing an accidental decapitation in real life and protesting that it was 'excessive'. You can see that it just doesn't make sense when you stop and think about it.

In my opinion, more games that include violence should include the realistic gore that accompanies it. A lot of people in the media like to claim that blood and violence in games messes people up. I think it's a valid counter claim to say that not including it is more harmful. Seeing a human brain case realistically smashed in in a game may be exactly what people need to realise it's not very cool at all. When your watching your avatar standing there, bits of grey matter stuck to its face, blood saturated into its clothing, blood and brain that are in you in real life, you might just have an epiphany.

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it." - Desiderius Erasmus

I see no reason why a game couldn't be used to attempt to simulate the true horrifying experience. A game that wanted to teach you a lesson, at least. Never happen of course. People would say it wasn't entertaining.

 

[NoTroll]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

 

[dekkarax]

I don't think it's necessary, but some people these day believe it is. I look at games like GeoW, the violence in them, while reasonably realistic, doesn't make you FEEL anything, and it comes of as immature because you never see your enemy react, they just ragdollise or explode in blood, it just... doesn't remind you what your doing is wrong in any way. the enemy would be screaming if you shot them. I know two games that do this right: Cannon Fodder and Assasin's Creed; in the former, sometimes a downed enemy would loop in the death animation and constantly scream until you shot them again; in the latter, killed enemies scream and writhe long after you kill them, and sometimes an enemy will try to run for his life, I once watched my younger sister kill these retreating guards with reckless abandon, just because, in her logic "they started it". Gaming doesn't damage our morals, but it erodes them a tiny bit.

 

[Gooble]

Games where it is totally un-necessarily excessive, or when it isn't really cool-I know that's kind of hard to define, but stuff like Manhunt, for me, is completely and utterly pointless. Though I do like GTA, and the stuff in Ninja Gaiden 2 is awesome (and I'd actually prefer to see slow-motion killing).

 

[Rolynpwns]

Violence is necessary in some games, such as Gears of War or Call of Duty 4, because if there wasn't blood coming out or bits flying when the enemies got shot or caught in the area effect of an explosion it just wouldn't feel like a war. Games like Ninja Gaiden 2, which are meant to be extremely over the top (and by over the top I mean it in a Kill Bill action sequence sort of way, not a bad over the top, the action is just insane) also require that little bit of gore because it wouldn't feel over the top if you caught someone's neck in a scythe and pulled and the head pops off but nothing comes out. Some games do overdo it I'll admit, but most games have learned to adjust the amount of gore and violence according to the game. As for violence desensitizing us I agree that not including the violence would probably be much more harmful than including it.

 

[Exosus]

How is it that we can make it from reasonable discussion to increasingly un-subtle attacks on character in less than 2 pages? Saw is not a gratuitously violent series. I have not seen the others you mentioned, but the violence in Saw serves a purpose, an ARTISTIC purpose. The purpose is to bring one into the headspace of the person, to show you what you might feel like in their place. The whole idea is to say "what would I do to survive in X situation?" I won't get into any specifics because this forum is nazid so hard I'd be banned before I hit 'post,' but it faces the characters with the question of how much pain are they willing to endure to avoid a quick painless death.

The immaturity lies in those who see extreme violence and make blanket assumptions, declaring it to be artless and gratuitous without watching.

For my perspective, however, I have to say that violence is part of the human experience, just like sex, love, hatred, and friendship. The problem comes when they are over-applied, no matter which it is, and begin to overpower. That being said, I think that no matter which of these is overapplied, or to what degree, there is no need for anyone to intervene and stick their big governmental stiffy into the middle to say what we should and shouldn't be allowed to buy.

I don't think there is any amount of gaming violence which can be damaging to society or to any rational individual. The only limit is the one which is placed by art, the one that says "this is no longer improving things, I'm bored let me walk away."

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

This is a stupid discussion because of course you need violence in games like GTA and FPSs. And Manhunt draws the line because from what I've heard It's a manuel for killing people in horrible ways. So now I will load up GTA 4 with a big 'FUCK YOOOUUU!' To soccer moms and Fox news. Bye!

 

[axle 19]

Violence is necessary for realism in games however I think it has, and i will probably get crap for this, little effect of people

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

That's horrible, But what does it have to do with this?