Support NeoGAF

[DDayton]

Ok folks... question time.

Violence in games... this is an issue which has been frequently debated, and I'm getting curious as to what the other GAF dwellers think.

My view is that there is a distinct difference between violence in games and -personal- violence (for lack of a better word). Killing random members of enemy forces, bombing bunkers, and the like are violent, but more "fantasy" violence... you're killing things, but you aren't dwelling on the violence. The violence is being used as a means of achieving something else... perhaps a "necessary evil", if you will. The violence isn't the -point- of the game.

The other kind of violence is the more "personal" or "direct" violence... where the violence is the point of the game, or one of the primary drawing points. The player can administer various kinds of damage upon characters, witness detailed results of the damage, and continue... or the game gives out lots of "eye candy" for killing things... the focus is on the damage and pain being inflicted.

Again, I'm just wondering what you folks think... it seems like there is a difference between a game like Resident Evil (which is rather bloody and violent) and the upcoming Punisher game (where you can opt to break a face or toss someone into a wood chipper)... and perhaps some of this is directly tied into the greater degree in which games now mimic movies and "life"... in the past, you could run over a game character and receive a silly skeleton icon (sort of like a violent cartoon), whereas now you could do the same but receive splashes of blood and cries of pain. It just seems like there is a growing desire to bring direct and personal violence into games.

 

[AniHawk]

Meh, I'm okay with it. No one forces me to play them. I do enjoy games like Grand Theft Auto and GoldenEye, though. Sometimes, it's a great way to let out anger. For me, shooting people in Perfect Dark was once a better solution than punching a pillow for letting it all out (I've since ended that form of "therapy" though).

I think it's better if people can get their aggressions out on fake people rather than real people. I just don't know whether or not that it works the other way. It probably does for a few, but not the majority.

 

[cvxfreak]

As long as the game needs violence, I'm all for it. If a game used violence for no real quality reason, then I'd oppose it.

 

[Keio]

DavidDayton has a very good point in distinguishing two kinds of violence.

I agree that the violence in games like Battlefield 1942 is equivalent to the games we used to play as kids: run around, pretending to be fighting with invisible guns or with flashlights at night. It's not violence as such, just part of the mechanics of play.

Then there's the Manhunt/Soldier of Fortune etc. camp, where violence takes center stage.

Although I believe that for most gamers the latter is not "harmful", I think it that the arguments that it leads to desentisization and passivity towards human suffering should be examined in more detail.

People have become very used to graphic violence in entertainment. Will even gruesome news footage affect people anymore? Will a sight of 1 million refugees in Sudan spur people into action or will they just shrug it off as part of the visual overload that consists of such imagery both in entertainment and news media?

Also all violent games may promote a view of the world where violent conflict is "normal". A perpetual state of warfare starts to look logical and understandable because that is the reality pictured by many games.

Videogaming in general should try to create more forms of interaction that violent conflict. That is the simplest form of drama & conflict to create. Now how could we be made to feel affection, love, sympathy etc. for on screen characters and maybe desire to help them and emphatize with them in their plight?

 

[DDayton]

...as a side note, I wouldn't consider -most- FPS games to be "personal violence", as you -generally- aren't focusing on the killing itself... although there are games which place emphasis on seeing body parts explode all over the place...

 

[Musashi Wins!]

It's basically a difference in style. Some games go for a perceived "realism" while others do not. The distinction goes a long way towards deciding which children should play blah blah blah. As certain developers continue to tempt us with near photo-realistic graphics and games which are essentially STILL violence based, you'll see more graphic examples, I'm sure. You'd have seen it a lot earlier if they were able to render it effectively. That and the cultural climate of games as a broader medium is pushing them further away from self-censorship as they compete with film, tv, etc.

Also, your comparison between the Punisher and RE4 seems a bit misplaced to me. Perhaps Punisher will offer a more tangible system for dealing out violence, but RE4 seems very violent with a graphical flourish (exploding heads from a shotgun blast!) that tends toward a certain form of realism.

 

[----]

I don't even understand what the question is here.

Games should be judged on gameplay. Resident Evil series has primarily had slow boring clunky gameplay with horrible control. The violence is no different than any other game. GTA3 on the otherhand was the most important game of this generation and has greatly influenced how future games will be created. The violence made the gameplay more interesting for most consumers, like icing on a cake. The analogy is You can't make a cake out of icing, but a cake without icing doesn't taste as good. Violence is important to an action based video game.

..as a side note, I wouldn't consider -most- FPS games to be "personal violence", as you -generally- aren't focusing on the killing itself... although there are games which place emphasis on seeing body parts explode all over the place...

I don't understand the distinction you're making at all. How is a game where you do nothing but shoot, knife, chainsaw and kill people like a FPS any different than a 3rd person action game where you do nothing but shoot, knife, chainsaw and kill people? You're going to tell me that a game like Half-Life 2 where you can pick up a crow bar and rip someones head apart is okay, but other games like GTA are not? I'm sorry I don't understand the distinction at all. RE4 is one of the most satisfyingly realistic looking violent games I've played.

 

[AniHawk]

I don't even understand what the question is here.

Games should be judged on gameplay. Resident Evil series has primarily had slow boring clunky gameplay with horrible control. The violence is no different than any other game. GTA3 on the otherhand was the most important game of this generation and has greatly influenced how future games will be created. The violence made the gameplay more interesting for most consumers, like icing on a cake. The analogy is You can't make a cake out of icing, but a cake without icing doesn't taste very good. Violence is important to an action based video game.

Icing is nasty.

 

[----]

Icing is nasty.

I'm talking about to the average normal person, not to people who have bizarre quirks.


I don't even understand how you could hate icing. It's basically just sugar, how could you not like icing? Are there people that don't like sugar too? Next thing we'll have someone come out and say that ice cream or pizza is disgusting and that puppies are ugly. Seems like some people here stretch to the point of stupidity in their desire to be perceived as different. You don't like icing, okay that's weird, keep it to yourself, nobody cares. If it was somehow relevant to anything being discussed then fine make an issue out of it, but otherwise I think it qualifies as more of an annoying overshare.

 

[DDayton]

I think there's a distinction between the use of violence in different games... some games use violence as a means to an end, other games seem to use violence as an end in and of itself. The Resident Evil games are dark and violent, but the emphasis isn't on dismembering bodies -- it's on escape and survival.

You could have a game with unrealistic graphics but which still had an emphasis on the violence itself over anything else... it's the focus on inflicting harm upon others which seems to be going over the line for me...

I suppose a question might be whether folks think there -is- a "line" that games shouldn't cross?

(Oh, an Anihawk is right about frosting.)

 

[AniHawk]

I'm talking about to the average normal person, not to people who have bizarre quirks.

Then why did you say icing is good?

 

[evil ways]

It's not like the Punisher sits in a car watching innocent people walk around then he chooses a random person and says "Ok, let's torture the shit out of that old lady".

The people you torture on the Punisher game are criminals, drug dealers, etc. and your quest is to eradicate all crime while at the same time satisfying Frank Castle's need for personal revenge for what happened to his family, so to answer the question, no, I have no problem with violence in video games.

 

[DDayton]

That first game you described sounds familiar, Evil! Heh.

 

[evil ways]

That first game you described sounds familiar, Evil! Heh.

I've never been much of a mind reader, so care to share it with me?

 

[----]

Then why did you say icing is good?

Are you really going to persue this? Why do you think every cake that is sold has icing on it? Okay that's a very nice share you provided us with (you don't like icing) we all feel closer to you now, but if you can't accept the fact that most people are not offended by the sight or taste of icing on a cake then you have serious mental problems. Also it happens to be a well known figure of speech "The icing on the cake" usually meaning the smallest but best part of a deal. Anyway... moving on....

 

[Keio]

The people you torture on the Punisher game are criminals, drug dealers, etc.

Maybe videogames are part of a culture which has made violence more acceptable. Oh, torture them, they are just terrorists...

I have actually met a few people who don't like at all to play games where you kill people. I think that's an interesting approach and a challenge to game developers - could you create games where you didn't HAVE to kill? Thief, Deus Ex 2 are good examples of games that could easily have forced players to kill to advance.

I personally have nothing against a game mechanic where you have to vanquish opponents (perhaps shoot them) to advance, as long as it's not just about killing people. What was the name of the C64 game where, as a bonus stage, you'd have to machine gun captured Vietcong soldiers against a wall? Now that is the kind of violence that has no place in games.

Grand Theft Auto would have been a good game even without the few missions which had very nasty, over the top violence. Like to VC mission with the chainsaw...

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I think there's a distinction between the use of violence in different games... some games use violence as a means to an end, other games seem to use violence as an end in and of itself. The Resident Evil games are dark and violent, but the emphasis isn't on dismembering bodies -- it's on escape and survival.

You could have a game with unrealistic graphics but which still had an emphasis on the violence itself over anything else... it's the focus on inflicting harm upon others which seems to be going over the line for me...

I suppose a question might be whether folks think there -is- a "line" that games shouldn't cross?

Your "line" seems ambigious at best. I suppose it's a slippery slope anyhow, but the idea that you've made an extremely violent game RE4 acceptable to yourself because it's about escape and Punisher (which we honestly don't know too much about yet) unacceptable because it uses extreme violence in what...the pursuit of criminals or woodchip machine maintenance? The only distinction I see you making is in which games your likely to play, not in any real contrast of violent content.

But then by your post...a cartoonish game who's goal was to beat another cartoonish figure about the head and say rack up a high score would be unnacceptable...while blowing off the graphically depicted heads or mangling someone with a chainsaw would be fine because it's about survival.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of both if their good games, and I think there is a natural distinction some people make at different levels. I just think your distinction is vague at best.

 

[evil ways]

Are you really going to persue this? Why do you think every cake that is sold has icing on it? Okay that's a very nice share you provided us with (you don't like icing) we all feel closer to you now, but if you can't accept the fact that most people are not offended by the sight or taste of icing on a cake then you have serious mental problems. Also it happens to be a well known figure of speech "The icing on the cake" usually meaning the smallest but best part of a deal. Anyway... moving on....

I love frosting and icing on cake, but Sara Lee cake tastes fine without it.

 

[BuG]

Videogaming in general should try to create more forms of interaction that violent conflict. That is the simplest form of drama & conflict to create. Now how could we be made to feel affection, love, sympathy etc. for on screen characters and maybe desire to help them and emphatize with them in their plight?

One game in development which is pushing that side of conflict is Facade.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the more 'personal' kinds of violence, but then again I've never really thought all that much about it. I do agree with DavidDayton about the distinctions being made between the random types of violence in a game like Halo or Battlefield and the more personal types of Manhunt, though (although, you could argue that Manhunt is also a game based on escape and survival).

 

[AniHawk]

Are you really going to persue this? Why do you think every cake that is sold has icing on it? Okay that's a very nice share you provided us with (you don't like icing) we all feel closer to you now, but if you can't accept the fact that most people are not offended by the sight or taste of icing on a cake then you have serious mental problems. Also it happens to be a well known figure of speech "The icing on the cake" usually meaning the smallest but best part of a deal. Anyway... moving on....

You should have known that after my response I wasn't being serious.

I don't like frosting, but I didn't want to turn this into a debate. Yeesh.

 

[Justin Bailey]

Are you really going to persue this? Why do you think every cake that is sold has icing on it? Okay that's a very nice share you provided us with (you don't like icing) we all feel closer to you now, but if you can't accept the fact that most people are not offended by the sight or taste of icing on a cake then you have serious mental problems. Also it happens to be a well known figure of speech "The icing on the cake" usually meaning the smallest but best part of a deal. Anyway... moving on....

You really need to lighten the fuck up.

 

[Funky Papa]

I can't see the problem on this issue as far as you are an adult and know where the fiction ends and where the reality starts.

Even if you make a game about skinning grannies there should be nothing bad with it, at the end everything is fictional and aside from tastes and ethical considerations you are hurting nobody. It is like fantacising about having wild monkey sex with your best friend's girfriend, you are not a cheater neither a pervert for thinking about it.

Yes, sometimes games can be too oriented towards certain kinds of violence but... why developers can't cross the line? It is not like the human being is a black or white soul, and I am tired of stereotipes. Giving the hero a dark turn is something that I like for a change, and it makes things more realistic even on its own twisted way. I personally find much more offensive many EA games where you can kill thousands of soldiers in dramatic ways without spilling a single drop of blood, erasing the true sense and gruesome reality of violence.

 

[DDayton]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of both if their good games, and I think there is a natural distinction some people make at different levels. I just think your distinction is vague at best.

Well, yes, it is vague. That's the problem. There is some sort of line, it would seem... the question being of what it is. My comments on the Punisher game were more because of the fact that the excitement building up around it seemed to deal with the kinds of damage and death which could be inflicted on enemies... enemies that you already had in your power (sort of like that C64 game mentioned earlier).

Part of it is also a personal issue, as well... anyone could take a game with "standard" violence and use it to play out some weird little inner mind game, if they wanted.

Oh, yes, and another aspect of the RE games is that you -generally- are killing things which are no longer quite human... and there is a difference between killing a monster and killing a person, and between defensive and offensive killing. I'm just trying to get some ideas of other views on this subject...

 

[Keio]

Violence can and has been used in many movies, books etc. as very powerful means to shock the audience, provoke new though etc.

But I'd say that hasn't happened much in games.

For some reason, even gruesome violence ends up being "entertaining" in a videogame. For example Shellshock '67 - the Vietnam fps coming out in the autumn - is supposed to portray "horrors of war". But I'm afraid that attacking villages and shooting civilians will just turn into a bit of Carmageddon-esque fun, instead of making the player stop and think "WTF am I doing here".

So even though I believe most of us can distinquish fact from fiction etc. I'm still just a bit worried by the enthusiasm felt by many people towards the numerous ways of torture avaiable in Punisher etc. Why is it so fun? Does that violence add anything to the gameplay?

I personally find much more offensive many EA games where you can kill thousands of soldiers in dramatic ways without spilling a single drop of blood, erasing the true sense and gruesome reality of violence.

I have never felt the true sense and gruesome reality of violence in a videogame. Should I find videogaming offensive? Well, actually, at times I do...

Three games I've stopped playing because of the violence: Manhunt (which actually was an ok game for the first hour or so I played), Soldier of Fortune (counting groin shots was just too much and the game was average) and Postal 2 (which was shit anyway).

 

[DDayton]

Violence can and has been used in many movies, books etc. as very powerful means to shock the audience, provoke new though etc.

But I'd say that hasn't happened much in games.?

I'd say the simple reason is because violence in movies/books is something -outside- of the viewer. They witness it and are shocked. It brings to mind questions of how such things can occur... what brings man to the point of doing such a thing to another man.

In a game, the violence occurs because the player makes it happen. You aren't observing a cruel act... you are performing it.

I suppose cut scenes could be used in games to get around that problem, though.

 

[----]

Violence can and has been used in many movies, books etc. as very powerful means to shock the audience, provoke new though etc.

Violence is primarily used in hollywood movies and books as a way to ENTERTAIN, not to make people think. Not to provoke new thought, but to keep people excited, interested, and to give them an adrenaline rush. It's a good vehicle for entertainment and it works very well in both games and movies.

For some reason, even gruesome violence ends up being "entertaining" in a videogame. For example Shellshock '67 - the Vietnam fps coming out in the autumn - is supposed to portray "horrors of war". But I'm afraid that attacking villages and shooting civilians will just turn into a bit of Carmageddon-esque fun, instead of making the player stop and think "WTF am I doing here".

So even though I believe most of us can distinquish fact from fiction etc. I'm still just a bit worried by the enthusiasm felt by many people towards the numerous ways of torture avaiable in Punisher etc. Why is it so fun? Does that violence add anything to the gameplay?

It's fun because if the gameplay is good then it's going to be an entertaining experience that stays true to the comic book experience. The way in which they tied the brutal interogation techniques of the comic book character into the gameplay is genius. Getting to play as a bad ass character with awesome and original ways of killing bad guys is a power trip fantasy. Yes the violence makes the existing gameplay more exciting. Just like my cake analogy. You can make a good game without violence, not a good Punisher game, but a good game. You can make an action or shooter game more exciting and more of an adrenaline rush by adding violence.


And in objecting to the Punisher you're not just objecting to the movie you're objecting to the entire popular mythos which has been represented in video games, movies and the source material the Punisher comic book. Would The Punisher comic book, movie, or video game be any good without any violence? No. The whole character is noteworthy because of how ruthless he is towards bad guys. He doesn't have any magical powers or anything, the thing that makes him special is his desire to get revenge at any cost. Violence adds a lot to entertainment.

I can't imagine my favorite show on tv, The Shield, on a regular network. The show would be so dull and boring, I would lose interest very quickly because there would be no excitement, nothing shocking, and there would be no sense of life or death tension.

Should I find videogaming offensive? Well, actually, at times I do...

Three games I've stopped playing because of the violence: Manhunt (which actually was an ok game for the first hour or so I played), Soldier of Fortune (counting groin shots was just too much and the game was average) and Postal 2 (which was shit anyway).

Those games are not considered to be very good games though. So how do you know you didn't just stop playing because the gameplay sucked? That lists suggest more that you were offended by the gameplay than the content of the games. If you had said that you stopped playing GTA or Ninja Gaiden after an hour becuase of the violence that would be a whole other story. I've never even touched Postal, Manhunt, or SoF because the violence has been sold as a gimmick rather than icing on a cake, it's like making a cake out of nothing but icing. That is a disgusting cake. Or in this case a bad game. Although I must say the more I hear about Postal 2 the more intrigued I am to get a good laugh. Using cats as silencers and peeing on people sounds like it would be a fun game to play around with for an hour or two, maybe to show off to people you know to shock them, get a good reaction out of your buddies, freak out your mom or any sensitive people that you know.

 

[DDayton]

sounds like it would be a fun game to play around with for an hour or two, maybe to show off to people you know to shock them, get a good reaction out of your buddies, freak out your mom or any sensitive people that you know.

So you find it fun to torment other people?

 

[Tellaerin]

I think I understand what DavidDayton's getting at here (and please correct me if I'm mistaken, David!) The main difference between the two types of violence he's describing is the context in which it's presented to the player. A good example might be the 'deathblows' in the Samurai Shodown games (where your final slash cuts your opponent in half) vs. the Fatalities in the Mortal Kombat series. In SS, that lethal blow is presented in the context of duels between master swordsmen. With edged weapons involved, there's a distinct possibility of a bloody outcome. However, though a bout may end with someone slashed in two, that's not the point of the game, just a consequence arising from the scenario.

Now compare that to the Mortal Kombat series. In the MK games, characters can inflict a brutal finishing move on their opponents as well. However, the Fatalities in MK aren't presented as a consequence of the battles. Instead, you get to beat on your opponent until they're stunned. Then you're rewarded with the chance to perform a Fatality, allowing you to execute your foe in an extremely brutal, gory fashion while they're helpless. The Fatality didn't arise naturally, as an outgrowth of the fight--it's presented as a separate, very deliberate act, something you're encouraged to do to your opponent on purpose, after rendering him or helpless, in order to end his life in the most gory and humiliating manner possible.

It's all a matter of intent.

That's why I think so many Japanese gamers have a problem with the violence in Western games. It's not the actual imagery itself--there's lots of manga and anime out there where the blood and gibs fly free. It's the context in which it's presented, the role in which it casts the player as the entity initiating that violence, that disturbs.

 

[----]

So you find it fun to torment other people?

Actually I find it more amusing to make people laugh. Games like GTA and The Postal series are probably the funniest video games ever created. I'm willing to bet those games have made more people laugh out loud than any other video games in history. Some people can't deal with it or process it properly like a typical mom and so their reaction to it can sometimes even be more hilarious than the game itself.

I think I understand what DavidDayton's getting at here (and please correct me if I'm mistaken, David!) The main difference between the two types of violence he's describing is the context in which it's presented to the player. A good example might be the 'deathblows' in the Samurai Shodown games (where your final slash cuts your opponent in half) vs. the Fatalities in the Mortal Kombat series. In SS, that lethal blow is presented in the context of duels between master swordsmen. With edged weapons involved, there's a distinct possibility of a bloody outcome. However, though a bout may end with someone slashed in two, that's not the point of the game, just a consequence arising from the scenario.

Now compare that to the Mortal Kombat series. In the MK games, characters can inflict a brutal finishing move on their opponents as well. However, the Fatalities in MK aren't presented as a consequence of the battles. Instead, you get to beat on your opponent until they're stunned. Then you're rewarded with the chance to perform a Fatality, allowing you to execute your foe in an extremely brutal, gory fashion while they're helpless. The Fatality didn't arise naturally, as an outgrowth of the fight--it's presented as a separate, very deliberate act, something you're encouraged to do to your opponent on purpose, after rendering him or helpless, in order to end his life in the most gory and humiliating manner possible.

It's all a matter of intent.

That made absoultely no sense whatsoever. So in SS it's okay that a fight ends with a guy cut in half because you were fighting with swords, but in MK it's not okay that someone gets brutally killed even though you're fighting against people who have brutal magical powers? The intent in both games is to kill someone brutally. In both games you're initiating the violence. I don't see the difference in intent at all. The only difference is style.

It's interesting you should bring up manga though. Most westerners find adult anime and manga vile and perverse because it deals with violent and sexual subject matter and it wraps that content in a package that is appealing to children. Lest you forget the Japanese mores are not very well respected in the Western world either.

 

[Tellaerin]

That made absoultely no sense whatsoever. So in SS it's okay that a fight ends with a guy cut in half because you were fighting with swords, but in MK it's not okay that someone gets brutally killed even though you're fighting against people who have brutal magical powers? The intent in both games is to kill someone brutally. In both games you're initiating the violence. I don't see the difference in intent at all. The only difference is style.

I hate it when people are deliberately obtuse. The difference (which should be obvious from the example provided) is that in SS, the violent imagery is merely a consequence of the action that's taking place, whereas in MK, killing someone in a gruesome manner becomes the point. Let's say two characters with supernatural powers are duking it out, and one of them has almost no health left. His opponent lobs a fireball at him. Now, if that guy went up like a torch as a result of the attack that killed him, it's still violent, sure. But there's a world of difference between that and beating someone until they'e stunned and helpless, then very deliberately setting them on fire and watching them burn alive. In SS, you're not sadistically murdering a helpless character when you inflict that deathblow. If you really can't perceive a difference, then I think there's something seriously wrong with you.

It's interesting you should bring up manga though. Most westerners find adult anime and manga vile and perverse because it deals with violent and sexual subject matter and it wraps that content in a package that is appealing to children. Lest you forget the Japanese mores are not very well respected in the Western world either.

I brought the point up simply because there've been quite a few negative comments from Japanese gamers and game developers about the violence in Western-developed games. I honestly feel that it's a case of the context that violent imagery is presented in, rather than the imagery itself. (I also think you're laughably ignorant when it comes to anime and manga, but that's another discussion entirely--I'd rather stick to the topic at hand, thanks.)

 

[FriScho]

I only have problems with real violence and real weapons.

 

[EekTheKat]

Correct me if I'm wrong but -

In Mortal Kombat, the player is not *forced* to kill your dizzy + helpless opponent. You can just wait out the fatality window and let your opponent keel over unconscious if you feel so strongly about killing a helpless character on screen. That and you can do silly stuff like make them dance or turn them into babies or the likes instead.

Hell there was even a FRIENDSHIP "fatality" of sorts.

In the original Punisher thread that triggered this discussion, from the sounds of it you don't *have* to shove that criminal's face into a vat of acid (the option to feign punches to intimidate criminals sort of implies that they player have some degree of control over how to interrogate criminals).

In an odd way it's refreshing to actually be given the in game choice to go through with those violent acts, instead of being presented with an entirely pre-scripted or pre-rendered scene where all you do is sit back and watch instead of interact.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I still say a lot of these distinctions being made (eg. MK vs. SS) are basically no distinction at all. It's not one of merit at least, simply of preference of viewpoint. Since I see them being made Western contra Eastern game design I'm starting to see where that viewpoint originates though sadly it isn't elucidating much in the way of differing game design. At least in this conversation.

 

[FightyF]

Interesting points David! I'd agree that a distinction can be made between various levels and types of violence.

I did an essay on this issue back in high school. I argued that games like MK received more attention simply because it's depiction of violence was more realistic and drastic. I argued that realism is key. I also argued that the more realistic the depictions were, the more we should be concerned as it will have a greater impact on our minds.

If I played an Amiga game where I put a man on fire, represented by an 8 by 8 pixel sprite, it would not have the same effect as a new 3D PC game where his skin burning and shedding, while he yelps realistic blood curdling screams. The PC game would leave more of an impression on a player.

Same type of violence, but totally different as far as how it's depicted.

 

[DDayton]

I think -depiction- is merely making the issue more obvious. The issue is still the same... whether the violence is "necessary" as part of the game/story/environment, or whether the violence exists merely for the sake of letting someone enjoy slicing someone to bits.

Question, at the risk of causing flames to emerge... what if a fantasy game emerged based entirely around the theme of ethnic cleansing? Or what about those hentai games which have characters which seem underaged? What about a "rape sim", if someone made one? Where do you draw the line at a game being "just fantasy" and a game "going to far"?

As far as violence goes, I think there is still a clear distinction between violence done for the sake of something else, and violence done for its own sake... which is where elements of virtual sadism seem to come into play.

 

[Tellaerin]

I still say a lot of these distinctions being made (eg. MK vs. SS) are basically no distinction at all. It's not one of merit at least, simply of preference of viewpoint. Since I see them being made Western contra Eastern game design I'm starting to see where that viewpoint originates though sadly it isn't elucidating much in the way of differing game design. At least in this conversation.

I think that there's this growing trend in Western-developed games to allow the player to perform gruesome acts of violence that aren't justified in context. In most Japanese games, you're battling enemies who are both capable of defending themselves and actively seeking to do you harm. Furthermore, the action's usually presented in the context of a mission of pressing urgency, with dire consequences (often for more than the player's character) if you fail. Sure, you're cutting a swath of bloody destruction through the Vigoor Empire in Ninja Gaiden, but the premise and the narrative elements establish a context for Ryu's actions that makes the violence acceptable to myself and many others--the character is portrayed as a hero, fighting for a purpose, not someone who kills for kicks.

By contrast, you have Western-developed games where you're capable of taking violent action against anyone, even if they've done nothing to your character to justify this. You can blow pedestrians away with a shotgun in GTA: VC, or go on a rampage at the mall with a katana, just for the hell of it. In fact, that particular freedom--the freedom to carjack and kill people for kicks (and possibly some extra cash) is part of the game's appeal. In Mortal Kombat, you have a reason to fight, but you're not killing your enemies while trading blows in battle--if you elect to kill them (you're given the choice, yes, but you're rewarded with a Fatality sequence if you opt to do so, and nothing if you choose otherwise), it's presented as the brutal murder of a defenseless, helpless opponent. The emphasis in these cases is squarely on being able to inflict pain and suffering because you can. Murdering innocents or other noncombatants, torturing characters who are incapable of defending themselves (whether for information or the player's amusement)... Is it really so difficult for people to intuitively grasp the difference between actions like those and, say, Ryu cutting down his enemies in a game like Ninja Gaiden?

 

[Lemurnator]

Society doesn't mimick the art.

Art mimicks the society.

 

[Tellaerin]

Society doesn't mimick the art.

Art mimicks the society.

Point taken. And yes, it's a pretty disturbing reflection of the way Western society (or at least American society, at any rate) has been headed over the last couple of decades. =/

 

[----]

I still say a lot of these distinctions being made (eg. MK vs. SS) are basically no distinction at all. It's not one of merit at least, simply of preference of viewpoint. Since I see them being made Western contra Eastern game design I'm starting to see where that viewpoint originates though sadly it isn't elucidating much in the way of differing game design. At least in this conversation.

Exactly. There's no distinction being made here, just the typical nerds who think the Japanese can do no wrong and the dumb Americans are ruining the world. It's just another dumb argument from the people who think that violent adult manga is classy art that should be respected and stuff like The Punisher is just for base redneck Americans without any class. Whatever, if the subject matter of my original post had been some truly obtuse game filled with gore from an Eastern developer like I don't know say Killer 7, then the gore and violence would be regarded as beautiful artwork from geniuses, rather than a base form of entertainment as the Punisher and Mortal Kombat. All I hear are hypocrites with jingoists eyes. The violence and sexual content in the games that Capcom/Tecmo/SNK make are no more acceptable or unacceptable than the violence and sexual content in the games that THQ/Midway/Rockstar make.

I would worry more about the adults who are affected by make-believe violence than I would about the people who can distinguish between fake and real and enjoy these violent games.

I only have problems with real violence and real weapons.

It's sad that that still has to be said in this day and age, but I'm with you.

 

[Black Deatha]

Intresting topic.

I personaly feel it comes down to the player, some can handel higher degrees of villence than others. I kinda understand you distinction, but I think it would be a better idea to compare two more obvious games in this sence. Like if you were to compare say Hitman to Grand Theft Auto 3/VC/SA ect. In Hitman, like in GTA, you have many unarmed innocents running around in some levels, and the only threat they post to you is the chance they can blow your cover and alert gaurds. And IF you desire you are free to go and kill them all and make a blood bath of it. But you are never encouraged to. Where as in GTA, evry person in the game is fair game as it were. You can kill any ped you want for whatever you want. And you could argue, that in GTA too you are not encourged to kill innocents ever, and that's true, but I think the differences is that in Hitman, you are sort of compeled to not kill them. You are a badass in the game, but you are also a professional.

Now this shouldent be taken to mean I am aganst GTA in ANY way shape or forum, it's a just a comparison. I also use Hitman as an example, because if you so choose, you have many sometimes comical means of killing innocents. And with it just as much freedom to do so AS GTA, you are only limited by the fact that Hitman unlike GTA doesnt have a constant stream of respawning enemies and civs.

And that I feel is really what it comes down to, developers are these days just giving the player more and more freedom to kill and at the same times giving us more way of doing so. And in turn more realistic and gory means at that. And again it's in the players hands what kind of damage you want to inflict. Like an example that comes to mind of this is in Chronicles of Riddick, you are a couple of times given the opportunity to sneak up behind gaurds and shove them in meat grinders and fans. And than you can see the blood splatter. No this is not the best example of this. But the point is, you are not forced to do it. Because if you want you could just run up to that same enemy and fight him normaly. So I do think that games are getting more violent, and some do a really good job of giving you complete controle of how violent you want to be.

Than there's games like Manhunt, which I liked, not the best game ever, but I enjoyed it. But again with this type of game it just comes down to what the player can handle, I personaly wasnt offended by it. But I can see how some would be. And for them it's just a simple matter of not playing it. And as I said I do think games will continue to get more and more violent. but that I feel is due to technology. Like I am sure someday we'll see game where cherecter models are also modeld on the inside where there is a skeleton and different organs and therefor games will be able to make even more realisticly gory scenes. But I would compare that to movies like Saving Private Ryan where on the beach you saw blood and guts and intestines ect. And like with that scene in SPR, I am sure it will just become accepted over time.

But to answer the question posed about having a rape scene or something in a game. I think there is a certian line most developers wont cross. Because some thing are socaly acceptabe while others arent. Killing and murder are all mainstream in movies and TV, games ect. And usualy when it's the 'hero' doing it. People have no problem with it. But on the other hand I think most devs will know what's going to far. Like one thing you can tell right away about GTA is that there are no children NPC's. Now I dont know if someday children will be in games and considerd fair game. But it seems that society would have a problem with that. And again, you dont really see many movies where the hero murders a kid (at least that I have seen). But it's hard to say, maybe these things will end up in some games, but I would imagine more along the lines of something that happens in a cinima and not something you are given controle over.

~Black Deatha

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Well, I think the difference between GTA and a more contextualized violence is clearer and that example made the crux of it easier to see (and is easier for the public to get riled over obviously).

I think the distinctions between RE4/Western violent action and MK/SS are perhaps...a bit forced for aesthetic reasons. But I don't know, I'm thinking about it still.

Is the hero of GTA a "hero" though? That seems to be part of the modern twist as well. If it's acceptable that heroes need not have any sort of common, accepted code of ethics then I would assume child murder and rape are on the horizon.

 

[Black Deatha]

That's true about the 'hero' But I would say that's akin to movies and TV shows where the hero of the movie isnt always on the side of good. And that's why I said the rape thing may end up in games, it may even be done by your cherecter. But I feel society would think it going to far to make it a part of the gamepley. Where as in a cinime it could at least be used as a part of the story or something.

~Black Deatha

 

[----]

I think -depiction- is merely making the issue more obvious. The issue is still the same... whether the violence is "necessary" as part of the game/story/environment, or whether the violence exists merely for the sake of letting someone enjoy slicing someone to bits.

How is violence an integral part of Resident Evil's game/story/environment, but not an integral part of the Punisher's game/story/environment or Mortal Kombat's world? I still don't understand the distinction. How can you even have a fighting game without violence?

Question, at the risk of causing flames to emerge... what if a fantasy game emerged based entirely around the theme of ethnic cleansing? Or what about those hentai games which have characters which seem underaged? What about a "rape sim", if someone made one? Where do you draw the line at a game being "just fantasy" and a game "going to far"?

I think you draw the line in the same place you draw it for movies and books. A movie that glorifies rape or a book that encourages ethnic cleansing would rightfully face very harsh criticism. A movie or book that just deals with those subjects however would not be censored.

When we're talking about violence and sexuallity as we typically see it in games and movies then it's a different matter though. If you're asking whether the Punisher or any other popular violent game begins to cross the line into rape or ethnic cleansing then the answer is no. That's a very obvious line and distinction and not something we really need to worry about.

Point taken. And yes, it's a pretty disturbing reflection of the way Western society (or at least American society, at any rate) has been headed over the last couple of decades. =/

Oh Jesus. Watch too many Michael Moore films lately? Yeah American society is a real hell-hole. We're all itching to leave. Yeah right. That's why we can't keep people from every corner and rock on the face of the Earth from spilling through our borders. It's real unfortunate to live in America. Get real. Most people who live in this country consider it the greatest place on Earth. May not be perfect and there's certainly plenty of room for improvement but still far better than the alternatives out there. I don't consider myself anything but spoiled by getting to live in America.

And no I don't buy into the belief that society has been getting more and more violent. If you look at what was acceptable 50, 100, or a thousand years ago it's far more civilized world that we live in today.

 

[DDayton]

Is the hero of GTA a "hero" though? That seems to be part of the modern twist as well. If it's acceptable that heroes need not have any sort of common, accepted code of ethics then I would assume child murder and rape are on the horizon.

He's the protaganist, not the hero. Being the main character of a story doesn't make you the hero...

... and while it's true that I prefer Japanese developed games over western ones (modern games, at least), I'm not giving Japanese stuff the free ability to shred any line it wants... I'm not overly fond of violent Japanese stuff either, but I will say that there seem to be fewer instances of killing the defenseless and using gore and torture for the sake of gore and torture. It's not "better" because it's Japanese...

But, of course, I dislike violence, therefore I must be one of the enemy who must be fought, lest I somehow remove your ability to chop the limbs off little old ladies!

(just kidding)

If you look at what was acceptable 50, 100, or a thousand years ago it's far more civilized world that we live in today.

I'd argue it's just a far more sanitized world, especially for folks like myself in USA. The violence still exists, but we don't see it... except in popular fiction! Heh.

 

[DDayton]

(I really need to learn how to delete a superfluous post.)

 

[SolidSnakex]

You can blow pedestrians away with a shotgun in GTA: VC, or go on a rampage at the mall with a katana, just for the hell of it. In fact, that particular freedom--the freedom to carjack and kill people for kicks (and possibly some extra cash) is part of the game's appeal. In Mortal Kombat, you have a reason to fight, but you're not killing your enemies while trading blows in battle--if you elect to kill them (you're given the choice, yes, but you're rewarded with a Fatality sequence if you opt to do so, and nothing if you choose otherwise), it's presented as the brutal murder of a defenseless, helpless opponent. The emphasis in these cases is squarely on being able to inflict pain and suffering because you can. Murdering innocents or other noncombatants, torturing characters who are incapable of defending themselves (whether for information or the player's amusement)... Is it really so difficult for people to intuitively grasp the difference between actions like those and, say, Ryu cutting down his enemies in a game like Ninja Gaiden?

Well as you pointed out, in MK you don't have to kill your enemy at the end. But at the sametime you don't have to kill a pedestrian in GTA. That's up to you. You can go through the game and never kill anyone. You just have the ability if you want, just like in MGS2 you have the ability to shoot someone with a tranq gun and keep them alive or just shoot them with a regular pistol/machine gun and kill them. But technically GTA is really no different from say Goldeneye or a military shooter. Your main "goal" in the game when you're told to kill is to kill bad people. You aren't told through the main missions to go out and unload into a group of pedestrians. That's up to the player if they want to do that.

 

[DrLazy]

This issue is only going to get bigger as the realism in games increases. When somebody got killed in Robotron, nobody cared. Yet when I saw a Pikmin die, I felt bad that I let them drown. As we start to identify with characters, not the over the top and cartoony caracters like Mortal Kombat or GTA, but realistic violence with developed characters, its going to be dramatic to "kill" a character.

Manhunt disgusts me. Really that game is one of a kind. Mortal Kombat and GTA are in a different legue-- they're campy and over the top. Its like comparing ConAir or Kill Bill to Silence of the Lambs. YOU are the serial killer, rewarded for more gruesome kills. That stuff still bothers me, and as long as kids continue to buy games with Mature rating at Best Buy and the like without much problem, the situation will only grow worse.

 

[etiolate]

---- talks about gameplay being important and violence being icing on the cake with GTA3, but that game is full of average to poor gameplay mechanics. Not a good example.

And I think the role you are playing, perhaps the neccesary evil bit, is important, too. Even in Mortal Kombat, a game with rewards for excessive violence, you were still trying to defeat an ultimate evil in the end. In GTA, you are the evil. You aren't stopping any evil force when you open up shotgun fire upon pedestrians. The only reward might be $40. That's a much bigger moral problem than say, killing evil soldiers.

main "goal" in the game when you're told to kill is to kill bad people.

So, in the game, when you get hired to kill someone's wife or start a violent riot amongst construction workers...those are bad people?

 

[SolidSnakex]

---- talks about gameplay being important and violence being icing on the cake with GTA3, but that game is full of average to poor gameplay mechanics. Not a good example.

And I think the role you are playing, perhaps the neccesary evil bit, is important, too. Even in Mortal Kombat, a game with rewards for excessive violence, you were still trying to defeat an ultimate evil in the end. In GTA, you are the evil. You aren't stopping any evil force when you open up shotgun fire upon pedestrians. The only reward might be $40. That's a much bigger moral problem than say, killing evil soldiers.

GTA wouldn't sell if the only thing it had going for it was violence. The majority of it's gameplay works fine. The games with very broken gameplay that are violent like Manhunt, SoE ect. don't perform that well despite their high level of violence. Violence can only take a game to a certain amount of success, the gameplay and overall fun factor has to do the rest.

And in GTA you're good. You're taking out drug dealers, murderers ect. You don't have to go out and kill and woman walking down the street or run over a guy. That's completely up to you..

 

[etiolate]

SSX- read the edit, I wouldn't consider working for the mafia in any way good.

And shooting and on foot in GTA3 is not good gameplay. Doesn't mean the game is bad, the overall experience is good.