
. Daft Punk - Alive 2007
. The Mars Volta - The Bedlam in Goliath
. DangerDoom - The Mouse and the Mask
. The Inkspots - The Millennium Collection
. Andrew Jackson Jihad - People Who Can Eat People Are The Luckiest People In The World
|
|
|
![]() Warning: Do not click on any links without checking for (NSFW) warnings. Links may include websites to real dead bodies from war situations. Do not complain to me because I have warned you. Violence in video games is like pancakes and syrup. Sometimes you add too much syrup and you drown your pancakes. With video games, you get something like Manhunt. I know this may sound a bit lame and conservative, but does anyone believe there’s a limit to how violent and how gory a video game can be? Our technology is growing incredibly fast and it may not be long until video games begin to look like a Pixar movie or like some other good CG movie. When that happens, how will violence be handled? Will Call of Duty 8 look like some Iraq battle zone, and if it does, will we be so desensitized that it really doesn’t faze us? Don’t get me wrong, either. This isn’t an anti-video game post about how video games will ruin society. If I played Resident Evil 4 at a younger age I would have been disgusted and grossed out. Now, I don’t even blink or react negatively at all. And in the case of something like Gears of War, it’s cool. I wonder if I continued to play my violent game, when games do come around to looking realistic, will I not care for someone’s face being blown off by a high caliber sniper rifle bullet. I remember that Unreal Engine presentation that was at GDC. Imagine something like that but instead of a block of meat you have a face. The presentation is there to show you how their physics engine will allow developers to create realistic body destruction. You’ll sit there as a the demonstration consist of a video of a face being blown away by a shotgun in the most realistic way. You see an eyeball explode in one direction, brain matter going another and the skull flying back. The next shot is a sniper shooting a guy in the same place, but this time brains exploding out of the back of the skull. The following shot is of the guy on the floor, gushing blood out of both ends. The entrance and exit point of the bullet. Something like this or this (NSFW). You can compare it to movies if you want, but there is a difference between movies and video games. With a movie it’s passive. With a video game you’re the one pulling the trigger. And no, it’s not really pulling a trigger, J.T.. Please don’t take this is a video games cause real life violence. I know when I’m playing a video game that it isn’t real. I know that there are consequences in real life, and I’m also not insane. I cherish life and other people’s lives. I can’t even kill a bug without thinking of how painful my foot must have been when I stomped on it. I’m not bullshitting, either. I feel guilty when I kill bugs. Wow, ignore that digression. What I’m trying to get out is do we really need the intense violence to be any more realistic? The way things are now, it’s sort of cartoony and unrealistic. In Gears of War the blood looks like jello and in Ninja Gaiden you’re killing monsters. It still looks silly. If violence does begin to look like some torture porn R rated movie, I don’t know if I will be able to handle it, let alone enjoy myself. I don’t want to play Saw the game. And I guess it also goes with the context of the game. Something like Call of Duty may be appropriate to give you that “war is hell” feel, but I still think there should be a line drawn. There should never be a 3rd party enforcing some crazy rule of what's too violent and what isn't. I would love it if developers focused less on how violent they can make their game, and move their time and resources on other things. That is unless of course there's a reason. And that reason could be a lot of things. There really is no need for it most of the time. EDIT: I added a few more sentences to make my point a bit more clear.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
videogame characters don't have nervous systems.... no one suffered, no one actually died.
I have no idea how to respond to what you said because I have no idea what you said.
Also, hi Jack.
I'm trying to explain to this from a point of view of a child. If you don't explain to them the difference between what's real and what's not... they could grow up to be delinquents. I'm not saying it's the video games industry fault, I'm actually blaming parents.
I'll try and piece together in opinion out this thing above me.
I guess what you're trying to say is that you like killing people in video games. Which I kind of agree with, but don't. If it was fun killing people in video games, I'd be having a blast with Conflict: Denied Ops. Fact is, killing people isn't the only thing that makes a game fun.
Someone please explain to me why I'm arguing with wiisucks?
I think you most the point of my blog. I myself don't mind killing some locust bitches in Gears of War or driving on the sidewalks in Grand Theft Auto. I don't mind it because our technology makes it looks silly and unrealistic.
My point was to say that we should begin to look at limits as to how violent and gory games should be. I mean, there really is no reason for it. Would Half-Life 2 have been a better game if it was more gory than it already was? Would Bioshock of been a far more better game if arms, and heads blew off people?
If that's the case, then I'm buying a stereotypical women too.
I am a man.
I tried playing Manhunt 1 at a friend's house and it was uncomfortable and disturbing. To the point where I just wanted a gun to shoot them in the head with so deaths wouldn't be torture porn. And even still. Those are last-gen games. Imagine if Manhunt looked like or better than Mass Effect.
I never saw the manhunt games as a fun experience. Its just killing for pretty much no good reason. Yes I know most video games don't give you good reasons to kill but its as if Manhunt is that kid in grade school who just tried so hard to be cool but you knew he was forcing it.
But on another note I thought Bioshock was a pretty violent game. There was some decent amount of blood and setting someone on fire and shooting a bolt into their heads could lead to some gruesome screen shots. Its no manhunt of course but still rather violent.
I kind of feel the same way about the new Rambo movie. Anything that reminds us that violence is truly dark and sick has the potential to fight the desensitization that can occur when we only think of violence as a form of entertainment or escape.
Oh, by the way: when is the line crossed?
I'm not saying that there should be censorship. I would love to believe that developers would know when they're going too far and doing it for shock value. The violence should be relevant to what you're playing.
Bioshock is a good example of that. That game has some very disturbing scenes in it, but it goes with what's going on. A creppy underwater city with insane citizens. I said something like this in my blog. If the violence is relevant to your game, then it's fine.
What was the reason for Manhunt 2? If they were going for uncomfortable and dark feeling then they sure as hell pulled it off the first time around. The visuals didn't change at all. It felt more like a publicity stunt. "Look guys! Our game is insanely violent and is banned in a couple of countries!"
@ PrinceofCannedPeaches
That was fucked up.
when is art enough? when have you exceeded being art? look up what Throbbing Gristle did in the late 70's and tell me if you still think it's art.
i do believe what you say about there being relevance to violence, but you cannot ever ever ever ever question or authorities artistic integrity. be it a chainsaw through a locust or a penis on a raped, drug abusing prostitute.
I understand what you're trying to say, but just because you don't "get" the game or didn't get anything from playing it doesn't mean it's worthless.
A lot of people find the Dead or Alive series to be nothing but a retarded button masher with the appeal of big ol' bouncin' titties. I personally think it is the most fun fighting game on the market today, mostly because it reminds me of the good ol' days when you didn't need to memorize 30 gazillion hit combos to be good at them.
Differing opinions make the world go round.
I don't think the line can be crossed in games unless games get a hell of a lot more realistic. Maybe some people can't distinguish the two but game violence doesn't phase me. Sometimes a movie might make me a little sick from the realistic blood but as a society, i think most people are desensitized.
And I can question whatever I want, dude. If I play a game and it's hyper violent and I believe it's this way because the game has nothing else to offer, I can call bullshit on it.
I can send an e-mail to the developers of Manhunt or the guys that did Soldier of Fortune and say, "hey, your game is shitty and all you have to offer is this violence." Not only am I not going to praise them on their shit game, I'm not going to praise them on their torture porn.
Again, not saying there should be any censorship.
Please read my blog. It talks about the future of violence in games. That's what worries me. Not violence in games now.
Also, stop giving people money for these shitty movies, please. They're on 5 now?
It's one thing to hold an opinion, it's another to try telling us that we're all wrong and stupid for having different ones.
I guess that's the internet, but I thought this particular community tended to be more open minded, unless you're Reaprar.
i am saying art is art. be it whatever it might be.
of course you can call bullshit on anything you fucking want, but don't come and tell me what i can and can't put in my art (i'm not talking about censorship, just like you). it's about the feeling, and the feeling is always carried along your side... (getting all philosophical here)
so, if the things i produce as an artist are just violent things, seemingly without substance, is that irrelevant? is that just nonsense? i haven't played manhunt, but apparently it's all about the killing and violence. sure, it's maybe the only thing the game has to offer, and you can call bullshit on it (i most certainly do, just like the saw and hostel films) but i won't stop anyone from doing it again. if they want to do it, fine with me. if that makes them feel something important, let them have it.
i can call bullshit on your fucking avatar. it's in black-and-white and i find it incredibly pretentious and smug. i wonder what your avatar will look like in the future, because i don't like where this is going....
/end me being a douchebag
What I can't understand is Barnes & Noble carrying it. The vast majority of their customers don't want to be exposed to that level of graphic violence, even in passing, if I had to guess. I'm kind of surprised that Walmart, B&N, Target, etc., don't require alternate covers, or blackout slips.
I was also very upset when I went to see Grindhouse and there was a trailer for the more recent Halloween flick. The trailer itself was as close to torture porn as you can get without showing any blood.
When Gametrailers has a video that may be disturbing, they make you put in your birthday. That functions as an opt-in. When I put in my birthday in (or scroll the age down to the bottom and say I'm 108 years old), I've chosen to view it. But to have something like the Halloween trailer or the Saw cover show up, with no warning and out of nowhere?
Sure - the line is fuzzy. But it's certainly there. And I think the goal of advertisers especially should be to err on the side of caution. If your shit MIGHT be torture porn, or graphic sex, or whatever, then put it behind an opt-in.
then you understand that this is not about violence or sex. it's about ignorance and ultimately, money. the fact that this kind of shit is being fed to kids these days on a daily basis without any censorship or responsibility from parents is such an epidemic decease that it makes me sick. but when mass effect shows an alien butt crack, "i certainly don't want that in my house!"
god i hate the world, and i hate all this disrespect for artistic integrity and hypocrites telling me what is morally acceptable standards in one art form but then breaking that rule for the next.
"It's one thing to hold an opinion, it's another to try telling us that we're all wrong and stupid for having different ones."
What? When did I call you stupid for having a different opinion? I re-read all of my posts and none of them say that at all. I wasn't even being insulting, with the exception that comment I made to Sadie G, but she didn't read what I wrote. I also might have been a tad mean towards wiisucks, but even than that was pretty tame for a reply to him.
What are you smoking?
@ the rest of your comment
What I'm saying is that, without censorship, developers should move away from making things more violent. Unless it's relevant to what they're doing, there is no need for it.
tl;dr version: Good post!
You can say that Manhunt's sales could mean that people don't care for extreme violence, but what about films like Saw and Hostel? According to Sadie they're on the 5th Saw movie.
The difference may be that people would rather watch something like that than take part in it.
This is the point where the industry will start to censor itself. If there is nobody who will buy the games, developers will stop making them.
So, at what level of realism does violence stop being just part of the game and becomes the point.
Throbbing Gristle kicks ass.
I love blowing shit up in games and a great in-game kill is a lot of fun, but do I need to see their head pop? Do I need Soldier of Fortune-style dismemberment? No. It's gratuitous. If I want that kind of gross realism, I'll go to Iraq. If games become so realistically violent that the line is that blurred, then I will stop playing games.
Manhunt and games of it's ilk are the "death-metal" of the video game industry. Madden and sports games are "Pop", Puzzlers like Lumines and Puzzle Quest are "Country" (hate country, love puzzlers, btw), Halo and "run-and gun" style FPSs are "Cross-Over Pop Hits" (think Shania Twain), Bioshock, Portal, and most RPGs are "Classical", Super Mario Galaxy and other 3D platforms are "J-Pop", Shooters like Ikaruga and Omega Five are "Techno", and I'm sure if I thought about it some more I could find a correlation between all of the major gaming types and the major styles of music.
Games like Manhunt are going to appeal to the types of people that are really into death metal... it's gory, it's violent, and it's fucking brutal. They'll love it just because of that and need nothing more from it.
There have been, and probably always will be, movies and other forms of media (like, you know, books) that have far more graphic content than games, and it seems silly for double standards to exist across divides like that.
this is hard.... because i really really feel you should not make that statement, "there really is no need for it most of the time."
you are not to say what is needed or not. i understand what you mean about mindless killing and torture porn, but to me, thats still art (even how shitty or pointless it might seem).
it is still so incredibly subjective that you have no right telling people what is needed or not. but i see your point and i understand why you are upset.
Exactly.
You mis-read what I wrote. I said that the original Manhunt was there to do what you said it did. Manhunt 2 on the other hand was unnecessary. What did they add to it? Did it push anything forward? Was there an audio or graphical difference between the two? No, right?
Like I said in my original post, sometimes I enjoy a piece of medium that makes me feel uncomfortable due to its very nature. I haven't played Manhunt 2, but from what I saw, the gameplay remains true to the original, while the story is a much different one.
By your logic, we would have one movie or game for each genre and then that would be it.
I don't want you to feel like I'm being overly critical, but what I am interested in is why you seem to be concerned with realistic violence in games. As I've said before, I think games that force us out of our desensitization of typical video game violence and remind us that real violence is not "fun" are good to play every once in awhile.
There's something to be said about Manhunt 1 and 2. While Rockstar and Take 2 have got a lot of bad press over them, the very fact that people find them disturbing is a good thing. Other games in the horror genre do the same, with differing effects.
Let me elaborate on that. Resident Evil is a survival game with an underlying story of secret government companies and bio weapons, its horror aspects are built on this story, which keeps me buying the games. Dead Rising is tongue and cheek violence game in a RE story mould. Silent Hill takes are darker horror approach with a more secrets of a small town feel, but still has some shockingly good stuff, making it a good Resident Evil alternative. All have something disturbing about them, whether in story or violence.
Manhunt lacks in the story department but the sequel does have one, something many seem to forget. If the story isn't that great, the player cares less, so it might seem more violent in what its doing.
Perhaps Manhunt 2 is a piece of game art in itself (like a gory Carvaggio painting), because despite its story, it shows you just how dark real violence can be, and has you making this post too. We as humans are desensitived to violence and death already without games, because its not something many of us experience every day, as once was the case in history, but it will come to us all eventually. Manhunt is still an adult game, for an adult audience and while controversial I applaud Rockstar for taking the risk.
So long as we dodge and hide this kind of game, even if mainstream, someone out there will create it. Lets face it, sex and violence will always sell, even those who wrote the bible know that. How do we handle it?
Quite simple, by exercising suspension of disbelief and switching that console/PC off after play, as well as varying the types of games we buy and play. Also don't take the violence in a game out of its context.
I don't buy into that 'movies are passive' arguement (am I a Cowboy killer, because I was playing as an imaginary indian when I was six? No, I'm fine, like most folk). Saw is selling because its lets voyueristic fans get a kick from it twisted story as much as its ingenious torture and killing devices. I'm guilty of enjoying them, because they push the boundaries of what humans are capable of. We always have the choice to hit the on/off switch, close your eyes, don't rent or buy, or just do something else, this is the ultimate form of censorship we have. Use it for all your entertainment media.
By the way Vexed, good post, but don't stress about stepping on bugs, so long as you don't mean it, its okay. Next time you find a spider etc in distress, help it out instead. You'll balance out your karma and stress. Also bare in mind we all get munched by bugs when we die anyway. See, the karma is working already. Lol.