Your opinion on violence and killing in video games?

[Princess Viola]

So, what's your opinion on one of the most controversial subjects for video games?

 

 

 

Well, in my opinion, who cares if a game has killing? I mean, let's say a parent sues Rockstar because their 10 year old son tried to mimic something they did in a Grand Theft Auto game. Well, the Mario games have killing (the goombas). But, you don't see them suing Nintendo for when their kid jumps on another kid.

 

 

 

More importantly, the ESRB is waaay to intense. Mainly because the rating of the game is based on a video of the most violent or suggestive parts of the game, they don't see the whole thing. Hell, I think that if the ESRB saw EVERYTHING in Halo, Halo would've been rated T.

 

 

 

Now, I don't think we should have too much blood and gore in a game. But, maybe in a game with a lot of blood and gore a disclaimer has to be put in the says "Notice for gamers - The following game is fictional. Do NOT attempt ANYTHING that occurs in this game".

[Wisp]

Halo has a lot of blood effects, which is why it was rated M.

 

I think that they are too harsh on some games like oblivion, where they moved it to M, because of a hidden designers file that had basically barbie doll nudity

[Nom]

I don't get why so many games have to involve blood and gore anyway :| You can't make a good game without making heads explode? Obviously there are plenty of good games that do this, but it's almost like a prerequisite. And then Nintendo gets slammed for making "kiddy" games.

[Nadril]

I don't get why so many games have to involve blood and gore anyway :| You can't make a good game without making heads explode? Obviously there are plenty of good games that do this, but it's almost like a prerequisite. And then Nintendo gets slammed for making "kiddy" games.

 

 

 

I find it odd that a person can be fine with shooting countless "people" in the head, but the moment they see the consequence of their action they get all up in arms. Not really direceted at you, by the way, just something I've always noticed.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that, when you're looking at a violent game as an art form is needs to have some uncomfortable moments. If it makes you think about what is going on, great! I just don't see some games being near as good if they didn't actually try to realisticly show what is going on. Of course back in the day, when technology was limited, people would use other techniques to imply something was happening but... well, sometimes it just needs to be shown.

 

 

 

Or if you look at a more traditional action game, like for example Left4Dead. I don't think L4D would be as much fun if it didn't have the over the top violence that comes with the zombie invasion.

 

 

 

A great example is to look at Mortal Kombat II for the Genesis and then the SNES. The Genesis version, uncensored and the SNES censored. The SNES one is just ridiculous because the fatalties are just silly. One of them, where the character pulls his enemies heart through the chest, was made so that he just grabs... nothing. It looks stupid and completely out of place for what is an over the top game because, well, that is funny.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, to (slightly) play Devils Advocate here.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, in my opinion, who cares if a game has killing? I mean, let's say a parent sues Rockstar because their 10 year old son tried to mimic something they did in a Grand Theft Auto game. Well, the Mario games have killing (the goombas). But, you don't see them suing Nintendo for when their kid jumps on another kid.

 

 

 

 

Goombas aren't real, however humans are real. It's much easier to suspend belief in a game like mario then it is GTA for a child.

 

 

 

More importantly, the ESRB is waaay to intense. Mainly because the rating of the game is based on a video of the most violent or suggestive parts of the game, they don't see the whole thing. Hell, I think that if the ESRB saw EVERYTHING in Halo, Halo would've been rated T.

 

 

 

 

Spoken like a true underaged kid. I do think that the ESRB does go too far at times ( AO for slight nudity?) but as far as a game like halo goes I can agree with the decision of M. Oblivion should have been a T tops, however.

 

 

 

Now, I don't think we should have too much blood and gore in a game. But, maybe in a game with a lot of blood and gore a disclaimer has to be put in the says "Notice for gamers - The following game is fictional. Do NOT attempt ANYTHING that occurs in this game".

 

 

 

Disclaimer's only use are to save someones [wagon] in a legal battle. They don't actually help prevent anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I do agree with a lot of the ESRB ratings although most people tend to forget that they are a guideline, not a rule. Just like anything else if a child gets a parents permission they can play it, and I think it is up to the parents to decide what is best for their child. Of course in today's world most parents are very ineffective of doing this, which is why we have things such as a 10 year old playing GTA (which, in all honesty, I don't know any 10 year olds that would be mature enough to play GTA. [cabbage], I don't know many 13-15 year olds that are mature enough!)

 

 

 

 

 

Still I think the majority of complaints about the ESRB are largely related to an underage teenager not being able to buy a game, because their parents wouldn't let them (or some other nonsense).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I got off track here, but violence in video games? I think it's fine because more often then not it has a purpose.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think there's a difference between having violence in the game, and actually showing that violence. If you look at other art forms, like films, some of the best movies don't necessarily show the blood and gore but you can still appreciate the scene without all that detail. In fact, the fact you haven't seen it I think adds something more to the wonder.

 

 

 

As far as some games are concerned, I can't understand why there's so much blood and gore. I've seen some games, and the blood sometimes pours onto the 'camera', and I'm just sat there thinking "Was there any need for that? I can see the guy was killed brutally without it".

 

 

 

Also, wrestling games. Nowadays, it seems to be a race to see who can make the bones in the face crack as realistically as possible. I don't think there's anything wrong in exploring that necessarily, but I think for kids who like that kinda stuff and get kicks when their friend's face gets rearranged, it's just appealing to something a little... wrong in the child, that they like that sort of stuff.

 

 

 

Violence isn't necessarily wrong in a game. It's just the level of detail some games put in to show it doesn't show much creativity and doesn't leave much to the imagination. It's excessive and spoils the game. In SSBB, I'm fine with just seeing my opponent get hit by a sword and being knocked back, rather than seeing blood flying from his face all over the stage (well... MK would need a face first...).

 

 

 

As far as ratings are concerned, I think Halo should be M. It's clearly not aimed for lower teens. Likewise, there's plenty of movies out there with fine philosophical points that some teens would do well to learn, but they're rated 18 for a reason.

[pryomancer]

Video games are a release and a place to experience things that we wouldn't see in real life.

 

 

 

Stuff like violence satisfies the natural morbid obsession that everyone has, seeing dead bodies and slicing people up etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Plus it feels good to kill things, even if they are virtual.

[Dizzle229]

It's not wrong to have excessive violence and gore in games because that's what they are. Games.

 

 

 

I'm 13, and I have been playing the GTA series since I was 7. I have never once done something in a video game and thought "Wow, I should really do this."

 

 

 

When somebody's child kills someone because of what they saw on GTA, they blame video games. Meanwhile...

 

 

 

1. The ESRB rating is there for a reason. Why were you letting little Timmy play GTA? The only reason I did get to play was because I never stood up from games before and thought I should actually go for it.

 

 

 

2. This one is really important. Parents blame game companies as a scapegoat because they can't admit that they were too stupid to restrict the game to someone who clearly couldn't handle it, and because they can't admit that their kid was an idiot.

[ThurinEthir]

In the last thread about ESRB:

 

Other than the big ones (AO, possibly M...And in terms of movies, R), ratings should be more of a guideline, a suggestion, rather than an official rule.

 

In this thread:

 

 

Anyways, I do agree with a lot of the ESRB ratings although most people tend to forget that they are a guideline, not a rule.

 

 

Do I win? :lol:

 

 

 

I agree with Nadril though. Take the violence out of a FPS or RTS, two very popular genres. What do you get? People standing around doing nothing.

 

Of course you could have awesome games like Caesar, but leading an army into battle is quite enjoyable too.

 

So take away every video game that has any hint of violence or sex in it. All you have left is Wii Music.

 

I'm not trying to say that you can't have a good game without violence or sex. It's just that basically all the bestsellers out there (Aside from all these casual Wii games) are based around violence. I don't know why they were made that way, I don't know why people like violent games - But I know that it's true, people like violent games and developers will make games that people like.

 

Personally, I sometimes use video games as a way to release my anger. Instead of punching a wall, I'll play a FPS and go on a killing spree. For me, it's relaxing. It takes my mind off whatever I'm angry about, while also letting that anger out.

 

 

 

Having violence is fine. Having blood and gore all over the place? Sometimes a bit overkill.

[AndyPandy]

2. This one is really important. Parents blame game companies as a scapegoat because they can't admit that they were too stupid to restrict the game to someone who clearly couldn't handle it, and because they can't admit that their kid was an idiot.

 

 

 

Well said. They try and blame the game companies, when it is their child who is not capable of seeing something, and then being mature enough not to do it. Another thing is, say I went out tomorrow and killed a man. The police would search my room, and find videogames such as COD4/5, MGS4, GTA etc. Then they would say, 'Oh look, this kid has been playing videogames. They have a little label on the back which says there is some viollence in it. They would then blame the videogames, they think thatvideogames infect your mind, and take over your soul.

 

 

 

Also, a mini poll:

 

 

 

HAve you ever had the urge to kill someone after playing a video game due to it's graphic content/portrayal of killing?

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

HAve you ever had the urge to kill someone after playing a video game due to it's graphic content/portrayal of killing?

 

 

 

yes.

[Faux]

no one's forcing you to play video games. there *are* other things to do

[Alg]

 

1. The ESRB rating is there for a reason. Why were you letting little Timmy play GTA? The only reason I did get to play was because I never stood up from games before and thought I should actually go for it.

 

 

 

2. This one is really important. Parents blame game companies as a scapegoat because they can't admit that they were too stupid to restrict the game to someone who clearly couldn't handle it, and because they can't admit that their kid was an idiot.

 

Amen,

 

Sometimes the blood and gore helps the atmosphere of it though. I doubt Bioshock, for example, would have been as good a horror game if there wasn't blood splattered on the walls. Other times it can be a bit overkill though.

[Biabf]

I'm fine with violence in video games ;) So are my parents, if I ask for an 18 game and give them the money, they will probably buy it for me :)

 

 

 

One of my friend's dad doesn't let him have anything with violence between humans, like GTA, but he's allowed have games with violence against aliens. He is allowed to have GoW2 which lets you chainsaw aliens while blood spurts everywhere but he isn't allowed GTA IV which is a lot less graphic. Pretty Stupid IMO.

[BlueLancer]

 

Disclaimer's only use are to save someones [wagon] in a legal battle. They don't actually help prevent anything.

 

 

 

 

Just thought to comment on this since everyone online seems to rely on it (especially private server hosts):

 

 

 

A disclaimer that asks you to tick a box and click agree isn't legally binding. It has no power of law unless the end user provided a certifiable, electric signature (something next to nobody online uses nor is it possible on almost any site except government agencies and corporate sites)

 

 

 

A console video game, in practice, doesn't even need to add a disclaimer such as "Any likeness of personality, locations and characters are purely coincidental". It's there to discourage lawsuits by people who think they were copied into a movie/game, but it wont stop any lawsuits from actually happening (or resulting in the game company losing the trial).

 

 

 

Likewise, "This game is not responsible for any violent acts carried out in real life" is an irrelevant disclaimer. Even without the text being included in the terms & conditions of the game, video game or movie influence has never been enough of a reason to build a legal case & win it. It's also a career suicide for the lawyer that would pick up your case.

 

 

 

Empirical Legal Studies (hosted by professional lawyers and law professors) has a great article on it, also explaining some court cases in which the judge found video game influence to be insufficient evidence: http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_le ... _viol.html

 

 

 

The studies generally find there is a clear increased risk of violent behavior while playing violent games, and there's no denying that. But it's not going to hold up in court.

[Nadril]

Did not know that Blue. :)

 

 

 

I think there's a difference between having violence in the game, and actually showing that violence. If you look at other art forms, like films, some of the best movies don't necessarily show the blood and gore but you can still appreciate the scene without all that detail. In fact, the fact you haven't seen it I think adds something more to the wonder.

 

 

 

Difficult to pull off in a video game. Since you are actually the person doing it all it doesn't make sense to "hide" it unless it is another person who is doing it. In a movie you can pull it off because you are an unknown 3rd party watching the events unfold.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as some games are concerned, I can't understand why there's so much blood and gore. I've seen some games, and the blood sometimes pours onto the 'camera', and I'm just sat there thinking "Was there any need for that? I can see the guy was killed brutally without it".

 

 

 

Again, I don't see why people get so uptight over blood. Exageration is an art form, of course, and in a violent game such as Gears of War 2 it wouldn't be the same without blood. If you're going to chainsaw a guy in half you should be prepared to see what happens. I'll let you in on a hint, it isn't pretty.

 

 

 

And again please go look up the fatalities from the SNES version of Mortal Kombat II. They're horrible without blood.

 

 

 

Also, wrestling games. Nowadays, it seems to be a race to see who can make the bones in the face crack as realistically as possible. I don't think there's anything wrong in exploring that necessarily, but I think for kids who like that kinda stuff and get kicks when their friend's face gets rearranged, it's just appealing to something a little... wrong in the child, that they like that sort of stuff.

 

 

 

Kid's shouldn't be playing games like that if they can't handle it. You bet your [wagon] that if I blow off my roomates head in a game that I'll laugh about it, but it's just competitive nature. And I don't see what is so wrong with liking some, more or less, fake gore.

 

 

 

Violence isn't necessarily wrong in a game. It's just the level of detail some games put in to show it doesn't show much creativity and doesn't leave much to the imagination. It's excessive and spoils the game. In SSBB, I'm fine with just seeing my opponent get hit by a sword and being knocked back, rather than seeing blood flying from his face all over the stage (well... MK would need a face first...).

 

 

 

Again, why are you fine with any amount of violence but are not fine with seeing the consequence of your actions. SSBB is a different story all together, and I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about games such as GTA4, Half life 2, Left4Dead... all games that would not make sense to actually show what happens. In GTA4 I find it stranger that someone would let a child play GTA4 if it had no gore, almost as if they were to say "well see, nothing bad happens when you shoot someone!". In a game such as Half life or, a better example, Dead Space, gore is largely used for the artistic medium. It is used to produce an atmosphere that wouldn't be the same without. And as far as Left4Dead goes, well, what zombie apoclypse is going to be blood free?

[Harakiri]

My opinion, is that killing hordes of Locusts is always fun

[Futurama]

There's always going to be a couple of pillocks who take everything too far or do something stupid. Sport brings violence, music brings violence, hell, cooking brings violence. it might spur it on a bit but just because it's an obvious example in a computer game, doesn't mean it should be banned. Did anyone hear about the first Blues/Villa game when blues got back into the premier? My mate had to literally run from the ground at the end because he saw 2 people get stabbed - and that was just where he was.

 

Totally see what you mean on the exaggeration point, but sometimes a game needs it. Then again, sometimes not - IE as mentioned, Oblivion. Great FPS game, minimal violence - no limb removal or headshots or anything, just a bit of classic sword/body interaction. yay. Some games just require it though - Loaded on PS1 was a total bloodbath - part of the fun.

[BlueLancer]

 

Totally see what you mean on the exaggeration point, but sometimes a game needs it. Then again, sometimes not - IE as mentioned, Oblivion. Great FPS game, minimal violence - no limb removal or headshots or anything, just a bit of classic sword/body interaction. yay. Some games just require it though - Loaded on PS1 was a total bloodbath - part of the fun.

 

 

 

Wouldn't really call it a FPS game (unless you meant frames per second :P ) seeing as it's more of a roleplaying game, but yes, it just fits some games better than others. Oblivion with excessive gore would kill the 'class' the game just naturally has.

 

 

 

Don't even mention music. Brings back the memories of idiotic people who were blaming murders, school fights, Columbine, even 9/11 (?!) on Marilyn Manson. Fortunately that phenomena (or dare I say, generation) seems to be dying off slowly. It's so ironic when you consider that in particular, Manson is a very peaceful and reasonable person... He made a pretty good speech on blame (link). Despite his explicit lyrics and makeup people fail to realize he's actually a good man.

[Nom]

To clarify what I said earlier . . . I don't mind the fact that some games like GoW and L4D are just suited to the excessive violence (hell, the upcoming Wii game MadWorld looks hella fun and the only color in it is the red of the blood.) But I find it interesting to note that the reason people get worked up over this topic in general is because so many games fit the criteria. It's like a game isn't good unless it has mass blood and gore and the fanboys can rave about the ESRB and crazy propaganda.

[Faux]

i remember playing GTA on the PS1 when i was like 9. you know, killing cops, running over civilians, bombing buildings.

 

 

 

people who have a problem differentiating reality from a game was born with a mental problem. if it wasnt video games that would cause him/er to do that, it would be another form of media.

[RichieMcD]

Violent games aren't the cause for kids imitating them, it's bad parenting or adults acting irresponsible and giving them to young kids who don't know the difference between reality and game.

 

 

 

It always pisses me off when violent games get blamed for something, it's not the games fault, it's the [developmentally delayed] who gave the game to the kid.

 

 

 

I've been playing GTA games since I was about 10, I've played many other slice & dice games or shoot'em ups. I'm not very violent, less violent than a lot of people my age. Yet these games are supposed to makes us violent rampaging murder committing lunatics? Bull[cabbage].

[Furah]

As far as ratings are concerned, I think Halo should be M. It's clearly not aimed for lower teens. Likewise, there's plenty of movies out there with fine philosophical points that some teens would do well to learn, but they're rated 18 for a reason.

 

 

 

In Aus it is rated M, infact games and movies are more strictly rated, with quiet a few games having to be altered for Aussie viewing.

[Lenin64]

As far as ratings are concerned, I think Halo should be M. It's clearly not aimed for lower teens. Likewise, there's plenty of movies out there with fine philosophical points that some teens would do well to learn, but they're rated 18 for a reason.

 

 

 

In Aus it is rated M, infact games and movies are more strictly rated, with quiet a few games having to be altered for Aussie viewing.

 

Halo's rated M everywhere, dude.

[BlueLancer]

As far as ratings are concerned, I think Halo should be M. It's clearly not aimed for lower teens. Likewise, there's plenty of movies out there with fine philosophical points that some teens would do well to learn, but they're rated 18 for a reason.

 

 

 

In Aus it is rated M, infact games and movies are more strictly rated, with quiet a few games having to be altered for Aussie viewing.

 

Halo's rated M everywhere, dude.

 

 

 

Nah

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

it's 16/T in Europe :P I got the european version as a present years ago, I dug up the CD cover just now to make sure. Never installed it though, lol.

[Wongtong]

I don't mind violence and killing in video games, that makes it more fun for me. But I like non-violent games too :]

 

 

 

One thing about violence and killing in video games is that it gives me a point to debate about in English. (eg we had to write whether or not technology was a health hazard for a formal essay, I couldn't think of much so I just said "yush because violent games influence people to kill other people.")