For the mag (X360): Are games ultra violent?

[360_Mag_Dave]

Hello everyone! How are we all doing? Do you like the new mag? Wait until you see the next issue, it's awesome!

This is a discussion for the letters page and I'd like to know what you all think about the recent comments about games (yet again) being too violent. In fact, they're ultra violent and we need more games that don't focus on blowing people's faces off. Is this true? Should we care? Do you care?

Here's the original article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... as-to-stop

Let me know what you think:

go

[Mullered Moose]

Has the new mag been released? I haven't had my copy through the post yet.

I'd say games can be ultra violent but depends on the context. Compared to film they are on a par ( see Prometheus for recent nasty film deaths). Compared to real life they are unmatched in the nature and variety of grotesqueness.

[Eli Vance]

It seems to me at least that violent and action focused games have been pushed and marketed this generation in a way we didn't see in previous generations. Last gen games such as driving simulators, sports sims, puzzle games, etc were all just as likely to get as much press as a violent action game. Whereas nowadays, even the likes of Gran Turismo and Forza are getting sidelined to make more room for Epic's or Ea's, or whomever's next big shooter. Given the latest E3 showing I do believe games are at risk of becoming the medium of violence. In the same way comic books have become stuck as the medium of the superhero.

I agree with Spector to a point. I don't think violence should be removed but there is a big difference between a game including violence, and a game being about violence. And indeed, there's a difference between a story that meditates on violence and a story that simply indulges it. In other words, the industry needs more games which get players to at least stop and think about the nature of violence. Whereas most games don't offer any food for thought other than shooting stuff in a variety of different ways just to get the adrenaline pumping. If we look at films its similar to comparing Rambo 3 and Se7en. In my mind Se7en is the more disturbing film, containing as it does horrific scenes of violence and torture. And yet it isn't about violence in the same way Rambo 3 is. Rambo 3 is simply an excuse for old Sly to go blow something up in the Middle East. There is no greater thought than "I wonder what weapon he'll use next or how he'll kill the next lot of enemies?" It's purely about brainless violence, whereas Se7en is about the ideas behind it.

Just becasue violent situations create an easy sense of challenge to draw players in, that doesn't mean all gaming should be encouraged to go down this path. We need games to be diverse and developers to tackle challenge and competition in a variety of different ways, not just giving us more tangos to shoot down in the most graphic ways possible. If games developers do want to go with violence (other than the pantomime type) then they need to sandwich it with provocative and compelling content that steps beyond violence purely for the sake of it.

[j2000_nr]

This is so simple.

Games are fantasy, a work of fiction, as such anything that happens in a game isn't real, and so any violence isn't real. I have a pretty good idea of what's real and what is fantasy (at least that's what the voices in my head tell me!) I have no desire to recreate any 'violence' that I see in a game.

I think this argument just works to focus non-gamers on games, so that they can have there own well informed opinion of a subject they know nothing about.

[The-Marb]

Well, not really.
It’s natural for games as a relatively new media to want to explore their boundaries in the same way that cinema, TV and music has done, and at some point a game may cross the line.

It’s also true that advancing graphics allow for a level of verisimilitude that wasn’t previously possible, which could lead to video game violence becoming more problematic.

That said it’s hard to think of many games that are as gleefully sadistic and violent as the movies like the Saw or Hostel series. But we dont see picket lines about that ("down with this sort of thing!...careful now!") the last time i checked. Its taken as a given that the movies rating is the law, but video games are given shorter shrift.

I firmly believe that games are appropriately age rated, a fact that many non-gamers and parents seem to forget. Getting this across to these people is the key factor, not the level of violence (at the moment).

[ClownTrousers]

Games are generally fine. The marketing of them often isn't.

[McGunslinger]

Games are pretty violent, some very violent but its still very cartoonish. Very few, if any have realistic or disturbing violence.

[Palerider_GB]

Not this again...

Yes games are violent. No they don'tI'M GONNA HACK YOU ALL INTO TINY PIECES!!!!!cause psychological problems...

[Eli Vance]

Spector isn't on about the effects of violence in video games as he doesn't believe in that argument. He is talking about the portrayal of violence within games being too adolescent and the over reliance on it to sell them.

[Palerider_GB]

I dunno. I didn't bother to read the article.

[hollywooda]

I've never played a game were the violence has got anywhere near the level thats in the book American psycho or the Film Hostel.

I think the reason why games keep getting these kind of article is because gaming is still seen as a pass time for kids, and until this label is shrugged off by the general press expect to keep seeing them.

[TheSelkie]

You're asking two different questions. Are video games ultra violent? Yes. Are video games too violent? No. It would be hard to call the 5000 odd kills I've got in Mass Effect anything other than "ultra violent" and it would be hard to claim that blowing off enemies heads isn't "ultra violent". But is it too violent? Well since I'm yet to see any compelling evidence that violence in games affects players in a significant way, I'd argue that games are only "too violent" if the violence negatively impacts upon the game.

[hollywooda]

Isn't ultra violent excessive violence, I.e too much?.

[Mullered Moose]

I think people are looking at this wrong, we aren't talking about a quantitative measure more the degree of violence. In other words not in 5000 kills is more violent than getting 100; but poking someone in the eye with your finger is light/mild violence whereas hacking someone's arms off with a rusty spoon is ultra violence.

[The_Deleted]

I'm surprised there's any debate, to be honest. Yes, games are ultra violent, yes, games do go after the teen boy market and yes, it is starting to get fucking dull.
I'm as much of a gore whore as anyone, within reason but I can't stomach films like Human Centipede, A Serbian Movie or any of these contemporary, spite filled movies that try to pass for horror.
Games aren't on a level as these types of films yet, although a few have tried, and the violence in these games is still very much of the Urotsukidoji levels of blood and limbs but if the next gen is the leap in graphics that we presume it's going to be, do you think we'll get more 3D Dot Heroes or Limbos with beautiful colours and design or more visceral, graphic scenes of guts and gore?
Games are incredibly violent, and I'm a sucker for it as much as anyone, but publishers and developers are not suddenly going to ease up with the next generation. Most times it's a bullet point on the box to sell the game.
If gaming is going to be seen to mature as medium, it needs to get out of this gut-rut. But, until gaming as we understand it appeals to a wider demographic, it cannot possibly afford to.