Others gamers who AREN'T down with all game violence?

[Brandon Strader]

Glorified violence is great, and part of being a mature adult is being able to cope with adult situations. If a little cartoon violence turns your stomach, you're going to have problems if you ever witness or are in an accident where someone is badly hurt and needs attention immediately. Like a car accident, or a Boston bombing scenario.

[Meteo Xavier]

If a little cartoon violence turns your stomach, you're going to have problems if you ever witness or are in an accident where someone is badly hurt and needs attention immediately. Like a car accident, or a Boston bombing scenario.

Dude, you'd have to be some sort of miracle-making sociopath to NOT have problems in helping people during the fucking Boston bombing. That comes with the territory of being human. Professionals can cope with it on the actual job, but off the clock, they're still shaking.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Dude, you'd have to be some sort of miracle-making sociopath to NOT have problems in helping people during the fucking Boston bombing. That comes with the territory of being human. Professionals can cope with it on the actual job, but off the clock, they're still shaking.

My cousin is a police detective. For a few years she was in the unit that focused on crimes against women and children and investigated a lot of homicides. She's seen some super crazy shit. She got transferred out of it because of how bad her nightmares were getting.

Anyway, to be on-topic I actually don't play a lot of hyper-violent video games. The most violent game I played in recent times was Metal Gear Rising and I would have said that it was way more over the top than necessary, but they did get pretty creative with how precise you could slice things. So that was cool. Then there are games like Mortal Kombat where it's just violence for no good reason. I swear that the violence is the only thing that sold Mortal Kombat. Honestly, the older games were some of the shittiest fighting games I have ever played.

[EC2151]

My opinion is that Mortal Kombat 2 was the best of the first three games. Though people tell me the later, later games are taken more seriously as fighting games. MK4 is just hilariously awful though. MK violence is stupid but it adds a lot to the fun feel of the game. If it wasn't fun to play no one would have cared.

I think it's fair to say that there's definitely a bias towards male gamers, that much has pretty much already been established even outside of the violence issue, but I don't agree with violence being an adolescent taste. I think most men have a proclivity to violent media, it appeals to us instinctually because we've always been the hunters and combatants and such throughout our evolution.

The increase in violent games also seems to coincide with the age of gamers getting older, there are more gamers who aren't adolescents or children than there have ever been and we have more and more violent games. Just speaking anecdotally but I also know a lot of gamers in their mid twenties-thirties and most of them play games like GTA or CoD and so on.

Well violence does naturally appeal to men, just on a base level - and I'm not going to explain that with any highfalutin psychology study or research journal. You don't find too many girls watching war movies, or playing something like Mad World (which I don't think is offensive at all. It's just silly and obviously so).

However, I think there is a line, albeit vague and hard-to-always-define, between mature violence, fun over-the-top Tarantino-esque violence, and "kid going through their heavy metal phase" stuff.

Glorified violence is great, and part of being a mature adult is being able to cope with adult situations.

This post is dumb enough to be worth commenting on (namely: how dumb it is). There's little in watching Kill Bill or RoboCop (two fantastic, violent movies mind you) that prepares you for seeing actual human carnage. I'd question the 'maturity' on display here.

Edited September 21, 2013 by EC2151

[HoboKa]

Glorified violence is great, and part of being a mature adult is being able to cope with adult situations. If a little cartoon violence turns your stomach, you're going to have problems if you ever witness or are in an accident where someone is badly hurt and needs attention immediately. Like a car accident, or a Boston bombing scenario.

So are you doing this to seem like a bad ass or are you just trolling? This made me shake my head either way...you're better than this brah.

[Brandon Strader]

Come on. I shared my opinion on this whole topic in my first post: http://ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=938935&postcount=7

I was merely commenting on, someone who gets sick seeing cartoon violences, needs to grow a pair and stop potentially being a liability as an adult in a disaster scenario.

It's not about being a bad butt, I assumed all adults had a grasp on their emotions and ability to assess a situation like that

So I am not phased by game violence and it frightens me that some people are. In a way being afraid of video game violence is an insult to actual violence.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Brandon Strader

[HoboKa]

Come on. I shared my opinion on this whole topic in my first post: http://ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=938935&postcount=7

So I am not phased by game violence and it frightens me that some people are. In a way being afraid of video game violence is an insult to actual violence.

Too lazy to post in that thread =p

Anyhoo, it's not about being afraid of violence per se, it's about the psychological effects that occur after seeing something traumatic/disturbing. Albeit, I'll admit that personally some horror & thriller movies affect me far more than any videogames ever had...minus the ones I've listed beforehand. Actually, I guess Mad World's is pretty fakie so it wasn't as bad as Manhunt lol.

On a side note...for the movie 3:10 to Yuma, when Russel Crowe smashes the big police man's throat in with a rock, I actually had recurring images during the next day and I was subconsciously grasping at my throat =/. Idk, maybe some people are more susceptible to fake violence than others, but it fucked me up >.<

Sometimes, I just get caught off guard by violent things I see in TV and games and get affected by it. So, yeah not every1 is like you Brandon, where they can detach themselves from what they're seeing & console themselves saying that it's fake. It seems pretty fucking real with modern affects nowadays, unless you've seen true, unfettered violence right before you and can say pffft that's totally fake, the inside of a chest cavity doesn't even come close to that IRL.

In the end though...I have to admit that it's stupid to say let's just ban stuff that makes *some* people uncomfortable - it's all about the viewer's discretion in the end. Whew...feels good to get that off my chest finally

EDIT

I apolagize ahead of time if I seem a bit combative, wasn't aiming to put the blame on you >.< just this stupid, hypocritical society of ours in general.

Edited September 21, 2013 by HoboKa

[Brandon Strader]

Too lazy to post in that thread =p

It's an earlier post in this thread You weren't too lazy to post in it!

I hear you though. Hey, maybe I'm different because I grew up with the internet. I remember the thing that really bothered me when I was younger was seeing pictures of an "elderly man" who had fallen asleep in the bathtub that he had heated very hot with boiled water, I suppose because that's how some people have to do that, without having hot water available to them, who knows. Anyway I put "elderly man" in quotes because he wasn't a person in the picture anymore, he was just a bathtub full of veins and mush pretty much. That bothered me, and I've seen stuff since then like video of Mexican gang violence where people were killed with chainsaws, and that bothered me, but after a while and seeing that kind of stuff the feeling turns away from disgust and shifts toward anger against the people who are causing that violence. But that's real life violence which I put in a whole different league from game violence simply because it is real and much more visceral. You're looking at REAL people rather than a polygonal representation of a person. I suppose it's wrong to consider people who haven't had that kind of exposure as "weaker" in some way, but I do feel like people who have witnessed actual, terrible violence or even unfortunate gory situations like that man turned to soup in the bathtub will be stronger from having witnessed that. In our current generation, it's a lot less common for someone to go without ever witnessing violence or gore simply because it's a side-effect of both our nation's actions, and others. I saw the guy with his leg blown off from the Boston bombing in stunning HD and it didn't bother me on a gore-level, but I felt very bad for him, and the life he will now lead without the leg. I've seen video from an Ubama drone strike in the middle east with a child with its brain hanging out. I feel that while our country is causing this harm to other countries it is our duty to be aware of it and recognize the evil involved in that, not for any sort of reverence for the violence or gore, but simply out of respect for those harmed and a determination to never cause such harm to another person. I get out of feeling guilty for such things at the voting booth, but that's a whole different story that is beyond the scope of this thread. As for game violence... I critique games so heavily on their gameplay, graphics, and systems that it's hard for me to really consider violence in games as a disturbing thing. It's part of the journey, the geometry of A to B or a necessity of a leveling-up system or a score system. I don't feel it glorifies real life violence, because it simply is not real life violence. Games like GTA5 are on the spectrum of games where the bad guy causes harm to innocent bystanders (a less common form of game violence). Not all games have the "No Russian" scene. And even then, it's less of an idea of hurting actual people and more of a "let's see how many of these copy/pasted NPCs I can take out, for fun!" Having the same people appear doesn't devalue the violence, but it does expose the game for what it is; a game, which reproduces these non-living entities endlessly because they are the bits and bytes of an artificial game world. Their "pain" is acted by a highly paid voice actor in a booth far, far away, and their motion capture performed was captured by a man or woman covered in little white dots also in a warehouse or studio far, far away. Even in games that have no specific narrative and simply rely on you killing endless crowds of the same people (like the Mario series) don't do it to glorify violence, I feel. It would be ideal if all games had moral standards where if you killed a civilian, you were instantly told "That's wrong" and had to restart from a checkpoint. Call of Duty does that if you kill a Private, but like I mentioned earlier, they did do the No Russian scene. Maybe it was less to glorify violence and more to expose violence that is perpetrated in our real world. When you played No Russian, did you feel like shooting up an airport, OR did you feel that Russians were dicks? If you chose Russians are dicks, you should be on the right path there. It may be seen as tasteless by many people, but it was also quite an effective narrative element that made you want to get revenge on the people who did that. That is how I feel about both game violence and real life violence, not an urge to copy cat it (which is simply absurd), but a craving for justice against those who would perform the senseless violence. Having said all that -- If you play your games with a sense of justice, that's fantastic. If you can also play games as the bad guy and enjoy taking out polygonal NPCs, that is also fantastic, but there is a huge difference between game violence and real life violence. I've never so much as slapped someone in my life, and running over a few hookers in GTA is not going to suddenly make me want to. I will shed no tears for those polygonal hookers. They didn't make bad choices to end up where they are, they were 'scripted' to be hookers, they've never not known anything because they never knew, because they have no capacity to know. They don't think, or feel, they follow along a scripted path.

Basically this edited American Psycho quote:

Brandon: Come on, Hoboka. There are a lot more important problems than video game violence to worry about.

Hoboka: Like what?

Brandon: Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

Hoboka: [feigning tears] Brandon. How thought-provoking.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Brandon Strader

[HoboKa]

And then there's the Illuminati, HARP, chemtrails, Oprah Winfrey, NCIS & SARS to worry about. I know my priorities of worrying about stuff

Glad I didn't have to see what you did, otherwise I'd be real messed up.

EDIT

that .GIF in your signature is tripping me out lmao - it's even funnier when inebriated

[Brandon Strader]

Glad I didn't have to see what you did, otherwise I'd be real messed up.

Are you suggesting I am real messed up, cause I beg to differ. I may be an unfeeling android but my circuits pertaining to right and wrong are functioning at full capacity!

[HoboKa]

Are you suggesting I am real messed up, cause I beg to differ.

Who isn't?

EDIT

that .GIF in your signature is tripping me out lmao - it's even funnier when inebriated

/

/

/

Hint

[Meteo Xavier]

I surely can't be the only person sick to bloody death of this overworn argument and the fact that we're not actually doing anything about it except flexing our intellects and egos. Can't we use this time and momentum to do something constructive about it?

[Brandon Strader]

so brave

meteo xavier for senate 2016

[Devyn]

I don't see the problem. I personally like violent games and also non-violent ones. Sometimes I just want something whimsical and pretty like Mario or Kirby, but sometimes I want something bloody and disturbing like No More Heroes or Splatterhouse. The front of the game has a rating that tells you whether or not it's violent, so there's really no problem if you're paying attention. Even the box art gives it away. Does it have blood or guns on the front? Watch out.

GTA can be a little disheartening, but c'mon, you know what you're getting into before you even jump in that swimming pool.

[Darklink42]

Brandon: I will admit upfront that I didn't read your entire block of text, but I get the gist of what you're saying (I think). I can't argue with you that what we're killing in games is anything more than data, at the end of the day. The reason it remains relevant in videogames, however, where it does not in other media such as videos and text, is that the player is the agent behind the action. We make the choice to pick up a controller and blow people away, and continue to make the choice to do so as we play along. That's a meaningful thing, or at least it ought to be, and I find it far more disturbing when a game offers up hyper-realism in violence, and people defend it wholesale by saying that it's all just fantasy. That's a disconnect from what's going on.

I believe that we should always spare at least a small amount of thought to the nature of the story we are creating when we play. I am not in control of Jason when he kills a bunch of teenagers in a movie, but I am in control of (insert character name here) from Call of Duty as he caps several hundred people in the face over the course of a game. This is why scenes like the airport one, or the white phosphorus scene in Spec Ops, held (or were intended to hold) so much power. You, not a character you play, are in control there. Digital or not, you're making choices of a violent nature. Arguments about cartoonish violence (a la Saints Row or GTA to a lesser extent) are valid here, but each person will have their own metric about what they believe approaches the "too far" line.

We debate this topic because it's a frighteningly thin line between the agency undertaken in a fantasy and the agency taken in real life. I'd never make the argument that videogames make people more likely to kill in real life, but there's a reason people jump so readily to that explanation, misguided as that may be. If a given person is unlikely to show restraint or morality in their gaming, who's to say they can or will outside of that? (As a hypothetical question.) We cannot enforce a players habits, and we can't inject morality into them either because each person's is there own. We also debate this topic because we need to always have a reminder that it's something that cannot be settled, merely explored. I would be FAR more disturbed if one day we all just stopped questioning and absorbed violence in whatever proportions it was doled out with no further comment.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

The moral of the story here is that ignorant people should not be exposed to thought-provoking, graphic, or complex material, because they might make the jump from completely fake to real. I mean really, what other conclusion is there to make? I'm of the mind that many people who are playing games like Grand Theft Auto V who are playing it who are "of age" really shouldn't be, because an arbitrarily set age where we say people are "ready" to consume types of content is just that: completely arbitrary.

But what are we going to do? Are we going to extend the same type of strict laws from say, gun control, to the types of media we consume? Are we going to tell game creators what they should and should not make, and that they have some sort of responsibility to society to educate and raise children and non-children on traditional values, social contract, and responsible living habits? I don't see either of these working particularly well.

I mean, like what you like and like liking it as I always say(and vice versa), but really, it's just a game, guys. And if you're going to start feeling uncomfortable about all of that, then I can't imagine you ever feeling comfortable given all the messed up stuff that wanders through our heads during the course of a day.

[Dissidia]

"It's just a game." What is that statement even supposed to mean?

[Melbu Frahma]

I'm of the mind that many people who are playing games like Grand Theft Auto V who are playing it who are "of age" really shouldn't be, because an arbitrarily set age where we say people are "ready" to consume types of content is just that: completely arbitrary.

Which is really and without serious question true, but the problem is, is there really any way to 'fairly' decide who is 'ready' for violent media that isn't just as arbitrary?

I mean, like what you like and like liking it as I always say(and vice versa), but really, it's just a game, guys. And if you're going to start feeling uncomfortable about all of that, then I can't imagine you ever feeling comfortable given all the messed up stuff that wanders through our heads during the course of a day.

For me, personally, it's not a matter of being uncomfortable about it; nor will I ever tell someone else they can't play the games I don't want to play. (For crying out loud, I'm the guy who thinks they didn't make the graphic scenes in Game of Thrones graphic ENOUGH to really capture the essence of the books, and who can sit through a particularly horrifying/disturbing scene without ceasing to eat my dinner.)

It's a matter of finding nothing redeeming in the experience for me, on a personal level, to be able to take away from it - I wouldn't enjoy the gameplay/mechanics, the story wouldn't intrigue/enlighten/educate/provoke thought/move me, and it wouldn't be something that I'd want to have a discussion about with someone else five years, one year, six months, or even a week from now. There's no purpose for me, as me, to play a game that's all gratuitous violence without deeper meanings or an amazing storyline that makes sense with the level of graphicness or something more to recommend it than "yay, murdering innocent random people is fun."

That's not to say others don't have the right to enjoy it, or find something in it for them. But there's nothing in the experience for me, and I refuse to waste my precious time, money, and personal investment in something that is just that, a waste, for me.

[Meteo Xavier]

The moral of the story here is that ignorant people should not be exposed to thought-provoking, graphic, or complex material, because they might make the jump from completely fake to real.

What are "ignorant" people, exactly? We all count as ignorant people in different contexts. You're ignorant because you seem to think certain people should not have access to information simply because you consider them to not be as enlightened as you are (I don't really think that, I'm just using your logic for a point here).

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

What are "ignorant" people, exactly?

Well that's the million dollar question really, and honestly I have no idea. I'm more speaking to the point that saying a person is mentally fit or "ready" to handle a certain type of content at an arbitrarily set age is a bit bonkers. I mean, I understand the intent behind it, but that doesn't make it any less so. People's developmental tracks are unique, so who's to say that a 13-year-old for example isn't or is ready to consume the type of content a 24-year-old would be able to consume? I mean this is tangential to the actual point of discussion I guess, but I just wanted to touch on part of the whole "games can promote/encourage/etc. real life violence".

As for feeling uncomfortable playing violent video games where there is an excess amount of killing or very realistic depictions of polygons resembling people getting maimed, tortured, or otherwise killed in grotesque ways, just avoid 'em? I really don't know what else to say except I think you're focusing far too much on the superficial, especially when discussing scenes in gaming such as the White Phosphorus scene in Spec Ops: The Line. Melbu makes the point that it really depends on what you get out of the experience, and I think where there's a compelling enough narrative, then there shouldn't be that big of an issue. After all, there are so many compelling movies with graphic depictions of violence, and what is a video game if not an interactive narrative? This is especially true if we want to treat games as art.

That being said, I'm not above feeling uncomfortable with a game's violence to the point where I can't play it. I can't play the Manhunt games for example.

[Brandon Strader]

13 year olds shouldn't be playing M-rated games

that's not even a topic we should be bringing up

it's for the bad parenting thread and doesn't belong here!

[The Derrit]

I'm going to start a topic. No, two. No, three!

others moviegoers who AREN'T down with all horror films?

others music enthusiasts you AREN'T down with all raunchy lyrics?

others artists blue AREN'T down with the color orange?

do you see where i'm going with this?

if you don't like it, don't pay for it and don't engage in it. this is a complete non-issue, and making a thread with such a combative title, as if to imply that all gamers that AREN'T you or ARE okay with graphic violence are the problem, is creating a firestorm over nothing.

i don't play silent hill games because i don't like them and the way they make me feel. that doesn't make the silent hill series a problem that needs to be "fixed." nor are viscerally violent video games.

Edited September 21, 2013 by The Derrit

[Brandon Strader]

Someone should make a thread for "Other gamers who ARE into violent games", maybe we could get some good recommendations outside of the obvious ones

[Magnetic Ether]

Stop with the hostility. Everyone.

[yangfeili]

To take things on a slight tangent, I've always been a bit disappointed in how the typical RPG (particularly JRPGs) is always so centered around the combat system, with the story pretty much being resolved through piles of random encounters. Always thought it would be kind of neat to see an RPG where actual battles are infrequent, but when they do happen it's a major momentous event with a huge impact on the story.

I know such games don't typically contain the absurd over-the-top violence this topic is about, but it still always bothered me a bit how RPGs become so constrained to combat-combat-combat when converted into video game form.