Ben-DutkaThis story really got me thinking.
Not so much about the inherent difficulties for gamers when their interactive hobby continues to resemble virtual reality more and more with every passing year. That's what Medal of Honor executive producer Greg Goodrich was talking about, but it led me to the interesting question: can more realistic violence create serious problems? Most will quickly say that violent games have ratings and that movies have been putting horrific stuff on the big screen for decades. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that gaming is an interactive hobby, and the belief that we're actually "doing something" is more potent with more realism and authenticity. As we continue to advance in this area, might it be dangerous, even for well-adjusted adults? Essentially, if you really think about it, some of the more over-the-top action games could be accurately considered to be "killing simulators" in the not-so-distant future. I'm not in favor of censorship here but I've always been a firm believer that you can always go too far.
Personally, I think I'd start to feel a little uneasy when we get to the point where killing someone really does look too much like killing a real human. Take last year's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 , for instance: just about everyone I know, Arnold included, felt – at the very least – uneasy during that airport scene. This proves something to me. I just saw it and I didn't really find it enjoyable; in fact, I didn't want to watch any more of it. Looking five, ten, fifteen years down the road, I'm starting to wonder if I'll even be able to play those games that make me feel this way. But perhaps the question is, will it have a marked psychological impact? Gamers often frown at studies but I really think this is one bit of research thought ought to be conducted.
P.S. The pic here is an example of "cartoon-y violence" from Bayonetta . This obviously isn't the type of violence I speak of, but it's a solid picture, no?
i really can not understand what the big deal with violence is?
why is violence and games the scape goat?
i mean look at some of the sh*t south park gets away with and thats only rated M here which has absolutely no age restrictions what so ever!
family guy at times can be just as bad.
i know there shows, so in a seance there not interactive but so freaking what?
take the episode where cartman freezes himself because he cant wait for the release of the nintendo wii, towards the end theres a fight where multiple heads get blown off with copious blood.
now thats ok for a M rated cartoon show, but have the same thing in L4D2 and its not ok for a MA rated game which has a age rating of 15 appose to no age restriction.
or take another episode of south park, the one where theres a talent show and jimmy cant stop getting a boner, so multiple people give him advice on a solution.
than he ends up sticking it too a hooker.
so a 8 year old boy having sex with a hooker is ok for a M rated TV show which again has no age restrictions what so ever, but removing a few heads in dark sector is not ok for a mA rated game.
which is worse?
underage sex, or a few heads blown off?
and another thing, i really would not mind if at least ratings were consistent but there not.
i mean look at god of war 3, it is the goriest thing i have ever seen, video game, movie or whatever.
i have never seen something more gory than GOW3, thats ok for a MA rating but dark sector, silent hill homecoming, L4D2 are not ok for a MA rating.
GOW3 is 10 times worse than all of those games put together!
i really can not see the logic in that.
Um, well, the 2D cardboard/felt cutout characters in South Park are not photo-realistic representations so no matter how much virtual red felt is spilled, it's still a cartoon.
The point is not the cartoon violence, it's the "real" (as in more real than real) violence in the interactive and photo-realistic games that are possible.
Oh, and BTW, South Park is a cartoon. You can't compare South Park – a relatively crudely produced cartoon – against a game that has realistic imagery.
I could go on to discuss more than the simple visual differences, but to be honest, I don't see much point since it's crystal clear you're trying to create a false comparison.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 4/15/2010 2:34:38 AM
ok, fair enough so how do you explain GOW3 getting passed and dark sector not?
Well, some reviewers thought GOW3 took violence too far. I have to say, it was more brutal than I anticipated. However, GOW3 is a fantasy action adventure and the very fact that it is a fantasy type setting with not exactly the most realistic art style (such as compared to Heavy Rain) separates it from reality.
However, as the industry progresses, games which take on a photo-realistic art style while also containing very violent and graphic events and activities; it is plausible to expect said actions to be taken too far. I believe if Heavy Rain ever meets GOW3 and produces a child, that game will go too far.
Last edited by just2skillf00l on 4/15/2010 2:47:48 AM
Really interesting article and posts. Personally, i have never really felt weird while playing a game because of the amount of realism, granted I haven't played MW2.
Science just solves this whole where do we draw the line problem by using an ethical committee.
This would however give more censorship and more restrictions, which I don't really want but it may be necessary. Otherwise who is gonna draw the line? I'm out of ideas.
I sure don't know when real gets too real for the masses.
come on people, unless we are talking about "Total Recall" then i cant understand how some one can actually get confused. you are holding a control pad sat in front of a screen. When I first watched the start of saving private ryan, i was shocked at the realism but never once thought i was actually at omaha beach in 1944 (or when ever it was). do people really think theres that much difference between realistic games and realistic movies?
Okay first of all let me just explain something before I start. I cousin is the head of Trauma in one of the states in my country. She offered me a chance to go with and see and experience what a Trauma doctor is all about…. So I went.
Needless to say is I saw some pretty F***** up sh!t. Bike crashes, stabbings, gun shots…dead and mutilated people…
(Now many might ask why I would do that. Well at a stage I thought of becoming a trauma doctor… I realized then I do not have a stomach for it and I really don't like blood…well not that much blood anyway and luckily for me I wasn't that smart to become one, but still i was curious to see what I gave up on so I went)
Now to the point I would like to make. Sure video games are becoming pretty realistic but the have a LONG way to go before we reach that type of realism. That is a whole different story.
And let's say for argument sake that we do get to that point, in my opinion anyone who'd want to play games that show that type of realism and gore are sick f***** puppies. And even worse are the ones who will make them. Snuff games so to speak (even if made) won't sell well. If they do I have lost all faith in our future and humanity.
Now with 3D gaming literally around the corner it might get tricky to draw a line between too much and not enough. But for now and for the near future at least I think we are okay.
Even thou GOW was super brutal once I switched the game off those images didn't haunt me and stay with me…. when I helped out at the Trauma Center that stuff screwed me over for a long time. That for me is the difference. One is a well done HD graphic based video game with brutal violence the other is real life with ,real blood and real pain and fear…
If they ever get to that level in games I won't want that experience at all and the people who do will leave with their minds a bit more twisted, and they would have problems to begin with. This is a very interesting issue and I would like to see a study being done,hell I will even take part in such a study…
Do games breed inner violence?….maybe not, but somewhere there might be one or two individuals that have a unstable minds not knowingly unlock something that would otherwise not have happened…
One last thought. What about small kids that witness a brutal killing or murder or witness a father committing suicide in front of them… they might suppress those memories for years, until something a game like that or even movies might trigger… Just a thought.
But sometimes this violent parts of games have an effect on you in an emotional way. For example in mgs3 when snake was being tortured I felt sorry for him. I guess it matters how it's used like manhunt is kinda pointless violence.
Alright, a whole night of sleep, I can actually type something up about this! I'm very comfortable with violence in movies. You name it, I've probably watched it. Violence in movies can look very real, but it's different than a video game.
As you mentioned Ben, when your brain is tricked, things do change. When I worked in the EMS system, things get gut wrenching at times. Holding apart a obese mans' surgical incision so the doctor could dab all the fluid out with a piece of gauze really makes you tighten up a little bit! I'm talking about a 450lbs+ man with a incision approx 7" deep just above his hip and inches away from his knee.
I don't get that feeling from a game. People wonder about the graphical realism of a game, but don't realize that many people think by associating themselves to a situation. This is how we get our personalities.
Regardless of how realistic a game is, there are plenty of people who walk away from it feeling "different". It's subtle, but you may recognize it if you think about it long enough.
This is where we face a problem. Something that may cross your mind as a possibility for yourself may land you into a handful of issues. Not only do I think that just the violence of the game is bad if it comes photo realistic and incredibly accurate, but I also see a problem with where some of these story lines drag your mindset.
The problem is, the more we look up to our characters as people of our own society, instead of pixels of a video game, the more the psychological threat becomes relevant.
Realistically, we DO know what we are engaging in. It's what we make out of it that'll change this. It's how we game that'll change this. It's the personal traits that'll either leave you vulnerable or probably not phase you as a whole person.
Those who play games for hours after endless hours, day after day are obviously at the greatest exposure rate and will have the most issues. You can OD on gaming. If it's your job, that's a different story. You're kinda screwed, then… Although I'd love such work! lol
I also think a lot of this character personalization needs to get tamed just a tad. If we can copy our OWN faces into these games, which a few games I know of did and did it well enough, I think that's gone too far. We don't need to associate ourselves at such a personal level that we see ourselves killing and what-not. I personally think that'll trigger some Schizophrenia.
Will it cause people to become Schizo? I highly doubt it, but there are certain things that'll progressively make it worse. I do believe something like this, which such a person can learn to enjoying being, can indeed make a bad situation for someone a lot worse.
one big reason people, from the office professional who wants to take a break, to the anti-social 20 year old who want to live in a different world, is escapism.
Most people I know play games to get away from realism, whether its to play football without getting wore out or to smash robots with a multi-purposed wrench. as games become more real, they will lose their appeal to the majority of gamers, myself included.
Developers might want to listen to their "centrist" population of devoted, yet not hardcore or casual, gamers. the centrists are by far the most populous
I don't know, there's always the .1% of people who are borderline nutjobs who will do something in a game, or see something in a movie, and confuse it with real life. I don't think the 99.9% of people who are (somewhat) normal should have their entertainment taken away or modified because of the .1%. The nutjobs will always – always – find something to make them snap, no matter if you ban everyone from dong everything.
As far as "scientific" studies, whenever people look for a relationship between cause A and effect B, anyone demonstrating effect B has it blamed on cause A, when it could actually be caused by a whole host of other factors. Those things are quite often biased. Usually the people who want to conduct that sort of research have some pre-existing opinions that they're looking to validate with the research, no matter what the research actually shows.
Jack, researchers are well aware of how studies work and they're not about to fall into such simple traps.
Short-term and long-term studies do indeed exist for a reason.
It really depends on how you do your research when using psychological studies.
The most trustworthy studies are rarely published in any sort of public forum, especially since it costs money to publish anything, period. The ones you hear in the news are either highly relevant or supported financially by someone who could benefit from a bias. True psychological research using the scientific method and a variety of research strategies easily avoid bias.
In any controversial study, you will have studies set up to support both sides, and then a couple organizations will do honest research with the best interests of health care clients. If you know where to look, (Ebsco Host is a great resource for any of you who have access through academic institutions or know someone in a field related to psychology or research. Get help from your school librarian on how to conduct useful research using that tool) you can find honest to goodness research. Often this type of research can be confusing to read to someone not used to analyzing data, but any psychology undergrad could help you out.
Just be careful not to dismiss research that doesn't support facts you want it to support with a predisposition like "researchers are gonna fudge the numbers". The fact remains, as Ben just said, researchers know how to research. If any one person had a nickel for every time a researcher set out to prove something and changed his hypothesis, well… they'd better give a lot to charitable research!!
I don't know how many people out there are retarded enough to think that it's alright to kill someone just because you can shoot people in the face in GTAIV, but I for one, am smarter than that, lol. People who think that just because there are virtual characters on screen who were actually created in the first place for the sole purpose of being killed by you by controlling another fictional character who's sole purpose was to kill that person anyway is a clean cut reason that it's alright to go out and kill a real live, breathing human being should probably be thrown into a mental institution or shot themselves. If their morals are as low as thinking that if something fake is alright to do in the real world, then they're just a stain on society and would cause nothing but harm to anyone or anything they come across… what the hell is wrong with people these days? Damn…
It's not about morals. And it's not as drastic as turning people into killers. It's about the subconscious changes to behavior that we see in children when exposed to violence; i.e., resistance to authority figures, more willing to resolve issues through violence, hyperactivity, etc.
It's a change most people don't recognize in themselves. This is what can be harmful, even to adults.
I'm talking more about the difference between someone being smart and someone being stupid.
It has nothing to do with intelligence. As someone who holds a degree in psychology, I promise you that.
As someone else with a degree (working towards a masters in counseling psychology) I second that! lol
EDIT: I mean I second what Ben said.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/15/2010 1:09:51 PM
Yeah, it's not like anyone plays games to LEARN how to become a killer. In fact, I wouldn't say games MAKE people killers, either. I certainly can agree with Bens concerns/thoughts.
"Smart" people are generally the weirdest people you'll meet. It seems like they meet some sort of boredom with the general population and float into their very own little worlds. I have a couple friends who are absolute genius' and a blast to hang out with, but their personalities stick out like a sore thumb.
"Smart" and "stupid" mean nothing in regards to your mental state of mind. This is a build of a character formed from what we experience. That experience is what worries people.
I have absolutely no masters' degree in anything. I have ASE certs and an EMT-B license. Dealing with psych patients for years teaches you mental conditions do not mean these people are stupid.
Just to be clear, psych patients are on the deep end of the pool, I'd imagine standing on the shallow side. The rest of that gap between is where anyone in the world can possibly be. Calling people "stupid" well do yourself absolutely nothing to understand. Not that Im offended by what you said, just trying to pitch in my 2 cents about things.
Keep it real! And sane. 😀
Yeah. If someone where to kill someone and blame it on a video game, it would be a false accusation. It would be their own fault for going and killing someone. It's not like a game told you to go and shoot someone in the face with a shot gun. That's like saying Super Mario told you to eat shrooms because it would make you grow double your original size and that stars make you invincible. Just not plausible, lol. And with the smart and stupid remark, I was meaning it more like where there is a spark in your mind that let's you differentiate the cause and effect of helping someone do something and shooting someone. Kind of like with some serial killers, us going into a grocery store and buying milk to us is the same as going into a grocery store and killing the cashier to a serial killer. At least that's how I've heard it explained before, for some cases of serial killers.
Last edited by DeathOfChaos on 4/19/2010 12:46:45 PM
I'll never understand the taste for gore some people have. I guess… I mean, I guess there may be some fascination with the unnatural (like ghosts and UFOs and stuff) but… it's just so gross…
-Arvis
Yeah its getting to the point of realism where we have controllers that actually do look and feel like dil….
kidding aside, this isn't something we should limit to realism, or games for that matter. A kid holding a toy gun. Isn't that enough for him to wonder "hey what if i tried pulling off the trigger on someone?" this isn't a question of realism. This is a question on the people playing these games. If they can handle them, thats the big ?. So many times some random kid decides to play rambo for real not because of games or media (but it did have some influence), the main reason is that he could not handle it.
Well tbh, look at these terrible movies such as the SAW series and Hostile. How about Manhunt? Of course apparently SAW 1 was actually a good movie and Manhunt probably has a decent plot to back it up but alot of it is just mindless violence. Yes, I'll stereotype today.
Even so, people enjoy watching / playing these things yet when they watch a video of e.g…a real Russian excecution where someone gets his head sliced off by a combat knife, they pretty much want to barf out their breakfast. Hypocrisy I tell you.
But the fact is some can still bear this kind of stuff from fictional entertainment because it simply isn't real.
This article and he comments are thought provoking stuff, I have to add to my earlier comment.
Regarding violent video games and realism. Perhaps the majority can bear this stuff without apparent change. However, the more vulnerable members of society may not come through it completely unscathed.
What if the effect on 99.9% of players is to slightly loosen their innate self control of their aggression? Could it be that the cumulative effect of playing violent games loosens the control of more vulnerable people sufficiently that they do become more aggressive? Could it be that the increased aggression leads to violent confrontations? Could it be that in a small number of cases those confrontations lead to deadly violence?
We used to talk about the butterfly effect in various fields. You know the concept that in complex and chaotic systems a small, almost insignificant, change to the initial conditions can lead to drastically different outcomes. Is it really too much to consider that subtle changes in the sub-conscious ability to control aggression and violent behavior of some people might result in more violent confrontations?
Laws in our society exist to prevent extremes of behavior. We wouldn't all drive at 100MPH if there were no limit, but some would ad at that speed any error is fatal and could be fatal for others, so we have a law to prevent speeding. We have all sorts of laws that moderate our behavior in society. Sometimes it's not laws but simple rules, such as rules about the content of movies.
If there is a chance that extreme violence and realism in action games could contribute to more violence, then isn't it better for society as a whole if the extreme violence in games is held in check?
See for me the logical end of the argument that says "no censorship" is that games simply become more depraved. Where do we draw the line? If there is no censorship, what if a game is created (well in truth, as deplorable as it is, such a 'game' already exists) where the player – in full HD first person glory – commits a rape? The no censorship argument says we shouldn't do anything, it's just pixels, it's just 'art', or it's just a game. Is it just a game now?
Is it?
I don't think so.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Absolutely could not have said it better myself.
There is indeed a line where art can and will become dangerous, and I think people need to understand that.
Certainly even the argument claiming that video games as 'art' should not be censored because it's 'art' is flawed. Ever since art (specifically, the theater) began, censorship has been an issue. People have eternally argued for both sides, and most would agree now that if these boundaries were not pushed, we would not have the artistic freedom of expression we have today.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the societal reasoning of history and now in present day during this video game 'no censorship' philosophy. And that difference is this: In the past, the argument for artistic change has been due to things like personal expression and hurt or political commentary. The difference now is that we just want a new way to be entertained. Certainly art has always been entertaining, but NEVER for the sole purpose of entertainment. At least not in terms of forward progression or artistic freedom. There was ALWAYS a motivating factor to promote change to BETTER the human condition. Definitely not the case in this situation, especially in terms of the rape scene Highlander is referring to or the violence Ben predicts in this article.
The concept that "games" (if you can call it a game) exist with such perverse motives is a commentary in itself to the desensitization we experience today, as well as to our inability to recognize or appreciate what is truly artistic.
This should not even be an argument of whether or not someone could handle it. How many people truly even possess the ability to completely block out any form of influence from the things you subject yourself to? Shouldn't we all know by now that "What goes in, must come out"?
It might not make you a killer, but I'm a firm believer that in essence…
"You are what you eat!"
I have read through the comments and there are a ton of good points in here and there are a ton of people that are defending the fact that these are clearly games and pixels and we would all be screwed up already to not be able to tell the difference between games and reality, which is true.
What I think is more to the point and what I take from this and Ben stated it earlier in the comments is what happens when the line between game and reality gets to the blur point. What happens when technology takes us to a point where we cannot differentiate to whether the character is live action or graphic design.
I will go on record right now as saying that as well adjusted as I like to think I am and as well as I can separate my entertainment from reality if and when we get to that point, dismembering a person will have an effect on my psyche and I feel that is a given for just about everyone regardless of what you want to think.
There was a video from a Bosnian or other Eastern European country leaked to the internet that was evidence in a string of serial killings. I came across this video by happen-stance and watched it. I kept telling myself it wasn't real because I just couldn't process what I was watching. I eventually had to dig up the truth about the video and found out that I had indeed just watched an honest to (insert whatever here) snuff film. It didn't sit well with me then and it still doesn't now. It had a profound psychological effect and now when I see yellow bags I cringe and my gut gets tight. That is after a 10 minute video that I was not interacting with in the least.
This makes me very concerned about the effects of watching and interacting with a game that can last anywhere from 5 to 50 hours and have that game be so realistic it is impossible to differentiate between life and pixel. Especially when that game is depicting killing other human beings be it for an artistic point or be it out of shear gratuity. I have no idea if it would make me personally neurotic about more things than yellow shopping bags or if it would desensitise me to the point where if a person was disembowelled in front of me would I care. Either option doesn't sit well with me because I like the fact that I can use a shovel and not become squeamish and I feel it is healthy that if I witnessed a person die I would have a strong emotional reaction instead of a flat affect.
I will argue against censorship until I am blue in the face but I think we as a society should at least have higher standards and drive the industry away from such things and like someone said towards a more artistic approach to games.
Again taking from someone else, games should remain games, life should remain life, let's move a step back from needing to have games mimic life and have them strive to touch our imaginations instead.
Done ranting sorry for the novella.
Excellent comment.
I'm still not quite sure what the argument is here. So a game can have as much gore and violence as it wants so long as it doesn't LOOK too real? Isn't photo-realism what we have been waiting for as gamers?
I don't think that any developer should hold themselves back for fear of crossing some line that may or may not exist. If a game has a great story and just so happens to be violent, should the developer then scale down the graphics and gameplay for those who can't handle it mentally?
There will always be impressionable types out there who will be easily influenced by various forms of media, but they don't represent the majority, therefore guidelines and ratings shouldn't be based around those individuals.
As an adult that has never been in trouble with the law, and someone who opposes violence except for self-defense purposes, I feel like I have the right to play video games that contain realistic violence, and I shouldn't have to come under any kind of scrutiny or feel as though I am flawed morally for doing so.
But even in what you wrote, it became apparent that you feel the need for the violence to have a purpose. A meaningful purpose.
"If a game has a great story and just so happens to be violent, should the developer then scale down the graphics and gameplay for those who can't handle it mentally?"
EDIT: You raise a good point with the "great story-happens to be violent" bit. This edit is just to make clear that I liked what you said here, which is why I quoted.
Certainly we open up a very good argument if there's purpose. In art, it is never frowned upon to talk about something dark in the human psyche if there's a purpose. Some of the best modern plays, for example, center around sever hurt in one or more character's lives. Canadian playwright Judith Thompson does this wonderfully and potently, I might add.
Would you not even slightly be opposed to senseless violence for the sake of being violent being accompanied by more real than real graphical detail? I still stand by the fact that any realistic violence can have an adverse effect on anybody of any background or psychological security.
Have people become so naive that something that glorifies violence is somehow artistic? It's one thing to admit and portray the reality of violence as something that happens in real life, but the direction games are going in today glorify the violence in a way that entertains instead of one that disdains.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/15/2010 2:03:22 PM
Underdog, you and I also share the same set of beliefs, it seems.
I too don't buy into the concept that "everything" can be considered art, or that gratuitous violence can be considered art. I use as an example director Quentin Tarantino: now, I'm not saying he isn't an extremely talented and artistic individual, but it seems to me he is only capable of making a point – or rather, in some cases, attempting to make a point – through insane violence and in general, twisted situations. I'm wondering if he's capable of communicating his thoughts in any other manner.
There are lines to cross and regardless of ability and the inherent quality of the product in question – movie or game – I do believe we can go past the point of artistry and enter in the realm of dangerous pictures and ideas that can worm their way into even the most intelligent, well-adjusted minds.
@Underdog,
I'm reminded of the baying crowds that used to pack the Colosseum. They watched ever increasing levels of violence and violation, cheering and glorifying in the brutality. I don't think we doubt whether Roman society was damaged by the bread and circuses that accompanied the fall of Rome. Why do we doubt the danger of similar excess today?
@ Highlander,
Because everybody everywhere truly believes that their world/country/sovereign state will be around forever. Sure, all the great empires of yore that controlled most of the world all ended eventually, but not theirs. Right?
If only moderation and balance were valued at all… *sigh*
-Arvis
Indeed Arvis, indeed.
Just so there's no confusion,
If a game has gratuitous violence with no real plot or storyline to back it up, I'm not interested. But I would hate to see a great game scaled back for fear of being "too realistic". I just think people should be more turned off by gratuity than by realism.
Last edited by Grown_Gamer on 4/15/2010 2:19:45 PM
No worries. That was the impression I got from what you wrote. You definitely connected the need for a story and meaning. You make a good point, I think. I don't think any of us want developers to scale down their visuals. Most probably just want them to exercise some tact how they portray what they develop.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/15/2010 2:20:12 PM
I wish games made me more aggressive in real life. It would be a real boon. I've never thrown a guy into a tree before 🙂
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/15/2010 3:04:41 PM
World, I am thinking that you might benefit from a sitdown session with Ben. Let Ben delve into some of that deep seeded hostility you are harboring. lol
Just kidding…..I think?
lol, I'd rather channel it into kicking his ass in some game. Besides, Ben is the tree-thrower not me 😉
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/15/2010 3:45:24 PM
The games made me do it!!!
Mad, mad respect for Highlander, Ben, Coverton, and Underdog. Mad respect.
-Arvis
Thanks Arvis, and you are dead on with the comment about thinking one's country will last forever.
Seldom do men learn from the sources that have the most to offer. I mean history isn't there for us to learn from the mistakes of old is it…
Wow, thanks Arvis. And I agree with Coverton saying you're dead on. How often do you hear in history class some comment about how often history repeats itself? Makes you roll your eyes a bit!
I say the more blood an guts the better, its a video game for christ sakes now your talkin like 1 of them religious freaks saying you can't do the airport in mw2 its a game nothing wrong with mowing down people in an airport it's for the better of the world.
Last edited by dirdiggler on 4/15/2010 5:44:10 PM
So someone with a moral objection to grotesque, glorified violence or perhaps even someone with a belief in a religion that could potentially define the very fabric of their personality somehow makes them a 'freak' not to be respected?
You sound like one of the many kids I immediately mute when playing MW2 for shouting ignorant insults at people like the N-word or telling me about your love affair with my middle-aged mother…
The Manhunt games were great, thin but fun story, lots of stealth, I hope we do see another one and it's real as as real gets this gen.
I as well loved the Manhunt games, I remember having to go to a friend's house in order to play them along with GTA when I was younger now a days my mom doesn't care what game I play. Now don't mistake that for bad parenting, just she understands I'm almost 16 now and I'm mature enough and have been for about 5 years to handle violence. I do see the Manhunt games more of a middle finger to uptight middle class suburban America. What I mean is this, it's kind of telling the uptight ones to chill out and sit back and enjoy some carnage once in a while, it's all fun. I don't exactly know how I feel about tearing someone's spine out with a ice claw using the Move controls, could be fun, could be disturbing. I've never really been affected by excessive blood or violence. The only entertainment medium that has messed with me on a psychological level is the movies Silent Hill and The Mist. They got to me on a human level like just empathy really, and did leave me with haunting images seared into my mind to this day. I've never experienced this with a game or a piece of literature. So I do wonder if we are to see more realistically violent games, the only way I see these games with too much trouble would be the ones with killing other humans. Zombies, monsters, etc. shouldn't be a problem as were all used to this by now. Quick thought: L4D2 with Move Controls! and that I for one did not have an issue with the MW2 Airport Scene, the game as whole however >_>
Last edited by JMO_INDY on 4/15/2010 7:10:11 PM
I'm like you, the violence and gore has little to no affect on me because psychologically I know it isn't real no matter how it looks. But yeah, certain movies have weaseled haunting moments into my head. Books too, if you read the likes of H.P. Lovecraft and other pulp writers of the early 20th century. There have been some genuinely creepy moments in games but that only makes me enjoy them more.
Well I've never really considered myself a connoisseur of fine literature, but I might have to see what you're talking about here. You put it perfectly, It has no effect because in the end it's all fake characters in games and literature, however with movies also being fake the use of real people in those situations has whats gotten to me the most.
Last edited by JMO_INDY on 4/15/2010 7:38:20 PM
@JMO
You know what, the Romans didn't think they were affected by the goings on at the Colosseum either. It's like the 'boiling frog' story.
If you were to drop a frog into boiling water, it would most certainly jump out immediately, but if you were to drop it into tepid water and heat it gently, bu the time it realized it was boiling hot, it would be too late, and frog soup would be ready to serve.
You can't always perceive the change in yourself, you may not feel the temperature increase until it's so hot you are unable to do anything about it.