If I kill it, will it explode on me?
Over the next few months, your wallet, and most likely your dead body in some violent video game, will be dismembered into several pieces and then eaten in slow motion. Be it Gears of War, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead or Dead Space, they all have exceptional amounts of dead bodies, graphic dismemberment, and an endless supply of spurting blood. But is any of it justified? Or even necessary? Let's find out.
Rating System
The rating system used to rate these games will be based on a 5 point scale. 1 being justified and 5 being gratuitous. Gratuitous violence is unnecessary violence and/or the depiction of unjustified/excessive violence. Justified violence is violence there for the purpose of bettering and immersing the player into the game, without ruining the immersion by over doing it. So here's the scale otherwise known as the Welcome Mat of shame.
Far Cry 2
The sequel to the original Far Cry, Far Cry 2 ramps up the violence a degree or two. Killing foes isn't very graphic nor unnecessarily violent, however,
Is this gore justified? Although the healing animations go a bit far out, they make sense, and add an extra layer of immersion into the game. And really, if you had a nail protruding from your hand, would you just leave it in there and keep fighting?
On the Welcome Mat of shame, Far Cry 2 receives 2 fingers in the arm out of 5. Because playing doctor on yourself never hurt anybody.
Dead Space
When you buy a game who's primary combat method is dubbed "strategic dismemberment", your going to have to come to some quick conclusions. The first being that you will have to dismember things strategically. Dead Space involves so much gore, ripping apart of appendages, and straight up weird stuff, that it quickly becomes an easy game to categorize. Guy holding own head, cutting off of limbs, enemies who birth more enemies mid-battle... I don't think I'm wrong when I say the violence is alot gratuitous, and to the games credit, the violence works in the game, makes it scary, but is still over done.
On the Welcome Mat of shame, I'll give Dead Space 4 dismembered tentacles out of 5. Because even though the violence adds some to the experience, most of it is over the top.
Left 4 Dead
On the Welcome Mat of shame, Left 4 Dead is getting 1 combustible fat zombie guy out of 5 combustible fat zombie guys. Because the violence and gore blend so well with the classic zombie theme.
Fallout 3
On the Welcome Mat of shame, Fallout 3 will be honored/cursed with 5 slow motion decapitations out of 5. Because it goes through some big steps to make living things explode.
Gears of War 2
Although Gears of War 2 shows many promises at being obscenely violent, it is one of the few games where I've actually heard the designer justify some of it. In some interview, Cliffy B mentions that the reason enemies spurt foot high fountains of blood when shot is so that the player knows when his/her shots are connecting. However that does not justify walking up to someone on their hands and knees and crushing their skull into the ground.
On Welcome Mat of shame, Gears of War will be rewarded/shamed with 4.5 meat cubes out of 5. Because although the violence is through the roof, a little bit of it is justified.
So is Gratuitous Violence good?
You may be asking yourself this question, contemplating and tearing yourself apart over the moral decision to make, but it's all a matter of opinion. As I see it, gratuitous violence is a lazy mans way of entertaining the easily entertained. On the other hand, when done well, gratuitous violence can improve a game, making aspects of it much better. Morally, gratuitous violence is wrong, but these are videogames, and if we avoided every game that was immoral in some form or another, we wouldn't be playing very many games.
Now it's your turn, what is your opinion on gratuitous violence in todays videogames?
Thanks for reading.
Gorillawhat
*Like the blog? Send over an ego stroke and leave a comment!*
Log in to comment