• 191 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Violence in video games has become a rising issue. Many game journalists have begun to call out video games and their excessive acts of violence towards other human beings. Before people come here and say that it's just a video game, please shut up. That isn't even a witty comeback at this point. Anyway, here are some examples from game journalists

https://twitter.com/ctplante/status/280803299517661185

https://twitter.com/JustinMcElroy/status/280794975640358912

https://twitter.com/JustinMcElroy/status/280796508817874945

Lastly here's a good article on the subject: http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2012/12/thoughts.html

I'm used to be someone that didn't care about violence in video games. However, I think I'm starting to think that games have become far too violent for me to tolerate any longer. I'm simply asking folks if they're uncomfortable with the rapid growth of violence in video games. I don't have a solution for it, but it is a topic to discuss nonetheless. So what are your thoughts on this issue?

#2 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

It's just a video game.

#3 Posted by mtcantor (948 posts) -

Games have not become more violent. They've always been violent. Graphics have gotten better so you are just seeing more of it.

#4 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

COD is not a good example. They have been trying to do the shock value after having you die in one of their games from a nuke. So they are going to stupid lengths to top them selves. Sooner or later it will have you more or less pissing on the American flag to convince the Lizard people who have replaced the government that you are not a Human supporter. 

#5 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5855 posts) -

I don't know if they're that much more violent that the games being released when I was kid, to be honest.

#6 Posted by CaLe (4040 posts) -

They are too violent for young people, yes. Not too violent for sensible adults.

#7 Posted by GunstarRed (5403 posts) -

I don't think games have gotten too violent, although there are a couple I feel step over the line.

#8 Edited by mnzy (2920 posts) -

I think we've reached a plateau a while ago, games can't become any more violent than they are now. We shoot parts of heads off, cut flesh, see people burning alive, witness mass murders. What really is there to go to? 
As a German it's especially funny how, in the past, we weren't allowed to see blood and now I just shoot guys in slow motion, showing realistic exit wounds in Max Payne 3, which isn't even considered being especially violent and it has not restricted at all. 

#9 Edited by project343 (2837 posts) -

Violence is an important part of life that can highlight how significant taking a life can be. Hotline Miami, for instance, uses violence to question the very nature of how morbid violence-as-entertainment can be.

But at the end of the day, media entertainment is typically about taking the extremes of life and throwing them back at us as novel experiences. This is never going to change. If I can walk outside and have a more extreme or novel experience in my boring everyday life, then why would I invest money in media entertainment? Moreover, the hardcore gaming industry is mostly comprised of males who are socially conditioned into enjoying physical conflict... so the state of the industry makes logical sense. The onus rests on the individual to not become dependent on the violence for entertainment, and to reason out some meaningful take-aways from violent media. Passively consuming this content is the problem, not the content itself.

#10 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

@project343 said:

Violence is an important part of life that can highlight how significant taking a life can be. Hotline Miami, for instance, uses violence to question the very nature of how morbid violence-as-entertainment can be.

But at the end of the day, media entertainment is typically about taking the extremes of life and throwing them back at us as novel experiences. This is never going to change. If I can walk outside and have a more extreme or novel experience in my boring everyday life, then why would I invest money in media entertainment? Moreover, the hardcore gaming industry is mostly comprised of males who are socially conditioned into enjoying physical conflict... so the state of the industry makes logical sense. The onus rests on the individual to not become dependent on the violence for entertainment, and to reason out some meaningful take-aways from violent media. Passively consuming this content is the problem, not the content itself.

The difference between any other media and games is that you're the one pulling the trigger in games. It's different enough for their to be a specific discussion about it.

#11 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

@McGhee said:

It's just a video game.

Thanks.

#12 Posted by DeF (4958 posts) -

Soldier of Fortune says hi.

This stuff's always been crazy.

All that EXTREME!!!!!!!!!!! nonsense bores me to tears.

#13 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Individual perception of "too violent" shouldn't be used to curtail the development of violent games, no matter how good or bad they are.

Spec Ops: The Line used some pretty disturbing images to very, very good effect to advance its story and I thought this was a huge strength for the game. Others stopped playing because of it. Does this mean that storytelling that involves violence should be cut from games? I don't believe so.

Using a blanket statement to cover a broad and intricate issue does a disservice to both sides of the argument.

#14 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@Phatmac said:

@McGhee said:

It's just a video game.

Thanks.

Good to get it out of the way early.

#15 Posted by Sammo21 (3437 posts) -

Games, movies, comics, and cartoons are just as violent as they ever were. The problem is they are becoming more/too graphic and detailed in their violence. Some might argue that what I just said is semantics, but it is not really. Far Cry 3 would be just as fun if there was an option to turn off gore. Gears of War 3 is just as fun if you turn off the swearing and have the blood taken out. Unfortunately, there are some out there who only seem to find enjoyment in this and that's also why we have so many people who enjoy torture porn films and things like "A Serbian Film" (i think that is the title).

#16 Edited by believer258 (12106 posts) -

I never thought I would say this, but I do agree. At some point, you just have to sit back and wonder when the violence goes from silly and funny to worrisome and creepy. I finished Far Cry 3 last night and there's a scene where you have to torture somebody. It doesn't last long, but you have to do it via Quick Time Event, similarly to how you have to torture someone via QTE in Black Ops 1. And, well, that sort of thing made me uncomfortable there and it's made me uncomfortable in Far Cry 3 as well. I wouldn't have this problem with a violent QTE if the person in question were trying to kill me (like the boss fights in that game mostly go), but still, I wish developers would apply some better taste to what is and is not necessary.

Remember, the guy typing this post is the guy that enjoyed blasting demons to bits in Doom. There's not a blanket level of violence across any and all games that can't be crossed, it's a matter of context and good judgement - what's necessary to set the tone of the game and what is excessive? This is why Dead Space's level of blood on the walls is fine (it's a sci-fi/horror game) but Black Ops, a game that the developers seem to have taken seriously, isn't always OK when you torture a dude or are asked to choke the big bad by clicking the left and right analog sticks . And really, Treyarch. Putting glass in a dude's mouth? C'mon

THAT SAID, I am still against censorship of any and all forms. This is a problem that should be brought to attention by proper criticism, not by soccer moms and "concerned" politicians or whatever, or any sort of Hay's Code-like restriction.

*QTE=quicktime event

EDIT: And, I haven't been keeping up with the news lately but I don't remember the tragedy in Connecticut being connected to video games yet. I may have missed it though.

And while I'm in this edit, there are two videos I want to point out - this one, explaining a bit about context, and this one.

#17 Edited by CornBREDX (5839 posts) -

What? 
Let's not downplay tragedy by pretending video games had anything to do with it, shall we. 
As for violent video games, ya I don't mind it and it seems in the most brutal ones (which we've technically only seen this year IMO) they usually seem to serve a moral purpose. Video Games are weird, though, in that they have to deal with player choice and interactivity so any moral can be diluted or even clouded by the fact that you just finished massacring a building full of dudes. 
 
I think when the story telling begins to more accurately reflect game play the developers point may make more sense, but at the end of the day millions more people like to play games like COD Bl Ops than something like Hotline Miami. Both are brutal games, but I think one better understands what it's asking you to do then the other one. Then again I haven't played Bl Ops 2, but the first one was more fun scfi ish fantasy pseudo modern narrative and less trying to get a meaningful story across. More just trying to be all out crazy and fun. That's how I perceived it.  
 
To me both have merit as well- not all violent games have to be anything but cartoonish fun, or crazy fun. Not all have to have a moral, but it's nice that some games have come along this year that asked us to question these things, too.

#18 Posted by Superfriend (1579 posts) -

@DeF said:

Soldier of Fortune says hi.

This stuff's always been crazy.

All that EXTREME!!!!!!!!!!! nonsense bores me to tears.

Exactly. SoF has done more 'extreme' violence years ago. Coming out of the woodwork now calling out games and gamedevs.. I´m sorry that´s just in very, very bad taste.

Justin McElroy can suck it up his own damn ass. Honestly, his fucking shit on twitter is exploiting the tragedy the same way UK Tabloid press does. Only in a less ape-like fashion. All this fucking 'Oh we need to talk about values now' usually comes from the people with no values or morals at all. They want awareness. For themselves. For their fucking stupid little projects. So they can earn money. By the way, I think the same way about Michael Moore, but at least that 'discussion' in public came a few years later.

#19 Edited by h0lgr (911 posts) -

No. I like violent videogames. I never use violence in real life, but I do like the visceral and entertaining effect it has when on a digital screen. 
It's like watching a violent movie. Remember that scene in Goodfellas when Henry Hill went across the street with a .38 and beat the absolute shit out of some guy who was messing with his wife?  
You felt that beating when watching the movie. And you also felt his rage. Which is what it's all about, entertainment as a whole. 
Feeling something. Whether what you're feeling is good or bad is irrelevant.   
If the entertainment itself is well made, you'll feel the impact of the violence on screen.
 
I know you don't link mass murder to videogames and I'm not saying you do, but it deserves to be brought up and here's why: 
These maniacs who go out and shoot up a school and blame it on a videogame, would have done so whether they had the game or not. 
Other factors in life turn people into killers. Social lives, childhood, friends and family. Some 6-hour FPS isn't gonna turn Billy from the block into a gunman just because he saw someone else do it in Call of Duty. 
If he's gonna turn into a gunman it's because his life is fucked up, and he needs a release. 

#20 Posted by dungbootle (2458 posts) -

Not violent enough

#21 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

I'm gonna cut out the Newton stuff, it's not the argument that I want to have.

#22 Edited by Little_Socrates (5694 posts) -

I've felt personally uncomfortable with the violence I committed in a video game three times. Once was a story-driven act of violence taken to have special significance, appearing at the end of Metal Gear Solid 3. Second was another story-driven act of violence, appearing at what is easily the most infamous scene in Spec Ops: The Line. The last is reflection on a 24 hour psychosomatic addiction to Hotline Miami.

Two of those were because I felt a special pity for the victim and the killer in the exchange of violence; the Spec Ops: The Line incident was also frustrating, because I saw what the game wanted me to do and tried my damnedest not to do it, but the story refused to reflect that.

Hotline Miami is different. It does cross a line, and it scolds you for crossing along with it. It made me realize that video game violence might actually be dangerous, for the first time in my life. Look, I get that we can't blame video games for real world violence. But, real talk? When I found out Lanza was wearing a mask, my thoughts instantly rushed to Cactus's moral lecture on casual violence, and how one could read that game in all the wrong ways and find themselves unable to take in the long drag that is the game's post-credits sequence. Simply because it is morally opposed to violence does not mean that it doesn't also celebrate it.

I'm glad I'm sane enough to feel terrible for enjoying Hotline Miami as much as I did and to be able to see what Cactus was actually trying to say with the game. But it intentionally goes too far. That is its purpose.

And I'm starting to examine closely the man-on-man violence I participate in, whether in regards to video games or other media. I know I've discovered I don't like spaghetti westerns as well as the John Ford-era ones because violence is so much more prevalent (and, at times, casual) in the spaghetti films. I know I prefer horror films to action films because death matters significantly more. And I know that I'm not really thinking enough about Mass Effect and Halo because I'm shooting aliens in those games instead of people. And, well, at least those are set in war zones, against aliens that threaten all of humanity.

I am getting tired of violence. It's not as appealing to me any more. I'm no longer the teenager who remarked about how awesome that execution/gore looked in Resident Evil 4 or Gears of War, and I'll never be that guy again. I'm not morally opposed to the violence, at least not yet. But I'm just more interested in more and more alternatives. A violent game tends to require something more for me now, even if that something more is just a reflection on the violence I've committed.

EDIT: Also, seeing any forum poster recommend a Leigh Alexander article as simply "a good article" warms my heart.

#23 Posted by Jams (2965 posts) -

I think games have been violent for a long time. The entertainment we consume has been violent since it's inception. It's because we are still animals in nature and violent ones at that. All those deadly sins are and have always bee,n a large part of our lives that I think we've only been barely able to control. Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride are our natural ways and we have to battle every day to keep from succumbing to them and there's no line in the sand either.

I'm not really religious, but I do believe who ever made up those sins figured out the key points of the bad parts of the human mind. The ones we need to keep under control. Sorry, I've just finished watching the last season of Reaper.

#24 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

@believer258 said:

I never thought I would say this, but I do agree. At some point, you just have to sit back and wonder when the violence goes from silly and funny to worrisome and creepy. I finished Far Cry 3 last night and there's a scene where you have to torture somebody. It doesn't last long, but you have to do it via Quick Time Event, similarly to how you have to torture someone via QTE in Black Ops 1. And, well, that sort of thing made me uncomfortable there and it's made me uncomfortable in Far Cry 3 as well. I wouldn't have this problem with a violent QTE if the person in question were trying to kill me (like the boss fights in that game mostly go), but still, I wish developers would apply some better taste to what is and is not necessary.

Remember, the guy typing this post is the guy that enjoyed blasting demons to bits in Doom. There's not a blanket level of violence across any and all games that can't be crossed, it's a matter of context and good judgement - what's necessary to set the tone of the game and what is excessive? This is why Dead Space's level of blood on the walls is fine (it's a sci-fi/horror game) but Black Ops, a game that the developers seem to have taken seriously, isn't always OK when you torture a dude or are asked to choke the big bad by clicking the left and right analog sticks . And really, Treyarch. Putting glass in a dude's mouth? C'mon

THAT SAID, I am still against censorship of any and all forms. This is a problem that should be brought to attention by proper criticism, not by soccer moms and "concerned" politicians or whatever, or any sort of Hay's Code-like restriction.

*QTE=quicktime event

EDIT: And, I haven't been keeping up with the news lately but I don't remember the tragedy in Connecticut being connected to video games yet. I may have missed it though.

And while I'm in this edit, there are two videos I want to point out - this one, explaining a bit about context, and this one.

Thanks for bringing up some good points against other people in this thread that are okay with excessive violence in video games. I don't think censorship is the answer too.

#25 Edited by PillClinton (3292 posts) -

Yes, and in fact, I think violence in media in general has become far too prevalent, especially when compared to the amount (or complete lack) of "sexually explicit" material. The fact that the Walking Dead with all its gruesome gore is aired on little more than a basic cable channel without so much as a peep, while at the same time, anything more than some side-boob would be utterly lambasted and ultimately censored on the very same show, is ludicrous. It's a symptom of our Puritan-derived culture, unfortunately, at least in the US.

I should also say, though, that I really don't think violent games have much at all to do with the recent streak of killings. No, that's something different, and much larger, entirely.

#26 Posted by MikkaQ (10336 posts) -

Well it kinda depends entirely on the game you're playing. So if you don't want to see a lot of violence, just avoid those kinds of games. Ratings are there for a reason.

#27 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Having violence in games for a long time doesn't excuse recent horrible actions that players have had to do in video games. Also notice that the most popular games on the market are games about shooting people in the face. I don't believe that shooters that are this violent have ever been as popular. I know that there have been many violent games in the past, but they haven't been as successful and as popular as current games are.

#28 Posted by redefaulted (2802 posts) -

Not really, but there are a couple of games where I think violence becomes comparable to porn and that scares me. I feel that violence is nothing short of human nature, but there are lines that can be crossed and I'm a bit nervous that they could be crossed.

#29 Posted by thornie (183 posts) -

Absolutely. No question about it. You cannot compare Mega Man, Double Dragon, or even Mortal Kombat with the realistic violence found in modern FPSs.

Parenting is getting much more difficult. It's up to parents to take ownership of what they put in front of their kids. It's incumbent that they have an open dialogue with their children/teens and make sure they understand the difference between reality and video games. I know a lot of you are thinking, "WTF how can you not know the difference between whats real and fake?".. Well, you would be surprised how many kids become desensitized and develop detachments from reality at an early age. There are 12 year olds out there that can easily handle and understand explicit content, and there are plenty that cannot. I grew up with violent video games, and still play intensely violent games, and I would never in a million years think of ever harming a human being, or animal in real life. I owe that to my upbringing and how my parents made sure I had my head screwed on right. They never took anything away from me, but instead treated me like an adult and made sure I understood what was was going on.

#30 Posted by PillClinton (3292 posts) -

@Phatmac: Exactly, it starts to become troubling when you notice that the most popular game franchise of all time is centered almost exclusively around semi-realistically killing people, preferably by shooting them in the face.

#31 Posted by Jimbo (9937 posts) -

It always looks like Hollywood Violence though, and really nothing at all like actual violence, so whatever. To me it's no more disturbing now than it was when people were exploding into gibs 20 years ago - it still looks every bit as ridiculous and unconvincing.

If you're saying that too many games revolve around violence -which is a different point entirely- then sure, I'd agree with that. But only because it's boring having so many games be about the same thing.

#32 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19377 posts) -

How about people play the games that are not violent if they have an issue with it?

#33 Posted by benpicko (2012 posts) -

How is 'It's just a video game' even a witty answer though. It's the correct answer.

#34 Posted by laserbolts (5353 posts) -

I disagree. I enjoy violent videogames. If violence in a game is a problem for you then play other games. Its selfish to expect games in general to tone it down. Why should your enjoyment snuff out mine?

#35 Posted by Scrawnto (2462 posts) -

I pretty much agree with on this, but to touch on that separate issue I do think too many games are based around combat. I don't even think it's a moral issue or a danger to society or any of that. I just think it's indicative of stagnation in the mainstream.

That said, there are a few moments in mainstream games that I have found distasteful, and which have pushed me away (torture scenes mostly, or the infamous scene from Spec Ops). I wouldn't advocate censoring them, though.

#36 Posted by stryker1121 (1570 posts) -

@Phatmac: Not for nothing, but telling people to "shut up" and not give a particular opinion about a subject (even if you think that opinion is dumb) is no way to start off a debate.

On topic, games are taking violence to extreme measures. Look at some of the games at E3, and fans going nuts over the Last of Us demo. The new Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider, BLOPS2, FC3 and other games are really pushing the envelope in terms of making terrible bloodshed into entertainment. Last of Us seems like it's at least showing the consequences of violence, while some of the footage I've seen from FC3 and BLOPS it seems like the gore is dare I say almost pornographic in nature. What's the point of it?

I like violent games and media, and don't find any correlation between games and real violence (the gov of Colorado and a few others have come out and spoken out against violent games in wake of Sandy Hook) but I can see why people thinking games are pushing the limits, and just creating violent games for the sake of it.

#37 Posted by Milkman (17202 posts) -

I think video games have the right to be as violent as they please. But I also think it would be nice if 80% of games didn't involve slaughtering thousands of people.

Online
#38 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ said:

How about people play the games that are not violent if they have an issue with it?

Sure, but that'd be avoiding the issue of games as a whole. I'll play violent games if they're good, but I've stopped playing other games that have excessive violence. I used to play many of these games, but I can't support it any longer. Soon enough, I'll stop buying most games if they're excessively violent.

#39 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

@stryker1121 said:

@Phatmac: Not for nothing, but telling people to "shut up" and not give a particular opinion about a subject (even if you think that opinion is dumb) is no way to start off a debate.

On topic, games are taking violence to extreme measures. Look at some of the games at E3, and fans going nuts over the Last of Us demo. The new Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider, BLOPS2, FC3 and other games are really pushing the envelope in terms of making terrible bloodshed into entertainment. Last of Us seems like it's at least showing the consequences of violence, while some of the footage I've seen from FC3 and BLOPS it seems like the gore is dare I say almost pornographic in nature. What's the point of it?

I like violent games and media, and don't find any correlation between games and real violence (the gov of Colorado and a few others have come out and spoken out against violent games in wake of Sandy Hook) but I can see why people thinking games are pushing the limits, and just creating violent games for the sake of it.

I want a good discussion about it. Saying that it's just a video game doesn't solve anything. It's more trollish in nature too. You can say that it's just a video game and then talk about why you think so. I don't want a one sentence reply with just that remark.

#40 Posted by Dylabaloo (1549 posts) -

"The medium is the the message" - Mcluhan  
 
Nah video games are just video games, doesn't matter how violent they get as long as people retain their common sense of what is real and what is not.

#41 Posted by JasonR86 (9763 posts) -

I don't know if this is sad or not but I don't really know what too violent means for me. I'm actually more effected by gross shit. There are some movies that are necessarily that graphic but because of what is happening and because of the tension I get more freaked out then, say, seeing a dudes head chopped off like in the OPs image. I guess where I fall is if you can't handle it or don't want to then don't experience it. The violence is there for those that want that experience. Everyone else can keep from experiencing that creation. Also I totally agree that the exposure to more violence within are culture is likely perpetuating more violence and desensitizing us. But violence isn't a thing that is exclusive to games. Taking the violence out of games won't stop violence in other areas from being viewed. Nor will it decrease violent acts. Bad shit is just going to happen and video games, or any other medium, is only going to effect those events in a minuscule way.

#42 Posted by Baillie (4279 posts) -

@Phatmac said:

@stryker1121 said:

@Phatmac: Not for nothing, but telling people to "shut up" and not give a particular opinion about a subject (even if you think that opinion is dumb) is no way to start off a debate.

On topic, games are taking violence to extreme measures. Look at some of the games at E3, and fans going nuts over the Last of Us demo. The new Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider, BLOPS2, FC3 and other games are really pushing the envelope in terms of making terrible bloodshed into entertainment. Last of Us seems like it's at least showing the consequences of violence, while some of the footage I've seen from FC3 and BLOPS it seems like the gore is dare I say almost pornographic in nature. What's the point of it?

I like violent games and media, and don't find any correlation between games and real violence (the gov of Colorado and a few others have come out and spoken out against violent games in wake of Sandy Hook) but I can see why people thinking games are pushing the limits, and just creating violent games for the sake of it.

I want a good discussion about it. Saying that it's just a video game doesn't solve anything. It's more trollish in nature too. You can say that it's just a video game and then talk about why you think so. I don't want a one sentence reply with just that remark.

I think people saying video games are too violent now is trollish. They've always been violent, just because the biggest games out just now are more violent than usual, doesn't mean much has changed.

#43 Posted by ShaggE (6636 posts) -

When it stops being Hollywood violence and starts looking like real violence (which I doubt will ever happen outside of fringe cases), I'll concede that there may be a problem. Until then, I don't see an issue. It's human nature to want to simulate combat as a vestigial survival trait.

I honestly find the bloodless deaths more disturbing, as it gives the sense of violence being a clean, horrorless process.

#44 Posted by Harkat (1107 posts) -

@Little_Socrates: Use fucking spoiler tags dude, Hotline Miami is way too new to spoil shit.

#45 Posted by asian_pride (1654 posts) -

I'm not going to repeat what people have already said here, except that video games are just video games. They are not the cause of the random violence that happens outside of it. Yes, violence in games is getting ramped up as years pass by, but they've always been that way, right?

I do agree that it's an issue worth talking about. I mean, when are we going to reach a plateau on that concept? Who knows. I think what's more important is how video games portray that violence. Obviously, I'd love to see more games that aren't combat-focused or laced with blood or limbs getting chopped off. But I'd like to see games that make you feel bad about that violence instead of glorifying it.

#46 Posted by Little_Socrates (5694 posts) -

@Harkat: There's an after-credits sequence and you wear a mask. I don't think either of those things count as spoilers. Nobody was yelling "spoilers" when people told you to stay after the credits at Avengers, either. If you're talking about my discussion of its themes, it's literally the only thing there is to say about the game in this conversation, and it's been included in 90% of its reviews and mentions, so I don't think it counts either.

#47 Posted by SpiderCabaret (31 posts) -

I don't think we're anywhere near the point where any video game would have to be classed as obscene or some similar designation. I think it can still go further, I think it should be allowed to go further if publishers and developers want to take it there. If there's enough of an audience to justify the cost, I don't see why restrictions should be put in place. I might find it that it's too much for my taste, but then I have the choice to abstain. Or maybe I want someone to challenge my sensibilities, to hit me in the face and say "Hey, consider this for 5 minutes."

If "the line" exists, I think it's at the point where we're no longer shocked by anything. I speak only for myself, but I still am.

I will share my most recent shocked moment. I was playing the Yakuza 5 demo a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I rank Yakuza fairly low on the "graphic violence" scale. You beat dudes up, some blood goes flying, but you don't see any horrible wounds or things like that. I had my Heat gauge built up, so I used a finisher. Kiryu slammed the guy's face into the ground, grabbed the back of his head, and just dragged it back and forth a few times. There's blood flying up, the guy's screaming and I'm sitting there with my hand over my mouth and I go "Oh, my God!" To use one of the industry's favourite buzzwords, it was quite visceral. That moment stands out in my mind. If Sega get their shit together enough to release it here, it will be what I think of when buying Yakuza 5.

I don't know what point I was trying to make. Just a nice little story to go with my opinion on the matter.

#48 Posted by PhilipDuck (567 posts) -

The real world is violent, all you have to do is turn on the news and you see people being slaughtered and bombed each day around the world. Video games include intentional violence to get publicity now, creates free marketing. I don't think there is to much violence yet, although playing black ops 2 campaign they have a lot of needless violence during that.. (shotgun to the knees, damn that looked painful)

#49 Posted by Rhaknar (5939 posts) -

yes. Especially since Gof Of War 3, for some reason that game really rubbed me the wrong way, the shit you do in it seem completely unnecessary most of the time

#50 Posted by Lukeweizer (2750 posts) -

I don't know why this thread made me think of this, but does anyone remember when the crew played Black Ops 2 during the Wii U launch stream? There was a part where someone was burning alive and your character was forced to watch it. Patrick seemed to have an issue with it, calling it gratuitous (I believe). I found that odd considering he's a massive horror film fan. Aren't those movies based off of trying to gross you out? Or showing you extreme scenes that try to shock you? What was so bad about a video game showing something like that?