#1 Edited by Trylks (829 posts) -

I just watched the new Rayman trailer:    
  

   
And I commented this: 

IMHO, this is more violent than gears of war. Why? In gears of war we see species fighting to survive, because resources are limited and they are forced to do so. In this trailer, at the end, they seem to enjoy violence and take it as the first approach when solving some conflicts, moreover pretty irrelevant conflicts that have many other different approaches to be taken before violence. 
 
Maybe the society is very wrong, or maybe it's just me, most probably, the second one. But I would like to know why. 

Maybe there are deeper reasons for the hate and violence here, and I don't know enough about the backstory in Rayman, but in the trailer that's what it seems. 

 I thought this could be interesting enough to bring it here, to general discussion, my apologies if it is not. 
 
PD: The title is "personal opinion" because this is mine and I'm interested in your personal opinion.
#2 Posted by Goly (843 posts) -

This isn't any more violent than Looney Tunes or Animaniacs. And it's not graphic violence, with blood and guts spilling all over the place like Gears of War. I find this pretty harmless, while Gears of War even if you try to justify it, is over exaggerated and glorified violence. Me myself I don't have a problem with violence as long as it stays in games and movies, but some other people might be influenced. 

#3 Posted by ThePaleKing (613 posts) -

If a child is stupid enough to imitate cartoon violence they deserve whatever befalls them. 

#4 Posted by Aetheldod (3723 posts) -

Vilonece is part of nature , eat or be eaten , cosmic law , but that does not condone killing/violence only because (it has to have a reason , and even then the last very possible course of action to ever take). Now about Rayman you are over thinking it , and I agree that Rayman is bein a douche after all it seem they are invading the skulls' home and even worse because they are chillin (were they are not supposed to) grandma skull must take it? BS I say

#5 Posted by Stonyman65 (2871 posts) -

@ThePaleKing said:

If a child is stupid enough to imitate cartoon violence they deserve whatever befalls them.

Yup. It's a video game. It's a movie, or a TV show. It's not real. If you can't understand that it is fantasy, then you shouldn't be watching or playing it. Same thing with kids who watch wrestling and then go out and end up killing themselves trying to reenact it.

#6 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

That was a cool trailer and so lacking in violence that I'm wondering if you're just trolling.

#7 Posted by funk_oddysey (52 posts) -

It seems that the trailer is really just working off the idea that its a side scrolling beat-em-up with an emphasis on the over-the-top expressions and slap-stick style comedy. Violent isn't the word here, more so its a kind of lite Dark comedy. 
I Hope this game ends up being great, big fan of the visual style & classic side scrolling gameplay.

#8 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

Comic mischief =/= graphic violence. The "violent" part (i.e. the part where they actually exchange punches) is even blacked out. And the game is obviously playing with the archetypes of the "noisy laidback youth" and the "grumpy old neighbor". So, nope.

#9 Posted by MEATBALL (3475 posts) -

Skeletons are always evil, you don't negotiate with the undead. Seriously.

#10 Posted by Muerthoz (351 posts) -

So, cartoony characters slapping each other around is worse than realistically animated humans/humanoids fighting each other with guns and guns with chainsaws attached?   Did you happen to edit out part of the post where you say you were joking?

#11 Posted by IBurningStar (2190 posts) -

This is a troll, right? Right?

#12 Posted by satansmagichat (179 posts) -

I think I see what you mean: that intent is often more important than content when it comes to violence, such as a child being beaten in a movie is far worse than gallons of gore in Evil Dead even though there's no blood in the former. Although violence for no reason, as it is in things like Tom and Jerry or Looney Tunes, is part of what makes those cartoons appealing. Because both parties are attacking each other for no real reason it brings to light part of the human condition, specifically of large scale battles in general, like war and the military industrial complex in general. Although, I think saying that the fighting in Gears of War is "only for survival" disregards the title of the game, implying that each soldier, no matter how deep that character is, what lives he or she leads, is still only a gear in a much larger machine. That machine is more concretely an organization than the one Tom and Jerry, and in this case Rayman, are fighting for. Is it survival, or is it something else?

If you lost me near the end, sorry, cuz I lost myself too.

#13 Edited by Vodun (2370 posts) -

On one level I agree with you, but this specific example I feel doesn't fit into this argument. The violence here is very comedic, they are clearly fantasy creatures and there is nothing truly violent about it. I do however feel that it is worse to show that, for example, rainbows come out of the bullet hole when you shoot someone and they merely disappear rather than the shot person dies a horrible death. I would consider it much more educational to show what really happens when you shoot someone, rather than hint that it's fine...they just go away...no biggie.

As for intent, I would say it makes less of a difference. Violence should never be the answer so however you twist and turn it any depiction of it is controversial.

#14 Posted by FilipHolm (669 posts) -

I agree.

#15 Posted by Baal_Sagoth (1289 posts) -

Ehm, so your transparent attempt at trolling aside, if you wanted to contrast graphic and "realistic" violence with cartoon violence, why didn't you choose a meaningful example for cartoon violence instead of a funny little trailer for Rayman? If your reason for Gears being about justified violence is the narrative context, why don't you look into Rayman's narrative for a second? Actually Gears and Rayman are both pretty much cartoons as far as characterization and violence goes. Oh well, this was fucking pointless ;)

#16 Posted by Toms115 (2317 posts) -

COLE TRAIN BABY STOMPIN HEADS ALL DAY

#17 Posted by sirdesmond (1262 posts) -

I was rock hard throughout most of that trailer so I'm not sure what that says about me (or is it society?).

#18 Posted by JimmyRedd (52 posts) -

I'm not a fan of the sterile, family friendly violence in games today.  In the vast majority of "violent" games wounds are either downplayed (gunshots resulting in little blood splatters, or no blood at all) or ridiculous over the top gouts of blood and comic dismemberment.  To truly have effective violence in games it needs to be more realistic and gritty.  I remember catching a bum on the side of the head with my pipe in Condemned and seeing his teeth go flying out as he got spun around.  It was subtle and awesome and has stuck with me as the best in game violence I've experienced.  
 
Above all though, videogames need more disemboweling.
 
As far as the Rayman trailer, come on man.

#19 Posted by laserbolts (5365 posts) -
@Trylks My personal opinion is that you have no idea what you are talking about or you have trolled successfully.
#20 Edited by Trylks (829 posts) -
@Goly said:

blood and guts spilling all over the place 

That is not violence, that is gore. 
 

@MEATBALL

said:

Skeletons are always evil, you don't negotiate with the undead. Seriously.

Maybe the topic is not well worded, but that's my point. Gratuitous violence is completely different to unavoidable violence, but nobody seems to be doing that distinction. When master chief kills a grunt to save the galaxy is it as moral or immoral as when the main character in mafia (don't remember the name, sorry) kills some cops to keep the crime sindicate strong? (BTW: I didn't play mafia, but I guess that's what he does, there have to be similar games with similar purposes for the main character actions, this is not about the example but the general picture)
 
Well, maybe some people think about that, but it is considered trolling or humor. 
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9200/1175675808920zq4uy1.jpg 
 
Cartoons make violence seem something normal and fun, then when children grow up they have those memes, and they just add a morality layer (not to do in the real world) and realism in fiction. 
 

@Vodun

said:

On one level I agree with you, but this specific example I feel doesn't fit into this argument. The violence here is very comedic, they are clearly fantasy creatures and there is nothing truly violent about it. I do however feel that it is worse to show that, for example, rainbows come out of the bullet hole when you shoot someone and they merely disappear rather than the shot person dies a horrible death. I would consider it much more educational to show what really happens when you shoot someone, rather than hint that it's fine...they just go away...no biggie.

As for intent, I would say it makes less of a difference. Violence should never be the answer so however you twist and turn it any depiction of it is controversial.

I agree, fable does that to some extent, if you kill someone people will tell you and be angry with you, the problem is that it isn't very educational when you can make them love you again by farting. 
#21 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@Trylks said:

I agree, fable does that to some extent, if you kill someone people will tell you and be angry with you, the problem is that it isn't very educational when you can make them love you again by farting.

Hahaha, well put =D

#22 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

The trailer aside, we all have the potential to be violent, I've been in a few fights, sometimes the reasons for them were stupid, other times I had good reasons. It's just a part of our nature, and no matter how civilized or advanced we become, it will always be there. Of course, what makes us "civilized" is our ability to keep our emotions in check. It's those times where you imagine yourself beating some guy to a pulp, but in the end you don't. Self restraint ftw!
Edit: Watched the trailer, OP, don't be stupid.

#23 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

Obvious troll post. 
Anyone who thinks that Marcus, Dom, and freaking Cole Train don't enjoy sadistically butchering aliens in the most violent way possible is too dumb to know what a computer is.

#24 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

@Trylks said:

@MEATBALL

said:

Skeletons are always evil, you don't negotiate with the undead. Seriously.

Maybe the topic is not well worded, but that's my point. Gratuitous violence is completely different to unavoidable violence, but nobody seems to be doing that distinction. When master chief kills a grunt to save the galaxy is it as moral or immoral as when the main character in mafia (don't remember the name, sorry) kills some cops to keep the crime sindicate strong? (BTW: I didn't play mafia, but I guess that's what he does, there have to be similar games with similar purposes for the main character actions, this is not about the example but the general picture)

Well, maybe some people think about that, but it is considered trolling or humor.
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9200/1175675808920zq4uy1.jpg

Cartoons make violence seem something normal and fun, then when children grow up they have those memes, and they just add a morality layer (not to do in the real world) and realism in fiction.

If you want to take seriously a game, Mario is a bad example. The goombas and koopas are an invading army in the Mushroom Kingdom. They are a strike force sent by Bowser to dominate the land while he kidnaps the rightful ruler. Bowser is a fucking terrorist, if you want to judge a game by "real life" standards. How come Mario is the bad guy, when Master Chief isn't? And, as far as I remember, you don't kill many cops in Mafia. You're mostly fighting against rival gangs and families within the mafia. But whatever. Next time use an example that, you know, fits what you're trying to say.

@Trylks said:

@Goly said:

blood and guts spilling all over the place

That is not violence, that is gore.

That distinction makes no sense. How were that blood and those guts spilled in the first place? Violence. If "gore" and "violence" are two different things, then your initial comparison of Gears of War (gore) and Rayman (violence) is pointless.

#25 Posted by oskar_det (63 posts) -
@Trylks said:

  



IMHO, this is more violent than gears of war. Why? In gears of war we see species fighting to survive, because resources are limited and they are forced to do so. In this trailer, at the end, they seem to enjoy violence and take it as the first approach when solving some conflicts, moreover pretty irrelevant conflicts that have many other different approaches to be taken before violence. 
 
Maybe the society is very wrong, or maybe it's just me, most probably, the second one. But I would like to know why. 

Trying to defend Gears of War? They're glorifying violence, that's it. You can always come up with a suiting story trying to play innocent, but in the end people who loves Gears of War loves violence. Americans loves violence. They justify their wars by killing dictators all over the world, but if there were no dictators then they would find another target. I mean seriously, what would the US be without its glory army? Their whole culture is based on war. and weapons.
 
How many people would play Gears of War if you took out the monsters and weapons and put in pink puffpalls and water guns? It would be the same gameplay, but people would never buy that. Because the reason people buy Gears of War is because of its extreme violence. Because people, and Americans in particular, loves violence.
 
Don't misunderstand me, I think people should be able to play or watch whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If people want to kill in Gears of Wars that's perfectly fine, but don't try to imply that you don't enjoy violence.
 
Me, I like sex more than violence. I also like cute, Japanese things like this:
 
  
  That's not only cute, but very charming and funny as well. For you who don't know, it's about a little girl who falls in love with her teacher, but the teacher tries to fend her off, insisting that she's still a child and should wait a few years for love. But she doesn't want to wait. She wants it NOW, and that creates lot of funny and awkward situations. :-)
 
Of course, you could say they just came up with a story to show children in sexual positions, but again, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?
#26 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Goly: I don;t think he meant "harmful scarring violence" but more, an abstract display of aggression and violence that is less reasonable. Kind of like how I felt the slaughter of retreating soldiers near the end of Braveheart was way more extreme than any other scene in that movie, because violence is more than a visual act. It's not a painting.

#27 Posted by roguehallow (209 posts) -

I see in this video a lot of the late 80s/early 90s 'tude prominent in cartoons like The Legend of Zelda and Sonic the Hedgehog. "You want us to stop making obnoxious Stomp-inspired noises directly over this tree-vent thingy that leads directly to where an old lady is trying to sweep her porch? Well excuuuuuuuse me, princess!" Personally, I'm fine with whatever violence those black tentacle creatures are about to perpetrate against Rayman and his buddies.

Oh, Rayman is the good guy? Ugh.

#28 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -
@oskar_det: That manga goes way farther than that.
#29 Posted by Goly (843 posts) -
@JoeyRavn said:

@Trylks said:

@MEATBALL

said:

Skeletons are always evil, you don't negotiate with the undead. Seriously.

Maybe the topic is not well worded, but that's my point. Gratuitous violence is completely different to unavoidable violence, but nobody seems to be doing that distinction. When master chief kills a grunt to save the galaxy is it as moral or immoral as when the main character in mafia (don't remember the name, sorry) kills some cops to keep the crime sindicate strong? (BTW: I didn't play mafia, but I guess that's what he does, there have to be similar games with similar purposes for the main character actions, this is not about the example but the general picture)

Well, maybe some people think about that, but it is considered trolling or humor.
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9200/1175675808920zq4uy1.jpg

Cartoons make violence seem something normal and fun, then when children grow up they have those memes, and they just add a morality layer (not to do in the real world) and realism in fiction.

If you want to take seriously a game, Mario is a bad example. The goombas and koopas are an invading army in the Mushroom Kingdom. They are a strike force sent by Bowser to dominate the land while he kidnaps the rightful ruler. Bowser is a fucking terrorist, if you want to judge a game by "real life" standards. How come Mario is the bad guy, when Master Chief isn't? And, as far as I remember, you don't kill many cops in Mafia. You're mostly fighting against rival gangs and families within the mafia. But whatever. Next time use an example that, you know, fits what you're trying to say.

@Trylks said:

@Goly said:

blood and guts spilling all over the place

That is not violence, that is gore.

That distinction makes no sense. How were that blood and those guts spilled in the first place? Violence. If "gore" and "violence" are two different things, then your initial comparison of Gears of War (gore) and Rayman (violence) is pointless.

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother arguing.
#30 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

@oskar_det said:

Of course, you could say they just came up with a story to show children in sexual positions, but again, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

Wow. Just... wow.

#31 Posted by Goly (843 posts) -

Also, most anime is just plain FUCKED UP.

#32 Posted by Trylks (829 posts) -
@JoeyRavn said:

That distinction makes no sense. How were that blood and those guts spilled in the first place? Violence. If "gore" and "violence" are two different things, then your initial comparison of Gears of War (gore) and Rayman (violence) is pointless.

Yes, that is violence, but it is justified violence with gore, Rayman is gratuitous violence without gore. 
 
@oskar_det said:
Don't misunderstand me, I think people should be able to play or watch whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If people want to kill in Gears of Wars that's perfectly fine, but don't try to imply that you don't enjoy violence. 
I think games and all media in general (movies, music, etc.) have some morale, even if it is tacit and implicit. For instance I played fable 2 twice, one the first one I was good, on the second I was bad, so that I could see all the consequences and, in some way, the full game. When I was going around in the end of my first game everything looked pretty and it was nice, I didn't have much more to do, but running along the fields with my dog finding nice people was a nice experience (and plainly stupid, it is just a game). In the second game through this was the opposite, people were poor, they hated or feared me, etc. Hearing people cry wasn't that nice (yes, I know they are virtual people and they don't really suffer). My point is that we are human and empathy should be normal, and actually, it is quite good for the human kind. 
 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ 
 
I have played games about saving the world or the princess for most of my life, but nowadays there is a lot of badassery in the games, they don't feel the same, the empathy is twisted, wicked, and that feels wrong. For me one of the first games that mastered this concept of badassery is Dungeon Keeper, which is a very fun game, and as you say, people should be able to play whatever they like and want as far as they don't hurt anyone. 
 
But the point is that game boxes contain information about the contents of the games so that parents can know if the game contains some violence, for instance. And IMHO, this is not very correct. Parents should be informed (on their own), that is the first thing to be considered, they should be informed about the contents of the game. I can easily think that american parents will like games with violence against people in middle east (those terrorists may deserve to die in their eyes) than violence against americans, good people like themselves. That's very relevant information and nobody is considering it. 
 
Americans can probably understand this very easily. It is all about context. Is a nipple something that should not be displayed in public in a beach? If the nipple is in a male's chest then there is no problem, if the nipple is in a female bust then it must be covered, even if the bust is actually not covered. Weird, isn't it?
So maybe the example with rayman was not the best one for argumentation purposes, but I'm quite certain it was good for attention purposes, even qualified as trolling (so maybe I exceeded myself on that). 
 
About the video you posted, that is morally very weird, I don't know how much can that line be stretched (1:30 is really a WTF moment). And there are many problems wrt it, for instance that could cause a lot of trouble if children take it as an example. If it is a show for adults, it may put their imagination to work, and led to real actions after they imagined something. I'm not a psychologist, so I would really like to know what does science have to tell about the influence of material like that. 
 
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/08/22 
  
Now think about Motoko and Batou at the end of I don't remember which chapter of Ghost in the Shell, when Motoko has to take and old "cyberbody"  she had, as a child. That's completely different when you consider the context.

@roguehallow said:

I see in this video a lot of the late 80s/early 90s 'tude prominent in cartoons like The Legend of Zelda and Sonic the Hedgehog. "You want us to stop making obnoxious Stomp-inspired noises directly over this tree-vent thingy that leads directly to where an old lady is trying to sweep her porch? Well excuuuuuuuse me, princess!" Personally, I'm fine with whatever violence those black tentacle creatures are about to perpetrate against Rayman and his buddies.

Oh, Rayman is the good guy? Ugh.

Good wording displaying how morally ambiguous this is.
 
@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Goly: I don;t think he meant "harmful scarring violence" but more, an abstract display of aggression and violence that is less reasonable. Kind of like how I felt the slaughter of retreating soldiers near the end of Braveheart was way more extreme than any other scene in that movie, because violence is more than a visual act. It's not a painting.

Exactly, self-defense is morally completely different to murdering for fun, even if in both cases it is as violent as firing a gun and killing a person.