Personal opinion on the violence in games (and society)

I just watched the new Rayman trailer:    
  

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. 

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. 

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

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

@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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

This is a troll, right? Right?

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.

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.

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 ;)

COLE TRAIN BABY STOMPIN HEADS ALL DAY

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

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.

blood and guts spilling all over the place 

@MEATBALL

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

@Vodun

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.

@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

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.

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.

@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.

  

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. 

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

Also, most anime is just plain FUCKED UP.

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.

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 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.

@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.