@dunchad: I still believe there is a huge disconnect between games and real life. Although I used the term "gibs" kind of jokingly there it does bring on another important point that bothers me about these situations. I think it's a bit ironic, and even slightly hypocritical of people to say "well now that graphics have gone forward this isn't cool anymore." Soldier of Fortune was modeled to be as realistic as those graphics got at that time. Why is it that when you blew a soldiers arm off when he had 200 polygons it was hilarious as opposed to when you do the same thing when he has 2000 polygons. It still depicts a human being, except one is rendered less than the other one. Of course I can see the point of having more realistic graphics being more bothersome. At the same time back when Quake 4 came out, there was a sequence in the game where the player is literally strapped down to a conveyor belt, and his arms and legs get sawed off while in first person view and replaced with cyborg parts - this was regarded by many, among press also, as the most memorable part of the game because of how "real" it was. Violence was a lot more over the top 10 years ago and no one seemed all too bothered by it. Carmageddon was a ton of fun. Because the civilians were basically pixel sprites it was "OK" to mow them down with your car, as opposed to if you made that game today and they were fully animated and ragdolled polygon models?
A lot of people seem to have adapted this double standard for violence where all of a sudden we've gone over the line. Lets go a little earlier back in time. Games like Gears of War or Assassins Creed were touted as having "really satisfying kill animations." A lot of people will right away eliminate Gears because you're killing aliens, and that doesn't count. Some have even told me that since the violence is SO over the top, that chainsawing this very human looking enemy in half with blood and guts spraying everywhere is funny more than grotesque. In multiplayer you can kill other humans and apparently ripping another humans arm off and beating them to death with it is cool and fun, rather than revolting. But we can let that go, because it's in the future, and thats ok because it's so far removed from reality that the violence stops being real. Assassins Creed 2 and onwards introduced plenty of extremely visceral kill animations. Slitting peoples throats, stabbing them, puncturing and smashing them with various weapons. These are real humans were murdering now throughout the entire game, and no one batted an eye at any of that. The game is literally chock full of very imaginative execution animations yet everyone, including the Bomb Crew, thought that stuff was great. Was that violence ok because it's too far back in the past? @Yummylee had properly noted how Brad himself actually agreed with the notion that all the gruesome deaths in Dead Space are fine because Isaac wears a big bulky suit and we don't see his face that often. Apparently not showing your face means you lose all humanity, and it's no longer a person in front of you but a lump of flesh that can be pulverized in any which way. Why doesn't Dead Space count? Because it's in the future? Because Isaac wears a big, bulky space suit so were used to seeing "space marines" die gruesome deaths? In FarCry 3 everyone thought it's awesome to hunt animals and skin them. Everyone in the Quick Look laughed at how theres an entire animation of your driving a knife into the carcass with blood splattering the screen. Thats actually way more gratuitous than that Tomb Raider death scene to me, because it repeats so many times as opposed to only seeing it when you die. Why is there this double standard where some games are completely fine, yet others are crossing the line? How is some violence acceptable, like in Assassins Creed, yet in others it's not? I don't really buy the line that in the case of Tom Raider it's because it's SO close to reality. It's not. It's still just a game. She's the same bunch of polygons that Marcus Fenix or Isaac Clarke are, yet now people care all of a sudden.
I saw that video of her getting impaled on the stick. Yeah it's gruesome, but it's a failstate and thats the point. It's a game over screen that says "wow you messed up make sure not to do that again!" I don't consider it gratuitous or exploitative and unnecessary. Those animations are there to serve a point - that you're on this island and your life is on the line. That death is a very real and graphic possibility and you should probably avoid it - it's meant to heighten the tension when you're jumping over a chasm over navigating those rapids. On top of that it's super video-gamey. It's pushing the envelope the same way games have been pushing the envelope for ages, because most people can make the distinction that it's a game. If you're comparing video game violence, a bunch of polygons on your screen, to something you might see on the news then I can't help butlaugh a little.. I've seen terrible things happen in games and none of them even begin to scratch the surface of real life violence. I've seen a friend of mine fall and dislocate his elbow causing his entire arm to bend back the wrong way. There was no blood, no open wounds, yet I literally had to look away because it was so sickening to see something like that up close.
Of course at the end of the day your mileage will vary. I respect the fact that you may think this is "too far" even if I don't share your viewpoint. I actually wanted to write a blog about this but I already wrote so much here that I probably won't bother now. To me it's just silly that some guys have "acceptable" gore while others cross the line with "unnecessary" levels of violence.
Log in to comment