The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Over the years many consoles and many games ahve been made to interest the world in a new form of entertainment. Gaming! But somepeople nowadays complain about games being too violent and I find some part of it true and some parts false.
Have you ever noticed that even some games that aren't classified as the 'action/shoot-em-up' genre still have hints of violence secretly hidden in their games?! Such adventure games like Rayman where you just run about in a harmless cartoon world, also contain some sort of violence. Either by jumping on the enemy's head or bashing them off with a charging move. But this is the sort of violence in games that kids get away with, by being able to purchase them. If they tried to buy such a game like Resident Evil they would never get that game sold to them unless an adult is with them.
Fighting games, they have violence in them, but still, this is softography violence compared to most games dedicated to violence. There are some sword slashing beat-em-ups though, with the element of blood included in their games. These are the sort of beat-em-ups that are included in the REAL violence category. Most beat-em-ups like Tekken don't contain blood in their games, just special types of lighting effects to indicate what sort of move has been executed. These sort of beat-em-ups appeal to more gamers as since the majority of gamers are teens, and some early teens. What I don't understand is why do the developers of such games still rate their fighting games 15+? This seems to upset most gamers below the age of 15, but they still make constant attempts to purchase such games and in most cases succeed.
The type of game that I would classify as 'extremely violent' would be the upcoming Playstation2 game Devil May Cry. This is the perfect definition of violence, but the most enjoyable sort of violence. Although this games includes all elements of violence it's still a game worthy of buying and playing. The graphics are superb, it has fast-paced non-stop action, many weapons and a huge range of bad guys to demolish. So violence in games isn't so bad after all, or is it?
Once upon a time, there was to be THE most violent beat-em-up ever on any console, to be released for the Playstation. This game was Thrill Kill. Such games like this influence people to do the strangest of things so the game, after being released, was finally banned! It had everything included in the game to make anybody go mad! Basically the game was all about maniacs fighting in the darkest arenas beating the hell out of each other. This game exerted gallons of blood everytime the opponent was hit, then to finish the bout the character does some spectacular move, deceasing the opponent. There are still copies of this game with certain owners, who luckily haven't been caught because this game was just too violent!
A good definition of the type of acceptable sort of violence would be action games like Max Payne or even the upcoming Grand Theft Auto 3. These games and more satisfy gamers and give a wider range of genres. Shoot-em-ups like Quake or Unreal Tournament are violent games, but still very fun to play, especially in multyiplayer.
It's quite difficult ot explain, but violent games are good. It depends what kind of violence it is. If it's the sort that takes control of your mind, then NO. If it's the kind that you play, enjoy and that's it, then it's fine. Violence in games brought out the excitement in most games available today. Games nowadays, are not too violent to the extreme because current developers know what kind of action, beat-em-up or shoot-em-up would appeal more to fanatics of these genres.
So games are not too violent thanks to the improvement of gaming over the years. Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of violence in games is acceptable today.
Have you ever noticed that even some games that aren't classified as the 'action/shoot-em-up' genre still have hints of violence secretly hidden in their games?! Such adventure games like Rayman where you just run about in a harmless cartoon world, also contain some sort of violence. Either by jumping on the enemy's head or bashing them off with a charging move. But this is the sort of violence in games that kids get away with, by being able to purchase them. If they tried to buy such a game like Resident Evil they would never get that game sold to them unless an adult is with them.
Fighting games, they have violence in them, but still, this is softography violence compared to most games dedicated to violence. There are some sword slashing beat-em-ups though, with the element of blood included in their games. These are the sort of beat-em-ups that are included in the REAL violence category. Most beat-em-ups like Tekken don't contain blood in their games, just special types of lighting effects to indicate what sort of move has been executed. These sort of beat-em-ups appeal to more gamers as since the majority of gamers are teens, and some early teens. What I don't understand is why do the developers of such games still rate their fighting games 15+? This seems to upset most gamers below the age of 15, but they still make constant attempts to purchase such games and in most cases succeed.
The type of game that I would classify as 'extremely violent' would be the upcoming Playstation2 game Devil May Cry. This is the perfect definition of violence, but the most enjoyable sort of violence. Although this games includes all elements of violence it's still a game worthy of buying and playing. The graphics are superb, it has fast-paced non-stop action, many weapons and a huge range of bad guys to demolish. So violence in games isn't so bad after all, or is it?
Once upon a time, there was to be THE most violent beat-em-up ever on any console, to be released for the Playstation. This game was Thrill Kill. Such games like this influence people to do the strangest of things so the game, after being released, was finally banned! It had everything included in the game to make anybody go mad! Basically the game was all about maniacs fighting in the darkest arenas beating the hell out of each other. This game exerted gallons of blood everytime the opponent was hit, then to finish the bout the character does some spectacular move, deceasing the opponent. There are still copies of this game with certain owners, who luckily haven't been caught because this game was just too violent!
A good definition of the type of acceptable sort of violence would be action games like Max Payne or even the upcoming Grand Theft Auto 3. These games and more satisfy gamers and give a wider range of genres. Shoot-em-ups like Quake or Unreal Tournament are violent games, but still very fun to play, especially in multyiplayer.
It's quite difficult ot explain, but violent games are good. It depends what kind of violence it is. If it's the sort that takes control of your mind, then NO. If it's the kind that you play, enjoy and that's it, then it's fine. Violence in games brought out the excitement in most games available today. Games nowadays, are not too violent to the extreme because current developers know what kind of action, beat-em-up or shoot-em-up would appeal more to fanatics of these genres.
So games are not too violent thanks to the improvement of gaming over the years. Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of violence in games is acceptable today.
Yesterday I played a 2-hour marathon of non-stop Quake 3 in all it's glorious bloodletting, and I haven't been affected a bit.
*Turbonutter orders a steak, extra rare...*
*Turbonutter orders a steak, extra rare...*
no they are not!
Reload wrote:
>Audiences wouldn't purchase such games if it didn't appeal to them and
> obviously it does.
You're missing my point. It might appeal to gamers but to the gamers' parents such violence is yet another reason not to let their kids play the games in the first place. And I think that's pretty much infallibly unhealthy to the industry.
>Audiences wouldn't purchase such games if it didn't appeal to them and
> obviously it does.
You're missing my point. It might appeal to gamers but to the gamers' parents such violence is yet another reason not to let their kids play the games in the first place. And I think that's pretty much infallibly unhealthy to the industry.
how many game-a-days have been won with that title?
Bodgemeister wrote:
>I think flooding the markets with such games is unhealthy
>for the industry.
No it's not! If it wasn't for such games, great games like Max Payne wouldn't be available to us now, and see how well that did! Audiences wouldn't purchase such games if it didn't appeal to them and obviously it does.
Violence is such a strong word to use when describing games and it may sound wrong when games are described that way, but the fact of the matter is violent games are great fun, so you criticisers out there better get used to it!
>I think flooding the markets with such games is unhealthy
>for the industry.
No it's not! If it wasn't for such games, great games like Max Payne wouldn't be available to us now, and see how well that did! Audiences wouldn't purchase such games if it didn't appeal to them and obviously it does.
Violence is such a strong word to use when describing games and it may sound wrong when games are described that way, but the fact of the matter is violent games are great fun, so you criticisers out there better get used to it!
Reload wrote:
> Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in
> films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of
> violence in games is acceptable today.
I'm afraid I don't agree with that. I think you have to look at it in a different manner: you're trying to justify the presence of violence in games because you're desperate to prevent the taking away of something you value. Instead, I think it's far more pertinent to look at why the violence is in there anyway, and what form it takes.
Well, most of it, if you ask me, can be compared to the violence you'd find in your average no-brainer action film. A good example would be something like The Rock or Face/Off. Now, both those films are widely regarded as leaders of the action flick market, and both never came across any controversy upon release.
The reason being, I think, that this kind of no-brainer attitude is now regarded as acceptable. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at all: you see a good guy fire off a load of shots and five bad guys drop dead. Personally I'd rather see something more realistic and involving, like you'd find on a Quentin Tarrantino movie, but I don't object to this approach. The key - and this is the really relevent bit as far as games are concerned - the KEY lies in the fact that this kind of violence is not gratuitous; is not unnecessarily sickening; is NOT taking the issue of violence too far. Bang bang, dead dead.
I think you can equate this to the same kind of violence that you'd find in games. I still refuse to believe that there's been a single game made that has really made the player think - hell, made a player REGRET - taking a life. Pretty much every single shooter out there gives a little bit of a blood spurt, and the guy falls to the floor.
There are the exceptions, however, and this is where I think the violence can be unhealthy for the industry. To whit: games like Soldier of Fortune, where you can realistically see the injuries you carry out on your victim, and what's more, do it again and again for fun. Escapism it may be, but to the non-games playing public, this is the polygon equivalent of a 1980s video nasty. And it creates the same kind of outrage.
I'm not really against violence in games, per se. It's just that the kind of really detailed, maybe even sadistic gameplay some developers insist upon producing gives the industry a bad name and a bad image. And as the last of the three mainstream mediums to come under public scrutiny - (the other two being TV/films and music) - I think flooding the markets with such games is unhealthy for the industry.
> Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in
> films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of
> violence in games is acceptable today.
I'm afraid I don't agree with that. I think you have to look at it in a different manner: you're trying to justify the presence of violence in games because you're desperate to prevent the taking away of something you value. Instead, I think it's far more pertinent to look at why the violence is in there anyway, and what form it takes.
Well, most of it, if you ask me, can be compared to the violence you'd find in your average no-brainer action film. A good example would be something like The Rock or Face/Off. Now, both those films are widely regarded as leaders of the action flick market, and both never came across any controversy upon release.
The reason being, I think, that this kind of no-brainer attitude is now regarded as acceptable. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at all: you see a good guy fire off a load of shots and five bad guys drop dead. Personally I'd rather see something more realistic and involving, like you'd find on a Quentin Tarrantino movie, but I don't object to this approach. The key - and this is the really relevent bit as far as games are concerned - the KEY lies in the fact that this kind of violence is not gratuitous; is not unnecessarily sickening; is NOT taking the issue of violence too far. Bang bang, dead dead.
I think you can equate this to the same kind of violence that you'd find in games. I still refuse to believe that there's been a single game made that has really made the player think - hell, made a player REGRET - taking a life. Pretty much every single shooter out there gives a little bit of a blood spurt, and the guy falls to the floor.
There are the exceptions, however, and this is where I think the violence can be unhealthy for the industry. To whit: games like Soldier of Fortune, where you can realistically see the injuries you carry out on your victim, and what's more, do it again and again for fun. Escapism it may be, but to the non-games playing public, this is the polygon equivalent of a 1980s video nasty. And it creates the same kind of outrage.
I'm not really against violence in games, per se. It's just that the kind of really detailed, maybe even sadistic gameplay some developers insist upon producing gives the industry a bad name and a bad image. And as the last of the three mainstream mediums to come under public scrutiny - (the other two being TV/films and music) - I think flooding the markets with such games is unhealthy for the industry.
well i would read if it was split up a bit mroe.
Hard on the eyes you see
good topic though.
Hard on the eyes you see
good topic though.
Over the years many consoles and many games ahve been made to interest the world in a new form of entertainment. Gaming! But somepeople nowadays complain about games being too violent and I find some part of it true and some parts false.
Have you ever noticed that even some games that aren't classified as the 'action/shoot-em-up' genre still have hints of violence secretly hidden in their games?! Such adventure games like Rayman where you just run about in a harmless cartoon world, also contain some sort of violence. Either by jumping on the enemy's head or bashing them off with a charging move. But this is the sort of violence in games that kids get away with, by being able to purchase them. If they tried to buy such a game like Resident Evil they would never get that game sold to them unless an adult is with them.
Fighting games, they have violence in them, but still, this is softography violence compared to most games dedicated to violence. There are some sword slashing beat-em-ups though, with the element of blood included in their games. These are the sort of beat-em-ups that are included in the REAL violence category. Most beat-em-ups like Tekken don't contain blood in their games, just special types of lighting effects to indicate what sort of move has been executed. These sort of beat-em-ups appeal to more gamers as since the majority of gamers are teens, and some early teens. What I don't understand is why do the developers of such games still rate their fighting games 15+? This seems to upset most gamers below the age of 15, but they still make constant attempts to purchase such games and in most cases succeed.
The type of game that I would classify as 'extremely violent' would be the upcoming Playstation2 game Devil May Cry. This is the perfect definition of violence, but the most enjoyable sort of violence. Although this games includes all elements of violence it's still a game worthy of buying and playing. The graphics are superb, it has fast-paced non-stop action, many weapons and a huge range of bad guys to demolish. So violence in games isn't so bad after all, or is it?
Once upon a time, there was to be THE most violent beat-em-up ever on any console, to be released for the Playstation. This game was Thrill Kill. Such games like this influence people to do the strangest of things so the game, after being released, was finally banned! It had everything included in the game to make anybody go mad! Basically the game was all about maniacs fighting in the darkest arenas beating the hell out of each other. This game exerted gallons of blood everytime the opponent was hit, then to finish the bout the character does some spectacular move, deceasing the opponent. There are still copies of this game with certain owners, who luckily haven't been caught because this game was just too violent!
A good definition of the type of acceptable sort of violence would be action games like Max Payne or even the upcoming Grand Theft Auto 3. These games and more satisfy gamers and give a wider range of genres. Shoot-em-ups like Quake or Unreal Tournament are violent games, but still very fun to play, especially in multyiplayer.
It's quite difficult ot explain, but violent games are good. It depends what kind of violence it is. If it's the sort that takes control of your mind, then NO. If it's the kind that you play, enjoy and that's it, then it's fine. Violence in games brought out the excitement in most games available today. Games nowadays, are not too violent to the extreme because current developers know what kind of action, beat-em-up or shoot-em-up would appeal more to fanatics of these genres.
So games are not too violent thanks to the improvement of gaming over the years. Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of violence in games is acceptable today.
Have you ever noticed that even some games that aren't classified as the 'action/shoot-em-up' genre still have hints of violence secretly hidden in their games?! Such adventure games like Rayman where you just run about in a harmless cartoon world, also contain some sort of violence. Either by jumping on the enemy's head or bashing them off with a charging move. But this is the sort of violence in games that kids get away with, by being able to purchase them. If they tried to buy such a game like Resident Evil they would never get that game sold to them unless an adult is with them.
Fighting games, they have violence in them, but still, this is softography violence compared to most games dedicated to violence. There are some sword slashing beat-em-ups though, with the element of blood included in their games. These are the sort of beat-em-ups that are included in the REAL violence category. Most beat-em-ups like Tekken don't contain blood in their games, just special types of lighting effects to indicate what sort of move has been executed. These sort of beat-em-ups appeal to more gamers as since the majority of gamers are teens, and some early teens. What I don't understand is why do the developers of such games still rate their fighting games 15+? This seems to upset most gamers below the age of 15, but they still make constant attempts to purchase such games and in most cases succeed.
The type of game that I would classify as 'extremely violent' would be the upcoming Playstation2 game Devil May Cry. This is the perfect definition of violence, but the most enjoyable sort of violence. Although this games includes all elements of violence it's still a game worthy of buying and playing. The graphics are superb, it has fast-paced non-stop action, many weapons and a huge range of bad guys to demolish. So violence in games isn't so bad after all, or is it?
Once upon a time, there was to be THE most violent beat-em-up ever on any console, to be released for the Playstation. This game was Thrill Kill. Such games like this influence people to do the strangest of things so the game, after being released, was finally banned! It had everything included in the game to make anybody go mad! Basically the game was all about maniacs fighting in the darkest arenas beating the hell out of each other. This game exerted gallons of blood everytime the opponent was hit, then to finish the bout the character does some spectacular move, deceasing the opponent. There are still copies of this game with certain owners, who luckily haven't been caught because this game was just too violent!
A good definition of the type of acceptable sort of violence would be action games like Max Payne or even the upcoming Grand Theft Auto 3. These games and more satisfy gamers and give a wider range of genres. Shoot-em-ups like Quake or Unreal Tournament are violent games, but still very fun to play, especially in multyiplayer.
It's quite difficult ot explain, but violent games are good. It depends what kind of violence it is. If it's the sort that takes control of your mind, then NO. If it's the kind that you play, enjoy and that's it, then it's fine. Violence in games brought out the excitement in most games available today. Games nowadays, are not too violent to the extreme because current developers know what kind of action, beat-em-up or shoot-em-up would appeal more to fanatics of these genres.
So games are not too violent thanks to the improvement of gaming over the years. Remember violence in games are acceptable, after all there's violence in films so why shouldn't there be in games? This is why action or any form of violence in games is acceptable today.