gory games?

whats the goriest game ever made?:twisted:

In terms of realism, I'd say Left 4 Dead 2.

In terms of realism, I'd say Left 4 Dead 2.

Vesica_Prime

Left 4 Dead 2 is pretty full on...

Possibly Fallout 3. Sometimes you aim your rifle to the opponents head, you see the bullet fly out the barrel of the gun in slo-mo, fly towards the target where it slices into their skull with a sickening thud, then the impact causes the head to explode, you can actually see which direction the eyeballs fly off.

Both Gears of war games and Both Current series Ninja Gaiden games.

Fallout 3 barely even makes the cut when you consider some of these games:

Conan - Ultra-violent (though incredibly accurate to the source material) hack n' slash including decapitations, bisections, limb removal, skull crushing, and copious amounts of blood accompanying the carnage.

Mad World - Despite the bombastic premise and comic book-like presentation, the violence is profound and includes, among other things, a chainsaw melee option, the ability to impale skulls, placing an enemy against a speeding train and watching as they are torn apart, and the ability to literally liquefy your competition.

God Of War III Demo - Insanely violent and complimented by plenty of the red stuff. The demo includes eviscerating a centaur replete with exposed entrails, ripping out a Cyclops's eyes and literally being drenched in a fountain of blood while doing so, and the literal decapitation of Helios barehanded.

The Punisher - This game actually had to be edited down a bit to achieve an M rating. Graphic scenes of violence include stabbing enemies through the skull and face with knife, interrogation and executions via power drill, wood chipper, and various other devices, and placing an enemy into a coffin and then dropping a grenade in with them and watching it blow.

Ninja Gaiden II (XBOX 360 Version Only) Limbs fly and the blood remains on the ground (and the weapons) in this sequel.

Possibly Fallout 3. Sometimes you aim your rifle to the opponents head, you see the bullet fly out the barrel of the gun in slo-mo, fly towards the target where it slices into their skull with a sickening thud, then the impact causes the head to explode, you can actually see which direction the eyeballs fly off.

Evil_Saluki

I'll tell ya what -- I wish there wasn't as much gore. Back in the day I used to get so annoyed with people saying anything like that, but I definitely understand now that I'm married and am around wives and kids and the like. I want to be able to sit and play videogames nonchalantly on a saturday afternoon, and don't want my playing to be restricted because there's so much gore that I can't play if theres anyone else in the house.

Would Fallout 3 REALLY have been a lesser game if it had a less-gore option? or simply wasn't as overthetop gory all the time? No, it wouldn't have. As the gaming audience grows and changes over time and with age, I really hope developers keep in mind that we're not all at a time in our lives where the gore is 'awesome' or exciting or just something that stiff-shirt old people need to get over and stop making a big deal about.

I'll tell ya what -- I wish there wasn't as much gore. Back in the day I used to get so annoyed with people saying anything like that, but I definitely understand now that I'm married and am around wives and kids and the like. I want to be able to sit and play videogames nonchalantly on a saturday afternoon, and don't want my playing to be restricted because there's so much gore that I can't play if theres anyone else in the house.

Would Fallout 3 REALLY have been a lesser game if it had a less-gore option? or simply wasn't as overthetop gory all the time? No, it wouldn't have. As the gaming audience grows and changes over time and with age, I really hope developers keep in mind that we're not all at a time in our lives where the gore is 'awesome' or exciting or just something that stiff-shirt old people need to get over and stop making a big deal about.

TommyCasual

Violence is a part of the human condition and an inescapable reality, which is why it is so often included as a compliment to the narrative of a game, film or novel. You assume that violence in games is included merely because the developers thought it a "cool" addition, never bothering to consider that said violence might be a crucial aspect of the aesthetic and thematic structure. Game developers are not obligated to include some sort of filter or violence censoring tool anymore than a film director should be forced to edit down his/her vision because some people might find it offensive. There are plenty of games that cater to those who find gore offensive so frankly, if the violence in some of these games bothers your that much, you should play something else. What you should not expect is artists and developers to compromise their respective visions to accommodate your personal taste.

As to Fallout 3, given the bleak and nasty dystopian landscape presented to the player, I think toning down the gore, which really wasn't excessive to begin with, would have compromised the game to some extent, at least from a visceral standpoint.

[QUOTE="TommyCasual"]

I'll tell ya what -- I wish there wasn't as much gore. Back in the day I used to get so annoyed with people saying anything like that, but I definitely understand now that I'm married and am around wives and kids and the like. I want to be able to sit and play videogames nonchalantly on a saturday afternoon, and don't want my playing to be restricted because there's so much gore that I can't play if theres anyone else in the house.

Would Fallout 3 REALLY have been a lesser game if it had a less-gore option? or simply wasn't as overthetop gory all the time? No, it wouldn't have. As the gaming audience grows and changes over time and with age, I really hope developers keep in mind that we're not all at a time in our lives where the gore is 'awesome' or exciting or just something that stiff-shirt old people need to get over and stop making a big deal about.

Grammaton-Cleric

Violence is a part of the human condition and an inescapable reality, which is why it is so often included as a compliment to the narrative of a game, film or novel. You assume that violence in games is included merely because the developers thought it a "cool" addition, never bothering to consider that said violence might be a crucial aspect of the aesthetic and thematic structure. Game developers are not obligated to include some sort of filter or violence censoring tool anymore than a film director should be forced to edit down his/her vision because some people might find it offensive. There are plenty of games that cater to those who find gore offensive so frankly, if the violence in some of these games bothers your that much, you should play something else. What you should not expect is artists and developers to compromise their respective visions to accommodate your personal taste.

As to Fallout 3, given the bleak and nasty dystopian landscape presented to the player, I think toning down the gore, which really wasn't excessive to begin with, would have compromised the game to some extent, at least from a visceral standpoint.

Please dont condescendingly try to tell me what I "assume" as though I'm just clearly not in touch with artistry and 'the human condition'. I give lectures on thematic structure. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the gaming landscape and say that there is room for more solid best-of-the-year type games that don't have slow motion dismemberment. There is much that could be conveyed just as powerfully without that stuff, but we see little of it.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="TommyCasual"]

I'll tell ya what -- I wish there wasn't as much gore. Back in the day I used to get so annoyed with people saying anything like that, but I definitely understand now that I'm married and am around wives and kids and the like. I want to be able to sit and play videogames nonchalantly on a saturday afternoon, and don't want my playing to be restricted because there's so much gore that I can't play if theres anyone else in the house.

Would Fallout 3 REALLY have been a lesser game if it had a less-gore option? or simply wasn't as overthetop gory all the time? No, it wouldn't have. As the gaming audience grows and changes over time and with age, I really hope developers keep in mind that we're not all at a time in our lives where the gore is 'awesome' or exciting or just something that stiff-shirt old people need to get over and stop making a big deal about.

TommyCasual

Violence is a part of the human condition and an inescapable reality, which is why it is so often included as a compliment to the narrative of a game, film or novel. You assume that violence in games is included merely because the developers thought it a "cool" addition, never bothering to consider that said violence might be a crucial aspect of the aesthetic and thematic structure. Game developers are not obligated to include some sort of filter or violence censoring tool anymore than a film director should be forced to edit down his/her vision because some people might find it offensive. There are plenty of games that cater to those who find gore offensive so frankly, if the violence in some of these games bothers your that much, you should play something else. What you should not expect is artists and developers to compromise their respective visions to accommodate your personal taste.

As to Fallout 3, given the bleak and nasty dystopian landscape presented to the player, I think toning down the gore, which really wasn't excessive to begin with, would have compromised the game to some extent, at least from a visceral standpoint.

Please dont condescendingly try to tell me what I "assume" as though I'm just clearly not in touch with artistry and 'the human condition'. I give lectures on thematic structure. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the gaming landscape and say that there is room for more solid best-of-the-year type games that don't have slow motion dismemberment. There is much that could be conveyed just as powerfully without that stuff, but we see little of it.

For somebody who presents himself as a learned academic, you seem woefully ignorant of several crucial aspects of the issue you so brazenly wade through.

For one, the gaming landscape you allude to is hardly rife with excessive violence. Those games which employ such violence are generally advertised as such but when you actually tally the software released each and every year, most of it doesn't even garner an M rating. More importantly, those games which feature "slow motion dismemberment" are actually few and far between and can be counted on one hand so while I appreciate the liberal use of hyperbole as much as anyone (though the pitfalls of such techniques should be painfully obvious to an academic who lectures on thematic structure) it doesn't accurately describe the violent content found in most games, including those that would qualify as violent or mature.

As for your assertion that we could use less violence in our "best-of-the-year type games", you once again reveal that your own working knowledge of the medium is lacking, since very few of the highest rated games of 2009 contained overtly violent images and scenarios. As a point of fact, save for Fallout 3, 2008' offerings weren't all that gruesome either. There are always going to be titles that push the envelope in terms of content and frankly, your own dissatisfaction with these games is your prerogative. My problem with your comments was and remains the arrogance of assuming that merely because you find the content offensive that by default the violence in these games becomes the product of banality and marketing rather than artistic choice. It's an impossibly puerile assertion and subsequently de-values the effort of talented people merely because you don't care for or cannot relate to their work.

gears of war comes to mind, very gory, but still pretty fun.

Fallout 3 barely even makes the cut when you consider some of these games:

Conan - Ultra-violent (though incredibly accurate to the source material) hack n' slash including decapitations, bisections, limb removal, skull crushing, and copious amounts of blood accompanying the carnage.

Mad World - Despite the bombastic premise and comic book-like presentation, the violence is profound and includes, among other things, a chainsaw melee option, the ability to impale skulls, placing an enemy against a speeding train and watching as they are torn apart, and the ability to literally liquefy your competition.

God Of War III Demo - Insanely violent and complimented by plenty of the red stuff. The demo includes eviscerating a centaur replete with exposed entrails, ripping out a Cyclops's eyes and literally being drenched in a fountain of blood while doing so, and the literal decapitation of Helios barehanded.

The Punisher - This game actually had to be edited down a bit to achieve an M rating. Graphic scenes of violence include stabbing enemies through the skull and face with knife, interrogation and executions via power drill, wood chipper, and various other devices, and placing an enemy into a coffin and then dropping a grenade in with them and watching it blow.

Ninja Gaiden II (XBOX 360 Version Only) Limbs fly and the blood remains on the ground (and the weapons) in this sequel.

Grammaton-Cleric

Not to mention picking up an enemy and slamming them down, butt-first, on the nearest handy spike - that always made me wince. Anyway, Clive Barker's Jericho can put you off your lunch, especially if you're eating cold cuts.

[QUOTE="TommyCasual"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Violence is a part of the human condition and an inescapable reality, which is why it is so often included as a compliment to the narrative of a game, film or novel. You assume that violence in games is included merely because the developers thought it a "cool" addition, never bothering to consider that said violence might be a crucial aspect of the aesthetic and thematic structure. Game developers are not obligated to include some sort of filter or violence censoring tool anymore than a film director should be forced to edit down his/her vision because some people might find it offensive. There are plenty of games that cater to those who find gore offensive so frankly, if the violence in some of these games bothers your that much, you should play something else. What you should not expect is artists and developers to compromise their respective visions to accommodate your personal taste.

As to Fallout 3, given the bleak and nasty dystopian landscape presented to the player, I think toning down the gore, which really wasn't excessive to begin with, would have compromised the game to some extent, at least from a visceral standpoint.

Grammaton-Cleric

Please dont condescendingly try to tell me what I "assume" as though I'm just clearly not in touch with artistry and 'the human condition'. I give lectures on thematic structure. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the gaming landscape and say that there is room for more solid best-of-the-year type games that don't have slow motion dismemberment. There is much that could be conveyed just as powerfully without that stuff, but we see little of it.

For somebody who presents himself as a learned academic, you seem woefully ignorant of several crucial aspects of the issue you so brazenly wade through.

For one, the gaming landscape you allude to is hardly rife with excessive violence. Those games which employ such violence are generally advertised as such but when you actually tally the software released each and every year, most of it doesn't even garner an M rating. More importantly, those games which feature "slow motion dismemberment" are actually few and far between and can be counted on one hand so while I appreciate the liberal use of hyperbole as much as anyone (though the pitfalls of such techniques should be painfully obvious to an academic who lectures on thematic structure) it doesn't accurately describe the violent content found in most games, including those that would qualify as violent or mature.

As for your assertion that we could use less violence in our "best-of-the-year type games", you once again reveal that your own working knowledge of the medium is lacking, since very few of the highest rated games of 2009 contained overtly violent images and scenarios. As a point of fact, save for Fallout 3, 2008' offerings weren't all that gruesome either. There are always going to be titles that push the envelope in terms of content and frankly, your own dissatisfaction with these games is your prerogative. My problem with your comments was and remains the arrogance of assuming that merely because you find the content offensive that by default the violence in these games becomes the product of banality and marketing rather than artistic choice. It's an impossibly puerile assertion and subsequently de-values the effort of talented people merely because you don't care for or cannot relate to their work.

Wowza. Well it's clear that you're old enough and smart enough to consider yourself an intellectual, but young and naive enough to not realize how much you still are talking out your butt for the sake of hearing yourself. I appreciate your input, ripe with inaccurate assumptions though it still is.

I got a thesaurus too, don't make it use it your i'll get all Oscar Wilde on your asses.

Possibly Fallout 3. Sometimes you aim your rifle to the opponents head, you see the bullet fly out the barrel of the gun in slo-mo, fly towards the target where it slices into their skull with a sickening thud, then the impact causes the head to explode, you can actually see which direction the eyeballs fly off.

Evil_Saluki

Fallout 3's gore is pretty damn good, but I think that it was a mistake for me to get the "bloody mess" perk. Once I got the Bloody Mess perk, it got a lot gorier. But the thing is, the gore didn't exactly fit my actions.

For example, I could shoot a person in the head. Then their Head would fly off their bodies in a graphic manner. But all of their OTHER limbs would also somehow get shot off, leaving a perfectly intact limbless and headless torso. That just ended up seeming really ****ing weird, since I had shot the person in the HEAD with a RIFLE. Eventually I sort of took it in stride, but at first it really killed any sense of realism. Some of the gore effects are damn nice and gruesomely satisfying. They just don't fit what you actually did to the character. When you take a single swipe at a person with a butcher knife, and their entire body explodes into a shower of guts, that sort of takes me out of the game because that just plain should not happen when I do that.

Again, this wasn't a game-killer for me, not by any means. But it was still just a little bit weird and strange. Go ahead and do gore, and by all means make gore more exaggerated. But at least make the visual depiction of gore consistent with WHERE I actually shot the dude. When I shoot a dude in the head with a shotgun and then his legs break off at the knees, that gets a little bit of getting used to.

And on another note, reading some of the replies in this thread make my head spin. How the hell does this kind of gruesome and frankly sick **** get passed off with an M rating, when even MILD depictions of sex and nudity risk getting slapped with an AO rating?

I mean, I'm not one for turning videogames into hardcore porn. But if you go to Wal-Mart, they're selling movies that depict sex. Fairly graphic sex. And yet, the kinds of VIOLENCE that passes as acceptable in an M-rated game would often result in a MOVIE getting slapped with the label of NC-17.

It's just sort of weird. The kind of sexual content we see in movies is the kind of stuff that simply isn't allowed in games without getting the dreaded AO rating. And yet, the kinds of sick ass gory violence that gets an M rating in videogames, would often be a guaranteed NC-17 if someone tried to put that same **** in a movie.

And on another note, reading some of the replies in this thread make my head spin. How the hell does this kind of gruesome and frankly sick **** get passed off with an M rating, when even MILD depictions of sex and nudity risk getting slapped with an AO rating?

I mean, I'm not one for turning videogames into hardcore porn. But if you go to Wal-Mart, they're selling movies that depict sex. Fairly graphic sex. And yet, the kinds of VIOLENCE that passes as acceptable in an M-rated game would often result in a MOVIE getting slapped with the label of NC-17.

It's just sort of weird. The kind of sexual content we see in movies is the kind of stuff that simply isn't allowed in games without getting the dreaded AO rating. And yet, the kinds of sick ass gory violence that gets an M rating in videogames, would often be a guaranteed NC-17 if someone tried to put that same **** in a movie.

Because the USA is still a faily puritanical nation. Violence is okay for the most part, but sex is not. Sex is bad. That coupled with the relatively new medium of videogames, and there are bound to be inconsistencies.muthsera666

Yeah, but even Wal-Mart sells movies on their store shelves with quite a bit of graphic sexual content. It's not that sexual content is automatically taboo, it's just that for some strange reason it's not allowed in GAMES.

And you can say that it's because games are still considered for kids, which is the reason why people have no problem showing Looney Tunes to young children. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either. Because I've seen content in M-rated games that couldn't POSSIBLY get less than an NC-17 if that same **** were shown in a movie.

I'm not even convinced that it's about puritanical attitudes about sex and violence. It's just a weird inconsistency.

Can't belive no one has said Mortal kombat yet.

I think Aliens vs Predator is going to be up there.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]Because the USA is still a faily puritanical nation. Violence is okay for the most part, but sex is not. Sex is bad. That coupled with the relatively new medium of videogames, and there are bound to be inconsistencies.MrGeezer

And you can say that it's because games are still considered for kids, which is the reason why people have no problem showing Looney Tunes to young children. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either. Because I've seen content in M-rated games that couldn't POSSIBLY get less than an NC-17 if that same **** were shown in a movie.

I'm not even convinced that it's about puritanical attitudes about sex and violence. It's just a weird inconsistency.

On the other hand, the violence is more accepted because it's not happening to real people. Video game graphics are just like the animated characters getting blown up in Looney Tunes. If games had live actors in them undergoing the same treatment in the games, then it would likely be treated as horribly as if the actions were ocurring during a movie.

Of course, these are just my interpretations of the anthropological history and inconsistencies that are in America.

Can't belive no one has said Mortal kombat yet.

Flamuel

These games are pretty bloody. :)

Top 10 Bloodiest Games

When it comes out Aliens vs Predator.

I think Aliens vs Predator is going to be up there.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="TommyCasual"]

Please dont condescendingly try to tell me what I "assume" as though I'm just clearly not in touch with artistry and 'the human condition'. I give lectures on thematic structure. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the gaming landscape and say that there is room for more solid best-of-the-year type games that don't have slow motion dismemberment. There is much that could be conveyed just as powerfully without that stuff, but we see little of it.

TommyCasual

For somebody who presents himself as a learned academic, you seem woefully ignorant of several crucial aspects of the issue you so brazenly wade through.

For one, the gaming landscape you allude to is hardly rife with excessive violence. Those games which employ such violence are generally advertised as such but when you actually tally the software released each and every year, most of it doesn't even garner an M rating. More importantly, those games which feature "slow motion dismemberment" are actually few and far between and can be counted on one hand so while I appreciate the liberal use of hyperbole as much as anyone (though the pitfalls of such techniques should be painfully obvious to an academic who lectures on thematic structure) it doesn't accurately describe the violent content found in most games, including those that would qualify as violent or mature.

As for your assertion that we could use less violence in our "best-of-the-year type games", you once again reveal that your own working knowledge of the medium is lacking, since very few of the highest rated games of 2009 contained overtly violent images and scenarios. As a point of fact, save for Fallout 3, 2008' offerings weren't all that gruesome either. There are always going to be titles that push the envelope in terms of content and frankly, your own dissatisfaction with these games is your prerogative. My problem with your comments was and remains the arrogance of assuming that merely because you find the content offensive that by default the violence in these games becomes the product of banality and marketing rather than artistic choice. It's an impossibly puerile assertion and subsequently de-values the effort of talented people merely because you don't care for or cannot relate to their work.

Wowza. Well it's clear that you're old enough and smart enough to consider yourself an intellectual, but young and naive enough to not realize how much you still are talking out your butt for the sake of hearing yourself. I appreciate your input, ripe with inaccurate assumptions though it still is.

Mate get off your high horse, you're rather annoying.

the 1st mortal kombat.. the kings and pioneers of video game gore :D

Top 3

God Of War

Gears Of War

Left 4 Dead 2

Wowza. Well it's clear that you're old enough and smart enough to consider yourself an intellectual, but young and naive enough to not realize how much you still are talking out your butt for the sake of hearing yourself. I appreciate your input, ripe with inaccurate assumptions though it still is.

TommyCasual

Nice personal attack but you really haven't addressed the issue at hand.

Let me know when you do, assuming it doesn't interfere with those aforementioned lectures.

As for your assertion that we could use less violence in our "best-of-the-year type games", you once again reveal that your own working knowledge of the medium is lacking, since very few of the highest rated games of 2009 contained overtly violent images and scenarios. As a point of fact, save for Fallout 3, 2008' offerings weren't all that gruesome either. There are always going to be titles that push the envelope in terms of content and frankly, your own dissatisfaction with these games is your prerogative. My problem with your comments was and remains the arrogance of assuming that merely because you find the content offensive that by default the violence in these games becomes the product of banality and marketing rather than artistic choice. It's an impossibly puerile assertion and subsequently de-values the effort of talented people merely because you don't care for or cannot relate to their work.

Grammaton-Cleric

Look, my frustration with you is that you're coming at me with assumptions about what I assume. I'm not saying that violence in videogames is bad. I'm not saying that violence isn't an artistic choice, and that there aren't some stories that need violence to be told. I'm not saying that I find violence distasteful or offensive or 'the product of banality'. I realize this is a sensitive issue for gamers, as games are consistently under attack by people who haven't actually spent much time with games so I get your reaction, but I'd appreciate less aggression and assumptions. I also don't think 'puerile' is message-board appropriate language.

Truly though, do you really not think there is room for some more high quality non-violent games? Thats what I'm getting at. I don't/didn't mean to attack violent games, but I guess put forth a desire for more quality games without violence. If I didn't present my meaning accurately I apologize. I want there to be games out there that can be played in front of young children and still be as well-done as the games I've always enjoyed. Lets take a look at 2009 nominations for best game on PC, PS3, and 360 -- Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Batman, Dragon Age, Killzone, Demon Souls, Forza, the Sims. With the exception of the last two, all of these games contain violence inappropriate for young kids. All of them are good games, and all of them require the violence they have, but why not also have an RPG like Dragon Age and a platformingish adventure game like Assassins Creed that aren't as brutal? I don't think this is that absurd or out-of-touch a perspective for me to have.

Dead Space is awesome and gory.Nerd_Man

Truly though, do you really not think there is room for some more high quality non-violent games? Thats what I'm getting at. I don't/didn't mean to attack violent games, but I guess put forth a desire for more quality games without violence. If I didn't present my meaning accurately I apologize. I want there to be games out there that can be played in front of young children and still be as well-done as the games I've always enjoyed. Lets take a look at 2009 nominations for best game on PC, PS3, and 360 -- Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Batman, Dragon Age, Killzone, Demon Souls, Forza, the Sims. With the exception of the last two, all of these games contain violence inappropriate for young kids. All of them are good games, and all of them require the violence they have, but why not also have an RPG like Dragon Age and a platformingish adventure game like Assassins Creed that aren't as brutal? I don't think this is that absurd or out-of-touch a perspective for me to have.

TommyCasual

Man, in one post you've exposed the limitations of the gaming medium. I read that paragraph above and tried to think of games that are interesting yet non-violent, I said to myself, sure I could find one gaming that has "action" but doesn't involve shooting or hack n'slash, but I couldnt find a single one. Zelda came to mind, but that has you weilding a sword, which leaves only Racing games, Sports games and games like Flower. So yeah, I agree with what you're saying. There simply aren't many action games that you can play games that your kids around.

But at the same time, even the Harry Potter movies that you most probably watch with your kids have pretty heavy violence.... or the Chronicles of Narnia movies. I haven't watched many kids movies in recent years, how many, if any, have you seen that have action, but not violence? Serious Question.

this topic has gone from Gore to 'intelectual' arguments it looks as though everyone, in the argument, is trying to out speak the other people with fancy words and all the rest, just answer the question...what is a gory game not 'what are the pro's and con's of gore in games and the political and social impacts?'

L4d2 is pretty gory but it's got too much humor to have any 'WTF!' moments

this topic has gone from Gore to 'intelectual' arguments it looks as though everyone, in the argument, is trying to out speak the other people with fancy words and all the rest, just answer the question...what is a gory game not 'what are the pro's and con's of gore in games and the political and social impacts?'

L4d2 is pretty gory but it's got too much humor to have any 'WTF!' moments

Flamuel

This forum is called General Games DISCUSSION forum. Poll type threads like these aren't allowed here, unless one inspires a discussion. If you want to know what some Gory games are, you can always google it.

As for fancy words and intellectual arguments, that's how Grammaton writes. That's his styIe. If you dont like it, you dont have to reply to it.

The goriest games I've played are Manhunt, Manhunt 2 and Mad World. The God of War games and Mortal Kombat games are up there as well.

Look, my frustration with you is that you're coming at me with assumptions about what I assume. I'm not saying that violence in videogames is bad. I'm not saying that violence isn't an artistic choice, and that there aren't some stories that need violence to be told. I'm not saying that I find violence distasteful or offensive or 'the product of banality'. I realize this is a sensitive issue for gamers, as games are consistently under attack by people who haven't actually spent much time with games so I get your reaction, but I'd appreciate less aggression and assumptions. I also don't think 'puerile' is message-board appropriate language.

Truly though, do you really not think there is room for some more high quality non-violent games? Thats what I'm getting at. I don't/didn't mean to attack violent games, but I guess put forth a desire for more quality games without violence. If I didn't present my meaning accurately I apologize. I want there to be games out there that can be played in front of young children and still be as well-done as the games I've always enjoyed. Lets take a look at 2009 nominations for best game on PC, PS3, and 360 -- Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Batman, Dragon Age, Killzone, Demon Souls, Forza, the Sims. With the exception of the last two, all of these games contain violence inappropriate for young kids. All of them are good games, and all of them require the violence they have, but why not also have an RPG like Dragon Age and a platformingish adventure game like Assassins Creed that aren't as brutal? I don't think this is that absurd or out-of-touch a perspective for me to have.

TommyCasual

I have no problem with what you are saying here. My issue was that earlier, you asserted that many of these violent games contained said violence because developers thought that's what gamers wanted, suggesting there was no artistic reason for the inclusion of violence in these titles. And while there have been those titles that employed blood and gore for the sake of catering to a specific demographic or for the purposes of generating free publicity (a.k.a controversy) my position remains that most games that utilize gore do so because of artistic decision. When you start slinging around the notion that games are all about shockvalue and selling units by employing gratuitous violence, that is an indirect attack on the artistic integrity of the people who make those games, many of which in my experience are creative and insightful people. I'm not trying to attack you personally or make assumptions about your character; all I can do is respond to your arguments.

That said, if you are telling me that isn't your position then I believe you and will happily to let the matter drop.

As to the second part of your post, I think we have plenty of quality non-violent games on the market with more coming out all the time. What I think must be remembered is that the age of the average gamer is now somewhere between 20-35, meaning that most of the people buying software are going to gravitate towards titles that offer more mature experiences. Like any medium, those making the games tend to want to create experience that mesh with their own sensibilities, meaning a proliferation of violent and mature games at a much higher rate than we've previously seen. You pose the question (and it's a fair question) why can't more of these AAA efforts be less inclined towards depictions of graphic violence and honestly, there is no quick and concise answer to the inquiry. The best I can come up with is more games than ever are delving into deeper questions about the nature of humanity and the various themes that accompany such an exploration, meaning that these titles are not being developed with anybody but adults in mind. When you look at games like Mario Bros, Sonic, etc., narrative is almost incidental and entirely secondary where by contrast something like Assassin's Creed II offers a sweeping story where characters are motivated by any number of factors including vengeance, honor, family, and the very machinations of history. Frankly, in a game that pushes a fairly heady narrative, I expect to see some blood flow when I kill, otherwise gravitas is lost in the process.

I also think the young age of our medium is partially responsible, since we are just now beginning to see games that can offer up experiences that entail more structure than "go to point A and kill enemy type B". When you consider something like Shadow of the Colossus, which contains violence of a more fantastical nature that is theoretically more accessible to younger viewers/gamers, I think that is a clear sign that the industry is moving towards a wider selection of experiences both in terms of mechanics and also thematically. Games like BRAID, Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge, and others offer experience where violence isn't necessarily thecentral propellant of the narrative and I sincerely hope that we continue to see more of these types of game merely because such software challenge the norms and paradigms of the medium and thereby promotes continuous growth, which is always a good thing.

Lastly, when you consider the GOTY nominations, I think it is apparent that the success of all of those games is that they offer excellent game play mechanics that are supported by consistent thematic and aesthetic assets. For example, Batman: AA offers a dark portrayal of the character that is very much in line with many of the contemporary comics yet the developers retained the importance of Batman's one governing and intractable edict: no killing.So despite the darker look and feel of the game, the violence in Batman: AA is actually tempered quite well. Contrast that with Left 4 Dead2 which is centered on legions of zombies trying to kill you (and the player returning the favor) and quite honestly, there isn't any other viable way such a game could be created while maintaining the tension and integrity of the experience.

I think the real problem is that you want to play something thematically or structurally mature that isn't filled with inappropriate content so that you can enjoy this game in front of your kids. It's an understandable request and while I think there are games that will fill that need you are probably going to have to do a bit more digging, if only because the delineation between M rated titles and everything else seems so pronounced. For the record, I'm all for an exploration of themes beyond gore and blood because ultimately some of the best games I've ever played used these assets sparingly if at all.

So no, what you are requesting isn't unreasonable and hopefully, at some point in the future, such titles will be readily available.

[QUOTE="TommyCasual"]

Look, my frustration with you is that you're coming at me with assumptions about what I assume. I'm not saying that violence in videogames is bad. I'm not saying that violence isn't an artistic choice, and that there aren't some stories that need violence to be told. I'm not saying that I find violence distasteful or offensive or 'the product of banality'. I realize this is a sensitive issue for gamers, as games are consistently under attack by people who haven't actually spent much time with games so I get your reaction, but I'd appreciate less aggression and assumptions. I also don't think 'puerile' is message-board appropriate language.

Truly though, do you really not think there is room for some more high quality non-violent games? Thats what I'm getting at. I don't/didn't mean to attack violent games, but I guess put forth a desire for more quality games without violence. If I didn't present my meaning accurately I apologize. I want there to be games out there that can be played in front of young children and still be as well-done as the games I've always enjoyed. Lets take a look at 2009 nominations for best game on PC, PS3, and 360 -- Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Batman, Dragon Age, Killzone, Demon Souls, Forza, the Sims. With the exception of the last two, all of these games contain violence inappropriate for young kids. All of them are good games, and all of them require the violence they have, but why not also have an RPG like Dragon Age and a platformingish adventure game like Assassins Creed that aren't as brutal? I don't think this is that absurd or out-of-touch a perspective for me to have.

Grammaton-Cleric

I have no problem with what you are saying here. My issue was that earlier, you asserted that many of these violent games contained said violence because developers thought that's what gamers wanted, suggesting there was no artistic reason for the inclusion of violence in these titles. And while there have been those titles that employed blood and gore for the sake of catering to a specific demographic or for the purposes of generating free publicity (a.k.a controversy) my position remains that most games that utilize gore do so because of artistic decision. When you start slinging around the notion that games are all about shockvalue and selling units by employing gratuitous violence, that is an indirect attack on the artistic integrity of the people who make those games, many of which in my experience are creative and insightful people. I'm not trying to attack you personally or make assumptions about your character; all I can do is respond to your arguments.

That said, if you are telling me that isn't your position then I believe you and will happily to let the matter drop.

As to the second part of your post, I think we have plenty of quality non-violent games on the market with more coming out all the time. What I think must be remembered is that the age of the average gamer is now somewhere between 20-35, meaning that most of the people buying software are going to gravitate towards titles that offer more mature experiences. Like any medium, those making the games tend to want to create experience that mesh with their own sensibilities, meaning a proliferation of violent and mature games at a much higher rate than we've previously seen. You pose the question (and it's a fair question) why can't more of these AAA efforts be less inclined towards depictions of graphic violence and honestly, there is no quick and concise answer to the inquiry. The best I can come up with is more games than ever are delving into deeper questions about the nature of humanity and the various themes that accompany such an exploration, meaning that these titles are not being developed with anybody but adults in mind. When you look at games like Mario Bros, Sonic, etc., narrative is almost incidental and entirely secondary where by contrast something like Assassin's Creed II offers a sweeping story where characters are motivated by any number of factors including vengeance, honor, family, and the very machinations of history. Frankly, in a game that pushes a fairly heady narrative, I expect to see some blood flow when I kill, otherwise gravitas is lost in the process.

I also think the young age of our medium is partially responsible, since we are just now beginning to see games that can offer up experiences that entail more structure than "go to point A and kill enemy type B". When you consider something like Shadow of the Colossus, which contains violence of a more fantastical nature that is theoretically more accessible to younger viewers/gamers, I think that is a clear sign that the industry is moving towards a wider selection of experiences both in terms of mechanics and also thematically. Games like BRAID, Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge, and others offer experience where violence isn't necessarily thecentral propellant of the narrative and I sincerely hope that we continue to see more of these types of game merely because such software challenge the norms and paradigms of the medium and thereby promotes continuous growth, which is always a good thing.

Lastly, when you consider the GOTY nominations, I think it is apparent that the success of all of those games is that they offer excellent game play mechanics that are supported by consistent thematic and aesthetic assets. For example, Batman: AA offers a dark portrayal of the character that is very much in line with many of the contemporary comics yet the developers retained the importance of Batman's one governing and intractable edict: no killing.So despite the darker look and feel of the game, the violence in Batman: AA is actually tempered quite well. Contrast that with Left 4 Dead2 which is centered on legions of zombies trying to kill you (and the player returning the favor) and quite honestly, there isn't any other viable way such a game could be created while maintaining the tension and integrity of the experience.

I think the real problem is that you want to play something thematically or structurally mature that isn't filled with inappropriate content so that you can enjoy this game in front of your kids. It's an understandable request and while I think there are games that will fill that need you are probably going to have to do a bit more digging, if only because the delineation between M rated titles and everything else seems so pronounced. For the record, I'm all for an exploration of themes beyond gore and blood because ultimately some of the best games I've ever played used these assets sparingly if at all.

So no, what you are requesting isn't unreasonable and hopefully, at some point in the future, such titles will be readily available.