There's zero evidence to support the notion that violence in games, excessive or otherwise, acts as a catalyst that compels consumers to purchase software rife with bloodshed. Look at the recent failings of games like MadWorld and House of the Dead: Overkill on the Wii; both of those games are excellent AND contain copious gore yet both perished at retail. The entire notion of gore being implemented to generate sales to "casuals" stems from the controversy of the original Mortal Kombat and the superior sales of the Genesis version versus the bloodless SNES version, which led Nintendo to allow MKII to be ported with the full spectrum of blood and viscera intact. This one incident alone is proof of nothing, especially since MK1 was a port of a game that was already popular, thus the expectation is that people wanted an approximation of the arcade experience and therefore chose the bloody version.
Also, the idea that gore and violence is included by developers/artists merely for the sake of generating sales is a crass generalization that also discounts the artistic and aesthetic choices many developers make when creating a game. When you really look at the most violent software on the market, most of it is appropriate when considering the context of the respective premises.
For example, God Of War is based on Greek mythology, which is incredibly graphic and violent.
Manhunt's entire premise centers around the concept of real snuff films and a voyeur, fetishistic-infused subculture where the protagonist is forced to either lay down and die or become as vicious as the monsters he is surrounded by and fight his way out.
THQ's Conan is also a gore-filled action game that perfectly emulates the look and feel of the character.
The examples go on…
If gory games make you ill or illicit uncomfortable feelings, don't play them. That is your right and I respect that.
What I don't respect is when you make a thread where you essentially foist your discontent unto the rest of us, basically stating: "I don't like this and you shouldn't like it either."
Your inability to understand why gore in games may be a necessary thematic or aesthetic decision is housed in your own superficial analysis of the topic, as evidenced by your examples.
F.E.A.R 2 was violent but so too was the original; L4D2 is also merely an extension of the sensibilities of the originalwhich isa zombie game to boot; AVP merely reflects the source material and I've already mentioned the logic behind GOW III's violence, which was also present in the first two iterations of the franchise. There is no trend; there are far more non-violent games than violent games on the market and the truly excessive titles really are few and far between.
Lastly, your question about gore being an American sensibility struck me as odd considering that plenty of ultra-violent games have been made by non-American studios.
Honestly, an answer to your question requires a cryptic response. You ask why and I would retort: Why not? While it is always possible that some of the violence we play in games was placed there for the purposes of shock value or marketing, that squeamish sensation you allude to might have also been the motivation behind the gore. If you don't like it don't play it but what I would caution you not to do is dismiss it outright merely because gore doesn't cater to your own personal tastes.
Grammaton-Cleric
To summarize, developers put it their 'cause they want to, and because they believe it suits the game. That makes sense. I was worried that it was driven by consumer demand and that soon all games would be bloodfests. As long as that's not the case, I'm fine. The reason I mentioned American in there is because, like I said, I thought the demand was consumer driven and since Americans drive most demand, I was wondering what the reasons for the trend were.
Log in to comment