You get a say on gaming's most important issues.

You may have noticed a certain crime-based game was released recently - Grand Theft Auto San Andreas I believe? The series has gone from strength to strength over the years, but the central gameplay and motifs have remained unchanged. It is still a game based on gunfights, drive-by shootings, murder, assassination, beatings and the most effective use of chainsaws or golf clubs. We all know violence in games isn't terribly dangerous, but is there a need for all this bloodshed?

Is there really a place for gross violence in games?

wizkid333:

Take Manhunt. That was a big disaster, all because of gross violence. There's nothing wrong with it, it's fictional, as long as it is used correctly, not abused for real life purposes! There's a reason for age ratings. They don't look good, they do stuff too!

I don't see why people think that, because most Nintendo games do not have violence, it's childish. It's not...just good gaming! Games do not need violence to have a good time...why don't other companies see this?

Darv:

Games don't need violence in them to be great, succesful games. However there is a huge market for games like GTA and the market needs to be filled. It's just another genre of game that needs to be catered for.

Each individual is going to have a different view on every game. While some people may say a game is too violent, others may find it perfectly acceptable. It's all down to your own point of view.

Hellfire:

I don't see any problem with violence in games, I'm just disgusted that people classify them as great or mature, just because of it. Most of these games rely too much on the violence and less on gameplay. But, hey, it sells!

rokhed00:

As long as it is not gratuitous I don't see a problem, and as long as it's withheld from children with extreme prejudice.

harribo:

Does violence have a place in games? Well in my opinion it depends entirely on the game. Take Mario for example if somebody put lots of violence in it then no-one would buy it, however take the violence out of Grand Theft Auto and it wouldn't sell or appeal to anyone.

So the answer would probably be yes, but I'm sure people will argue that it doesn't.

Hero-of-Time:

The answer in my opinion is yes. Like others have said it does depend on the game as Mario with an Uzi just wouldn't work but with games that are going for a more mature content there is no reason for the lack of violence.

The state of not only the games industry but the whole world is changing. Kids are being subject to these things alot more than when I was young (I'm only 22 but still) and they seem to be getting used to it but not only that they want it. Take the GTA series which has sold in record numbers despite being an 18 rated game.

There is of course a downside to all of these games and that is how the media turn it around. Now usually when someone kills someone in real life a violent game is first to blame. So should the game industry stop making games like these? Hell no! What should happen is the media should realize that gaming is entertainment like films or music and as such should get the same respect as them. At the end of the day games dont kill people...people kill people!

Now back to my killing spree on GTA:SA!

stubbietubbie:

Well, violence has always been in videogames, back to even the most basic forms of it. But the way that the violence is shown has become more and more graphic as the videogaming world has matured.

The reason this is so is because of the videogaming world in general trying to prove itself to the skeptics, calling the hobby as something only for nerds and little kids.

But then developers started experimenting, trying different approaches to gaming, introducing a more graphic approach to violence. Gone now are the days when Mario could just jump in a Goomba's head and flatten it in an instant. Now characters would scream in pain as blood would expel from their polygon bodies.

The genre of the first-person shooter was essentially born through Wolfenstein and even more prodominantly, Doom. This was a game that showed blood, guts and very excessive violence in a then-realistic graphical representation. The game was an instant hit, spawning countless mods to add their own onto the highly-acclaimed game. This was the first time that violence in videogames was the reason a game did so well (oh, and I suppose the graphics).

As more FPS' came about, so too did the violence. It became more graphics as computers and consoles became equally more powerful and capable of showing it. The computer game developers had the most on offer, and from it has hosted many a FPS, with its easy maneuverability and supposedly more adult-oriented fanbase.

Then the consoles finally caught up. As the N64 and PS1 brought the consoles into the ear of 3D gaming, so too came the FPS'. The stand-out immediately was Goldeneye on the N64. Never before had a console game captured so well the essence of a FPS since computers, and due to this, and added multiplayer capabilities, it was a runaway success. Following suit, amny more developers started making the game, cashing in on the popularity of violence. And it has only continued to succeed.

But why as violence become such an essential part of videogames? As stated, the industry wants to show it can compete with the Hollywood scene, following it's film-brothers, games have become more paced and colourful. And in releation to the source of the question, Grand Theft Auto was born.

Sure, the game started off badly, with a top-down view and questionable objectives, the game didn't appeal to the masses. So, what better to do then take it further? What better than to make it 3D?

And so, with the PS2 came Grand Theft Auto 3, and the integration of gaming and movies was showcased in a graphic and glamourised representation. With the FPS genre well-established, gmaers jumped at the opportunity to play the antagonist, after so many times playing the 'goodie'.

This comes back to the contrast between games and movies. As violence became more rampant in the world, through the news, America, and of course movies. Children were being subjected to all forms of violence, and so they learned. They became more aware of what happens in the world and so grew up. They have become so well-accorded with violece that it has numbed their senses in that it is no longer a horrific and terrible thing to observe, since they have seen it so much already at such young ages.

And so, bad guys in movies rarely were mortally/partially wounded, unless they had an important role in the film, and so death is seen as something that comes and goes quite quikcly and easily. From this children could not fully comprehend that these people were gone, had loved ones, and had many important things happen to them, but to the audience, they are just another nameless number that is only in there so the hero can kill.

Enter GTA again. It allowed players to play as the criminal, and so kill good people (and bad ones too). This role-reversal allowed gamers to finally do all those restricted things that the hero could never do, and as the popularity to be bad became good, developers followed along like so many other times. Examples like Prince Of Persia and Jak and Daxter are some of the current examples of gaming characters switching 'to the dark side'.

With Rockstar, makers of Grand Theft Auto, realising firstly what gold there was to be mined out of violence, produced more and glamourised further violence. Was it a representation of what has happened to society? Was it trying to make people aware of how violent our ways and world had become?

Possibly. But many see it as cashing in on our addiction with violence and how only more is bad for us. Bans have been placed and restrictions have been administered but it only fuelled the raging fire of the popoularity of violence.

Now we must remember that I have used few examples in violent videogames. There are many others in differnt genres that are as equally guilty of giving excessive and graphic violence in videogames.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the violence in GTA is gross, but graphic and well within our capabilities. Games like Resident Evil and Silent Hill show the more horrific stance of videogames and offer equally graphic albeit unreal violence.

But as has been shown, violence has been evident in gaming for so long now that we are no longer worried about FPS, but when it is shown in such great detail as games like Manhunt have shown, people, namely parents have become worried about what their children could become from their subjection to this. One could argue that a child will see more violence in the news than in a game any day of the week. But the news filters the graphic content, it does not show (rarely) anyone dying. Only those in violent situations, casualties and victims.

It all comes down to the videogame industry wanting to be counted as a mature and well-developed industry that can be taken seriously.

Is there a place? Most certainly, in this world it would be strange not to have it. Will it get more graphic? Yes. Will there be more efforts to stop this? Yes, but it is inevitable, and as the gaming industry becomes a more powerful and dominant influence in today's society, it is sure to make a hard-fought battle to gain this acceptance. [Phew!]

qbas:

I think it depends on what type of game it is, like with a war game it is good to have IMO because that way you get more realism to those types of games and see how gross war is.

stubbietubbie:

I disagree, when was the last time a enemy in a war game was wounded badly enough to render him unfit to fight back?

No, you shoot them in the foot four times, they don't fall to the groud screaing or try and shoot while laying on the ground in agony, they just reset and keep going. And war games are abolute crap to me, few are decent, I said few, not none.