Blood, gore and violence in games

[Slasher]

Hi,

Blood, gore and violence in games.

Is there an audience for the more xxx games of this kind?

What are your views.

cheers

[Stupot]

Bring it on. I can handle a bit of gore. But too much can just make something look almost cartoony; when you go over a certain gore-point, your brain no longer sees it as horrific but just funny. Well, for me anyway... Maybe I'm just sick.

[yamipanda]

<-- My opinion.

[I<3Pindorama!]

Speaking only for myself ...

Even in the case of genres whose content often are pedantic.
To me the plot is everything, regardless of the subject.
Particularly this is that hold me to a game, movie,
animation, book and another gender of art.

I can play and watch anything provided it has soul and essence.
Can be something recommended for a child of 3 years or some that
content is recommended with anti-depressants and therapy after the use.

^{/ Hmmm...very intriguing!}

[Slasher]

If it's an out and out fight for survival and freedom.

convicts on an island. Only one can survive by any means... usually by extreme violence..

[I<3Pindorama!]

Hi, Slasher!

Depending on how you go develop it, I would find great!
For example, Mandle cited Batle Royale...
I watched and thought the movie very good, with essence and soul, but particularly this type of script captivates me in the game format. And there are several ways to approach this type of issue, I can cite one that came to my head now: "Lord of the Flies"... I'm not sure if the English title is exactly like that, but the fact is that I really enjoyed the movie and I'm sure also would make a great game!


What's on your mind ?

[Chicky]

Hehe, no one's mentioned Hatred yet, the game where you mindlessly kill everyone and everything. Seems this title has spiked quite a lot of discussion on the topic of violence (the game was pulled from Greenlight today), lots of different opinions across the board.

Personally I think it's another small step back for the gaming culture (following on from the Gamergate nonsense), violence is far too commonplace in video games and it's taken a lot of work to distance ourselves from the misconception that all games are mindless shooters. I'm not against the game being released but it's a shame this has to draw so much media attention, which will inevitably lead to a lot of sales. Maybe the title was announced as a big social experiment, it's certainly got people questioning just how far violence can go before it becomes obscene.

If you do a google search you will find a lot of opinions on this extreme example of video game violence, I think you'll find your answer there Slasher.

Violence can be great but it needs to be done with style. In film, Tarantino dramatizes the action and gives it an artistic flare - the same can be said for a game like The Last of Us. Is video game violence any worse than that seen in movies and television? I'm not sure but we are yet to establish just where 'the line' is.

[Chicky]

Whoops, double post

[Haggis]

Nothing wrong with a  bit of gore - Mortal Kombat's primary selling point!

Nice idea for a game... some would say similar to classic Japanese movie Battle Royale. Me? I would say more akin to Hollywood masterpiece 'the Condemned' starring the one and only Stone Cold Steve Austin (because he said so?), the greatest Welsh actor since Sir Anthony Hopkins... Vinnie Jones, and Dee from Neighbours (she's not dead Toady!).

In no way take this post as a recommendation to also watch Legend of the Bog. It's legend... wait for it.... no, no it isn't.

[I<3Pindorama!]

Chicky, I really appreciated your reflection!

About Hatred...  I'm so "off" for this game style that until this moment i'm completely unaware about its existence and all the controversy that surrounds it. I watched a video about it ... literally seemed a remake of the first version of a game called "Postal".

Look, I have my reservations about this kind of trivialization, the problem is not so much the game itself, but some people (without generalizing, but it is significant) that are suggestible (at various levels) to this kind of entertainment. Regardless of this aspect at least for me the game reverberates a lack of creativity, and therefore, is what makes it so pedantic and unattractive.

Haggis, you Hit the nail on the head! --> http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51419.0

[Haggis]

Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vinnie Jones... in an AGS game. This has gold star written all over it!

[Slasher]

Hi,

I think the main thing is weather you are the type of person who enjoys this type of genre.. If you don't then you simply don't watch / play.. simple.

However, If it says it on the tin then that is what I expect.

Some people here have made adult games with nudity and degrading sex so graphic violence against someone / blood and gore is not the worst kind. After all it is what it is: a game.

Here is an example of what I mean. Do not look if you are offended by violence / gore (though it's not to be taken too seriously as it's just a parody )

It's a bit slower than normal and has no sound yet and is still in production so don't comment typos etc at this point!

Spoiler

[embed=700,450]http://youtu.be/1Pp6XFuXt2c[/embed]

UPDATED Dec 18tH
[embed=700,450]http://youtu.be/D5QIpVrEpHs[/embed]

[close]

[Adeel]

I don't intend to show off myself as 'tough' but, personally, I don't mind blood, gore, violence and/or sex in the games. I even enjoy them, given that they are in the context with the story. Funny enough, when I read the title of the thread, I too thought of 'Hatred' and the public outcry. But it's not surprising, Manhunt 1 & 2 faced the same public outcry more or less.

Why? Because I don't get influenced by any game or movie to do anything. I am able to tell the difference between virtual and real world! I don't recall getting scared a bit by these so called "Horror Games". Sad truth is that others do get influenced, especially kids. Even though you rate your games 18+, they are not any hard for a kid to get hold of. And because of kids, it's better to not to include too much blood, gore or violence lest they get too much influenced.

I don't know about others but I found creative ways of murders in Manhunt 2 quite...educational. Murder from a ballpoint pen? Heck, that's quite useful in the case of self defence (since in the most cases, the victim doesn't posses any weapon)! But does that mean that I'm running off, murdering people with ballpoint pens. Hell, no!

I agree with slasher that it all depends upon the individual. Don't want to play a certain game? Fine, don't. No one is coercing you to play it, after all...

[Grim]

I think it's a terrible idea...



Just kidding;) For me, the more the better!:P

[Stupot]

I think it's a terrible idea...
Just kidding;) For me, the more the better!:P

Listen to Grim. His games are... well... grim. But they do the blood and violence artfully without ever feeling cartoony. Neither do they feel like gratuitous 'torture porn'. Just genuinely disturbing which is how I like it :-P

[CaptainD]

I think the main thing is weather you are the type of person who enjoys this type of genre.. If you don't then you simply don't watch / play.. simple.

I think that's pretty much it!  Personally I don't like it, but I just avoid the games I think will have a lot of stuff in that I don't like.    Your question was is there an audience for this in games and the answer is yes, there is.  (There is also a market for games with really silly humour which for me as a dev is fortunate. )

[Mandle]

I have multiple choice opinions for this question:

(A) If you want to make a gory game for the sheer goriness of it then make it.

(B) If you want to make a gory game and also have a good story then make it.

(C) If you want to make a gory game, have a good story, and also good gameplay then make it.

(D) If you want to make a gory game, have a good story, good gameplay, and also add some interesting social commentary then make it.

(E) If you care about what your audience wants from your game then don't make it. We already have one Michael Bay.

Your game/art will be loved or hated by the audience that finds it.

Sorry to sound a bit ass-ish here but I have the same arguments with my mates all the time about movies, and my opinion still fully rides with "Just get that shit that you love out there and let everyone else deal with it how they will."

It's your art.

[st.]

If someone makes another gory game, nothing will change in the world. We (the humans) will always find ways to satisfy that bloodthirst. And what a person experiences in the intimacy of his or her computer is the least one should worry about. If violence is a problem in someone's life perhaps the social patterns that favor it should be more of concern. Anyway, although such games may answer to something inside the human being, there are also other calls from within. For instance, how would the people respond to the question whether there is an audience for fun, joy (of interaction) and (an overall feeling of) happiness (resulting from the harmony of the world they were allowed to be a part of)? Perhaps no one would think to ask such a question; for me that points to a greater need. Personally I would like to be able to share those feelings with you through my games, for one thing because gore just doesn't feel enough. I want to say something about Mortal Kombat too: what I found exciting in MK1-the movie and then looked for in the games as a younger man was not the violence, but the mistery of the characters and of the locations; fantasy elements in games language, I presume. I once saw a MK game (forgot the title) where you could follow Sub-0 through a series of ninja missions. With that type of game, as with MK1-the movie, one got to wonder what obstacles would be faced next and that placed the whole fighting thing on a much second place in the personal experience.

[Ibispi]

Is there an audience for the more xxx games of this kind?

Dear Slasher,
If you were a game company developer that invests a lot of money into their games, surveys and target audiences would be important... even this does not apply to everyone though.
But, since you are an indie developer, and your tools and material are/or almost free, you can make whatever you want.  Whatever you feel like making. You can't lose anything, really.
Except, of course, if you are living in North Korea, or some conservative country, where your works (creations) are regulated, censored. 
That's my opinion.

[Slasher]

Hi,

BSP: I agree to a point. Even so, as an individual developer does that mean that the many. many hours spent on a game matters not even if the game receives few downloads because of it's contents?

Surly knowing some marketing opinions could sway that game development one way or another?

A minority is only smaller than the majority. So, the size of the minority is important.

Or, just ignore everyone, do the darn thing, spend a zillion hours making the game only for a handful of interested downloads?

food for thought

[Scavenger]

Or, just ignore everyone, do the darn thing, spend a zillion hours making the game only for a handful of interested downloads?

food for thought

It's what I do. How large a following do you think the alt-furry-retro-cyberpunk genre has? But, it's what I want to do, so I do it, regardless of how many people download my games. It's the pure, unfettered opportunity to create what I want that draws me to create. To fill a niche that has not been filled. I could have replaced every character in my game with a human and probably got more downloads.

On the other hand, gore isn't... exactly a niche thing. We see it in almost every AAA game, casually displayed, to the point of banality. It's not shocking, it's not edgy, it just exists. It's really kind of trite and boring to create a game for the gore value alone - but it'll probably download enough. You see it in every newgrounds horror game, in stuff like Eversion where the subversion of the cute is the point, in yeah, Hatred and Postal and Smash TV and whatever gory bloodfest you got going on. It's guaranteed to have an audience, if it's halfway competent. Gore shouldn't be an end to itself, but a means to enhance an existing narrative's themes and tone. Gore adds to horror, or absurdity, but isn't a theme in itself. You can't consider it in a vacuum.

Is there an audience for games with the colour green in it, or the inclusion of birds? Or skateboards? Of course there is, but not for their own sake, they are merely parts of a whole.

[Bavolis]

If you buy your hamburger at a grocery store, you're going to get the same poorly packaged gray meat everybody else eats. It tastes mostly meat-like, and you know what you're getting. However, if you buy directly from a professional butcher, you're going to get shocking delicious red meat and you'll immediately taste the difference. Wait. What were we talking about again? I felt like I was making a good point and then--mmmmm, hamburgers.

[Dualnames]

To be honest, why is the topic "THIS GAME IS SO VIOLENT?" back, haven't we've been through this before? Why are you denying entertainment by censoring games such as these, oh gaming community? If someone is to find bliss and fun in playing the equivalent of Serbian Film, he should have such a right. You can judge all you want, but taking away the game because YOU don't like it or find it offensive is silly, we've lost the point. Btw GTA V is family friendly.

[Mandle]

I think it also comes back to how you yourself rate the "success" of your game:

If you rate it in download numbers/chatter on other sites/features on game sites etc. then gore will never be a downside. Even negative articles about the violence in the game are going to increase your game's audience as people download it out of curiosity. And I'm not trying to say that this is a bad thing: Of course everyone wants their game to reach as large an audience as possible.

Or do you rate success as the game achieving what you wanted it to? Let's look at two of the most viral and popular horror games of recent times: "Five Nights At Freddy's" and "Slender":

Are they "good" games? Naw, not really: They are fairly brainless storywise and rely on the same repetitive jump-scares over and over. Which is exactly what the makers aimed for. Do they do the job of scaring the player? Yes, and they do it quite well! Does the person who downloaded them feel that they got what they came for after playing: Yes, they do! So in this way these two one-trick-pony games are the perfect vision of what the makers intended: Not an easy thing to pull off in any genre.

So, if you are making a game about convicts killing each other on an island based on a very gory movie, you should expect that a lot of your downloads will be from people who want to play a very gory game about convicts killing each other on an island. (I know....I know...I'm just kinda insightful that way... )

If they get a game where you have to put a pully in the middle of a rubber chicken, or there is a scene where two of the convicts sit down on a park bench and talk about their friendship, or whatever, then your audience is going to just scratch their collective head.

BUT: Only make it if it is what you feel compelled to make. The reason why "Five Nights At Freddy's" and "Slender" were so good at what they set out to do was because the makers poured so much love, effort, and attention into achieving that goal. The reason why Michael Bay movies are complete shite is because he is not ashamed to bypass all of that work, plug 90% of the budget into CGI effects, and churn out another worthless movie which pisses off even the people who pretty much knew what they were in for when they bought the ticket. And then he laughs all the way to the bank...

Out of time here, and I kinda got a bit lost on my point, but hopefully there is some sense somewhere in this post...

[Scavenger]

To be honest, why is the topic "THIS GAME IS SO VIOLENT?" back, haven't we've been through this before? Why are you denying entertainment by censoring games such as these, oh gaming community?

Nobody's censoring anything. I'm not sure why this is a fear going on on the internet at the moment, but nobody's censoring things. I mean, the government already does that to some games already, but the gaming community at large isn't censoring anything. Criticising, sure, dissecting the reasons and becoming more self aware about the content that is created. But these are functions that make better games, and without critique we'll end up with backward, stagnant games. There's no Mary Whitehouse deciding that it is illegal to distribute or publish the games you're worried about. Individual stores removing stuff from their stock isn't censorship, since censorship happens at a much higher level. We're actually censoring less now than we ever did before.

But, with less censorship, comes more responsibility. It is our duty to critique the media, to engage it on an active level, rather than passively consume it. You say "Just let people consume stuff like A Serbian Film", but passive consumption is damaging, and we must question ourselves, and our media, at every turn. It is not sacrosanct. There are cliches, themes, actions, that are borne of our collective assumptions that must be deconstructed, and discussed.

The question isn't:
"Why is this game so violent?"

It's
"Why is this game so violent?"

[Dualnames]

I've seen more violent games than Hatred to be honest and way more graphical. So Hatred is only but a grapple to something else. You can't walk around saying how everything is offensive. If something is insulting you there are other ways to avoid this. For example personally I'm annoyed by Michael Bay's movies, do you see me using my resources to boycott them? Cause if a game being violent enough is a reason, then destroying my childhood and a franchise by projecting an entirely different project is way more important in my book. I said ""Just allow people consume stuff like A Serbian Film, if they are to find entertainment in such things". This is based on the exact same principle that there are things we like as human beings that sometimes do not coincide with the public opinion, imagine if the public opinion deprived you of the chance to be the minority in these cases.

[Mandle]

The question isn't:
"Why is this game so violent?"

It's
"Why is this game so violent?"

This is a very wonderful thing you have just said! I'm totally gonna steal this the next time this topic comes up with my movie geek mates when we are discussing violence in films and pretend it's mine (just kidding...I always credit my sources)

[BunnyShoggoth]

I believe the horror genre is somewhat overdependent on gore, which makes a lot of movies and games look pretty cheap. I prefer a subtler, more psychological type of horror, like in David Lynch movies (he has some gory scenes, but he could have easily done without them; the same applies to Grim's games, which I admire as well).

To me, the only way to introduce blood and gore as something fresh and artistic is to use it in an unexpected way, for example, in a very sweet and cartoonish adventure game. IMO, a game like Toonstruck could include it, along with masochistic cows and demented clowns. A more adult/horror version of Pajama Sam would have been awesome as well, and I'm also a big fan of SONIC.EXE and SALLY.EXE.

[Grim]

I prefer a subtler, more psychological type of horror, like in David Lynch movies (he has some gory scenes, but he could have easily done without them; the same applies to Grim's games, which I admire as well).

But I love gore!

I simply can't imagine good horror without at least showing "something" gross. Even the classics like "The Shining" had those over the top moments every now and then (hello, rotten bath lady in room 237!).

[Dualnames]

For example, to realize the stupidity in censoring things, and being as smallminded as you can, instead of embracing the offerings of one author, no matter how weird and outworld-ish and offensive they may be for various reasons (and these can exist) and attempt to enrich or grasp a better opinion of your surroundings and interests, the Cat Lady could easily be considered as a game that's offensive to women.

It's about a woman, that's portrayed as a flawed, weak, alone, worthless, loser. And she's committing suicide. So the Cat Lady is telling the story of a woman, that if she fails to find a man and be succesful in her career, is deemed a failure and should off herself. Cause that's the impression it gives you, it tells the story of a worthless woman that goes crazy cause her life is a dead-end.

Or..

It's one of the greatest games I've had the pleasure of playing, I wish I could right away spoil the entire story of it, if that wouldn't destroy the experience that's ahead of you, for Susan's story (the protagonist) is one where she fights for the right to die. And besides the weird setting, and the pseudo-horror tricks that go along with a horror game, the depth of this game is miraculous.

So, the sole reason you find Hatred offensive is because all it is offering is violence. Have you not played a game that just does that? Have you not played Doom? Or any FPS. Have you not played Duke Nukem. IT'S A VIDEOGAME. It's supposed to be fun/entertaining, and the definition of that is limitless, it should be. And if Hatred is violent, isn't HOTLINE MIAMI?

[Scavenger]

For example, to realize the stupidity in censoring things, and being as smallminded as you can, instead of embracing the offerings of one author, no matter how weird and outworld-ish and offensive they may be for various reasons (and these can exist) and attempt to enrich or grasp a better opinion of your surroundings and interests, the Cat Lady could easily be considered as a game that's offensive to women.

It's about a woman, that's portrayed as a flawed, weak, alone, worthless, loser. And she's committing suicide. So the Cat Lady is telling the story of a woman, that if she fails to find a man and be successful in her career, is deemed a failure and should off herself. Cause that's the impression it gives you, it tells the story of a worthless woman that goes crazy cause her life is a dead-end.

Notice how nobody is complaining about The Cat Lady? I played it myself, it's pretty good.

So, the sole reason you find Hatred offensive is because all it is offering is violence. Have you not played a game that just does that? Have you not played Doom? Or any FPS. Have you not played Duke Nukem. IT'S A VIDEOGAME. It's supposed to be fun/entertaining, and the definition of that is limitless, it should be. And if Hatred is violent, isn't HOTLINE MIAMI?

Doom: Allegorical trek through hell and back, violence is directed towards specifically inhuman demons and zombies. Protagonist does it for the sake of humanity. No problematic content.
Duke Nukem: Pastiche of 80s/90s action movies with a larger than life protagonist, who fights almost exclusively aliens and mutants. Has some problems with making women exclusively strippers/sexy objects. Would have liked to have seen more subversion, less direct copying of existing themes regarding that.
Hotline Miami: Dreamlike, probably drugged up protagonist with no clear identity fights his way through criminal nests who will kill him on sight. Game makes violence uncomfortable and against faceless mannequin-like people. Has a point, however weak, at the end, that subverts the whole game.

For a bonus, here's one more:
Postal 2: As the world falls apart around you, the protagonist goes through his daily life. You can finish the entire game without shooting a single bullet. You can wait in lines, and dodge violent protesters, etc. Or, if you get frustrated, you can literally go postal. In very poor taste, has some problematic content that reinforces attitudes against marginalised groups, but is self-aware enough to not take itself seriously. It ain't my kind of game, but I won't begrudge it's existence. It could have done a lot of things a lot better.

And then:
Hatred: Dude who hates people guns down innocent civilians because we want to be politically incorrect.
We don't have the full context as the game isn't out yet, but I don't hold much hope that it'd be much deeper than that.

Like, do you see the difference here? I have never said "Violence shouldn't be in games" or even "Extreme violence shouldn't be in games". Nobody is even saying that, you seem to be attacking a ghost arguement. I'm saying that we should discuss and dissect the reasons for violence in games, and the context in which it takes place. What it tries to say, as a media piece, what themes it explores. Doom is acceptable even to a devout Mormon (Sandy Peterson) because the violence is directed in the right direction - to terrifying demons. Hatred has a competent gunman shooting helpless civilians. Do you see the difference in contexts here? Do you see the difference between a heroic space marine tearing his way through evil incarnate and a shitty dude shooting up a mall? Like sure, you can do that in GTA or Saint's Row, but it always retains a level of humor and doesn't actually reward you for doing that. Generally it dissuades you because then you can't buy anything and do the actual designed bits of the game. That isn't the point of those games.

And even if Hatred comes out and it's just Sim Mall Shooter, I wouldn't say to censor it or anything. I'd just say it was an incredibly shitty game, because it fails to contextualise itself in a manner that makes any god damned sense or says anything worthwhile. If you don't think about this shit and what you're doing with the elements of your game, you'll end up with a nonsensical mess. Something can be SUPER SERIOUS and be too edgy for this world and be rubbish, or it could be SUPER SILLY and also not funny and be rubbish.

I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this, all I've ever said is "be an active consumer of media, critique and discuss the themes of games", and "be an active developer, critique and discuss the themes and elements of the game you are making, and be aware of why you include the elements you do.".

Like, what is so contentious about this? Shouldn't we be allowed to critique games, and discuss how well their themes get across? Aren't we allowed to say "Yeah, this game doesn't do this shit at all well."?

[Slasher]

Hi,

while I see both sides of this issue:

The question isn't:
"Why is this game so violent?"
It's
"Why is this game so violent?"

I think the point may have been missed.

I remember when Quake and Doom first came out: Shooting an enemy and seeing exploding gore felt like an achievement, without it I think they would have flopped.

It needs to be put into prospective: Violence for violence sake is not so good. However, when faced with an enemy that is out to kill you then you have no option: it's either you or him.

Faced with this type of game / situation one may expect some violence and the more extreme the situation the heavier the violence.

Example was:  Ten death row convicts are placed on an island for a death game to win his freedom, only one may win, fight and kill to win freedom...

I for one would expect some blood and gore along the way if I saw the game advertised, else i would be disappointed and cheated.

I would not expect an elf to smash Santa's head in in a normal 'family game', unless it was depicted in the title or description then one may expect some gore and therefore would not be a 'family game'.

So, all in all, if  the game's nature depicts that it should be violent then that's what it should give.

"Why is this game so violent?" because that is the nature of the game.......

"Why is this game so violent?" because that is the nature of the game........

All games should be marked as U, A, or X like in the cinema as a warning of its content.

[Dualnames]

"Notice how nobody is complaining about The Cat Lady? I played it myself, it's pretty good." That's only because they have the privilege of being able to actually play the game.

I'm sorry but you're judging a game you have not played, and I can do the same. And saying that Postal 2 is okay, but Hatred isn't, is very very hypocritical. It's one thing critiquing and voicing your opinion and another thing actively enforcing it against a developer. It should be every gamer's right to play what they want, no matter how different it is to the public opinion/common opinion. And actively nagging and voicing how much appaled you are at a game's content and doing the best you can to boycott the game, Hatred being the game, sending emails, making reddit posts, doing youtube videos, rallying people to boycott it, disables and makes it more difficult for the developers to release it. And more importantly you're denying it from the gaming community, and disrespecting the minority who would find its premise enjoyable, no matter how surprising that may be to you.

By discriminating games based on certain standards set now, it makes me wonder, weren't those standards higher before Postal was out? Please, be serious. The only proper way to deal with Hatred is set a rating to mature and ask the developers to warn their players of its content, not deny access to Hatred in the market, cause that's what's happening. In the same way you're judging this game, your game can be judged. It can be viewed as a creation of a furry-lover weirdo, full of sexual bombardment only to please furries. But is that your game?

[Bavolis]

I'm just not clear on what people who find Hatred "problematic" (that word is being thrown around way too much this year) would like to see happen. Can we admit it's probably just a murder simulator? Yeah, sure. Do we have to buy it? Nope.

Personally, I've been a gorehound since I was a little kid. I had a high school software company dedicated to extreme, stupid gore, and it was even named "Bloodlust Software." I grew up loving GWAR and Troma. But I won't be buying Hatred because it just doesn't have a hook for me personally (needs humor or story or something). Maybe it has that and the trailer is just not a great trailer. We'll see.

So what do we do? Criticize it for being gory? They're counting on that because it's their only sales hook so far. The more outrage it generates, the more money they make. Send them a well-written message about how wrong they are? They'd keep it as a trophy. By being upset, people are marketing for them. If you want something to go away, you have to speak with your wallet. There is no other way. A bunch of alarmists tried to have it banned from Steam and it only came back stronger. If people still buy it and it succeeds, that's perfectly legal and perfectly OK. They have a right to sell it and you have a right to ignore it.

Just as I 100% defend any piece of art's right to exist and be shown, I also 100% defend your right to criticize it. I'm just curious what the end goal here is. Somebody making a game like that won't be convinced they are doing anything wrong - any outrage serves as more fuel. Anybody buying it already has a specific taste and they're going to ignore your advice anyway. If anybody on the fence decides to try it out - they'll form their own opinions. They don't need guidance on how they should feel about it.

Anyway, I think we're off topic from the original post, which was "is there an audience for gore," and yes, there most definitely is a large audience for gore. Bring it on

[Dualnames]

This is a great example on how much we look at a tree and lose an entire forest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBPgXjkfBXM albeit an entirely different topic.

[Scavenger]

I think the point may have been missed.
I remember when Quake and Doom first came out: Shooting an enemy and seeing exploding gore felt like an achievement, without it I think they would have flopped.
It needs to be put into prospective: Violence for violence sake is not so good. However, when faced with an enemy that is out to kill you then you have no option: it's either you or him.
Faced with this type of game / situation one may expect some violence and the more extreme the situation the heavier the violence.
Example was:  Ten death row convicts are placed on an island for a death game to win his freedom, only one may win, fight and kill to win freedom...
I for one would expect some blood and gore along the way if I saw the game advertised, else i would be disappointed and cheated.

I think you got it pretty well - Doom, Quake, etc, wanted to make shooting demons satisfying, to heighten the visceral nature of the game. It IS satisfying to see terrifying monsters explode into chunks of gore and blood, and since they're demons, well, it's pretty much a okay to cheer on them being gibbed. Because they're demons.

Now, for the game that you present as an example, it all depends on the tone you're trying to achieve. Is the protagonist sympathetic? Is he forced to do these awful things? What is the tone of the overall setting and game? Smash TV is a similar premise, and it presents itself as a futuristic game show in a dystopian, Robocop-esque future. The bright lights and over the top nature of it contrasted well with the brutality of the game. Or is it more brooding, and the brutal nature of it shows that no man is innocent, and when excused, will perform acts that would condemn a man to hell, harking more to The Long Walk in it's raw exposure of the human condition? Is the ending triumphant, or tragic? These are things to think about when making a protagonist be violent. If you wanna do over the top silly gore, go right ahead. If you want to do dark and brooding, go ahead. It's interesting either way!

"Notice how nobody is complaining about The Cat Lady? I played it myself, it's pretty good." That's only because they have the privilege of being able to actually play the game.

Notice how nobody complained about The Cat Lady before it was released?

I'm sorry but you're judging a game you have not played, and I can do the same. And saying that Postal 2 is okay, but Hatred isn't, is very very hypocritical. It's one thing critiquing and voicing your opinion and another thing actively enforcing it against a developer. It should be every gamer's right to play what they want, no matter how different it is to the public opinion/common opinion. And actively nagging and voicing how much appaled you are at a game's content and doing the best you can to boycott the game, Hatred being the game, sending emails, making reddit posts, doing youtube videos, rallying people to boycott it, disables and makes it more difficult for the developers to release it. And more importantly you're denying it from the gaming community, and disrespecting the minority who would find its premise enjoyable, no matter how surprising that may be to you.

I'm only making observations based on the press release of the game itself. Will it subvert my expectations? Perhaps, and perhaps it will comment on stuff more eruditely than I am expecting it to. Perhaps the full game will deconstruct the premise of the mindless shooter, Spec Ops: The Line style, and this is merely an elaborate marketing scheme. We do not know yet, unfortunately, and without more information, we won't until it is released. But the wikipedia page states that it's a dude who shoots civilians: the game. I wasn't personally offended by it, I don't feel it should be censored or anything, I just think that it's tacky and in poor taste. The premise has poor contextualisation, and lacks the glimmer of self awareness possessed by Postal 2. From what I've seen of it so far, it's just a bad game trying to shock people.

I'm not sure why people are thinking I'm against it for containing gore in and of itself. I don't mind gore. I love gore, my favorite musical is Repo: The Genetic Opera, I love A Clockwork Orange (and was angry that Kubrick kept it from my country for so long!), and Evil Dead 2. My ire isn't against gore, it's against the context in which the gore takes place. And I wouldn't want Hatred to be censored, I just don't think it's premise is really an appropriate one, and wanted to bring it up as an example of how sometimes ultraviolence is done badly. You can't just straight up say "Man, mass murder is cool". That's just poor design, really. There are other premises that are pretty much just as inappropriate.

In the same way you're judging this game, your game can be judged. It can be viewed as a creation of a furry-lover weirdo, full of sexual bombardment only to please furries. But is that your game?

Please, tell me where in the bits I've released for my games I've included "sexual bombardment only to please furries". I've released a few screenshots, and the game's premise, and a demo a few years ago too, and also a few screenshots and a poster for Heatwave. You can search through my threads if you want. Find me all the evidence you want, and I'll concede to your point.

I mean, unless you're erupting into ad hominem attacks against me. Then that's just not cool.

[Dualnames]

Scavenger, I love you, I am not trying to offend you, and if that's the vibe you're getting out of me, then apologies, I may have worded things in an awful way. What I'm saying is that we should allow all game possibilities to exist in the market, and take them down by not supporting them, and by rating and by voicng our opinion, but without censoring them in our ways. Let the game be released, is all I say, then voice your complete and full opinion if you wish so.

[Adventurer 007]

Slasher:

The only real reason why there is a market for blood, gore, and violence is that these are more of the taboo things in our real society.  So there will be a natural interest in something that is not allowed. (sex, drugs, alcohol)

A question to ask is, "If it is healthy to dwell on these things constantly."  The answer there would be no.

The best made games, books and movies have little to none of this while still getting the reader/viewer emotionally involved.  Violence/etc is used only when deemed as a tool to bring a message across to the viewer.  Many good stories have a moral. Violence for the sake of it is simple a cheap trick to get people involved who are looking for that sort of thing.  The proverbial candy bar for the person who is trying to loose weight.  Just because someone wants it doesn't mean it is good for them, or that you are adding value to your game.  Some of the newer shows on paid network TV are just simply vulgar and have really cast aside any concept of well done story line or characters for more sex and violence on. This being based on the idea that they can get people to watch crappy shows as long as they put enough of that in.  Its the same as over salting food, or trying to change the taste of something by drowning it in butter or deep frying it.  You will still need a visit to the doctor if that is all you do.

So the fact is that it's being done so the question to ask here is, "Is it what you want to do?"  As games are a form of artistic expression who am I to prevent one from expressing themselves.  However as everyone is a critic, know that some expression is best left for personal enjoyment, or to use as a healing agent for the mind then discarded later.

The bigger question to ask is "why" you want to place it in the game.  If it is because you believe that you are not skilled enough to make a game that enough people would want to play then I recommend spending your time looking for a additional game developer for the project who has the skills you need to bring to the table a better game.  I am sure there are many here who have that skill.

Also violence can be added to a game without excess.  Such is done in many of the Nintendo games you see, players fight with guns but no blood occurs.  It is similar as one playing paintball.

If you are asking for an example of success of a game without violence,  Minecraft was said to gross 2.5 billion for its creators... I believe the most successful game of all time. And where is the violence in it? I believe the world has spoken to what it wants.


-Adventurer 007

[Bavolis]

I don't agree at all that the best books and movies have little to no violence at all. Heard of Game of Thrones? Breaking Bad? The Walking Dead? Apocalypse Now? Jaws? Let the Right One In? Silence of the Lambs? Alien? Aliens? I could keep going but I'd start to look obnoxious, and that's not my goal. Violence has absolutely ZERO impact on the quality of the story if it's used correctly. As far as Minecraft being a top seller, sure, Notch struck gold. But let's not underestimate the Call of Duty and Grand Theft Autos, which are plenty violent.

[Slasher]

Hi

Bavolis: Well stated.

Scavenger :

Now, for the game that you present as an example, it all depends on the tone you're trying to achieve. Is the protagonist sympathetic? Is he forced to do these awful things?

The main player (as per film) is an innocent man who has been thrown into the death game and must fight for life and his freedom. He is quite caring and sympathetic but he is drawn into a violent world where his natural feelings change and he is forced to kill other convicts who are all rather nasty and brutal unlike: 

Scavenger

"a dude who shoots civilians: the game."

which i feel is so very different  in terms of acceptability.


Adventurer 007:

The only real reason why there is a market for blood, gore, and violence is that these are more of the taboo things in our real society.  So there will be a natural interest in something that is not allowed. (sex, drugs, alcohol)

I would not say violence is a taboo: It's a sin against humanity when not in the right context. A real life death row prisoner waits to be executed and the law permits such murdering so it is in context with what is acceptable and not acceptable.

Adventurer 007:

The bigger question to ask is "why" you want to place it in the game.  If it is because you believe that you are not skilled enough to make a game that enough people would want to play then I recommend spending your time looking for a additional game developer for the project who has the skills you need to bring to the table a better game.  I am sure there are many here who have that skill.

I find that statement offensive, and does that apply to all game makers that add gore and blood to their games?

I can assure you that skill and scripting ability do play a role in all game developments whether its a family or horror games.

My skill input in the game I am making has some rather advanced scripting.

Choosing to do a violent game (in context) does not mean that you have limited abilities, in fact I have made a few family games in the past and tend to try new things and genres.

So, if being a convict on an island having to fight and kill for freedom is your bag then so-be-it.

Let the 'death game' commence

[Adventurer 007]

slasher:  First off let me apologize. It was not my intention to insult.  Re-reading the text I can see how is can be read that way.  I should have rewritten it to state if one were to add the violence to the game as a marketing ploy or just for the sake of it, time would be better spent working on other constructs or finding people to help add to the game.  I did not mean to say that you were without skill or otherwise.

I probably should have prefaced the entire post with a "this is my opinion" as well.

And I wish you well in your game.  Any undertaking is challenging.

=Adventurer 007

[Queen Kara]

I love threads like this. As a wannabe game creator - ( and even if I had zero interest in the game creation process or didn't desire to make any myself... I'd probably still think about some things a lot ) - I often think about violence and other issues that games can and do bring up and even somewhat "cutesy" looking games can be violent and gore-filled. People will put "real things" in the virtual things even where and when it is not really needed nor should it always be included. Rape , for example. As a female - ( and lover of various adult titles / subject matter ) - I get so tired of people who included rape scenarios in their works or worse , centered their story around rape and made it the main theme or thing , make excuses for it , treat it like a joke , ect. Of course , being a woman....I can have mixed feelings about violence towards females in games. Other times I'll think "ok she pretty much deserved that" or even enjoy doing or saying something hurtful to a female character but then I might feel guilty for that kind of thinking because...hey....I'm female too.

I get tired of Nazi crap too but I will play Indiana Jones games , I kinda love IJ , and I sometimes have to put up with fighting nazis or seeing that crap when playing a game because it was part of the game and pretty much usually the point or part of the point of such games.....I have always had mixed feelings about games like doom but they can be kinda fun....it's just really annoying and stupid and sad Nazi ever was - ( and still is with some idiots ) - a thing. And one can easily find it in games , movies , ect.

For me , it's more of "oh , god. nazis AGAIN?!" than "oh this is so very offensive" ...I rarely get offended by it.
But I also do sometimes get tired of it 'cause , hey , I'm German and not a Nazi.
I miiight be one in the sense of "grammer nazi" but I don't like the idea of somebody calling me a grammar nazi.
And I would want to hurt anybody who would consider me a "feminazi". Such a stupid word anyway , those haters came up with.
Feminazi? Pfft.

I hope people think of me as a feminist , not a feminazi. A basically good person that just happens to have strong opinions and ideals. *sighs and rubs forehead*

It all depends on why you want to have it in your game and what exactly you are thinking of throwing in there , your target players , ect.

[Slasher]

Good points Queen Kara.

Feminazi: that's a new one

What I a trying to get across is that whilst most folk are decent, law abiding citizens there are still many people who are not and they delight in robbing, raping and murdering.

Get a group of these death-row undesirables, put them on an island and offer them freedom and a million dollars to whoever remains is a recipe for murder. One could of cause say that for a million dollars some respectable people would turn nasty and join in the murdering. This is human nature at its worst.

That aside, it seems that in a game of this kind it is only natural that dirty deeds will prevail and the player should expect this. In fact the player can revel in seeing them 'bumped off'

The Nazis regime was brutal and should never happen again, but you can't wipe it under the carpet.

[EliasFrost]

I'm personally not very interested in violent just for the sake of violence, especially when the player does it. When I play a character I want the violence to be somewhat relatable, which means that it has to be at the very least justifiable from the perspective of the character I'm playing or if it's a clever way to communicate a certain message, to a certain extent of course. Manhunt 2 for example, you kill because you have to because it's the only way to get out of the situation and that is a level of violence that I don't like even though it is thematically justified, mainly because it makes me feel a bit squeamish. On the other hand, one game that I actually enjoyed the violence was in Thief, mainly because it's entirely optional and it's a way to tell you that you screwed up, so the violence in the game didn't spawn out of the desire to hurt but because you weren't good enough at avoiding violence.

[Galen]

For the most part blood and gore exist as a kinaesthetic element of games, adding more audio-visual feedback that eliminates ambiguity like "Am I damaging the enemy?" and making up for the lack of actual tactile feedback on actions (see also: screen-shake).

But there was has been a trend since the 90s that wanes and then revives itself of excessively violent games. Doom, Mortal Kombat, Manhunt, and so on, are common examples. Sometimes this is done for narrative effect (i.e. Booker Dewitt is not a good person) or to drive in a horrific tone (in gory horror games)... but you do occasionally just get games that seem violent for the sake of it. And honestly, when it comes to gore I really do think that many developers and players are just so used to video games that they simply see it as a cool visual effect than a representation of actual violence and injury. God knows, so many AAA budget games watch like the worst Grindhouse movies.

Poor writing in video games, developers/publishers being uninventive enough to fill their game with some kind of engaging gameplay other than combat of a sort, the effectiveness of drawing on both survival and competitive instincts, the buzzword-marketting hype of every single game having to be 'visceral and edgy', and the effectiveness of gore as a feedback method... all kind of boil down together with a bunch of 20-something male developers whose media consumption habits consist of Game of Thrones, SAW, and the latest Taken movie to form this consistant baseline of 'games being about violence' and then frequent fad periods of a bit of the old ultra-violence rearing its head.

Thankfully I think the slew of games where the violence feels out of place may eventually cause a shift towards other styles of gameplay. Although they're terrible examples of non-violent games, I'd still point to the latest Telltale games, as well as the likes of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, as as examples of very successful games where the primary interaction with the gameworld isn't graphic violence.

Right now I think I'm mainly just bothered by 'grr angry' revenge stories (Watchdogs, Shadows of Mordor, etc, etc). Really boils the games down to "this is a game about murdering stuff, please murder stuff". Other than those, there's generally only a few outliers when it comes to games where the violence and gore is truly arbitrary and generally they're not good games.

[Dualnames]

Meanwhile, hotline miami 2 is out. Why is that not bashed yet? Oh wait, everyone loved the first one.

[Armageddon]

Meanwhile, hotline miami 2 is out. Why is that not bashed yet? Oh wait, everyone loved the first one.

Damn you for getting my hopes up! Hotline Miami 2 isn't out yet. I wish they hadn't removed the rape scene from Hotline Miami 2, if Irreversible can do it why not Hotline?

I've never had a problem with violence in games if it's in the right context. Like Hatred was just violence for the sake of it, same with the Postal games. That's all the games have to offer. Hotline has a lot of challenge, and it's the characters job to kill people, so there's some context. Also the people you kill mostly turn out to be not great, and it has quite a heavy handed commentary on how awful the player is for enjoying violence. Why do you want people to bash it Dualnames? The first one was probably my favorite game in a decade. It's just everything I want from a game.

[Galen]

Nothing got removed, Armageddon. There's an option that trims down the scene but it is still there. It is even uploaded in full to Devolver Digital's Youtube channel. It also isn't exactly as it sounds, in the sense that:

Spoiler

It is revealed immediately afterwards to be a scene in a film. So while it is a depiction of rape, it is fictional within the universe of the game.

[close]

[Jay Tholen]

This is likely mirroring what everyone else said - but I've become quite averse to games that push gory, bloody, violent angles in their marketing. 12 year old me wanted all the gore I could get. My favorite screensaver was that Duke Nukem 3D body-parts-piling-up thing. Blood shooting everywhere was often implemented before any actual gameplay in my old Klik & Play games.

I'm not really morally opposed to it, it's just lost its draw for me. It's old. It doesn't feel edgy or exciting or fresh anymore. I also don't think it helps the reputation of video games in the public eye. They're still seen as toys for teenage boys, and I think excessive violence shares some blame in that.

That said, I did dig Hotline Miami's subversive tone. I don't think the message would've been as effective had the gore been toned down.

[Dualnames]

I absolutely love and envy Hotline Miami, my comment was sarcastic.