Blood, gore and violence in games

[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