Is "Violence in games" to vague to mean anything?

[DANEgerous]

I got to play Hatred and I have to say it did not even feel violent after a few minutes, it even got to the point where the most violent part of the game became exceptionally annoying that I wanted to disable it which is an option that I later found out that exists in game that most reviewers applied. In the end my thoughts about the game amounted to "I mean why not just play Robotron or Smash TV?" and not about how violent it was. This is not to say it is not violent, it is technically then again so is jumping on enemies in Super Mario.

I just find it odd that I can kill the entirety of humanity and feel nothing yet cry when a villain kills a character of a fictional race who did not have a lead role. This would indicate I am not just desensitized to this kind of violence would it not? It made it feel like the cries of this being one of the most violent games ever could only be made by someone who had not played a game in the past decade. here is a reason none of the deaths made at the hand of "The Antagonist" matter yet we find people laughing at Mortal Combat fatalities and upset when Dogmeat is killed in Fallout. Most of it is done by making people care about the target of violence but there is also the fact that this is the only option, for instance if you shoot someone in GTA V the cop react the same whether you open fire on them next or drop all you weapons and try to turn yourself in as the latter is not even an option.

I have also heard "aren't video games past violence like this? Haven't we grown up? It is time for gaming to evolve past this" and my answer is simply no, games have not grown past this, nor will they even if we give them 1000 years. How do I know this? Just look at other media, Movies have not evolved past it, Books have not evolved past it, why would Games? I mean no one needlessly died in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series am I right? It is so absurd feels like if I was to apply this to music I would apply the Parental guidance stickers biased on the tempo of songs rather than lyrical content.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, people do complain about gratuitous violence in other mediums as well.

But yeah, it's very subjective. Killing people by Mario jumping on them or by making their blood explode is arguably as violent, but most people will say the latter is more violent, interpreting the level of violence in a very different way.

 

[EvilRoy]

I honestly think a big part of it is that people are "supposed" to care when this sort of killing goes down. Like, you are supposed to feel bad about killing defenseless people in a game because a good person would feel bad about the killing of defenseless people in real life. Even though, realistically, you probably just wouldn't think about it. I mean, how many people do you suppose died in senseless gunfire this morning? I looked up a list of ongoing conflicts on Earth while writing this post, there were 14 having more than 1000 deaths per year, 4 of those having more than 10,0000 deaths per year. I had heard of maybe half of them. And knowing about them has not ultimately changed how I feel about my day.

It might be partially that we as a an enlightened society are supposed to not prize this sort of carnal enjoyment, but I think that would change the complaint from "this game is too violent" to "this game demonstrates the reality that the world that exists isn't the ideal world that I want to exist".

 

[IndianaJonny]

Rage and violence have been (and will continue to be) significant influences across the history of human culture - it shouldn't come as a surprise that games should want to explore these issues.

Hatred, however, is hard to see as anything but unadulterated sadism; a less than appealing experience for most, which may explain why you found it underwhelming.

You may also find the Extra Credits video on Hatred worth a look. (Most of the above was a summary of their conclusions).

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I think context has a huge role to play in offence and violence in media.

Hatred is pretty much contextless violence, so once you get over the initial shock premise "mass murderer on killing spee in style of recent western society shootings" There is nothing deeper to feel. There are no humanised characters, no uncomfortable questions, no sick happenings (beyond the limited gorey execution cutscene bits)

We hear about so much real life violence today that to really affect a person, context is necessary. Hundreds of people, even thousands can be murdered in brutal terror attacks in Africa and it will barely make a footnote in our news, but if more than 3 people are killed by the same person in our country there is a media storm for weeks. The horror comes not from the act, but the context of where it happened.

Medal of Honor Frontline is a pretty standard world war 2 FPS. You are put in a level filled with Nazis, you kill all the Nazis, you steal a document/blow up a tank/rescue a prisoner and move on to the next level.
Throughout the game you will kill literally hundreds of Nazis without any remorse (in fact you're more likely to get enjoyment out of cutting through them)
Then in the last section of the second last level, as you sneak up on a bunker similar to 3 or 4 others you've efficiently purged in that level, you overhear a conversation between the Nazi on the radio... and his family. He speaks German, but the game helpfully subtitles him saying how he misses them and he hopes he will be home soon and send his love to his wife.

I always skipped past that bunker (the level exit is just behind it so you can run past.) Why?

That single soldier was given context. And then he wasn't just a game mechanic, he wasn't just an enemy. He wasn't just an obstacle. It imbued humanity into him, and destroying that is infinitely harder than the previous thousand blank slates.

 

[FalloutJack]

It doesn't really matter WHAT violence in games means. None of it forces people to go do violence things.

 

[MysticSlayer]

This is not to say it is not violent, it is technically then again so is jumping on enemies in Super Mario.

I think trying to use "Mario jumping on enemies is violence" as a defense is really reaching. Mario rarely commits violence against human enemies, really only attacks innocent "enemies" on mutually agreed terms (minus players goofing around), and that violence is incredibly far removed from real-life violence. All of those go a long way to making Mario not part of the discussion on violence in games, as "violence in games" is always referencing violence that has some similarity to real-life violence, regardless of fantasy/sci-fi settings and embellishments.

Basically, think of it like this: Mario is like a kid running around his yard stepping on mushrooms because he can. Games like Hatred and GTA, regardless of still being very fictional and exaggerated, still can easily remind people of any crime and/or mass shooting they've see on the news. Yes, both are violent in a way, but I don't think anyone is going to care about that kid in his backyard. People will care a lot about a mass shooting, especially if a loved one was at the place it occurred.

And no, I'm not saying games shouldn't have violence. I'm saying trying to say Mario is "technically violent" doesn't do anything to dismiss the discussion.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

My Hatred column installment has been updated, so if you go there you'll find the lion's share of my thoughts on it, now that the reviews are actually out. But, a couple of comments...

It all depends on how the violence is presented. Mortal Kombat X has some truly gruesome violence, but it's so over-the-top that it's impossible to take seriously. Super Mario Bros. has the player jumping on things, but it's so abstract in its own way that it doesn't really register as being any more offensive than a Looney Toons cartoon.

Realistic violence, against a character we have grown to know and empathize with, is generally horrifying. If video games do have an issue with violence as a whole, it's probably not much more than using it as a storytelling crutch a few times too often. Outside of that, it is a tool in the storyteller's toolbox. Generalizing past that just isn't helpful, because the broad strokes are just too broad.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I... don't really get what you're asking here. Care to put a TL;DR or some kind of summary in the OP?

I have also heard "aren't video games past violence like this? Haven't we grown up? It is time for gaming to evolve past this" and my answer is simply no, games have not grown past this, nor will they even if we give them 1000 years. How do I know this? Just look at other media, Movies have not evolved past it, Books have not evolved past it, why would Games? I mean no one needlessly died in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series am I right? It is so absurd feels like if I was to apply this to music I would apply the Parental guidance stickers biased on the tempo of songs rather than lyrical content.

Emphasis on the words "like this". It doesn't necessarily mean all violence, but the kinds of violence games depict and the context around it. When comparing Hatred and Game of Thrones (books and TV), both very violent works of fiction, they are very different in the way they use violence. Note that I haven't played Hatred, so I'm forming this on basis of reviews and the game's marketing.

In Game of Thrones the violence revolves around everything else. It is a part of it, it's used as a tool for emotional punch and shock value, but that's not all there is to GoT. There's still the possibly triple digits of characters and their plotlines to invest in. In Hatred, the reverse seems to be true: everything revolves around the violence. And once you're at that point where all you can offer is shock value, indulgent sadism and gore, you lose the effect because there's no point of comparison. I would guess that's the kind of thing the people are asking for games to grow out of: offering nothing but the violence.

The effect of violence, death and most forms of harm happening to someone else on oneself always depends on how much you know about whom it's happening to. Just go to any news site and pick your daily dose of catastrophes, mass killings, disease and other unpleasantness. Do you feel bad about any of them? I bet people who'd never been to Thailand didn't exactly feel shocked to the core when the 2004 tsunami hit, but those who did felt it a lot more. Perhaps you knew the local bartender. Or liked that one street with the palm trees. Or that little fish shop in that alley. You will feel worse when you see all that destroyed because you have a personal, immediate connection to the victim of the violence, whereas in news the event is always filtered through an intermediary, and therefore can't convey the emotional graveness of the matter equally.

 

[DANEgerous]

[Sniped because I am directly under it]

No you appear to totally have gotten the point from what I can see "Hatred" is supposed to be the worst kind of violence ever put into a game if you read media hype but I no not think it would even make my top 50 most violent games of all time. I would classify most if not all Mortal Kombat games as more violent. Hotline Miami a game that has many striking assimilates to Hatred is also far more violent it even asks if you like killing people which you in essence give an emphatic yes to by not only continuing to play the game but replaying for high scores as if to make it known not only are you a killer you are the killer that is after all you rank the game gives you and even after literally killing every person in the entire level the game make you say "I can kill the more brutally than that" when it gives you a C.

 

[DANEgerous]

This is not to say it is not violent, it is technically then again so is jumping on enemies in Super Mario.

I think trying to use "Mario jumping on enemies is violence" as a defense is really reaching. Mario rarely commits violence against human enemies, really only attacks innocent "enemies" on mutually agreed terms (minus players goofing around), and that violence is incredibly far removed from real-life violence. All of those go a long way to making Mario not part of the discussion on violence in games, as "violence in games" is always referencing violence that has some similarity to real-life violence, regardless of fantasy/sci-fi settings and embellishments.

Basically, think of it like this: Mario is like a kid running around his yard stepping on mushrooms because he can. Games like Hatred and GTA, regardless of still being very fictional and exaggerated, still can easily remind people of any crime and/or mass shooting they've see on the news. Yes, both are violent in a way, but I don't think anyone is going to care about that kid in his backyard. People will care a lot about a mass shooting, especially if a loved one was at the place it occurred.

And no, I'm not saying games shouldn't have violence. I'm saying trying to say Mario is "technically violent" doesn't do anything to dismiss the discussion.

Perhaps that is just the fact I had just been dealing with people absurd enough to count clearing lines in Tetris as violence.