PC missing violent games!!!

[QUOTE="zeus_gb"][QUOTE="BounceDK"]No game has ever been banned in Denmark either, and I'd like to keep it that way. No matter how sick or gory it is, that's my choice if I wanna buy it or not.BounceDK

When did violence = maturity? It's been my experience that most of the explicitly violent games I've played or seen have also been some of the most immature games. I'm not saying that violence doesn't have its place in video games when it's kept in context (i'm not a prude after all) but simply having violence for violence sake, with no rhyme or reason, seems a little childish to me and the antithesis of maturity.

A good game is a good game with or without violence and gore. It's about game-play not buckets of brains and blood.

It's all a conspiracy by the US Government to further desensitize Americans to killing so that they are more likely to join the Army and stuff. Seriously. Theres a website about it and everything.loismustdie47

Hahahaha "Seriously. Theres a website about it and everything." hahaha

With the recent Manhunt 2 incident I can only wonder what will happen to Soldier of Fortune: Payback. The Soldier of Fortune series is well known for "pushing the limits" of violence with its Ghoul technology which allows for specific gore zones on the human body to be displayed, it allowed the disposal of limbs, and the list goes on.

These days graphics have advanced even farther. Making games look even more realistic then before. The question I have is whether or not a game like Soldier of Fortune will be allowed to be released with its intended level of violence. The developers may fear that their game will be banned and therefore lessen the level of violence. Hell they might have dumbed the violence down from the very beginning and not take any chances. I think that it is unfortunate that developers are going to have to worry about this kind of thing when they are making their games. Personally I prefer to play a game the way it was originally intended to be played and not some dumbed down version.

I can only hope that I don't see Soldier of Fortune: Payback with a T rating.

When did violence = maturity? It's been my experience that most of the explicitly violent games I've played or seen have also been some of the most immature games. I'm not saying that violence doesn't have its place in video games when it's kept in context (i'm not a prude after all) but simply having violence for violence sake, with no rhyme or reason, seems a little childish to me and the antithesis of maturity.

A good game is a good game with or without violence and gore. It's about game-play not buckets of brains and blood.

-wildflower-

Agreed.

Good gameplay (single and/or multiplayer) > good graphics > good sound.

Violence for most of this thread has focused on the visual/graphical details allowed in games. Graphics are important to a game, but not essential. Graphical violence doesn't make a good game. A great game is one that either makes the single player immersive or one that does an exceptional job with multiplayer. An exceptional game does both. Having a game that utilizes dual 8800 GTX SLi means nothing to me if it has a bad story (singleplayer)/poor multiplayer or horrible controls/camera--arms realistically blown off or not.

I think part of what's going on here is the American ideal that "My standards and ethics are the best ones, so everyone else should live by them too." What I mean by that is: the American people tend to be a bit 'high and mighty' reguarding what they think otherpeople should and shouldn't enjoy. Just because they don't enjoy watching a particular subject matter, doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't like it either.tortured on the silver-screen for two and a half hours is far more sadistic then the average gamer.

SentientGames

Crytek is a German company, Ubisoft is based in France. I can't believe that you would just automatically assume its the "American Governement's fault". It's still a capitalistic market. Companies can make games, they just have to be rated A. I'm sorry if my standards and ethics are being imposed on you but seriously. Anyway, at a certain point photo-realistic virtual reality games could become sadistic. And no im not "labeling people". I'm merely stating that when you can't tell the difference between the game and the reality then some people start thinking in unhealthy ways. It's not at that point at all yet so don't get angry at me. I'm just saying that if there was a large enough demand for this type of game then it would probably be made. Companies are usually all about the profit. It seems that enough people don't want that in their games right now though.

This thread is gettin more and more interesting, he,he...Like we balcans say "Just give me something to cut or shoot"...:lol:just kiddin...In my state...nothing is banned, long live demokracy...!

[QUOTE="SentientGames"]

I think part of what's going on here is the American ideal that "My standards and ethics are the best ones, so everyone else should live by them too." What I mean by that is: the American people tend to be a bit 'high and mighty' reguarding what they think otherpeople should and shouldn't enjoy. Just because they don't enjoy watching a particular subject matter, doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't like it either.tortured on the silver-screen for two and a half hours is far more sadistic then the average gamer.

bob9999999999

Crytek is a German company, Ubisoft is based in France. I can't believe that you would just automatically assume its the "American Governement's fault". It's still a capitalistic market. Companies can make games, they just have to be rated A. I'm sorry if my standards and ethics are being imposed on you but seriously. Anyway, at a certain point photo-realistic virtual reality games could become sadistic. And no im not "labeling people". I'm merely stating that when you can't tell the difference between the game and the reality then some people start thinking in unhealthy ways. It's not at that point at all yet so don't get angry at me. I'm just saying that if there was a large enough demand for this type of game then it would probably be made. Companies are usually all about the profit. It seems that enough people don't want that in their games right now though.

With the recent Manhunt 2 incident I can only wonder what will happen to Soldier of Fortune: Payback. The Soldier of Fortune series is well known for "pushing the limits" of violence with its Ghoul technology which allows for specific gore zones on the human body to be displayed, it allowed the disposal of limbs, and the list goes on.

These days graphics have advanced even farther. Making games look even more realistic then before. The question I have is whether or not a game like Soldier of Fortune will be allowed to be released with its intended level of violence. The developers may fear that their game will be banned and therefore lessen the level of violence. Hell they might have dumbed the violence down from the very beginning and not take any chances. I think that it is unfortunate that developers are going to have to worry about this kind of thing when they are making their games. Personally I prefer to play a game the way it was originally intended to be played and not some dumbed down version.

I can only hope that I don't see Soldier of Fortune: Payback with a T rating.

smokeydabear076

[QUOTE="BounceDK"][QUOTE="zeus_gb"][QUOTE="BounceDK"]No game has ever been banned in Denmark either, and I'd like to keep it that way. No matter how sick or gory it is, that's my choice if I wanna buy it or not.zeus_gb

[QUOTE="BounceDK"][QUOTE="gfile"][QUOTE="thanatose"]I agree, I wish more games wouldadd blood into them. I liked playing F.E.A.R. and watchingsomebody I had just hit witha shotgun at point blank explode into a red mist. I don't care if it's realistic or not.bmaisey

whoa really? mine never fails, stays above 30 98% of the time in the test and i never notice anything in game. If it is just that spot, it really is just that spot. Is the rest of your pc not at the same level as your gfx card? That can make for issues (did for me until i upgraded the rest of it).

Oh and gfiles rig 'should' run it fine, i had similar but with a 6600 gt, i had it at 1280x1024 and most settings high, no AA tho im pretty sure.

Anyways, yeah violent games are less common, but theyre not all being toned down (on consoles even - see gears of war, bioshock, good old god of war). Fear is probably the best example, and mighty good fun it is, especially in multiplayer. Theres bloodspray in Cod 2 im pretty sure, lots of bullet holes in far cry, you can chop peoples heads and limbs off in dark messiah... theres a big market for this kind of stuff, so its not exactly empty. On the other hand, it does kind of restrict the target market a bit, which is my guess at the biggest reason more and more games with less or no gore are getting made.

[QUOTE="zeus_gb"][QUOTE="BounceDK"][QUOTE="zeus_gb"][QUOTE="BounceDK"]No game has ever been banned in Denmark either, and I'd like to keep it that way. No matter how sick or gory it is, that's my choice if I wanna buy it or not.BounceDK

When did violence = maturity?-wildflower-

It doesn't. But I can see where realism=maturity, and there's nothing more real violence.

Yep games are getting more & more boring. Need gore, lots & lots of gore. ET:QW is ruined for me. Not a drop of blood anywhere .. At all .. bah!BounceDK

Are you serious? Didnt Quake, y'know, start the whole "gibs" movement that has thus been feaured in every good shooter? I mean, its the law of gaming...you shoot someone with a rocket, there limbs seperate from their torso and fly off in every direction. FEAR has it, Halflife has it...and ET:QW doesnt?

Dubyuh Tee Eff, mate!

And ya, the excessive violence may be bad for the people that dont like video games, but its good for us. Its very entertaining! Hell Ive been seeing this stuff in video games since I was six years old and 17 years later I am just fine. Or am I?

Hi to all:::I dont understand why games today isnt showing any blood and gore..This mature stuff, for children not to have violent games, i understand, but we, older players want to have some reality in games. For example...the Soldier of fortune shows that every bullet has its place in the body, dont get me wrong, i am not sadistic maniac, who wants to tear bodies, but its doze of reality...Consoles like xbox or ps2(3) they must have mature rating, but on PC:question: Child rather plays on consoles then PC...no offence to console gamers, but for us older PC players this hasnt making any sense to me...Maybe i am too old for games?

Playing Total war games or ww2 shooters it will be good to see some reality in all those battles i spend half of my life playing, rather then be with my wife:oops:

gfile

I agree with you almost totally. Games do lack violence but games shouldnt be tooviolent, i dont like sick games but i like violent games like God Of War.

One gameirealy think thatlacks violence is Overlord...i think you will all agree(Rated T=****)

[QUOTE="BounceDK"]Yep games are getting more & more boring. Need gore, lots & lots of gore. ET:QW is ruined for me. Not a drop of blood anywhere .. At all .. bah!mrbojangles25

Are you serious? Didnt Quake, y'know, start the whole "gibs" movement that has thus been feaured in every good shooter? I mean, its the law of gaming...you shoot someone with a rocket, there limbs seperate from their torso and fly off in every direction. FEAR has it, Halflife has it...and ET:QW doesnt?

Dubyuh Tee Eff, mate!

And ya, the excessive violence may be bad for the people that dont like video games, but its good for us. Its very entertaining! Hell Ive been seeing this stuff in video games since I was six years old and 17 years later I am just fine. Or am I?

[QUOTE="gfile"]

Hi to all:::I dont understand why games today isnt showing any blood and gore..This mature stuff, for children not to have violent games, i understand, but we, older players want to have some reality in games. For example...the Soldier of fortune shows that every bullet has its place in the body, dont get me wrong, i am not sadistic maniac, who wants to tear bodies, but its doze of reality...Consoles like xbox or ps2(3) they must have mature rating, but on PC:question: Child rather plays on consoles then PC...no offence to console gamers, but for us older PC players this hasnt making any sense to me...Maybe i am too old for games?

Playing Total war games or ww2 shooters it will be good to see some reality in all those battles i spend half of my life playing, rather then be with my wife:oops:

TA127

I agree with you almost totally. Games do lack violence but games shouldnt be tooviolent, i dont like sick games but i like violent games like God Of War.

One gameirealy think thatlacks violence is Overlord...i think you will all agree(Rated T=****)

every time a gamer goes crazy and kills ppl the games get blamed.

also getting lower censorship ratings means you'll sell more copies of your game.

every time a gamer goes crazy and kills ppl the games get blamed.

also getting lower censorship ratings means you'll sell more copies of your game.

DrDoomed

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

With the recent Manhunt 2 incident I can only wonder what will happen to Soldier of Fortune: Payback. The Soldier of Fortune series is well known for "pushing the limits" of violence with its Ghoul technology which allows for specific gore zones on the human body to be displayed, it allowed the disposal of limbs, and the list goes on.

These days graphics have advanced even farther. Making games look even more realistic then before. The question I have is whether or not a game like Soldier of Fortune will be allowed to be released with its intended level of violence. The developers may fear that their game will be banned and therefore lessen the level of violence. Hell they might have dumbed the violence down from the very beginning and not take any chances. I think that it is unfortunate that developers are going to have to worry about this kind of thing when they are making their games. Personally I prefer to play a game the way it was originally intended to be played and not some dumbed down version.

I can only hope that I don't see Soldier of Fortune: Payback with a T rating.

gfile

yeh, no more violent games for us!!! *sigh*

But, at least i still have Postal 2 in my collection!! GORIEST GAME EVER!!! :p

It's just a game quit getting your panties all tangled over gore. It's not cool to be PC.BLaZe462

Nice thread. I've been thinking about it for some time and here are my conclusions.

First off as human beings we allhavea subconscious need for death and destruction, and each persons deals with it in his way (starting unnecessary fights or arguments, smoking , driving carelessly,being angry, jealous and all tose things that make people think u r mean, or just doing nothing at all and letting this impulse consume u which can result in some kind of neurosis or psychosis). So it's safe to say that as much as we want to love we can't avoid to hate at the same time, we want to live but deep in our mind we want to die. How wedeal with this dichotomy is a good sign of quality of life.

Thevideo games, movies, music (and any other art form) are "safe" ways to get connected to this side of our minds. If one sees a car accident with people hurt he'll prolly getsick and saddened for the victim, even if he didn't knowhim (that's empathy). And thats not a safe situation and feelings that are buried deep inside can surface and bring problems. So violence in real life is a real issue and not everyone has the tools to deal with it (that's why many people want to become medical doctors, but quit college after the first anatomy class).

So violence in video games has two purposes: offer you a safe place to watch all the blood and gore that all of us subconsciously want (so u can get in touch with it, and in the process learn more about yourself) and of course relieve stress, it's a lot healthier to think that your boss is one of the 15678 pedestrians u ran over in GTA than confronting him out of pure anger (which can get u fired from the job).

So I'm not a sadist or maniac but songs like Angel of Death (Slayer) , movies like Braindead (Peter Jackson), and the chainsaw move in Gears of War give me the opportunity to get in touch with my "death desire", so I can elaborate it from a safe place, have fun and get to know me better in the process.

And for the TC: ya I miss violence in video games =P

And for the dudes talking about photorealistic violence I can't wait to get my hands on that.

[QUOTE="BLaZe462"]It's just a game quit getting your panties all tangled over gore. It's not cool to be PC.BounceDK

wtf the whole thread is about violence in games, what's wrong with you?

Nice thread. I've been thinking about it for some time and here are my conclusions.

First off as human beings we allhavea subconscious need for death and destruction, and each persons deals with it in his way (starting unnecessary fights or arguments, smoking , driving carelessly,being angry, jealous and all tose things that make people think u r mean, or just doing nothing at all and letting this impulse consume u which can result in some kind of neurosis or psychosis). So it's safe to say that as much as we want to love we can't avoid to hate at the same time, we want to live but deep in our mind we want to die. How wedeal with this dichotomy is a good sign of quality of life.

Thevideo games, movies, music (and any other art form) are "safe" ways to get connected to this side of our minds. If one sees a car accident with people hurt he'll prolly getsick and saddened for the victim, even if he didn't knowhim (that's empathy). And thats not a safe situation and feelings that are buried deep inside can surface and bring problems. So violence in real life is a real issue and not everyone has the tools to deal with it (that's why many people want to become medical doctors, but quit college after the first anatomy class).

So violence in video games has two purposes: offer you a safe place to watch all the blood and gore that all of us subconsciously want (so u can get in touch with it, and in the process learn more about yourself) and of course relieve stress, it's a lot healthier to think that your boss is one of the 15678 pedestrians u ran over in GTA than confronting him out of pure anger (which can get u fired from the job).

So I'm not a sadist or maniac but songs like Angel of Death (Slayer) , movies like Braindead (Peter Jackson), and the chainsaw move in Gears of War give me the opportunity to get in touch with my "death desire", so I can elaborate it from a safe place, have fun and get to know me better in the process.

And for the TC: ya I miss violence in video games =P

And for the dudes talking about photorealistic violence I can't wait to get my hands on that.

MachetazoZ

And ya, the excessive violence may be bad for the people that dont like video games, but its good for us. Its very entertaining! Hell Ive been seeing this stuff in video games since I was six years old and 17 years later I am just fine. Or am I?

mrbojangles25

"Or am I?" question is a nice touch, because the real question is: "how much violence/gore/realism is too much?" (when folks are desensitized to the horrors?).

The insistent need for more violence, "because I'm bored" is a sad commentary, when violence is a means of entertainment, let alone it needs to be ratchet up and up and up to be "fun".

It's not violence such folks seek, it's that they can't for whatever reason not in Iraq and getting their fill of the real McCoy.

[QUOTE="BounceDK"][QUOTE="BLaZe462"]It's just a game quit getting your panties all tangled over gore. It's not cool to be PC.BLaZe462

wtf the whole thread is about violence in games, what's wrong with you?

Uhh, I think there was a misunderstanding...

Nothing is wrong with us. We know what we enjoy. :P So, anyone played Condemned or some other great violent game lately?

Yep games are getting more & more boring. Need gore, lots & lots of gore. ET:QW is ruined for me. Not a drop of blood anywhere .. At all .. bah!BounceDK

That is truly the case... Quake without gibs is just not Quake.

The question I have is whether or not a game like Soldier of Fortune will be allowed to be released with its intended level of violence. The developers may fear that their game will be banned and therefore lessen the level of violence. Hell they might have dumbed the violence down from the very beginning and not take any chances. I think that it is unfortunate that developers are going to have to worry about this kind of thing when they are making their games. Personally I prefer to play a game the way it was originally intended to be played and not some dumbed down version.

I can only hope that I don't see Soldier of Fortune: Payback with a T rating.

smokeydabear076

I'm also worried about this, and I'm sure the rest of us who played the original Soldier of Fortune feel the same way. I really doubt that we'll see the good old blowing away of limbs in the latest Soldier of Fortune game, since it'll be coming out on consoles. Too bad these pussified stores refuse to stock AO-rated games. The console giants probably wouldn't have problems with having these games in their library if that were the case.

Finally.....people understand what i am aiming for, yeah games like SOF did made change to reality gaming!!!:lol:

I personally loved the SOF games,more games like that would be great. I also loved the blood in Postal 2, it was totaly over the top but a lot of fun.thanatose

For example...UNREAL had lots of blood, but when i am shot someone in the head, i expect him to have a hole init...then in the MOH Airborne when i soot them with my granate louncher i want to take him apart, rather then saw him jumping on the roof of the building!!!:D

TO ALL WHO DONT UNDERSTAND...PLEASE READ MY ORIGINAL POST!!!:)

I guarantee you SoF2 will have scaled-down violence. The days of blowing a terrorists head off with a shotgun and seeing it in full, graphic detail are over. There's too much legislation going on right now, and developers are scared by the whole Manhunt 2 issue.

But, if some developer out there said "F**k you ESRB.", made their game as violent as they want, got an AO score and only sold the game on the web, I'll bet they'd sell a lot of copies. The game would get tons of publicity just for being a rebel. 'Course, it would have to be for the PC only. No AO games for consoles, but who really cares about consoles when you have a good PC anyway?

Without starting a riot - i think thats why Gears was so popular...it had that element of gore to it. That chainsaw, the head popping, the brilliant animations when you blow someone to crud. Its all there in terms of violence and gore. more games should adopt this.anandram

I guarantee you SoF2 will have scaled-down violence. The days of blowing a terrorists head off with a shotgun and seeing it in full, graphic detail are over. There's too much legislation going on right now, and developers are scared by the whole Manhunt 2 issue.

But, if some developer out there said "F**k you ESRB.", made their game as violent as they want, got an AO score and only sold the game on the web, I'll bet they'd sell a lot of copies. The game would get tons of publicity just for being a rebel. 'Course, it would have to be for the PC only. No AO games for consoles, but who really cares about consoles when you have a good PC anyway?

SentientGames

[QUOTE="anandram"]Without starting a riot - i think thats why Gears was so popular...it had that element of gore to it. That chainsaw, the head popping, the brilliant animations when you blow someone to crud. Its all there in terms of violence and gore. more games should adopt this.gfile

Its due for release this november i believe?

um, you do realize that when you shoot somone in real life there arms don't actually fo flying off, right? unless you use a shotgun from point blank...that could blow your leg off.stygiansanity

um... yes they do if you use a powerfull weapon.

And I would also like to see some more gore. It just doesn't feel realistic when you shoot someone and then walk up and look at the body and there's no blood or bullethole or anything.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And ya, the excessive violence may be bad for the people that dont like video games, but its good for us. Its very entertaining! Hell Ive been seeing this stuff in video games since I was six years old and 17 years later I am just fine. Or am I?

Deus_Ex_Fan

"Or am I?" question is a nice touch, because the real question is: "how much violence/gore/realism is too much?" (when folks are desensitized to the horrors?).

The insistent need for more violence, "because I'm bored" is a sad commentary, when violence is a means of entertainment, let alone it needs to be ratchet up and up and up to be "fun".

It's not violence such folks seek, it's that they can't for whatever reason not in Iraq and getting their fill of the real McCoy.

How much is too much violence/gore/realism? Idunno, problably when I say to myself "ewww, thats a bit much" and then I shut my eyes for a bit, or I walk away.

See....ignorance! Sometimes its a good thing! By telling myself I have had my fill and by ignoring what is occuring (violent entertainment) I am able to protect myself, while leaving the material intact for other, more bold people to enjoy.

My point is to let games be violent. If people dont like it, they can ignore it. If they do like it, then they can enjoy it.

[QUOTE="stygiansanity"]um, you do realize that when you shoot somone in real life there arms don't actually fo flying off, right? unless you use a shotgun from point blank...that could blow your leg off.ikwal

um... yes they do if you use a powerfull weapon.

And I would also like to see some more gore. It just doesn't feel realistic when you shoot someone and then walk up and look at the body and there's no blood or bullethole or anything.

[QUOTE="Deus_Ex_Fan"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And ya, the excessive violence may be bad for the people that dont like video games, but its good for us. Its very entertaining! Hell Ive been seeing this stuff in video games since I was six years old and 17 years later I am just fine. Or am I?

mrbojangles25

"Or am I?" question is a nice touch, because the real question is: "how much violence/gore/realism is too much?" (when folks are desensitized to the horrors?).

The insistent need for more violence, "because I'm bored" is a sad commentary, when violence is a means of entertainment, let alone it needs to be ratchet up and up and up to be "fun".

It's not violence such folks seek, it's that they can't for whatever reason not in Iraq and getting their fill of the real McCoy.

How much is too much violence/gore/realism? Idunno, problably when I say to myself "ewww, thats a bit much" and then I shut my eyes for a bit, or I walk away.

See....ignorance! Sometimes its a good thing! By telling myself I have had my fill and by ignoring what is occuring (violent entertainment) I am able to protect myself, while leaving the material intact for other, more bold people to enjoy.

My point is to let games be violent. If people dont like it, they can ignore it. If they do like it, then they can enjoy it.

i suppose thats the problem though, not many people have that self control to know what is their limit. Some people take it too far and this is where the problem lyes. I love gorey and scary ad suspenseful games, but thats because i know i have some self control and realise its only a game. Some people do not have this instilled in themselves....its a shame.