Support NeoGAF

[Davidion]

Never seen a single act of violence in any game ever, that I felt was somehow unacceptable.

You give the game an appropriate age rating and all is well.

Gore and extreme violence? Fine, give it an M-rating and ship it.

I am quite surprised how many on GAF seems to agree with Parish.

It has less to do with how unacceptable it is and more with how pervasive and generally unchallenged it is. Sure, part of Parrish's apprehensiveness has to do with him not actually being able to stomach some of the actions required of your character that would be unconscionable in real life, as that sentiment has been echoed here, but I think the crux of his complaints is that this has become the pervasive, myopic, face of the industry.

I think that much like that moronic ass spew that was the macworld article re: the big three losing the plot, Parrish makes the mistake of only addressing the biggest blockbuster set pieces and hits. However, his point still holds in that this ultra-violent male fantasy world has become not only what sells, but what the industry wants to sell.

I don't think for a second that the motion picture to video game industry parallels holds true; unsubstantial as you can accuse Hollywood of being, at least content that's not the archetypal uber-blockbusters gets considerable exposure. Whereas with small indie companies or industry players like Nintendo, non "hardcore" approaches often gets dismissed as fodder. But again, remove Nintendo and you see another angle on Parrish's issue with the industry; that the biggest publishers in the industry almost doesn't know what to do with themselves without dishing out violent blockbuster after violent blockbuster. Somewhat ironically, the first party devs (at least for Sony/Nintendo) actually do a better job of introducing diversity to their own console than these massive throngs of super publishers.

Parrish's POV is right, not as some incontrovertible condemnation of the industry but he absolutely points out a elephant-in-the-room grade symptom.

 

[badcrumble]

Is there a media medium where violence is not front and center?

Music, painting, photography, writing, dance, theater, and even film and television really.

 

[Dyno]

Violence and other dark themes all go down to the personal tastes of the player and one of the strengths of games is how personalized our own experiences can be made.

Way back in the day games were an oasis against censorship. There were scenes and themes that never made it on the silver screen or television, which was replete with meaningless nonsense. That was the initial draw in many cases, aside from the marvel of interactivity. When you shot a gun, somebody died. Even that was something you couldn't find in a cop show or a cartoon.

Those days are gone but games are still a place where imagination reigns supreme, where you will do things and experience things that all over forms of media pass over. I'll give two examples: one light, one dark.

Flower: you play a flower petal blowing in a breeze that's yours to command. It's that fine focus on such a small and unimportant thing that makes games an such an amazing and unique medium. You get that tiny flower petal going and something magical unfolds.

Baby Killing: This has always been the absolute nadir of my personal gaming tastes but at the risk of sounding completely evil I will confess that I love it. Now of course the babies in games have been warped and changed into viscious, lethal creatures that need to be put down but there is a child in the centre of that enemy and destroying them is always a quintessential gaming experience. The Suffering, Painkiller, Dead Space, Dante's Inferno: all of them have taken their shot at this unspeakable act and funny enough they have never been called on it in the mass media (no doubt because their dark work is buried under hours of core gameplay.)

In the end I'll say that if ultra-violence provides a quintessential gaming experience for some then it should be explored because that's what games do best, provide unique experiences. There is lots of choice and I'm optimistic that our choices will only broaden and deepen as time goes by. If gaming is indeed in its adolescence then lets not begrudge it buying a few death metal albums and the odd gore flick.

 

[NotWii]

Good article

 

[NewBrof]

opening the press conferences (and transmitting to the public) with gory games and images was really like yelling: hey, this is gaming 2010. Immature and for teenage boys. Way to go, EA, MS and Sony..

 

[ultron87]

I generally agree with the article but a think a few of the examples mentioned transcend the disturbingly gorey level of violence and go into cartoonish super violence.

Especially Metal Gear Rising. In that game you're a cyborg ninja who can cut perfectly straight lines through apparently any material. Sure there's some blood spray when you cut the guy, but it is so ridiculous looking that it would never be mistaken as reality.

It's the same level of violence as Kill Bill's Crazy 88 fight. And that never really bothered me because it is so over the top that it becomes comical.

 

[RoninChaos]

The scene where that guy gets knifed while going through that tunnel in CoD black ops kind of made my stomach turn. I wasn't expecting it, and it stuck with me to the point where I don't know if I'd even play black ops. I"ve only played CoD 2 and 4. I have modern warfare 2 but haven't taken it out of the wrapping. Same with WaW. I do feel like we're encroaching more and more on the idea of violence as a shock factor. That's going to happen in any visual medium, but it still bothers me when I see it.

Also, it's hard for me not to feel that the reason we have this glut of violence is because of the race to be "Mature" that happened years ago. Remember when people were like "I don't play that kiddy shit! I want blood!" and shit like that? This is the byproduct of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm down for mature themes in games but it's not hard to make the logical leap that this ultra violence exists simply because it can and people are jumping on it because they feel it's a sign of maturity.

I agree with Parish. It is interesting that this E3, which was broadcast in Times Square, showed nothing but these hyper violent titles. I doubt much time was put into showing off what the creator of Rez came up with.

I also find myself more concerned about violence in any media because I'm a parent now. My son is 5 and he sees things on TV sometimes and goes "oh, is he dead?". Yet we ask him what he thinks dead means and he has no idea. It bothers me he even has the concept at that age. So it's even more disturbing to me when I run into 10 year olds playing M rated games.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I liked Nier's approach. It's very violent and gory, and has you playing as a character who becomes a mindess killing machine. But as the game goes on, it does quite an effective job of making you question your character's motivations and state of mind in all the killing he's doing. It made me thoroughly uncomfortable to be in his shoes, especially with how aggressive his dialogue becomes (which is not too far off from the dialogue in most shooters).

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I liked Nier's approach. It's very violent and gory, and has you playing as a character who becomes a mindess killing machine. But as the game goes on, it does quite an effective job of making you question your character's motivations and state of mind in all the killing he's doing. It made me thoroughly uncomfortable to be in his shoes, especially with how aggressive his dialogue becomes (which is not too far off from the dialogue in most shooters).

Drakengard 1 did this as well, IIRC. A bad game in many aspects, but it admitted from the start that any person who would so willfully slaughter hundreds and thousands of people without remorse is obviously mentally ill. It called out its own hero on his bloodlust constantly.

 

[rollingstart]

The Way of the Samurai games are good at this stuff. If you want, you can just stroll past a bunch of thugs beating up a woman. It isn't like the game makes you stop them and presents you with a good or bad way of doing it. Then there are other things like getting hired to infiltrate an organization to kill the leader. You have to pretend to be all friendly with everyone and do work to build up reputation. In the end, you see that the leader relies on you a lot and you have the choice to fulfill your original task or join the leader for real.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Never seen a single act of violence in any game ever, that I felt was somehow unacceptable.

You give the game an appropriate age rating and all is well.

Gore and extreme violence? Fine, give it an M-rating and ship it.

I am quite surprised how many on GAF seems to agree with Parish.

what r u talking about? ratings and age is not whats being disgusted here.

 

[clashfan]

He should play Barbie games instead.

 

[Josh7289]

I agree with Parish. I can't stomach gory or psychopathic games, but it seems like it's just different for other people. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I think it's definitely an issue. Some will yawn and say it's no problem, but this is one of those things that keeps video games as a niche hobby.

I think the first game that crossed the line for me was Gears of War 1, which had the curb stomping move and that really unsettled me.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I think it's definitely an issue. Some will yawn and say it's no problem, but this is one of those things that keeps video games as a niche hobby.

I think the first game that crossed the line for me was Gears of War 1, which had the curb stomping move and that really unsettled me.

As someone who played plenty of Postal 2 and Soldier of Fortune 2, Gears of War 1 felt almost tame. :lol

 

[Tiktaalik]

As someone who played plenty of Postal 2 and Soldier of Fortune 2, Gears of War 1 felt almost tame. :lol

Never played those ones :lol

Those games were heavily advertised using their violence angle so maybe the advertising style itself steered me away from them.

 

[LQX]

This E3 I think showed the most non "over the line" games ever so I think this was on his mind and he just shoehorned the E3 conference into his write up. I saw more sweat from dancing games than blood this E3. Very, very tame this year.

 

[Bentendo]

I just keep telling myself "there's no way that people will go out and buy the new Call of Duty... They must be getting bored of the game by now." And then I'm wrong...

Violence doesn't really make my stomach turn like it does to Parish, but it has gotten to the point where I just don't buy those games anymore. They never, ever offer anything new to the table and really just seem to be holding the industry back rather than pushing it forward. When I see something like Saw: The Video Game, it really makes me weep for our industry (and, really, the movie industry as well).

 

[Glix]

Even in his reply to the comments, he ignores Nintendo completely. This would be okay, but the article is "the industry , the big presentations, etc..." but he is not looking at the industry, he is looking at one part of it.

 

[The Technomancer]

I agree on two levels. While ultra-violence, with its grotesque emphasis on gore is repulsive to me, I understand that it has a market to cater to. But I don't like how that market is increasingly a large part of the industry.

But the larger, more fundamental problem really is the mass population perception. People wonder about Nintendo's coup this generation? It wasn't just motion controls and fitness games.
Back last gen, both the PS2 and the GC had an assortment of kid-friendly games, colorful platformers, etc. But this gen, Mom knows that pretty much all there is on the 360 is Gears of Grand Theft Halo XVII, and little Timmy certainly won't be playing any of those, thank you very much. In the eyes of the public, there are two kinds of games, Nintendo games, and ultra-gory shooters where you are encouraged to rape prostitutes. And developers and publishers are pushing this kind of experience. Are we really surprised that gaming is still seen as being for little kids and immature violent manchildren?

 

[Bentendo]

Even in his reply to the comments, he ignores Nintendo completely. This would be okay, but the article is "the industry , the big presentations, etc..." but he is not looking at the industry, he is looking at one part of it.

That's true. Someone in another comment mentioned how the industry is focused on violence, which isn't true. Call of Duty and GTA may sell like gangbusters, but it seems like games such as Wii Sports, Nintendogs and New Super Mario Bros. not only sell more, but are better known among the general public. So, while it's unfortunate that many good, talented developers focus their time on developing games which are so insanely violent to the point of being laughable or stomach turning, it's also a good thing that other good developers are just focusing on making good games.

There was a time when God of War didn't bother me. But my opinion kind of changed when I took a woman from her room and killed her by using her to keep a door open. It was so pointless and so stupid that it made me realize that, despite what people say, God of War is violent just to be violent, and for the most part it serves no purpose.

I really hope the immature side of the industry grows up. Why their games are labeled with "mature" always boggled my mind.

 

[Sword Familiar]

Great article.

The beheading sequence of God of War III springs to mind. I do realise the head is used as a tool afterwards and his reason for tearing the head off was somewhat justified because of that, but watching the sequence just felt unnecessary and I questioned if that amount of gore really was what the audience wants or not. I see this trend particularily in American games where gory finishers often seem to be more important than gameplay (not always, but often) and it's one of the reasons why I don't like the GoW games very much.

Edit:

There's also a difference between the violence shown in, for instance, the Dynasty Warriors games and an FPS based on an actual war event. Although the actual body count of DW is much higher, the humorous output of the game makes it ok to slaughter these poor souls since it's not a matter of killing people. They are just numbers to me. In an FPS based on, say, Vietnam, I feel bad about killing them since I don't consider them the enemy.

 

[MMaRsu]

About goddamn time somebody said it.

But, I have a feeling that we're not really going to grow as a medium long as games like Bulletstorm keep getting a pass because "oh, it's the exception." The dialogue samples for it in the Game Informer issue was embarrassing for everybody involved as is the hype around "being able to electro-whip people in the balls." Frankly, it's the game version of OW! My balls! and most GAFers can't wait to get their hands on it.

You're a joke dude.

People I know are excited for it because it was made by the people who crafted the excellent Painkiller. Not because you can electro whip people in the balls ( which sounds fun to do at least ).

Who cares if it's not the cream of the crop, or doesnt have one of the best stories or great dialogue. As long as the game is fun, I'm fine with that.

Yes games with violence are more popular these days then games without them, and that is truly a sad state of affairs. Doesn't mean you have to condemn every game with over the top violence in it.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Are we really surprised that gaming is still seen as being for little kids and immature violent manchildren?

I've seen this type of response pop up several times in this thread. I guess this is the flipside of the "kiddie" complaint that other gamers throw around in order to look down on gamers that enjoy games that they don't like.

At the end of the day games are about being fun. Why does it matter if someone finds that fun by running through a village like Rambo blowing away enemies or by hopping on the shells of turtles? It's not like you're going to have any difficulties finding games that suit your taste if you like violent games or games that go in a different direction.

Parish brought up how E3 solidified peoples stereotypes of what gamers are. How exactly? Up until the PS2 era there really wasn't a ton of really violent games due to the limited technology (although there was certainly a big increase in the PSone era). Yet games were still looked down upon by some people even before really violent games were introduced.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

God of War gore is fine with me. It fits the story and the mythology its coming from.

 

[LQX]

But why play a obviously violent game just to get offended? Its like watching porn named gape and complaining about how extreme it was after. You know what you are in store for yet you subject yourself to it and come out offended.

And I really don't have a problem with some not liking "mature" games but what I hate is how with your judgment you try to make it seem like those of us that like them have problems.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

The whole article reads as "I'm Jeremy and I'm squeamish" Then again Bulletstorm looked to be one of the more innovative titles on the floor to me, and I'd hold the likes of Persona 3 with it's dated RPG mechanics, reuse of assets from of games and reliance on terrible dating-sim mechanics to be a shining example of a lack of creativity within the medium.

 

[Painraze]

Good but not great article.

He completely ignores the last half of Microsoft's conference, ALL of Nintendo's conference and a good portion of Sony's conference.

Nintendo is the industry leader. They have some of the biggest selling games and, by far, the most popular console... and there's barely a drop of blood to be found. Sure there are violent games and sure it looks like some of them might be taking the gore angle a bit too far for the sake of shock and sales, but to damn the entire industry by looking at a chunk of it is a bit misleading, IMO.

It's like someone listening to Eminem and Slayer and deciding to damn the entire music industry because of it.

 

[Fugu]

I think violence has spread to so many corners of gaming because it's an easy and obvious conflict to adapt into gameplay. I don't think it has nearly as much to do with male empowerment fantasies as it does to do with violence being easy to make a game out of; there are few other activities both so deeply entrenched in conflict and so simultaneously distant (in that few people who play games frequently and actively engage in huge amounts of violence) and close (in that most people who play games are aware of how prevalent a force violence is). As a footnote, I'm sure the market popularity of many games (every game?) has something to do with the desire of virtually everyone to feel like they're in control of their situation. All games (not just violent ones) give the player some control over their own destiny which is something a lot of people don't get from real life.

Playing the sociopath may give some people the willies (after all, most stereotypical ultra super evil villains/serial killers are sociopaths) but "crossing the line"? Personally, I don't think so. Look at SMB: Mario has the option to kill everything. His violence, most of the time, lacks intrinsic purpose: You usually don't have to kill to make progress and few enemies actively try to kill you (kind of like civilians) even if they may do so. But he kills them in cold blood anyway because they're in his way, and there's no mechanic -- human, gameplay, or otherwise -- of remorse when you flatten yet another goomba. The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that the line of which he speaks in his article is based off of the particular sensitivity of the viewer and not an intrinsic part of the media itself. Because of this, I don't think it's apt to criticize the video for what is a problem with the player and not the video.

On a side note, I think that his argument that this brand of sociopathic violence is becoming a bit too popular is a consequence of videogames still not being a universal form of entertainment like music or film. I don't think it will be this way forever and I don't think it's in any way a reflection of the gamer audience. If it's a fight championed in the name of battling stereotypes then it is a pointless fight.

 

[Zachack]

Even in his reply to the comments, he ignores Nintendo completely. This would be okay, but the article is "the industry , the big presentations, etc..." but he is not looking at the industry, he is looking at one part of it.

He doesn't just ignore Nintendo (who isn't exactly immune to this criticism seeing as how they started their conference with Zelda, a violent game that targets teen males, just a different segment) but he also ignores practically everything else. If you look at what was announced, most games from every company covered an entire range of audience. Ubisoft opened with Children of Eden and iirc closed with Rayman. MS may have opened with CoD (which they're kind of forced to due to the CoD audience being so huge) but they spent most of their time on having people play with happy tigers and dance like idiots. Konami... well I don't know what their focus was.

Every couple years this criticism comes up and it always rings false. Yes, there are extremely violent games. They are not remotely the majority on any platform.

 

[MMaRsu]

He doesn't just ignore Nintendo (who isn't exactly immune to this criticism seeing as how they started their conference with Zelda, a violent game that targets teen males, just a different segment) but he also ignores practically everything else. If you look at what was announced, most games from every company covered an entire range of audience. Ubisoft opened with Children of Eden and iirc closed with Rayman. MS may have opened with CoD (which they're kind of forced to due to the CoD audience being so huge) but they spent most of their time on having people play with happy tigers and dance like idiots. Konami... well I don't know what their focus was.

Every couple years this criticism comes up and it always rings false. Yes, there are extremely violent games. They are not remotely the majority on any platform.

Violent games ARE probably the majority on 360. I'd like to see someone refute that, but I'm pretty sure.

 

[Painraze]

Violent games ARE probably the majority on 360. I'd like to see someone refute that, but I'm pretty sure.

That might be true and if it is do an article on MS and 360, not the 'game industry'

 

[Arozay]

I couldn't stomach Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain when I realized that the game forces you to survive by killing innocent people who have been chained up in dungeons

Really?

 

[Zachack]

Violent games ARE probably the majority on 360. I'd like to see someone refute that, but I'm pretty sure.

That depends on how you define violent games. If you use a looser view of the definition then it's certainly true, but it's also going to pull Wii Sports in (boxing is a violent sport). If you mean roughly how Parish is using the term (including a game like Blood Omen kinda messes things up), then I'd doubt it, although I would bet that it closer to a proportional majority or whatever the term is when one group is at 35% and is the majority.

Halo is a violent game, but it's not a violent game like Duke3D or the new CoD which revel in the violence (and in completely different ways). Pikmin is a violent game, but not like, say, Myth with it's gibbs or a Total War game with its fairly huge but gore-less body count.

 

[John Rabbit]

I liked Nier's approach. It's very violent and gory, and has you playing as a character who becomes a mindess killing machine. But as the game goes on, it does quite an effective job of making you question your character's motivations and state of mind in all the killing he's doing. It made me thoroughly uncomfortable to be in his shoes, especially with how aggressive his dialogue becomes (which is not too far off from the dialogue in most shooters).

i'm currently on my ending b play through of the game and haven't touched it for several days because of the questions it's been raising about what i've been doing.

 

[cooljeanius]

My "line" seems to have been pushed back lately. I used to not want to play any First Person Shooters, then I tried Metroid Prime Trilogy and I've become a lot more accepting of them. Some things in them are still unacceptable to me though, like for example I felt squeamish when using the "Ram" special move in Red Steel 2, and when shooting saw blades at zombies with the gravity gun in Half Life 2. Still played through those parts of those games, though. While I've become more okay with violence in video games, I'd still prefer it if more non-violent games were made.

 

[Absinthe]

This just in: Jeremy Parish doesn't like FPS's or Gory Games..

Everyone who reads his articles or listens to the podcasts he's on knows this.

The truth is companies like to make money, and if you look at the software totals on 360 and PS3 violent games prove they make the most money. On 360 only 1 out of the top 10 selling games is not a violent game, on PS3 you get the same results. This is why you get the conference showings that you do, because of money. If Flower sold 14 million copies since release then you would see Flower 2 be the number one game featured in a conference.

We live in a violent society, and gaming is mainly dominated by 18-34 year old males. I bought Flower and loved that game, but I also bought MW2, BC2, and RDR, and loved those games also. We have more indie, experimental games now then we ever have, and the games industry is getting more varied.

 

[richiek]

I agree with Parrish's article. I'm pretty much turned off by the majority of the games released today, which are squarely focused on the SpikeTV "dudebro" audience.

Even though it's satirical, this article from Cracked is spot on:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html

 

[Night_Trekker]

Drakengard 1 did this as well, IIRC. A bad game in many aspects, but it admitted from the start that any person who would so willfully slaughter hundreds and thousands of people without remorse is obviously mentally ill. It called out its own hero on his bloodlust constantly.

Agreed. Despite its flaws, I am a big fan of Drakengard.

 

[thefil]

I think violence in video games is much less a product of consumer demands or developer interest and much more a byproduct of the medium itself. Experimentation and creativity are hard, and providing some violence mechanic (whether the enemies in Mario or the horrific stuff in God of War III) is a very natural way to provide an interesting or complex interactive experience. Mirror's Edge is a prime example; when the developers decided platforming was not enough to provide a rounded-out game (rightfully or not) they added gunplay because it is a natural way to instill a sense of urgency and give the player goals.

As a result of this, the medium reflects the emphasis on combat. We probably get more ultraviolent games because hey, when almost every game is violent in some way, to actually leverage that as a storytelling or experience tool means the developer has to go even further (the shock value of GoW or CoD).

 

[Opiate]

Just want to establish this: virtually no popular music deals with gratuitously violent themes at all. Popular fiction tends not to be gratuitously violent. Rated R movies do vastly less well than movies rated PG13 and below. Sculpture rarely depicts gratuitous violence; painting does, but far less often than games; architecture almost by definition cannot depict violence.

Now, none of these are absolutes: of course there are popuar songs which suggest extreme violence. They are just far more rare and, more generally, such songs tend to appeal to a niche audience. Of course there are violent sculptures. Of course.

This is a difference of degree, not kind, and on such a measurement system, popular video games are orders of magnitude more violent than virtually any other medium. Although, as others have mentioned, this is less true on iPhone/iPod/DS/Wii.

Which hints at the problem, here: this is a problem endemic to "core" gamers on PC/360/PS3. Instead of violence being on the periphery -- as it is for the other mediums listed above -- it is at the "core," or center, of video games.

 

[Saty]

Then stop playing 'Action' games or ones that are in the 'Shooter' genres. Violence and gore comes with the territory.
I was left unconvinced by the 'motivation' aregument. You can easily shoehorn some basic plot that will make the killing 'justified' - will that really make it better?

There are many genres and games that don't involve violence at all or not on the same degree as the 'mainstream' ones. It's just the nature of the beast for the major games and publishers of following others.

I also don't think the shift in the 'balance' is something new. I mean, the GTA series is one of the most successful in history and it was also thought of being consumed by a larger and wider public. These games put you in the shoes of morally bad\shady characters where you can go on and kill innocent people just because you feel like it.

 

[alr1ght]

Just want to establish this: virtually no popular music deals with gratuitously violent themes at all.

The top selling artist of the last decade, Eminem, has sold 30+ million.

 

[Zachack]

Rated R movies do vastly less well than movies rated PG13 and below.

I hate to nitpick but this is heavily diluted due to movies that probably should be rated R being given a PG13 rating. Transformers 2, a movie where plenty of people are killed and maimed, was PG13. The A-Team is a PG13 movie. You can couch this with the use of "gratuitousness" but that damages your following comments, since while the HD consoles certainly have more gratuitous-violence games, I don't believe they don't make up the majority of titles, even for the "core".

For a setpoint, I would argue that Halo is not gratuitous. It is closer to A-Team in violence. And the #1 iPhone game is designed around killing and destruction.

 

[charlequin]

Just want to establish this: virtually no popular music deals with gratuitously violent themes at all.

I think you're forgetting the huge uproar over gangsta rap in this example, but yes. :lol

Which hints at the problem, here: this is a problem endemic to "core" gamers on PC/360/PS3. Instead of violence being on the periphery -- as it is for the other mediums listed above -- it is at the "core," or center, of video games.

It seems to me that much like, say, film, violence in video games is present in a way quite closely correlated with genre -- there's gratuitous and excessive violence in R-rated action movies and equivalent M-rated games (as well as more abstracted violence in the PG-13/T equivalents), nonlethal "cartoon" violence in cartoons/mascot platformers, glamorized or "gritty" violence in war movies/games, simulated "violence" in martial arts movies/games, but very little violence in games or movies about sports competition, romance, abstract or esoteric subjects, etc.

The oddly central prevalence of genres whose filmic equivalents make up a much smaller portion of that medium strikes me as just being a demographic issue: gaming is much too excessively aimed specifically at 18-35 males.

 

[FoneBone]

The top selling artist of the last decade, Eminem, has sold 30+ million.

Yeah, I think that was an exaggeration. Nonetheless, gory content doesn't dominate the entire medium the way it does video games.

 

[D2M15]

Gaming is much too excessively aimed specifically at 18-35 males.

Then our plan of action is clear: prevent 18-35 males from having a disposable income.

 

[richiek]

Popular fiction tends not to be gratuitously violent.

How about Stephen King? Or any "true crime" books? Heck, even one of the Twilight books contains a extremely graphic scene that's consider to be unfilmable.

 

[charlequin]

How about Stephen King? Or any "true crime" books? Heck, even one of the Twilight books contains a extremely graphic scene that's consider to be unfilmable.

If you look at bestselling fiction lists, thrillers are well outnumbered overall by contemporary literary fiction that addresses thematic issues, romances, and other genres of fiction that tend to be largely lacking in interpersonal violence. The proportion is very different from video games.

 

[conman]

Mostly true, but then you see an exception to the rule (and major hit) like Red Dead Redemption.

I'm amazed at how little of the game is spent shooting dudes. And all the emergent random events force you to think about whether to shoot or not. In any other game, if you saw a group of people shooting at an unarmed person, you'd go in guns blazing to save the day. But in RDR, that's not always the best idea.

I mean, unlike most other games, the protagonist is fully aware of his limitations. He can't just walk in and take down the entire corrupt Mexican or American armies. But, yes, Parish is right. In most other action games, the solution is to just keep shooting, and eventually all obstacles will magically work themselves out.