Post 9: Violent games.

Haven’t made a post in a while. I’m seriously doubting that anyone at school actually really cares about the weblogs any more, but I suppose it’s a nice distraction from doing actual schoolwork :3

On to the actual post then.

This post is about violence in video games. You probably came to that conclusion from the title. I remember when I was really young, and I got a new game system: A Gameboy Advance. That thing was awesome. I like took it everywhere with me and stuff. Anyway, I remember my parents were seriously debating over getting me a Harry Potter game because-and get this-the ESRB rating on it said “Mild Violence”. Because apparently shooting a sparkly spell at a little gnome thing weas violent. Nowadays my mom will buy me an M-Rated game with no trouble; I recall a few weeks ago she got me Killzone 2, barely batting an eye. She was kind of rolling her eyes when I got the flamethrower and started setting Helghast on fire though.

The point of this story is that it seems like videogame violence has been more and more acceptable as time goes on. One of the first really controversial games was called Death Race. Basically, the game involved running over “Gremlins” with a car. People were appalled at the violence that came with it. Except there was just one problem.

This is what Death Race looked like:

ALERT THE AUTHORITIES!

Like, the game was basically black and white vectors, and people still got pissed off.

When Mortal Kombat came out, people were apalled. No one had ever seen violence like it. This game had people freezing legs and smashing them to bits while the victim crawled on the ground, legless and screaming. Some dude ate people’s heads in that game. I believe Sonia’s fatality in that game was to, uh, reveal her womanly assets and cause the opponent’s head to explode. While no more violent than the other fatalities, it was much more obscene (Not to mention hilarious).

Good ol' Scorpion.

But seriously, the game caused the ESRB to be created. If Mortal Kombat was never created, there would be no such thing as that M in the bottom left of your game box, or that pimply dude at EB Games telling you you can’t buy MGS4 (SO BOSS) without an ID. The thing is, there are so many worse games out there now. If MK game out in these days, people would barely blink, and then slap a T rating on it.

Gears of War. Great game. Of course, the guy you control has a gun with a chainsaw attached to it. When you kill people, guts literally splatter the screen. Fun fun fun.

I honestly have absolutely no idea which game this is, but I believe they’re rating you on how much blood you’re amassing.

I could go on and on, but what I’m trying to say is that it seems like the general public has become a lot more tolerant of video game violence.

And that’s good.

Attorneys like Jack Thompson and soccer moms are ruining things. Sure games are violent, but that’s life. Ever seen the Saw series? That’s way worse than any videogame I’ve ever played. And no one’s boycotting those, or taxing those, like they’re saying they may start doing with violent games. People are still mad about violent games, though, and that needs to stop. Isn’t the ESRB enough? And stop with the double standards. Violent movies are all well and good, but once the violent games are getting churned out, suddenly everything’s different? Screw that.

Long live violence!

:3

Why do you think people are more comfortable with movie violence than video game violence? Have people become more comfortable with violence as time goes on? Why do you think that is? What’s your stance on videogame violence, and violence in the media in general?

And yes, that is an African chainsaw zombie from RE5.