How violent do you like your games?

[Tonberry]

Violence! Death! Murder! Gibs galore!

Violence in interactive media has historically been a controversial topic (mostly to those who don’t partake in the hobby), but this thread isn’t about that particular discussion, but rather just an old wizard asking out of curiosity what your preferred degree of vidya violence is, if any.

Naturally this will likely be on a case-by-case basis for most, but think of this poll as what your mind’s eye prefers in general. We all know Animal Crossing isn’t filled to the brim with gore, and we all know you can’t talk it out with the demon hordes in Diablo or Doom.

Interpret these different answers as you like, it’s likely slightly different for everyone, and the parentheses are just meant as general guidelines to help you choose.

 

[Boofytan]

I don't have an interest in anything too realistically gory after... certain events.

I've always preferred uncanny body horror creepiness to pure gore (something creepy like Junji Ito or the Hans Belmer inspired nurses of silent hill)

 

[RageBurner]

Hmm... violent enough. To elaborate, a fitting level/style of violence to properly fit the subject matter.

A counter example of my personal ethos for this would be those silly Sonic creepypastas.

 

[Clippy]

I don't really have a preference tbh. So long as the game is good no amount of violence will bother me and, conversely, if a game is bad no amount of violence will save it.

Sure, there are exceptions. Mortal Kombat without fatalities just wouldn't be Mortal Kombat anymore. Blood without setting cultists on fire wouldn't be the same either. Other than cases like that it doesn't really matter though.

 

[TruxtonTatsujin TruxtonTatsujin]

I don't like hyper realistic violence, but something crazy over the top like Mad World on Wii is fine with me. It's gotta be hyper stylized, I don't play games for realism.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Let's just say that Brutal Doom made up for the shortcomings of a base game I felt lacking on that regard.

 

[X y b e r - S k u ll]

I’m generally fine with any level of violence an artist or dev wants to put into their work, what matters to me is (As weird as this’ll sound to say) the ‘tastefulness’ of it.

I’ll give an example with 2 (sort of) similar games: Resident Evil 4 and the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot. Both are quite well known for having very gory death animations, but the biggest difference is knowing how far to push it and when to stop. I distinctly remember seeing one of my cousins playing the Tomb Raider reboot and seeing some of the death animations in that game and they just go on for way too long. I remember one of Lara getting an arrow or some sort of sharp object go through her throat and blood spilling out and her writhing around, which was to be expected, but then we see her limp body twitching and rigor mortis kicking in and even back then as a teenager; I couldn’t help but think to myself that these animations could’ve been cut down by like 10 seconds before the continue screen pops up. Not surprising this was the game that spawned the term “death-porn” lol. Contrast this with RE 4, a game with equally violent animations, but they always knew when to cut them and not linger on them for too long. Feels weird saying RE 4’s chainsaw decapitation animation is more tasteful than anything in 2013 Tomb Raider, but it’s true! lol.

 

[Tonberry]

I’m generally fine with any level of violence an artist or dev wants to put into their work, what matters to me is (As weird as this’ll sound to say) the ‘tastefulness’ of it.

I’ll give an example with 2 (sort of) similar games: Resident Evil 4 and the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot. Both are quite well known for having very gory death animations, but the biggest difference is knowing how far to push it and when to stop. I distinctly remember seeing one of my cousins playing the Tomb Raider reboot and seeing some of the death animations in that game and they just go on for way too long. I remember one of Lara getting an arrow or some sort of sharp object go through her throat and blood spilling out and her writhing around, which was to be expected, but then we see her limp body twitching and rigor mortis kicking in and even back then as a teenager; I couldn’t help but think to myself that these animations could’ve been cut down by like 10 seconds before the continue screen pops up. Not surprising this was the game that spawned the term “death-porn” lol. Contrast this with RE 4, a game with equally violent animations, but they always knew when to cut them and not linger on them for too long. Feels weird saying RE 4’s chainsaw decapitation animation is more tasteful than anything in 2013 Tomb Raider, but it’s true! lol.

Excellent example, and I agree 100% with the Tomb Raider thing.
Being beheaded by a chainsaw in RE4 probably induced some kind of trauma in little old me, but it was a shock kill and didn’t linger too much.
The nu-Tomb Raider death animations made me extremely uncomfortable and nauseous because they felt gratuitous. I remember reading that the devs wanted it to feel scary and real, but it kind of almost feels fetishized the way they linger and I feel like they totally missed the mark. Where old Lara could snap her neck from a fall or get eaten by a T-Rex they always felt outrageous or cartoony, whereas the new ones just felt sadistic.

 

[Holic]

Usually i dont have a problem with gore on the level of resident evil in exploding heads and things like that, but something that i find really dumb is the goreporn that newer mortal kombat games decides to go.

 

[iamthemilkman]

I remember my friend and I finding out that we could have sex with a hooker, beat her to death with a baseball bat, and get our money back in GTA III.

Strangely enough, we both turned out relatively normal.

 

[Scotty Scotty]

I usually don't have an issue with violence in games. All that matters to me is whether or not the gameplay is fun and engaging.

 

[JustCallMeConstantin]

You call this violence, huh Don't make me laugh.

This is the true violence right there.