GRcade

If games didn't depict graphic violence then I would have nothing to wank to.

Dig Dug wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:Yeah film and TV are just as much violence driven, it's not a feature unique to videogames at all.

I think you miss the point. There are a lot of violent films and TV shows but they aren't solely pushed front and centre as the mediums top draw like is often the case with video games where the likes of Sony and Microsoft will, KK said, empathise violence (and other power fantasies such as fast cards) in selling their games to the audience at shows like E3. People could throw the argument that Nintendo put out AAA titles that aren't that but Nintendo have shown time and time against to be the exception, not the rule.

That there are good, alternative, non-violent games out there is irrelevant to the issue, the issue is that the games getting pushed the strongest are violent, sometimes excessively so. It is an industry with the reputation of being obsessed with violence on a level that the other two industries are not.

What about FIFA, Forza or Gran Turismo? Sports and racing games are some of the biggest AAA games out there.

The mobile sphere is also a massive part of gaming, and that's dominated with adverts for games like Candy Crush.

Violent games are far from exclusively being what are pushed to consumers as the biggest and best the medium has to offer. Of course many of the biggest games do contain violence, but the same can be said for film.

I have racing games right there if you read again. Fast cars, much like the games where you control a character who resolves their conflicts with force and violence, is an aspirational power fantasy, it's not exclusive to gaming but it is a power fantasy found in all AAA visual media such as film, television, and music videos. Aspiration and power fantasies are often found in AAA media because it is an easy sell to large audiences.

Football is the biggest growing sport on the planet, it's as mainstream as a sport can be. Just because these examples exist in the triple A doesn't mean it is no longer true that the triple A games industry (whether they mean to or not) comes off as violence obsessed to many.
Candy Crush, Angry Birds and Minecraft are incredibly successful IP's but they do not represent the AAA industry, King are not spending $100m making a candy crush sequel. They have been pushing the game heavily for years but it is not the game that is being put on the stage of the years biggest industry show and pushed to people as the "future" of the medium. These games have mainstream popularity that was gained over time, through word of mouth and positive user feedback, they were not designed from the ground up as big budget, tech boundary pushing, AAA blockbuster media. If anything they were designed as toys, play things, something you can pick up and fiddle with. That's a very different thing to what the likes of Spector are referring to.

You think I am saying violent games are the only thing being put out in the medium. I clearly am not, I am saying the industry pushes them hard enough that video games as a medium has gained a reputation for being violence obsessed.
Also please drop this false equivalence with film, action blockbuster films often do contain violence but the issue isn't whether films contain violence (although while we are here the argument could be made about comparisons between the degree of violence in films compared to games), the issue is that the video game industry has gained a reputation for pushing violent games hardest as their big budget blockbuster projects.
Film does not have this reputation, their AAA has a very different reputation to that of video games, it is a blockbuster landscape where films like Bond, Marvel, Transformers and Star Wars co-exist as equals with family films like the Disney and Dreamworks output, and fantasy films like Harry potter and the Lord of the Rings adaptations, all of these are what the AAA of film has a reputation for being. They are huge franchises that reach across to an incredibly wide scope of demographics and groups, there is a blockbuster out there for almost any group, this is one the reasons why film has it so easy in comparison to games. It is seen as being willing push to more than the the young-male demographic.

You can argue against this all you want but the evidence is there. As a young, growing medium video games are eager to gain popularity and recognition and be taken seriously as an "art". The problem is they are trying to have it both ways, you can't get people to take the medium seriously while they continue to push some of the games they do as their "best the medium has to offer", they are trying to expand the market by throwing money at the problem. Games that empower the user through violence are popular for a reason, but throwing money at these projects and making the games bigger isn't going to expand the market the way they want it to and it certainly isn't going to change the minds of people who still believe that video games are a childish medium and a waste of time.

This is why losing Nintendo would be one of the most damaging things that could ever happen to the industry, they represent what the industry needs more of to actually expand to people who have a distaste for what the western medium is trying to push as the next step in the mediums progression. Nintendo games sit in a niche of being both AAA and alternative games, Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey are by no means made on the cheap, Nintendo didn't throw money at their games to make them bigger for the sake of trying to impress people, the cost on Nintendo games like Mario & BotW is high because that is what it cost Nintendo to make games that do the concepts justice. To me personally, this is how publishers should be using money when funding games. Putting large sums of money behind a franchise for the sake of a potentially larger return on investment is what is fuelling this issue and it is harmful to both the industry and the medium.

Mainstream blockbuster video games are being ran as a business first and it is only hurting the industry in the long run. We've already seen what a purely business motivated attitude has done in Japan with studios like Capcom becoming a ghost of their former selves. It is my honest view that this is where a lot of the problems come from, the popularity and dominance of the first person shooter in the early 2000's has grown the medium exponentially in revenue while doing nothing to help the issue of fixing the mediums bad reputation. Video games have "Grown Up" but continue to be juvenile despite that and I think that is a great shame.

If Trump thinks violent video games encourages violence, there could be an argument to say the same thing about different forms of media like Film, TV and to an extent music lyrics, but you never hear politicians moan about them.

imbusydoctorwho wrote:If Trump thinks violent video games encourages violence, there could be an argument to say the same thing about different forms of media like Film, TV and to an extent music lyrics, but you never hear politicians moan about them.

It's pretty nakedly an attempt to deflect from the actual issue (gun control) while also appeasing a sizeable segment of right wingers, I seriously doubt he believes it or has a cogent argument in place or has a cogent coherent argument for any topic in general really

I agree that videogames have a reputation as a violent medium.

I agree that film does not have the same reputation.

I agree that there are many examples of violent games at the forefront of the medium.

I do not agree that the difference in reputation accurately reflects the actual difference between the mediums.

If someone is strongly against videogames because of violent content, but fine with films, I think they are either overreacting to videogame violence or underreacting to film violence.

If there is a problem with videogames as a young medium I don't think its in the variety of experiences it offers, I think it's in how the diversity isn't respected in the marketing and media, as evidenced most strongly with E3 presentations that jump about dramatically in tone and target audience.

Dig Dug wrote:I have racing games right there if you read again.

Dig Dug wrote:(and other power fantasies such as fast cards)

I thought you were talking about Hearthstone sorry

Personally I don't see what's wrong with power fantasies, most people in life are powerless most of the time so to be in power in a game for a bit is probably a relief... Anyone of sound state of mind will know the very real difference between reality and fantasy... Yes incredibly violent games may be made and may even have more spent on them but we all know most of these ban games nutters try to push that all games are sick filth and will ignore Mario etc even if it outsold every gun game but togther because it doesn't fit with there ideology.... They haven't looked at what's really on offer they've decided what they think and then looked for evidence to prove there own convictions.

You could easily make films or books or music look as bad