"Do We Really Need Violent Video Games??"

Now this is a question that really does need answering. Over the years and years that video gaming has been around it has seen its fair share of "violent games" and a lot of resistance towards these types of games. So what is a violent game? Well in this investigation violent games are games that involve shooting of some kind (e.g. Goldeneye 007), fighting (e.g. Soul Calibur), and other games like for example the Grand Theft Auto series.

Shoot-Em-Ups

So to begin, I shall examine shoot-em-ups. There have been countless complaints over the many years of game consoles creating games that involve shooting and killing the people within the game. Games like the Metal Gear series, James Bond, and Timesplitters just to name a few of the many, have indeed given enjoyment to most who have played them, but the problem is the majority of those playing these game are still quite young and mostly in their teens. Clearly adults complain, though who I may add they do show valid and reasonable views within the complaints they make. These complaints normally involve the view that as the children are enjoying these games there's the possibility of them copying the actual gameplay and go out waving a gun at everyone. However, the age-old argument comes into play: it's mostly the adults who buy these games for their children, and they're the ones who end up complaining. The question 'why did they buy the game in the first place?' comes into view. This argument has gone on for a long time and to be honest I doubt there'll ever be any resolution on the matter. I'm not going to go any further into this adult complaining matter as it's just too difficult to argue and it's not my place in these investigations to argue with it.

So is there any way of combating the excessive amount of violence in shoot-em-ups? I don't think so. If all shooting games had to follow a certain set of rules, the games would get boring and have a great lack of variety. For example, all shooting games had to use fantasy creatures and only eggs were allowed to shot from the gun, it would not appeal to a great audience nor would it ever be a great game.

Beat-Em-Ups

Now I shall move on to beat-em-ups. It's interesting really, beat-em-ups come in many different forms. There's the hard core fighting games which use actual humans or comic/fantasy characters, wrestling games, boxing games and the more fun for younger audiences games (e.g. Super Smash Bros.). Each type follows its own rules, the hard core games, for example Soul Calibur 2 or Mortal Kombat, can sometimes involve gallons of blood flowing out of the characters that are getting beaten to a pulp or even see a character having his skeleton remove from his/her body. I really want to know is it necessary? In my opinion I believe that it is a bit excessive for the most part and does really show rather disgusting taste in its nature. I don't think it should stop, however. Beat-em-ups like that shouldn't really be taken that seriously. The use of the fantasy characters proves this and I'm sure the developers are using these extra touches to their games for a unique style. People buy these games and indeed I would agree that they are fun, but people should be wary about the age restrictions with the games, and of course some of the content in the games are too frightening and disgusting for younger gamers.

Now there's not a lot I can say about both Wrestling and Boxing games, they are based on the actual sports, so really there's no need to touch upon these.

However, there is something that does need to be examined and that's the fighting games that are aimed at children and young teenagers. I've already mentioned that Super Smash Bros. (Melee) is one of them. They surely do differ from the hard core games, there's normally no blood, no disgusting "extra" super moves which sees a character being ripped to shreds and normally there's no swearing. However, there's a question that hangs in the air. Even though the games are aimed at a younger audience, are the games companies trying to promote violence as being fun? Well in the short run I believe that developers aren't doing it intentionally as the beat-em-ups are just another genre and a younger audience is there and they need to be reached as well. Yet again another difficult argument is brought up, one that would take a long time to resolve: maybe it's a good thing and maybe it's a bad thing. I'm undecided about fighting games, I personally do enjoy them, but should it be aimed at a younger audience? It's really for you to decide.

Grand Theft Auto Series

Now moving on, it's time to view the worst offender of them all: the Grand Theft Auto series. Known to people as being the most violent game and sets no example for people whatsoever except for thieves. It's received hundreds of complaints from parents across the world and I can understand why too. The first two games for the PS1 weren't so bad, as they were a top down view so there wasn't much detail. But when the transition to 3D came in GTA 3, that's where everything got a whole lot worse. For the first time ever you could roam a huge 3D environment, stealing whatever car suits you, killing people by shooting them or running them over, and doing whatever you want to the police. It wasn't just those points that made both games (GTA3 and Vice City) bad; the storylines didn't help much either: prostitutes, hit-man type jobs, dealing in drugs and whole lot of other stuff made them the most complained about games ever. Both games have sold incredibly well, but they don't stand high on morals (especially violence). The amount of blood in the game is crazy. The many ways of killing is something that drew people in, and of course this made people (especially parents) mad with anger. Should a game like this be released? You can go around with a chainsaw and chop people's heads off and at the same time the blood splatters onto the screen. GTA is indeed a popular game, but parents are worried that if children play a game like this they'll be compelled to try it out in real life and for the most this is what their complaints are based upon. Of course the ago old argument is again back, why did they buy it for their child?

It's interesting really because the games are rated 18 (in UK) and M (in US), so only 18 year olds could have bought the games, thus meaning that the majority of the sales were from adults. The games are clearly marked with these age restrictions, it should have been a case of the parents looking more closer into the details of the games.

Like I said they aren't high on morals, stealing cars for example isn't normally a good way to go around places as the police normally chase after you and catch you. What people should realize is that the age restrictions are there so they aren't designed for children. It's fun for adults and that's who the developers are aiming for. Adults are less likely to be influenced by the game than children are.

Of course going back to the argument, do we really need violent video games? Well yes I believe we do, it's another form of fun, but it's really fun that's aimed at higher audiences. However people don't realize this and still go ahead and buy the game(s) for their child. It's more of a case of people actually checking up how violent the games and if they're suitable for children.