Nearly the entire industry toned down the violence because of the Comics Code.

What Comics Code? Does this even affect Lobo?

Regarding "Batman kills":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiz6Oq2nd0

yeah the code came later after after the wrtham hearings
but before that batman was blood thristy but i think they toned his bloodlust down in the 40's already

I'm talking about this.

"At the height of its influence, it was a de facto censor for the U.S. comic book industry."
I keep hearing that Batman used to kill people and stuff but in the couple of really old issues I've read or at least read about he was just as innocent as during that whole Comics Code reign.

it depends on how far you go back
in detective 27 30 and 38 batman and robin kill

batman has shot and hung a few criminals

but those are actually old issues
in dc 38 its pretty much said outright that they kill
http://atopthefourthwall.com/detective-comics-38/

( the narration says that robin kicks somebody in space duringa fight on a building site )
nor do they bother to save somebody

Yeah, I noticed. As I recall he was not at all murderous in DC #27, though (his first appearance).
Edit: Hm, you mentioned that he did kill in #27. I'm confused now.

oh god cracked
get me away from cracked.com !
that site is like a magnet tar pit trap

and im not sure if he does kill in dc 27 im kinda operating on memory i do recall he shot somebody in his purple glove phase so it could have been 30

I'm definitely not a doctor, but I don't know that unconsciousness per se is damaging (After all, getting knocked out is a protective response by the body, isn't it?). Perhaps prolonged unconsciousness is dangerous for some injuries? Doctors always tell the friends/family of people with concussions to wake the victim frequently.

No one is doing that favor for the guys that Batman knocks out, some of whom must be concussed by the time Batman gets done with them.
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be morally correct to show more graphic violence in video games. After all, violence has real mental and physical consequences. Perhaps it is better to show those consequences as opposed to judging a game to be less disturbing or more youth/family friendly if, like the Batman series, the game pretends that violence is so easily controlled that it will result in only intended (bloodless) consequences.

Yeah, noticeable invisible walls are a sure sign of piss-poor level design.

Then again, so can visible walls be. One thing that annoys me greatly in some modern FPS games is the way some normally multi-pathed settings (a city, an office building, etc.) just happen to have all but one street/doorway conveniently blocked off so that there is precisely one way through.

I think Extra Credits did a bit on that somewhere. It is a little fucked up that games, especially those that try to tone down the nastier parts of violence to get a lower ESRB rating to boost sales, wind up portraying all the aspects of violence that make it 'fun' (for lack of a better term), but often shy away from depicting the consequences of that violence, or at least depicting them in a manner so hyperstylized that it might as well be a cartoon. After all, the rather horrific consequences of violence are why we generally find violence so distasteful, thus why we try to avoid it.

In the world of GTA, the statute of limitations is only eight hours. If they don't catch you by then, they cannot initiate legal proceedings.

A quick YouTube search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw

Seems to be significantly less loud, although the silencer is pretty much the length of the gun.

Out of sight, out of mind.

There's generally two things that irk me:

in Second World War shooters: the lack of realism, if weapons/vehicles are used in a theatre of war in-game, that weren't available in that particular theatre in real history. Things like the abundance of Shermans in Battlefield 1942, even in early actions when the Sherman wasn't yet developped (the earliest battles in the African campaign) or where it was not used (like in the Pacific, the Japanese didn't have good armour, so Sherman's where shipped to Europe where as in the Pacific older types like the Grant or lighter variants like the M3 where used). Or German weapons used by the Japanese: how the hell would Germany be able to ship such an amount of weapons to Japan?

In RPG's, every RPG really: none of the RPG worlds I know would be feasible from a food-chain perspective: you hardly ever come across fields where food-plants are grown, so there's never enough food to feed all the NPC's hanging around let alone all those monsters that prey on ordinary humans: a functioning economy would be impossible and with so many monsters roaming the land, a real country would collapse and the population die of starvation in a matter of months, while most RPG-civilizations have histories going back hundreds or thousands of years, even though the land is hardly tilted and infected with swarms of monsters as well.