You usually dislike "brutality"? I'm interested... what exactly do you consider brutal?

Thanks!

I find the site a little bit confusing. You don't need to install a client to download their games, right?

ED: Nevermind. I just saw that in each game's page they list the kind of DRM used. That's very cool.

Umm. That is a deceptively simple question about something that I might not fully understand myself. But since you decided to open this box, you'll now have to endure another one of my lengthy analyses. You brought that upon yourself. ;)

First, let me try to clarify what exactly it is that I dislike. I think the most precise definition I can offer is: "Things that promote violence as a solution for real problems." The closer an entertainment product gets to this, the more likely it is to evoke a negative reaction from me.

(As a bit of background information: I have always, for as long as I remember, seen violence as an inferior and often counterproductive way of dealing with problems. When most of my classmates were raving about movies like "Rambo" and "Terminator", they left me extremely bored, slightly disgusted, and probably a bit indignant. When I was 14, my hero was neither Stallone nor Schwarzenegger, but Gandhi. When I was 18, I rejected the mandatory military service - which at this time required a lot of paperwork - because I wouldn't, under any circumstance, use a weapon against another human being. I worked as nurse in a home for critically ill elderly people instead, even though this kind of service took 6 months longer, and many of my friends couldn't understand why I preferred wiping old people's crap from the furniture to their drinking parties in the barracks. When I was 19, I traveled around half the globe and visited the Gandhi museum in Ahmadabad. My anti-violence stance probably mellowed a bit as I've grown older, but it's still pretty strong.)

Anyway. Back to brutality in entertainment.

My definition from above has four components:

1. The degree of violence in a game (or movie, or other work of entertainment). Obviously, a work without violence has little chance to be rejected by me on terms of being brutal. ;)

2. Whether violence is promoted or even glorified. I found the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" impressive (pity that the rest of the movie degraded into an extremely clichéd story) - they were extremely violent, but this was a realistic depiction of the madness of a warzone. It didn't glorify violence at all; instead, it showed the reality of war untampered by the heroic stories that so many other movies spin around it. Likewise, I did _not_ reject the long and very detailed gang rape scene in the original "I Spit On Your Grave" (1978) - imho it neither promoted nor glorified violence in any way, instead it showed the brutal reality and inhumanity of the act while the viewer's identification was clearly supposed to be with the victim. However - and that may come as a surprise now, especially in contrast to the two controversial works I just mentioned - I _do_ reject the recent "Batman" movies, because they promote violent acts of a vigilante as something that "needs to be done" to keep order. That's obviously not the only perspective under which I watch those movies (they have their good sides as well), but I am completely unable to identify with the "Batman" character because I would abhor myself if I were him.

3. How realistic the depiction of violence is. Getting back to games: Pixelated blood splats as in "Doom" or "Castle Wolfenstein" are so crude, so far from reality, that I can hardly see them as actual violence. But realistically exploding heads after a headshot, with blood spraying around in a realistic way handled by a sophisticated physics engine, is a different matter.

4. How near the setting is to reality. Take a game like Alien Shooter - technically it is ultra violent, your character is basically wading through a never ending river of blood and alien body parts. However, the setting is so far removed from reality, and the action in this game is so over the top, that it becomes a hilariously gross experience. I liked it for that. On the other hand, take GTA 4: Set in a realistic "New York crime" scenario, the game has you murder and execute other people. There is a scene where you hold a gun to a disarmed person's head, pull the trigger in cold blood, and are "rewarded" with a cut scene in which you see the blood spray. I absolutely detested it. I regard GTA4 as one of the most abominable games I've ever played, for a number of reasons (see my review on GamersGate for details, though I've restrained myself there :) ). It promotes and glorifies violence as a solution to problems in a realistic setting, and depicts those acts with barely veiled glee.

So, as you can see, it's a complicated matter. I'm not sure if it comes across as strange to like "Alien Shooter", have no problem with "Doom", but dislike GTA4 and Batman, on terms of how they handle violence. But I hope I've made myself clear enough. Feel free to ask for further clarification (or raise your own points), I'm enjoying the conversation and I'm interested in your feedback and your perspective. :)

I don't necessarily agree completely (I believe there are cases where a certain degree of violence is not just justifiable, but morally mandated). But I think yours is a viewpoint that will only do good in the world, and I applaud you for it. And I too believe that nonviolence is always the preferable approach, where it's ever a feasible option. That extends to "emotional violence" as well (which is why I usually try to be nice to people. And even when I fail at that, I try not to personally attack anyone--just what they say. Ehh, I'm not always successful. I get grumpy easily :P).

As far as games go... well, as an FPS fan, I naturally encounter a lot of violence. And there are some cases where it bothers me (Postal 2 did at some points, and Bulletstorm as well). Mostly, though, I find it so detached from reality that I'm not bothered by it, even with realistic visuals. There's just rarely any sense of weight to it. I never feel like I'm actually harming anyone. And I admit that there's a visceral enjoyment to mowing down hordes of enemies in something like Painkiller and seeing the gory results. But I really do understand where you're coming from. I know that any time a game makes its enemies seem really alive, I start feeling less good about my violent actions. I've never played GTA IV, but I could understand why that scene would be disgusting to you. It sounds like it would be disgusting to me also. And there are certain kinds of violence I have a very hard time watching. Anything related to torture, for instance.

In movies, I usually don't notice when violence is being glorified (I think it's perfectly fine, even beautiful, in something like the Lord of the Rings movies for instance). Sometimes I do, but ignore it (I know Kill Bill, Wanted, and The Expendables are all built around that, but I enjoy them regardless). Sometimes it really does bother me (I found Reservoir Dogs to be quite disturbingly inhumane, and although I think it was a very good film I don't think I'll ever see it again for that reason. Same goes for Inglorious Bastards and to an extent Pulp Fiction). So again, I understand where you're coming from. I think you're just a little more attuned to it than I am. Which is actually really surprising to me, because for much of my life I've been "that oversensitive guy."

As I'm writing this, I keep thinking of both Fargo and No Country for Old Men. I think both are examples of films that do a fantastic job of making violence seem really undesirable. Well, naturally. The Coens are completely awesome. Ever seen either of them?

Anyway, that's a bit off subject. Really interesting thoughts you have there. And I'm surprised to run into someone on the internet who feels that way, which is why I asked about it in the first place :3.

Each game has its own downloader, so that each time you want to reinstall, you have to login. However there is a way to circumvent it. PM me if you're interested to know how.

I haven't played it either, but i heard that the PS3 version which is called Alone in the Dark Infeno is the definitive game. It's not just a port, it fixed everything wrong with that game based on fan feedback and made it decent.
I think Necrovision is quite a good game. If you enjoyed Painkiller, i think you'll enjoy Necrovision. At such a small price there's no reason not to get it.
I thought Off the Recod was a some kind of stand-alone expansion, not the improved game itself.

Off The Record is a standalone game, pretty much DR2 with Frank West (which is in my opinion more fun than Chuck Greene), a nice photography gimmick, and most importantly, a sandbox mode unlocked from the start.
It is not really an expansion, but a different version of the game. It changes dialog as well, and apparently the origin of the outbreak. Instead of getting zombrex for the character's daughter, you need to get the drug for frank himself, so that's still there.

Still, would rather have OTR

Well, as I said, my stance has mellowed over the years. :) If I'd get into a situation where the only way to save human lives was to commit a violent action, then I'd do it (now). I've come to accept that there are situations where there simply isn't any good way out, and where doing a morally questionable action is still better than just standing there idly. I'd refuse to be called a hero if I had blood on my hands though.

The game tries to justify it by painting the victim as a cruel, obnoxious criminal who likes to threaten and bully the main character's cousin. The main character, in a conversation with his cousin, justifies the murder by saying "This is the only way to stop the threats, he will never stop them as long as he's alive." But that's exactly the point where I'm saying "No. There _must_ be a better solution than a cold-blooded execution of a man who's already lost the fight." But the game doesn't give me that option, it insists on having me execute a man I just disarmed.

Yep, same here.

I don't see "Lord of the Rings" as glorifying violence. It's set on a fantasy world where there is a clear distinction between "good" and "evil", and the only two options for the "good" side are to either allow themselves to be overrun by Sauron's hordes, or fight back.

Likewise, I don't see a game like "Doom" as glorifying violence, because it's basically a fight against hordes of demons who _will_ kill you (and the rest of humanity) if you don't kill them first.

In scenarios that are so far from reality, the tools like the "good vs evil" paradigm, or the "It's them or me" paradigm, work. However, the more realistic a scenario gets, and the more human my opponents become, the more I'm convinced that there must be better solutions than plain violence.

(I haven't watched any of the other movies you mentioned, so I can't comment on those.)


No. Should I? :)

The Internet is full of weird people. ;)

That said, I don't think my (or your) stance is that rare. Uncommon yes, and possibly nerdy, but not enough so to secure us a place in the freak show. It's perhaps it's a bit more common here in my part of the world though.

Interesting that you cite "Terminator 2" and "Batman" as examples of films you find unsettlingly violent, as I tend to hold those both up as examples of action movies that actually bother to place a value on human life and are thematically opposed to unnecessary bloodshed. Yes, there is a lot of violence and killing in both movies, but the "point" of Terminator 2 is the scene where Linda Hamilton comes within an inch of executing Dyson in order to avert the future he will cause, but stops herself when she realizes why it would still be wrong. Similarly, my favourite scene in the entire Batman trilogy was when the ship full of prisoners refuses to blow up the other ship to save themselves, thus making the case that even among criminals and low-lifes, there's still a line of fundamental human decency that separates them from a true monster like the Joker.

Now I guess you could argue that both movies (and their heroes) are still more violent than they strictly need to be, but my point is that on the whole, they're actually rare examples of action movies that speak out against violence in a more-than-superficial way. Compare and contrast with the recent Star Trek reboot, where in the final battle, Kirk makes a perfunctory offer to save the villain from his fate, and Spock questions why he would do such a thing, which prompts Kirk to offer some cynical half-apologetic explanation about how capturing them as prisoners would give some strategic advantage, or something. It's like the movie couldn't even imagine or take seriously the idea that someone might make a humanitarian gesture out of actual noble sentiments. Then the villain says something to the effect of "screw you", at which point Kirk shrugs his shoulders and straight-up murders him. Despite the fantastical setting, I found Star Trek's attitude towards violence to be abhorrent and nauseating, while I actually found a lot to like in the attitude taken by Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight.

For the record, in real life I take a similar attitude to your own, and have even stood passively while being attacked rather than throw a punch.

Batman never kills anyone.

Well, they aren't the films that I find the most violent - rather the ones where I felt the difference between the apparent 'public' opinion and my own the most. "Rambo" and "Terminator" simply happened to be the most popular action movies in my youth, and the Batman movies seem immensely popular at the moment.

Also, had I said "I regard 'August Underground' as a sickening glorification of senseless violence", then there wouldn't be any grounds for discussion, because nobody disagrees with that. It's what the movie was designed to be. Viewers typically only disagree in whether they find the violence "utterly disgusting" or "fscking badass, man". ;)

And that was exactly the scene that I had in mind when I wrote further above that these movies have their good sides too. :) It's an amazing scene imho - a build-up full of suspense that then culminates in a completely surprising solution. The director really pulled all the strings there to make us _think_ that he's heading somewhere else, and then he completely turns around right when he had me thinking that the catastrophe was unavoidable.

Also, note that the criminals not only distinguish themselves from the Joker - they (or at least one of them) also act more noble than the officers that were supposed to guard them, and more noble than the ship of law-abiding citizens, who were so full of fear that they considered a "preventive" first strike.

Brilliant scene, no doubt. However, it doesn't affect the movie's general stance towards violence (imho).

I can't really say much about the scene from Terminator (sorry), as it's been more than 20 years since I've seen the movie.

I seem to have missed that - actually, come to think of it, even though it's been just about 3 years since I watched Star Trek 11, I have no recollection of the ending at all. I think after the first 60 minutes I just blanked my mind and hoped it'd be over soon. ;)

But from your description - yes, I can see how this might be more repulsive than the violence in the Batman movies.



That, however, is a myth.

I hated Arkham city at some points when Batman was like nerd. With that Al rhaz ghul or what ever it was. =)
That animated series which has few movies is awesome. I specially like that which was "mask of phantom"

Batman started killing someone. But later the defininf characteristics became "really, really hates guns. Does not actively kill the ones he fights against"

In the movies? He kills. All the time in the Burton ones, and quite liberally after getting saved in the Nolan ones. He actively kills people at te end of Rises.

Also, killing Ra's Al Ghul does not count, that is his gimmick.

Has Batman killed any bees?