 |
| SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (2000) - CONTEXT SENSITIVE VIOLENCE |
Soldier of Fortune, originally released in 2000 on PC, is a first person shooter that pushes mutilation and context sensitive damage as a USP using the "GHOUL Damage Model engine developed by Raven Software" that "enabled the depiction of extreme graphic violence" - the developers and publishers of Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2. Although praised for it's character and entertaining game play and damage mechanics, in 2000 after it's release, the controversy began - Soldier of Fortune was rated specifically an "Adult Motion Picture", in other words, it was labelled as "Pornography".
It sounds crazy, but the level of detail the engine facilitated was unheard of before this release. Players could take a knife, and literally cut away into the corpses, revealing more and more organs. This completely optionally mechanic served no real purpose, arming players with a knife for the sole purpose of causing bodily mutilation This extreme take on violence, although entertaining on the most part, was clearly controversial, but it's important to note that it is completely optional. Players could turn the violence off, revealing the solid first person game play experience that it was praised for.
In a sense, Soldier of Fortune is a coin of two sides. One one side, you have a violent game that really has no need for it, where as on the other side, you have a great first person shooter with a solid story, that has no violence or at least optional. So it seems violence isn't 'always' a terrible thing, but became of this games positives, it highlights the issues of violence in video games with a a bright light - mindless violence is what causes the controversy, not violence itself. Maybe it gives off a bad message? That's not to say it makes people commit murder.
Personally, I played the game and loved it when it was released, but I was shocked by the violence and have never looked at games the same way again. In fact, when I first played it, I was disturbed when I first shot an enemy with a shotgun and saw the limbs detach, revealing bones and organs. Yes, it gave the game it's character, and yes, I will always remember it for the violence, but I don't believe the violence was used in a despicable manner like Carmageddon or Manhunt did. It's all about how you use it in a stern modern society. Again, it is society that is the factor, after all, it is just a game, one of which was rated for adults, not children - parents chose to buy it for them.
This game isn't the most well known violent game in the short history of video games, but to me, it's been the most important as of yet, as it's positives highlight the negatives and causes for controversy for not just this game, but for all the previous games I have researched. I guess this is the research almost done when you consider the work Andrew has done. We have highlighted a pattern, researched the deeper factors behind it, and pinpointed the causes. Now all that is left, is to solidify these conclusions and complete the timeline and presentation to exhibit our findings.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CHILLER OF THE ARCADE (1986)
It sounds crazy, but the level of detail the engine facilitated was unheard of before this release. Players could take a knife, and literally cut away into the corpses, revealing more and more organs. This completely optionally mechanic served no real purpose, arming players with a knife for the sole purpose of causing bodily mutilation This extreme take on violence, although entertaining on the most part, was clearly controversial, but it's important to note that it is completely optional. Players could turn the violence off, revealing the solid first person game play experience that it was praised for.
In a sense, Soldier of Fortune is a coin of two sides. One one side, you have a violent game that really has no need for it, where as on the other side, you have a great first person shooter with a solid story, that has no violence or at least optional. So it seems violence isn't 'always' a terrible thing, but became of this games positives, it highlights the issues of violence in video games with a a bright light - mindless violence is what causes the controversy, not violence itself. Maybe it gives off a bad message? That's not to say it makes people commit murder.
Personally, I played the game and loved it when it was released, but I was shocked by the violence and have never looked at games the same way again. In fact, when I first played it, I was disturbed when I first shot an enemy with a shotgun and saw the limbs detach, revealing bones and organs. Yes, it gave the game it's character, and yes, I will always remember it for the violence, but I don't believe the violence was used in a despicable manner like Carmageddon or Manhunt did. It's all about how you use it in a stern modern society. Again, it is society that is the factor, after all, it is just a game, one of which was rated for adults, not children - parents chose to buy it for them.
This game isn't the most well known violent game in the short history of video games, but to me, it's been the most important as of yet, as it's positives highlight the negatives and causes for controversy for not just this game, but for all the previous games I have researched. I guess this is the research almost done when you consider the work Andrew has done. We have highlighted a pattern, researched the deeper factors behind it, and pinpointed the causes. Now all that is left, is to solidify these conclusions and complete the timeline and presentation to exhibit our findings.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CHILLER OF THE ARCADE (1986)
No comments:
Post a Comment