[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Fair comment. There is a distinction between saying these are violent games and saying they are the most violent. Realistically I think that compiling a genuine list of the most violent games would be next to impossible because of the sheer volume of games coming out. No-one has time to play all of them long enough to get a valid comparison. The problem is with the "Worst" part of the title but you can't deny all of the games listed are pretty violent.

But it's the "worst" part that's important here. We all know these are violent games. We don't need a group to tell us what we can read from the boxes - thanks to the rating system, these games are clearly marked as being violent (unless we're talking about Gunslinger Girls, in which case we'd probably have to know japanese to understand what the box says). Nobody needs a list of ten random violent games (out of x amount of violent games released this year).

So it's pretty impossible to get away from the fact that these are supposed to be the games that the group(s) behind this list think are the worst violent games around right now. And then, it all falls apart as while some of these games clearly are some of the most violent games released lately, there are other well-known games that are far more violent than certain other games on the list (Painkiller is quite a bit worse than Halo 2, for instance). And one game isn't available in the west. And one isn't available anywhere, because it hasn't even been released.

I still see this as a simple transcription error. If they'd called the title by a completely inaccurate name, say "Mortal Combat : Conception" then that might be different. But there are many tests that show the brain will sometimes interpret what it expects to see rather than what's there. Non-gamers just expect the word to be Combat not Kombat After all, the minimal research to flag the game as "potentially violent" would generate the correct title so it's hardly a question of lacking major research.

If it had been the only problem in the lists, then I would have agreed with you. But it isn't, it's just one of many things that doesn't make sense - and the reason there are so many flaws with the list is that the people who made it haven't played the games and don't know what they're talking about.

Again, this is the problem of the "Worst" part of the title. If you were to put together a list of forum members at random then you'd have no knowledge to base your dishonesty accusation on. The games listed may not be the "worst" but I don't think we can deny that they are violent. They are therefore accurately accusing the games of being violent but are on dodgy ground saying they are more violent than anything else available.

Yep. But how difficult was it for them to tell that these games are violent? Did their research consist of looking at the boxes? (Weirdo 1: "Hmm, this is rated mature for violence, and there's a picture of a gun on the box, so it had better go in our list" Weirdo 2: "Yeah, and let's add that GTA game everyone are talking about, it _must_ be pretty violent!" Weirdo 1: "I can't believe this job would turn out to be so easy, look at this Postal thing, they even brag about the violence on the box!" Weirdo 2: "That's it, ten titles! Woohoo, all done!").