Violent video games - the worst of the worst

by Alex Kidman | Thursday 10 April 2008

Five games. Five reasons why you shouldn’t let the youngsters near them.

Horror novelist Stephen King recently caused a stir when he wrote in his Entertainment Weekly column that violent videogames shouldn’t be banned – merely that parents should "have the guts" to tell their kids they wouldn’t be allowed to play them.

Video game violence is a touchy topic amongst many – but what are the worst of the worst? Here’s a quick list of the five most objectionable games of the past twenty-five years.

Custer’s Revenge (Atari 2600) (1982): Custer’s Revenge is somewhat unique. It’s one of the earliest attempts at on-screen nudity – this is an Atari 2600 game, after all. It’s also just about the only game we can come up with that uses rape as a gameplay tactic, as a curiously pants-free General Custer attempts to ravage a low-res Indian maiden while avoiding getting an arrow straight through his… well, we’ll let you work out the rest.

Night Trap (Mega-CD) (1992): Night Trap caused controversy not only in Australia, but even in the US, where much sterner material isn’t even required to be classified. It’s a clichéd horror movie staple – a house, several scantily clad girls and a group of killers that only you can defeat, all played out in glorious early 90’s FMV-vision. Strangely, the later released PC, Mac and 3DO versions barely raised an eyebrow.

Carmageddon (PC) (1997): SCI Interactive’s take on Death Race 2000 raised more than a few eyebrows back in 1997, due largely to the fact that you could win races either by getting to the finish line first – or by wiping out every pedestrian on the course first. It’s notable in the Australian context because while there was a certain amount of public and political outcry, the OFLC passed it uncut with an MA15+ rating – still the highest rating any game can have.

Thrill Kill (PSOne) (1998): It’s one thing when the government bans a game. But when a publisher does? That’s exactly what happened with Thrill Kill, a four-player Playstation One game that EA declared “senselessly violent”, and scrapped shortly before it was due to hit retail shelves.

Manhunt (2003): While Rockstar’s GTA series is more famous for violence, it’s the company’s dark, gritty murder-voyeur simulation that holds a few records, at least for Australian readers. The first game was passed by the OFLC in October 2003, but then refused classification in September 2004, essentially due to to political pressure – and when arguably anyone who wanted a copy of the game already had one.

What do you think? Did we miss out some obvious candidates? Is King right in his approach?

Also see our guide to Sleeper Hits: The games of 2008

See more about: games | violence

Readers of this article also read...

In Pictures: CSIRAC - Australia's first digital computer

M9ROC 10 April 2008	Violent games should be allowed - i agree with King. If killing games are banned where would it stop? Soon we wouldn't have games that allow escapism from reality and we'd be stuck playing chess - albeit with very good graphics. People like the violence - better kept in a game than in real life. Comment made about the PC Authority article: Violent video games - the worst of the worst? Five games. Five reasons why you shouldn’t let the youngsters near them. What do you think? Join the discussion.
steve_666 11 April 2008	I agree better keep it in the game then the real world. I play games to escape and to stimulate.
blockcentre 12 April 2008	Agreed. They should bring in the R18+ ratings for games though, which would make the whole process easier for everyone.
geller 14 April 2008	I've said it before, I'll say it again, my vote goes to Manhunt - something about sneaking up BEHIND someone with an iron bar that's makes me want to take a shower. For some reason, I load up an FPS like Battlefield and I don't bat an eye. \:d/
Cyber Vandal 14 April 2008	violent games should be allowed, i like running pedestrians over.
Jammit 17 April 2008	Masturbation DOES make you go blind. The christians have proved it - with their gods plan via inteligunt desin.
geller 18 April 2008	is that a game proposal?
Alistor 19 April 2008	I'm all for killing games. I enjoy a bit of powerplay, running around, playing God. But I cannot, no would not ever raise a gun to a person IRL
Cyber Vandal 13 June 2008	it hasnt made me blind yet.
avoidz 14 June 2008	Just give us the R-rating for games in Australia and be done with all this repetitive criticism of "violent videogames". My vote? Manhunt is the game I've felt most nasty with.
V1P3R 20 September 2008	who ever wants to ban violent video games is an idiot...if they ban that, violent movies and tv show will get banned to, then book, then there will be nothin left....
malai5 20 September 2008	M9ROC wrote: Violent games should be allowed - i agree with King. If killing games are banned where would it stop? Soon we wouldn't have games that allow escapism from reality and we'd be stuck playing chess - albeit with very good graphics. People like the violence - better kept in a game than in real life. Comment made about the PC Authority article: Violent video games - the worst of the worst? Five games. Five reasons why you shouldn’t let the youngsters near them. What do you think? Join the discussion. M9ROC, what do you think "Chess" is??? It's a game about WAR. There is no getting away from it, humans are into violence, be it virtual or real, it's part of the human condition to be so. So, if "Violent Games" are banned, it just means that, that violence is channelled somewhere else. Why do you think the Roman Emperors invented the "Circus" where all sorts of violence was played out for people to get their jollies. In the modern age, Football fills this gap. Where do you think the saying "Bread/Beer and Circuses" comes from. This is how the Roman Emperors channelled the agression inherent in some individuals in their society so that it didn't play out in the street Cheers Malai5 Edited by malai5: 20/9/2008 02:13:17 PM Edited by malai5: 20/9/2008 03:59:44 PM
Jim.Dude 21 September 2008	There's two interesting things to consider in regards to violence and computer gaming... 1. It's well established in research that violent acts promote violent acts. The Freudian notion of catharsis is known to actually lead to more aggressive acts, because the individual becomes more comfortable with the violence and therefore more able to engage. A simple example would be to look at the number of violent acts committed by professional footballers, who regularly engage in 'controlled' violence. Per capita, they're violent acts are disproportionately higher when compared to the wider community. As such, there is evidence to suggest that violent video gaming does promote violence actions in reality. On the other hand... 2. Violence is a natural component of human evolution. Otherwise known as 'survival of the fittest', aggressive behaviours are often adaptive and helpful - the capacity to stalk, hunt and kill something is what has brought humanity to the lofty heights of today, and our constant internal fighting has ensured that only the strongest and brightest survive. Sadly, we've come to a point now where we believe it's morally 'wrong' to kill other people. We've also come to a point where the ability to kill has been made significantly easier by the mass proliferation of weapons, such as guns and knives. So...where does that leave us? Computer games may promote violent acts, but only a very small minority of gamers actually commit them. We should therefore consider what other factors are playing a role (such as the parents, drugs, education etc) and in the interim, rate games in the same way we rate movies and make them accessible only to individual who are not going to be messed up by exposure to someone being chainsawed in half.
malai5 21 September 2008	Well said Jim. The simplistic judgments made about any links between "virtual violence" should be set off against the REAL violence that is being perpetrated every day all around the globe and presented to us all via the visual media. If anything were to make us all innured to violence, this would be it. TV shows the real in a way that is almost virtual. Games, on the other hand start out as what they are, Virtual, they make no pretence that they are real. So, who are the real culprits? I would say the visual media have a lot to answer for in this debate. Cheers Malai5
Nat.W¿LL¿ 21 September 2008	ever watch the news? now thats something that promotes violent acts everyday its a new car bombing, rape, shooting. come on people only have yourselves to blame.
malai5 21 September 2008	Yes, all of that, Nat. I think there is an almost pathological inability to see the "Elephant" in the room when one small area of the Cyber World is singled out to carry the blame for ALL the ills, Re violence in the community is concerned. Cheers Malai5
Nat.W¿LL¿ 21 September 2008	malai5 wrote: Yes, all of that, Nat. I think there is an almost pathological inability to see the "Elephant" in the room when one small area of the Cyber World is singled out to carry the blame for ALL the ills, Re violence in the community is concerned. Cheers Malai5 damn straight
Jim.Dude 21 September 2008	malai5 wrote: Well said Jim. The simplistic judgments made about any links between "virtual violence" should be set off against the REAL violence that is being perpetrated every day all around the globe and presented to us all via the visual media. If anything were to make us all innured to violence, this would be it. TV shows the real in a way that is almost virtual. Games, on the other hand start out as what they are, Virtual, they make no pretence that they are real. So, who are the real culprits? I would say the visual media have a lot to answer for in this debate. Cheers Malai5 Media is only an influence if it's allowed to be. Why are children being allowed to watch hours and hours of television a day anyways? I'd recommend having a look at the parents. Nine times out of ten, it's not the kid that's disturbed, it's the parents.
malai5 21 September 2008	As I see it, there are a lot of parents that are still "kids" themselves, or at least still carrying the actions and reactions that got them through childhood. One of these is deferal, or, blame any action person, or group that is not them. This is not an "Adult" way of handling "things" or indeed children, but they have never known any other way of going about their own lives so ALL reactions tend to be "kneejerk" ones. These "kneejerk" reactions are then backed up by most of the rest of society because NO thought is involved, it's easy. This is one of the reasons why nothing really gets solved, just shelved in the too hard, lets blame "them", basket, when all along it is the individual Adult/Parent, that needs to start with themselves and really look at just what they are passing on to their offspring. Cheers Malai5
Jim.Dude 22 September 2008	malai5 wrote: As I see it, there are a lot of parents that are still "kids" themselves, or at least still carrying the actions and reactions that got them through childhood. One of these is deferal, or, blame any action person, or group that is not them. This is not an "Adult" way of handling "things" or indeed children, but they have never known any other way of going about their own lives so ALL reactions tend to be "kneejerk" ones. These "kneejerk" reactions are then backed up by most of the rest of society because NO thought is involved, it's easy. This is one of the reasons why nothing really gets solved, just shelved in the too hard, lets blame "them", basket, when all along it is the individual Adult/Parent, that needs to start with themselves and really look at just what they are passing on to their offspring. Cheers Malai5 Yep, like I said, look at the parents. I make you a dollar donut bet their parents were terrible as well...
Hobo_Joe 23 September 2008	I agree with the whole parenting thing being a huge influential factor in this. But one thing that people sometimes overlook is that everyone is capable of making their own decisions and judgements. Sure their opionions and morals may be influenced by external factors but ultimately it comes down to that decision to pull that trigger. I've grown up playing every sort of violent video game. My parents never had to explain to me that the sort of violence in games was wrong. I made that judgement myself, I was the one who sat there and said "it's just a game!" and decided that games and real world are completely separated. The individual plays a key role in the decision making. External factors come into play yes, but not as much as the critics are saying.
mordie 23 September 2008	Basically IHMO games aren't the problem it's the parents not supervising the kids that causes the problems. I also think that by banning a game it's only going to give the name of the game more coverage and in so doing lets people know it title so they can just go get it of a torrent or another P2P since they would just want to play it to see what all the fuss is about. I think some games have good reasons to be banned like the manhunt series - They are in IHMO the worse games i've seen or played - just plan sick and twisted... While I agree the individual should have the right to make up their own minds if the games are unstable to play I do believe there are some people in society, sadly, that can not make such clear judement calls. Real violences is not a glammer thing. I remember watching once on the ABC TV a BBC documentary of South Africa and watching in sheer horror a man been axed in the back - this was no video game and it was sickening snd very real.. Hell I was horrorified when channel 7 or was it channel 10 that was showing as a promo for their news people jumping from the twin towers!!!! We have to able to sperate the real world from the ficitional one ... but some people can't...sterilising though media isn't helping... Edited by mordie: 23/9/2008 09:51:56 PM