http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/video-game-content-where-is-the-line-ars-readers-speak-up.ars

Arstechnica wrote:

At what point does a video game go too far? Is it when it allows you to kill innocent civilians? When you can play as a Taliban soldier? When there's a hidden sex mini-game? It's not an easy question to answer, so Ars posed the question to you, our readers: what exactly is "too far"? The results were mixed, with some responses citing specific examples of games that made people uncomfortable, while others said simply that games, by their nature, can't go too far. Here's what you had to say. Unsurprisingly, one of the first games to come up in the discussion was the infamous Manhunt 2, a game that was banned in multiple countries and censored in others. "I was offended by how piss-poor a game Manhunt 2 is, first and foremost, because there's nothing redeeming about its gameplay. It's a terrible game," wrote one reader. "What I'm most offended by, though, is that it's completely bereft of humanity. There's not a single person you can relate to or even like in it. The 'story' is cold and characterless and not even remotely interesting, and the game mostly consists of running around grotty corridors and murdering random people painfully...It's just murdering for the sake of it, in what is basically the ultimate psychopath simulator.” Another common example of a game that went too far was Modern Warfare 2, with its controversial "No Russian" scene. One reader called it "harrowing," while another described it as "visually sickening" and "completely unnecessary." But there were more than just the obvious examples. One reader recalled a scene in Fallout 3, in which he failed to give a beggar some water, only to find him dead a few days later. At another point in the game he accidentally killed an innocent character with a firesword. "I donated a few thousand caps to the church after that.” Duke Nukem 3D was also on the mind of one reader, after the recent announcement of the newly resurrected Duke Nukem Forever. "That was probably the first time I felt a game went too far, specifically the reward for shooting the strippers," they wrote. "At some point during the development of that game someone said 'Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you could kill the strippers, and they exploded into a shower of dollar bills? That would be a riot!'" Not everyone felt this way. In fact, many of the people who responded felt that it was impossible for a game to go too far, or to truly be offensive. Some of the responses include: "Uh, nope. It's a game." "Annoyed and frustrated but never offended." "Nothing has ever really affected me in games. They are just games." "Games are toys. Those that are not enjoyable fail at their purpose." For the most part though, these types of responses were in the minority, though they did help to provoke some interesting discussion about how a video game can impact the player. For some, the medium is just a source of entertainment, a fun diversion to pass the time. To others, it's something much deeper. "I personally don't see how a game being 'just a game' means it can't affect you at some level," read one response. "We regularly discuss the in-game humor that made us laugh, the games that scared or startled us, the challenges that made our adrenaline flow or our sweat cold. Heck, a simple search will turn up dozens of threads about games that made some of us cry. If we admit games can evoke those reactions, why is it a stretch for someone to react to a game's content with anger or disgust?"

Thoughts?

My thoughts?
Too far is going undercover and laying waste to all the shoppers in a mall.
I never saw violence in video games until that mission.

Violence has always existed in games. The fact that we are still touched by it shows we're not desensitised to it.

There will always be those things that go to far, not just in games, but in movies and music and life. We're humans. We love violence.

Good article. Very good questions as well.

What qualifies as "too much violence" is inherently a subjective question; what might cause one person to vomit uncontrolably, another person might not give a second thought. What we can discuss is whether the purpose of the mock-violence (its not real, after all) merits the level of percieved violence shown (though admittedly, this entials just as much a judgement call as anything else).
Lets use the examples given in the article as case studies. In the first example given, Manhunt is described as nothing more than killing in cold blood for the sake of killing in cold blood. If this is an accurate depiction of the game (I wouldn't really know, since I haven't played the game), and if it is nothing but torture porn, then it has no redeming value what so ever and could easily be considered to be without tact, merit, or any form of good taste.
The "No Russian" level of Modern Warfare 2 is a different matter. Even though it has the potential to simulate the same wholesale slaughter as Manhunt, the two serve entirely different purposes. "No Russian" is not ment to entertain you, nor is it ment to be fun, as Manhunt is (in a very perverse way). "No Russian" is ment to shock you into realizing that bad men with big guns can, and will, do terrible things to people just like those we know and see every day. Manhunt devalues human life; Modern Warfare 2, by showing how easily it can be lost to bad men in the current state of the world, does the opposite. In this way it has artistic and philosophical merit, and even though it is likely to make people uncomfortable, the use of violence in this scene isn't unfounded.
Fallout 3 is similar. In the case of the dying beggar, the point is to illustrate that the decisions you make may have lasting consequences that you may not foresee when you make those decisions. This raises a number of moral and ethical conundrums, including the problem of whether or not the decison that you make now, in light of all the relevant current circumstances, is the really the right one. Because the player is forced to contemplate a moral dilemna that pertains to real life, the level of violence in this scene is appropriate given what the game is trying to accomplish.

Its also worth noting that in some scenes, you are given a choice as to whether or not you participate in violence of questionable worth. 'No Russian' is a perfect example of this. Even before the level is loaded, the player is given a chance to skip it entirely, with no detriment to the players progress. If the level is played, that player has the option of not pulling the trigger and viewing the scene from a more distant position until the police show up to fight back. Whether participation in the event occurs is left entirely up to the player.

I find it a little hard to define what's too much for me, but I know what I like and don't like.

If it's like BC2 or Warhawk where if you get blown up by a tank, well, you get turned into a rag doll, that's not bad. When you occasionally explode and your guts go everywhere, sometimes - this one is iffy. Ripping heads and limbs off is really pushing it for me. Fallout 3 is probably the best example of something that sits on my line and goes back and forth over it: sometimes an enemy will turn into a rag doll, sometimes bits will be flying. I think it depends on how much detail there is; is it just a head, arms, legs, still intact or can I go looking for eyeballs and intestines? I don't really have any clear definitions for myself since it also depends on what the rest of the game is like.

I think games are meant to be fun. There's a somewhat distinct step away from what's real and I'm comfortable with that. TF2 has a certain fun to it since it's cartoony; that's the whole point of it. Resistance takes place in an alternate history, so that's a step from our world. There's something to separate games from real life.

That probably hasn't described a definition of what's okay for me clearly, it's more like a set of preferences that I follow. I'm not sure what going to be okay for me half the time. I feel like a dog running in circles, I don't know what's too much or not. I guess that's why the question needs addressing.