Reese: In today’s violent and sociopathic society, the type of blood and gore that these hit zones present are not needed. We are just showing children what it is like to kill someone. But the fact is, that this presents a fake reality. A video game will never be able to replicate the sense of death. It is just a cheap substitute that teaches children not to value life as much.

Twisted: I don't think these gore zones step over the lines of what is accepted as tasteful. On the contrary, similar death sequences are seen in many of today's action, war, and horror movies. Soldier of Fortune takes these concepts and spices up the excitement that the game is trying to create. After all, nobody would buy a game where when you shot a person, a flower would pop up on their corpse.


Reese: Even though violence is present throughout media, it can be regulated. SoF can not. There are no laws against purchasing a violent game, but there are law regarding entering a violent movie. But the difference between movies and a video game is that you are giving 12 year olds the power to play God. In a movie they can just watch while in video games, THEY kill the person, THEY watch them die, and THEY feel the power of controlling a person's life.

Twisted: I beg to differ, video games such as SoF are regulated. They feature parental locks so effective that little Billy can try reinstalling the game, but the non-violent setting will still be there. And I believe that MOST parents do know what their kids are playing and whether they can handle the mature content. It's a choice that is often left up to the parent to decide what their child does.


Reese: The problem is that Billy's parents usually do not know what their child is doing. Most parents today will buy their children almost anything. In the hustle and bustle of a shopping season, many parents just look at the children’s holiday present list and go buy it. Parents usually do no think twice. Also, most parents do not even understand how to turn on the violence lock. We are presenting solutions to stopping this problem, but no one is implementing them.

Twisted: Even though you raise some good points, I don't think it's Raven's job or duty to be the parent. The parents' job is to guide their child in life including teaching them the difference between real life and fantasy. However, it might be a great idea to publicize the violence in games like SoF so parents know what they are buying their child. Raven is merely a game company like others that are creating a game that sells, even if it includes very graphic content.


Reese: But you can't deny the fact that not all parents are responsible and some just let their kids do whatever they want. Raven made the game, so it is Raven's responsibility not to sell this game to anyone who is too young without the parents' consent. I agree with you that we need to publicize gaming violence more and not sell violence to 10 year old Billy who one days sees his dad's gun and wants to play John Mullins. It is okay to have violence in gaming, but SoF has stepped over the line and has caused a confusion of reality versus illusion in kids.

Twisted: Once again, I think it all goes back to the parents. It's their job to lock up any and all firearms away from the child's reach. I believe Raven did as much as they could to regulate the explicit violence by creating a parental lock that's irreversible without a password. Besides putting a warning on the game, Raven should tell companies to check the child's age when buying games just as many theaters check the age of minors who try to attend a R rated movie. Raven also went so far as to make a version of the full game that has no violence at all. This should be publicized for parents of young children.


* Please note: These opinions do not reflect those of Soldier-of-Fortune.com (or even those of Twisted or Reese, assuming they have any, as they're only primates, so we shouldn't expect too much, just give them a few bananas and a can of cheap beer and they're set).