I was fine with it. I mean, I know the lines between video games and real life so I don't have to worry about murdering the world. And frankly, it wasn't gorier thhan WaW.

I don't see how you can think it is too much. It's at least realistic, and if you've seen something I haven't, than it is still mostly realistic. Think about it, if you get shot multiple times it's going to saw off something. Just because it isn't actually reality doesn't mean it shouldn't be realistic. And how is it "disturbing"? If that freaks you out or gives you nightmares or something like that, you shouldn't be playing mature games at all. As for the torture scene, that was hardly bloody, the scene where you have to kill Lambert in Splinter Cell was way worse in my opinion, and that still didn't keep me thinking about it for more than 30 seconds. If you thought that scene was disturbing, you need to grow some balls man.

God of War III is way more brutal than Black Ops but I can't remember anyone complaining about that. Also, the airport scene in MW2 was more violent than anything in Black Ops. It's just a game.

You guys are grown adults? Gosh my friends and I made jokes about the black ops torture scene.

Now listening to Lil' Wayne THATS torture.

I wasnt fazed at all. I noticed the gore, but world at war was worse if you ask me.

I HATE any of the saw series, but this game is awesome.  I will say that it did not cross the line.  Its an M game, if you can take the heat E is for everyone is around

i hope so! hahahaha

No disrespect but how is it crossing the line with the violence? The violence itself is showing just how intense the war was, and what Mason was dealing with. It wouldn't have been so serious/intense if he just shot the enemy and they fell over dead. I'm still trying to find out why the interrogation scene was so disturbing for you? He knocked the guy around a few times, put a piece of glass in his mouth, and (with his mouth closed) punched him in the face, glass in mouth. How was that crossing the line? You didn't actually see the glass shard tear the inside of his mouth apart. He just spit out blood and pieces of glass. No flesh tearing was visible and even after that, he ran around the area, and was even able to help fight. War is violence. If you can't let a war game depict war in it's truest form, than your have no reason to make a war game. I don't watch action movies or play action games to see people fight like the Power Rangers do, sparks flying everytime a fist makes contact with the enemy. I'll pick the good ol' realism of violence anyday. It makes it that much more believable and if it gives you that uneasy feeling then I'm pretty sure it has done it's job well.

    Asking if the over use of violence in the game was necessary begs the question to be asked about most things. Was creating the game in the first place necessary? Are video games necessary? The answer to all of the above is no if you are thinking from the standpoint of the literal meaning of the word 'necessary.'

    The violence in the game simply is. Now, the question that MIGHT need to be asked is, "does adding disgusting amounts of violence to a game in the CoD franchise lower it's value, quality and/or class?"

Gameinformer has profoundly disappointed me by perpetuating this issue.

This is a game that is indented to depict the vivid horrors of war. Since when is it Gameinformers objective to assume the role of concerned mothers of america

As many others said before me, the game is essentially a war simulator. That's what the game is meant to be. Vietnam was perhaps the bloodiest, most violent war fought in the last century, and should'nt be taken lightly. I personally commend Treyarch for including gore and dismemberment. Besides, this whole game + CoD 4 + WaW is not as violent, gruesome, or cringe-worthy as the airport scene in MW2.

This is a wargame. Wargames should depict war as a violent act. The real question is, "Is war too violent?" The answer is absolutely yes. That's why it is such an abhorrent act in reality. If the killing in the game were depicted as sterile or bloodless, wouldn't that misrepresent the violence of war? Absent the "discussion of what should be a careful decision to employ lethal force," an accurate depiction of the effects of a .50-caliber sniper rifle may send a more immediate and lasting impression about the sheer violence that is involved. I object more when the violence is absurdly cartoonish than when it is grossly realistic. War is not sterile. The single-player campaign is the story of a soldier and his recollection of past missions. He wasn't saving puppies, he was a trained killer. When he cuts someone's throat with a knife, blood gets everywhere. Acting as if it doesn't make a huge mess doesn't change the fact that he just rappelled down a cliff and slit a guard's throat. That is the violent part, not the guard's expression as he dies. If this were Little Big Planet, or even Midnight Club, then I would say the gore/shock value was entirely gratuitous. But it's a wargame, not a sandbox or driving game. The gore and such in this game and others is a great starting point to discuss such things as making the decision to go to war, and what that actually means for the people who have to go fight. Regardless of your political camp, the discussion will be constructive.

Is CoD: Black Ops Too Violent?

-Yes It is. so what?

Did the amount of graphic violence in Black Ops make you uncomfortable?

-Not at all.

Was it even necessary?

-yes, some games just need to show how things really are.

are these graphic depictions of violence just an element of the war experience that we should expect in a game like this?

-absolutely yes!

Myself I think the more realistic the better, kids today think war/ police life and any other profession like these are all consequence free in real life like they are in video games. I am not just talking gore wise, myself I would like to see games include a realistic bullet drop feature, a weapon degrade system, weapon jam system, ect... Then people will see the true nature of being a soldier or a police officer or anything else that games tend to put you in. I must say these scenes were pretty gruesome but I have seen much worse in real life and you have that image burned into your memory with the knowledge that who it happened to was an actual living person and not some wireframe coded model that will just respawn and reset once I play again. If someone was to create a game with what I mentioned above plus had real world physics in terms of weight, stamina, and how the body reacts when struck by the size rounds included in the game then I would agree that it could be considered offensive.

It is a serious depiction of war. War isn't pretty, it's violent, and filled with atrocities. To shy away from this and try to still present a serious war game or movie is shying away from the truth of reality. I think Treyarch did a great job with the game, and the violence makes perfect sense.

It's a war what did you expect,Bunny rabbits running in a field?

Wrong demographic. Asking a gamer if they think something is violent is like asking a Billionaire if 10,000 is a lot of money. We are so used to this bloodshed that it never crossed my mind that this game is "too violent"

Well the way I think of it, it is more realistic because in Modern Warfare 2 there wasnt gore just alot of blood but if you get shot multiple times in say, the arm? then it just might get blow off so it isnt too violent its realistic.

Nope, it never bothered me.

soooooo...... when COD has gore its pushing the line and yet a little game i lie to call God of War 3 seemed to have a lot more gore and it received a ten hmmmm makes one wonder doesnt it