IO Interactive: Violence in games is criticized by the ‘outside crowd’.

Friday, 2nd April 2010 19:29 GMT By Stephany Nunneley


IO Interactive’s Karsten Lund believes that violence in videogames is criticized unfairly by outsiders.

Speaking with CVG during a presentation of Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, the game director said that in reality, the target audience knows the difference between “real-life and games”.

“Games, in general, throughout history have been violent,” said Lund. “Even Chess is a violent game about war you could say, right? Games are a chance to try stuff that you’re not trying in real life, and without having to face the consequences. Every game is like that so that’s nothing new.

“I’m not an expert in psychology, but I do think that some of these opinions come from an outside crowd that’s not really used to dealing with games, they just watch it and think ‘Oh, it’s got to be affecting people’.

“I do think our target audience knows the difference between real life and games”.

During the presentation, Lund revealed that he hadn’t received any feedback from anyone that the game was too violent.

As a matter of fact, he feels that the Gears of War franchise is more violent than Kane & Lynch.

“What’s interesting is that it shows a lot less than a game like Gears of War, which is probably the most bloody game and brutal game I’ve ever seen.

“I mean you’re knee deep in blood and gore and nobody seems to notice.”

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days is slated for August, and to brush up on what it’s all about, check out Pat’s interview with Lund through here.



  1. Tallon 4

    The man is right! No one cares about movies like Saw….but when it’s about games everyone who isn’t into games has comments

    #1 5 years ago
  2. izduracis

    Kane & Lunch, last paragraph. Would’ve made nice April Fools from I/O though.

    #2 5 years ago
  3. YoungZer0

    He definitely needs to play more games. :D

    #3 5 years ago
  4. Quiiick

    “… Even Chess is a violent game about war you could say, right? …”

    This chess comparison is so lame and so old.

    “… the target audience knows the difference between “real-life and games …”

    LOL! And the ones you don’t target?

    #4 5 years ago
  5. DeSpiritusBellum

    @4 And the notion that videogames are somehow above and beyond all other forms of creative expression is not lame or old?

    Ever since we learned to think we’ve been expressing violence and debauchery in everything from paintings and books to plays, pictures, movies and now in videogames, because those are the most universally stimulating expressions to us. It is now and has always been the most evocative form of entertainment.

    And if you look at the history of our societies, the more creative mediums we’ve gotten access to, and the more our rights to use them have expanded, the less violent our societies have become.

    #5 5 years ago
  6. DaMan

    did you just put art, entertainment and culture all in one category?

    #6 5 years ago
  7. DeSpiritusBellum

    @6 Art and entertainment are both associated with culture (if you believe in culture that is) and unless you ask the people who make a living elevating art in the eyes of the commoner, they quite arguably are one and the same, with no purpose except to stimulate us. It’s basically masturbation for your mind.

    Also, the fact that every expression from cavepainting to videogames share the same focal points, I think makes it a fair point.

    #7 5 years ago
  8. DaMan

    hence, art depends on the level of culture? Edit: just to clarify, by ‘depends’ I mean the higher the level of culture, the greater the level of art. that seems silly to me.

    I would agree that entertainment is basically that, pleasure or stimulation for the psyche. art isn’t remotely the same though, more like spiritual growth. even for the artist’s ‘audience’. it’s not even a predecessor or a sublime version of entertainmnent, it’s more akin to a psychological survey.

    #8 5 years ago
  9. DeSpiritusBellum

    @8 I don’t believe in anything religious, and I certainly don’t think it applies to images, but that’s another discussion. To me it’s just stimulating. The point is, a painting or a movie is just as likely to set off a psychotic as a videogame.

    As are facial expressions, looks, sounds, and any number of impressions, so I don’t think going after videogames purely because they make psychotics act psychotic is a very good reason to legislate against them.

    No people has ever asked a government to save them from themselves.

    #9 5 years ago
  10. DaMan

    “I don’t believe in anything religious, and I certainly don’t think it applies to images, but that’s another discussion. To me it’s just stimulating.”

    yeah, you got a point there. it certainly is a different topic. and I ‘m not trying to argue about someones perception.

    #10 5 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.