I’ve always been one to defend games for adults. Video games ceased to be merely a childrens’ toy nearly a generation ago, despite what many would have you believe.

I’ve always argued that the video game medium is little different than film media with regard to the potential for creating lasting stories that stick with the viewer when capably created.

Of course, the hot-button issue with gaming over the years has always been it’s portrayal of violence; ultra-violence; violence so creatively barbaric that it sometimes defies comprehension.

Now, this is not to say that these games represent the vast majority of video game releases - they most certainly do not - and this is not to say that gaming presents the most horrifying deeds imaginable in the mass media; the film industry still has gaming trumped in spades. (See the “Saw” series of films for a gory example, and realize that those films are simply the latest evolution of a trend that goes back as far as film itself… as storytelling itself.)

I am sensitive to violence and it’s portrayal in mass media, and I’m not so naive as to believe that it doesn’t have an effect, especially on younger, more impressionable minds. That said, I’m not at all opposed to it’s responsible portrayal, because it’s an unfortunately unavoidable aspect of the human experience, and presenting the results of violent acts in a realistic fashion can actually serve to help people understand what they’re dealing with.

Would cinematic history be richer without “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, “The Godfather”, “Blade Runner”, “Unforgiven” or “Saving Private Ryan”? Of course not. Yet all these films contained savagery in large amounts.

Obviously, then, it’s context that separates “Psycho” from “The Devil’s Rejects”, and the same can be said for video games. There’s a big difference between the violence sure to be on vivid display in Mortal Kombat: Armageddon and what’s expected to be shown in Call of Duty 3. The Mortal Kombat series of games has always flouted its shocking violence and gore with the goal of inducing schadenfreude, while, in contrast, the Call of Duty series has taken pains to try and represent the heroism of the age and necessity for the terrible, as Mark discussed last week.

What is this all leading to? After downloading and watching trailers for Mortal Kombat: Armageddon and Call of Duty 3 via the exponentially more useful Xbox Live Marketplace, and being struck by the obvious difference in the presentation of violence therein, I downloaded a third, for an upcoming game called Bioshock.

Created by Irrational Games, the developers behind 1999’s clever and thoughtful System Shock 2, Bioshock, set in an imaginary underwater Atlantis of the American 1950’s, collected a raft of awards at this year’s E3 and promises a game where difficult moral choices define how the game will be played and what will result from the player’s actions.

However, the trailer for the game, while technically stunning, is nevertheless wholly disturbing and contains little, if any, of the elements the game’s designers have touted. From the first moment to the last, the trailer becomes more dark, infinitely more violent and more confusing at the same time. What the viewer is left with is an impression of a brutal first-person sci-fi action experience - hardly a realm where there’s room for fresh tracks.

Irrational deserves the benefit of the doubt, but at the moment, Bioshock is looking more Rob Zombie then Alfred Hitchcock, and if so, what it adds to this discussion will be dubious at best. I hope I turn out to be wrong.