The Main Topic is:

Is it necessary for artistic endeavors(Video Game's, Films, comic books ext) to depit socially unacceptable behavior(Violence, sexual activity,obscenity, drug usage, langauge, crazy wardrobe) in order to have artistic integrity?

Note: We are on a gaming website so i thought it would be easier to relate the question to gaming but feel free to use movies, books and other stuff.

jusy in case your not clear on what im asking:

1.your playing a video game and somebody gets his head cut off and blood geyser shoots everywhere and his spine is hanging out of his throat- do you really need see that to be immersed or would a off screen cut be just as fulfilling and effective?

2. Lets say your watching a "drug movie" and some guy is so strung out on heroine that hes loosing control of his bowels and hes crapping all over hmself - do you need o see the sullied sheets to understand the seriousness of the drug or would just a next scene of him talking about the the sullying and lookin all jacked be just as good?

does everything go togheter or is some stuff just a crowd pleaser or so dramatic that is corny?

What is your opinion and why do you feel that way?

I don't need to see everything but I want to see everything.

To #1 scenario,  I would say yes it does.   In the Jurassic Park movies they seemed to censor all of the kills, on humans not the dinosaurs, by moving off screen slightly or moving the camera behind tree branches or bushes. It felt cheesy to me and almost ruined the movies for me.

I would also have to agree with scenario #2,  even though its not pretty it should still be shown only if it has relevance to the story.   Like the scene in Pulp Fiction where they jam that 5 inch needle in Uma Thurmans heart after she OD's from heroin to save her from dying, it was a pretty important scen and while graphic, it needed to be there. 

I guess basically it comes down to this,  only if it makes sense to the story should those things be shown.

Absolutely fucking not. The human imagination is more vivid than what can be depicted on the screen because if a situation is horrifying enough, the person will translate what happens off-screen into something that horrifies them, not what the director thinks is horrifying.

In most cases, violence and socially unacceptable behavior is there gratuitously and the story would be better filled by leaving it up to the audience. Now, there are cases where super-violence has been well-done and driven the point home but these examples are usually few and far between.

My imagination sucks  so I like seeing everything.

You're joking, herr Buddha

You do not understand, my imagination sucks because I have foreseen all possibilities, for I am the Maitreya Buddha. As I can imagine every possibility, my imagination has trouble singling out a single thought. I like seeing a specific sequence of information so my mind does not spiral out of control with possibilities.

This has been the Maitreya Buddha, Mr. Khan.

Yup.  An example is in American History X where a guy is forced to bite a curb and his head is stomped.  I've talk to several people that actually think they showed it in the movie and all they showed was the events leading up to it, not the stomp itself.  Their imagination took over and they truly believe they saw something they didn't.

One of the scenes I thought of when I typed that, actually.

Yes