Bloody hell, I missed that. I can agree, the way death/killing is potrayed, you feel for the victim. Her's may be instant, but how she may have died, your agony of her mortal pain can last you much longer than her quick and painless suffering... Heck, some of the brutal killing in Spartacus really gives you a lasting impression if you value the human life. 

I would say precisely the opposite. Violence is expensive. To create a very realistic violent scene is far more difficult than to create a cartoon catching star coins. Making childreen happy is cheap and highly profitable (just look at Nintendo yearly figures). Making interesting experiences for teenagers or adults is far more complex, demanding and expensive. I wonder why Nintendo is always stricted to Mario, Zelda and motion mini-games, doesn't invest on foto-realism, simulation physics or borderline artificial intelligence...and people even say the non-Nintendo followers are the lazy ones.

As for your question, the answer is simple: because it's a viable way. Like it's also viable to create racing games like GT, Forza, NFS, Burnout, DiRT, MotorStorm, F1, Project Gotham, etc. Like it's viable to create platform games like Sonic, LittleBigPlanet, Braid, Limbo, Ratchet & Clank, Banjo, etc. Like it's viable to create sports games like FIFA, PES, Virtua Tennis, Skate, NBA, NFL, MLB The Show, Tony Hawk, Hot Shots Golf, etc. Like it's viable to create arcade games like World of Goo, Pack-Man, Child of Eden, Monkey Island, Pixel Junk, etc. And like it's viable to create action games like Fable, Uncharted, Valkyria Chronicles, Final Fantasy, Demon's Souls, Portal, ICO, etc. And none of these games are really violent (and note that none of those are Nintendo's either). PS3/X360 game lists are vast and violent games that appeal because of their violence are a very small part of it.

Parents don't care about ESRB when their rabid kids are nibbling on their legs anticipating the newly released violent game.

In a lot cases violence is not as necessary as it is used. The usage of violence is often just for aesthetic purposes with little implications on the deeper game mechanics or story (unless the experience is meant to be realistic, horrific, etc). It's usually just the outer shell of the game and a lot of it can be removed without harm to the core experience.

I personally don't mind if there's violence or not (unless its excessive), but I do understand the need to reach as broad of an audience as possible; and it can be quite rewarding to successfully pull off various themes and experiences without settling for violence. I have seen this done successfully in only a small number of works, but I must admit I have a different sort of appreciation for those works compared to works that settled for violence as the vehicles of their experience.

It's funny that you wrote "i give up" and after that clicked on the submit button.

Personally, I'm in forums to share my opinion (write posts) and to learn from the others (read posts). If you don't have arguments, please don't write "i give up", just give up ;)

As for the many wrongs I have in my post, nobody has pointed a single one, not even you. Maybe they don't exist. Maybe you're just upset for the truths I wrote (and, looking to your avatar, I can understand why).

You would surprised how many parents are actually in the unknown. Gamestop on a Black Friday shows this all too well.

And not like Grandparents look at ESRB. Hell I'm sure they don't even know a ratings system exists.

I'm not talking about that, I know that that's cheap too and wrote many threads about it. I'm talking about Zelda, Metroid and (yes I know it's not on a Nintendo console, but that wasn't the point of my post) Final Fantasy.

Regarding your second paragraph, it's pretty clear you didn't read my whole post:

I read your entire post and there was no reference to Zelda or Metroid. If you were talking about them you should have mentioned them, otherwise I couldn't guess, could I? But even Zelda or Metroid are not more expensive than most (or even all) of AAA violent games. If you are talking about cheap games and non-Nintendo games, please remove the "non" because I know no other company producing games with such low cost for such high revenue as Nintendo. They are champions of profitability and experts on the not-expensive segments (cartoons, arcade, fitness, etc.). I wonder why people like you suggest the opposite. I'm really trying to understand that...

Regarding the 2nd paragraph of my previous post, I was just trying to show you that while you claim it's a "lot of the games seen on non-Nintendo consoles follow the violent trend", in fact it's just a small part of it...and the reason they exist is because people like it. Like they like racing games, sports games or platform games. I could say there are a lot of sports games and wonder why it is so. Well, despite I'm not lying at all, I'm suggesting there are too many and that there's something wrong with them...and that's simply not true. Sports games are just a small part of a console's game catalogue and they exist because people like them.

@underline. I'm referring to final fantasy especially.

@bold. I'm talking cheap in terms of creativity, not money-wise. Sex, violence sells, there's no doubt about that if that's what you're saying then I agree with you. But it's sad and reflects the money-hungry attitude of the industry, while historically some of the best games that were ever made have foundations on much deeper emotions (Zelda, Final Fantasy).

@2nd para. I mean they have too strong a presence and are the highest sellers, most strongly marketted titles.

Top 30's violent games selection:

PS3

xbox: