I think censorship should be optional -- it should require some kind of parental lock to override or whatever.
To experienced psychologists it's clear that violence in games and movies does not create serial killers, it's however also clear that some people are so fucked up they'll turn psycho no matter how non-violent and censored a game or movie is -- it's not even important whether the game or movie was the cause, it's just an easy scapegoat.
You don't need to like violence in games, but consider this: if people want violence, would you prefer them seeking it in real life rather than in video games? As long as it is easy to tell fiction from reality, there's no reason to be worried about violence in fiction.
I find comical splatter movies fun to watch, but don't laugh when someone gets cut to pieces in a serious horror thriller -- it may not be real but it's a lot harder to enjoy than, let's say, "Braindead" (aka Dead Alive) simply because it is less artificial. Horror movies are not humorous, they are meant to shock you and scare you, you can only "enjoy" them because afterwards you know it's all just fiction and you've been distracted from the real world for a while.
The scariest horror movies are usually very close to real life situations. I find them more dangerous, even if they are not ultraviolent, for children and people who don't have an exactly tight grip on reality because of that.
In Germany the main factor for age ratings is graphical violence. That's why an extremely shocking and disturbing psycho-thriller I once saw was rated "12+". News reports showing real violence -- mutilated corpses, people getting shot, bomb victims -- have no age restriction at all. Exaggerated splatter movies with fountains of blood erupting from the smallest cuts and Monty Python-esque black humor holding it all together however get rated "Adults Only" or get an advertisement ban. Does any of that make sense?
I love splatter movies, have no problem watching horror thrillers and can stand quite a level of real cruelty, but nevertheless I chose the mandatory social service over military draft. The only reason I like violence in movies and games is that I know they are not real, the only reason I can endure news reports depicting mutilated bodies is that I don't let them touch me, but that doesn't mean I like violence.
I wouldn't enjoy hurting or killing people because I know that death is permanent. I wouldn't enjoy seeing real people suffer around me because it'd be reality.
Now, I know it sounds absurd that I still say that I love setting children on fire in Fallout or putting a shotgun to someone's head in Postal 2 (a game that gets boring fast because of the total lack of story, I might add) and I can't explain why I like it, but I know that I in no way would ever want to do the same in real life.
Fantasies are one thing, comitting such acts in real life is another. Violent thoughts don't create serial killers, homosexuals don't have to want to rape you just because you're male and pedophiles are not neccessarily going to abuse children.
A question of ethics maybe, but seeing how there's a large group of people who enjoy violent games and movies, I think that violence is justified. Ethics can only be defined by the people as a whole and if there's that many people whose personal ethics permit the existence of ultraviolent games, the consequence is that such games are ethically valid. What age restriction they should be given is another question, but I personally think a parental control would be a lot better than an easily evitable age restriction -- but that's a different issue.
My 0.02 bottlecaps.
</blockquote>Oh right...well..
Dam those censure :!:
A parental lock woud be a lot beter just like "soldger of fortune" that was the most violent grapfichs game that i remember you coud cut the guts out slit theyr whouts throw a knife at them and wath them scream and its was fun 
and fallout had its fun moments too so they just better put a parental lock and problem solved.