Deus Ex Designer: "The Ultra-Violence Has To Stop"

[martyrdrebel27]

okay, i just feel the need to point out the hypocrisy here... Kingdom Hearts, while not overtly bloody, definitely has violence in it, you spend the whole game beating things with a giant key.

violence is a part of gaming, just as it is a part of movies, books, television, cave paintings, and any other form of art and entertainment.

it's also worth pointing out that one of the most violent games i've ever played, Postal 2, can be played through minimizing the violence at almost every oppurtunity.

 

[mattinkent]

Actually we're programmed not to get involved in needless violence - it results in injury and that's bad for the propagation of your DNA. Soldiers in World War 2 were shooting to miss in up to 80% of the time.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

 

[Starke]

no violence in deus ex whatsoever...

To be fair, he didn't say there wasn't violence in Deus Ex. It was just meant to feel uncomfortable. Which is bull.
What part of a guy with blades in his arms pulling fancy moves is uncomfortable???

To be even more fair, that's Human Revolution. The only Deus Ex game Warren Specter didn't work on.

 

[TWEWER]

Personally, I think we need more violent games.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Violence has been part of gaming since pretty much the beginning of gaming, Space Invaders for example, you are destroying ships filled with sentient life forms. Or they are flying aliens, hard to tell with those graphics.

I actually like violence in games, not for the sake of violence, but because the threat of death adds the element of risk, as in a chance you can actually fail. To be honest, I found nothing wrong with the "Hitman" or "Tomb Raider" trailers. They are no more violent than what you see in movies these days.

 

[Naeras]

okay, i just feel the need to point out the hypocrisy here... Kingdom Hearts, while not overtly bloody, definitely has violence in it, you spend the whole game beating things with a giant key.

Comparing Kingdom Hearts to a modern-day shooter or hack 'n slash is like comparing a Disney movie to an 80's action flick. Yes, there's violence, but only one of them can be called overly violent.

Deus Ex is a good example for his case, because you could go through that entire game without killing a single person. Violence is an option, and I don't think it succeeded at making the violence feel uncomfortable for the most part(the first level did, though), but just running around slaughtering everyone isn't an option.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

okay, i just feel the need to point out the hypocrisy here... Kingdom Hearts, while not overtly bloody, definitely has violence in it, you spend the whole game beating things with a giant key.

Comparing Kingdom Hearts to a modern-day shooter or hack 'n slash is like comparing a Disney movie to an 80's action flick. Yes, there's violence, but only one of them can be called overly violent.

Deus Ex is a good example for his case, because you could go through that entire game without killing a single person. Violence is an option, and I don't think it succeeded at making the violence feel uncomfortable for the most part(the first level did, though), but just running around slaughtering everyone isn't an option.

my point is that it doesn't matter, any violence is still violence. to say that your company is superior because it doesn't use violence, when it does, however prettyfied and un-bloody it is, is just arrogant tunnel-vision. you can't condemn the fact that games overly rely on violence when the company that is supposed to be above it ALSO RELIES ON VIOLENCE.

 

[Emiscary]

"I'm squeamish, and I feel that my views should be standardized."

Essentially.

 

[Naeras]

my point is that it doesn't matter, any violence is still violence. to say that your company is superior because it doesn't use violence, when it does, however prettyfied and un-bloody it is, is just arrogant tunnel-vision. you can't condemn the fact that games overly rely on violence when the company that is supposed to be above it ALSO RELIES ON VIOLENCE.

Sorry, but no. There are different kinds of violence, and the "hyper-violence" is the part where it starts feeling more like a power-fantasy than anything else, and modern games tend to do that a lot.

As an example, let's compare, say, Super Mario 64 and Manhunt. Both games include violence: you punch and stomp stuff and throw lizards at bombs in one game, and mutilate innocent humans for snuff films in another. Following your logic, they're equal because "any violence is still violence".

 

[martyrdrebel27]

my point is that it doesn't matter, any violence is still violence. to say that your company is superior because it doesn't use violence, when it does, however prettyfied and un-bloody it is, is just arrogant tunnel-vision. you can't condemn the fact that games overly rely on violence when the company that is supposed to be above it ALSO RELIES ON VIOLENCE.

Sorry, but no. There are different kinds of violence, and the "hyper-violence" is the part where it starts feeling more like a power-fantasy than anything else, and modern games tend to do that a lot.

As an example, let's compare, say, Super Mario 64 and Manhunt. Both games include violence: you punch and stomp stuff and throw lizards at bombs in one game, and mutilate innocent humans for snuff films in another. Following your logic, they're equal because "any violence is still violence".

i'm saying that they can't condemn the use of violence when they use any violence whatsoever. that whole "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" biblical parable totally applies. only someone who has never relied on violence can condemn the use of violence. and since there's practically not a single game company that hasn't used violence, they can all shut up. i guess the guys who made World Of Goo would be allowed to speak up, but that's the only one i can think of right now.

EDIT: and saying that you mutilate "innocent" humans in Manhunt is just plain ignorance. The people you mutilate have weapons, and they are trying to kill you with those weapons to get paid by a perverted madman...

 

[Emiscary]

"I'm squeamish, and I feel that my views should be standardized."

Essentially.

white knighting at its worst. The kind that actually gets idiots to report on it.

Personally I think the very worst is people crusading against profanity.

"NO! DON'T MAKE *THOSE* SOUNDS! THOSE ARE THE *WRONG* SOUNDS!"

Look, I understand why we have laws against physically violent behavior- they keep us safe from our own tempers. But what pre-tell does censoring curse words keep me safe from?

It DOESN'T matter how many times I say: "FUCK" out loud, nobody is going to catch fire because of it. Here's proof:

 

[Naeras]

i'm saying that they can't condemn the use of violence when they use any violence whatsoever. that whole "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" biblical parable totally applies. only someone who has never relied on violence can condemn the use of violence. and since there's practically not a single game company that hasn't used violence, they can all shut up. i guess the guys who made World Of Goo would be allowed to speak up, but that's the only one i can think of right now.

You're both dodging my question and misunderstanding the discussion here in the first place. The point is that you can replace "hyper-violence" with "power fantasy". In fact, that would probably make it more accurate. Spector's games have never relied on that, as far as I know, and that's what he's referring to. He never said anything about violence. He said something about power fantasy-level violence.
And even if that wasn't the case, he'd still have the right to say that it shouldn't be what's defining our industry. Which it currently is. I completely agree with him on the fact that that needs to change.

EDIT: and saying that you mutilate "innocent" humans in Manhunt is just plain ignorance. The people you mutilate have weapons, and they are trying to kill you with those weapons to get paid by a perverted madman...

My point still stands though. One is extremely violent, the other one.. not as much.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

i'm saying that they can't condemn the use of violence when they use any violence whatsoever. that whole "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" biblical parable totally applies. only someone who has never relied on violence can condemn the use of violence. and since there's practically not a single game company that hasn't used violence, they can all shut up. i guess the guys who made World Of Goo would be allowed to speak up, but that's the only one i can think of right now.

You're both dodging my question and misunderstanding the discussion here in the first place. The point is that you can replace "hyper-violence" with "power fantasy". In fact, that would probably make it more accurate. Spector's games have never relied on that, as far as I know, and that's what he's referring to. He never said anything about violence. He said something about power fantasy-level violence.
And even if that wasn't the case, he'd still have the right to say that it shouldn't be what's defining our industry. Which it currently is. I completely agree with him on the fact that that needs to change.

EDIT: and saying that you mutilate "innocent" humans in Manhunt is just plain ignorance. The people you mutilate have weapons, and they are trying to kill you with those weapons to get paid by a perverted madman...

My point still stands though. One is extremely violent, the other one.. not as much.

and you're missing my point that violence is violence. the scale of that violence is just a subjective argument in semantics. at what point does violence become "hyper-violence"? where's the line? 40 Bullets fired is okay, but 41, whoa, slow down there Manson! running around beating hookers with a baseball bat in GTA is too much, but replace the bat with an oversized key and the hookers with shadow things, and that's acceptable? there is no invisible line to define the difference between the perceived "hyper-violence" and what you seem to argue is "acceptable violence". violence is just violence.

 

[McShizzle]

Why is this article titled "Deus Ex Designer: "The Ultra-Violence Has To Stop", and not "Warren Spector: "The Ultra-Violence Has To Stop"? Does nobody know who Warren Spector is anymore? I guess not.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Game designers are pandering to an adolescent audience? :O

It's what sells man, if you don't like it, look away or bugger off.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

snip

and as for the "power-trip" perception, people need to quit projecting. currently, i'm playing fallout: new vegas. in that game, you can stop the game, aim at a specific body part and watch it explode in slow motion. and i've never once felt the rush of a "power trip fantasy" from it. that game is about survival in a post-apocolyptic wasteland, that's the fantasy i get from it.

and it bears mentioning that the game, and indeed the precision aiming system for explody-head come from a game that is 15 years old. whatever he's perceiving as a current problem with our culture is something that has always existed.

one could argue that the power pellets in pac man infuse people with a power trip...

 

[Ragsnstitches]

For the sake of the game industry we need more variety for sure. Its primarily violence... if I was to hazard a guess at ratios it would be something like 80-20 with violence being the core theme in the majority. In regards to hype violence, yeah, I think we need to tone it down or at least juxtapose it to an another theme (regret, guilt etc.) if its being used... though that is far harder to do and still encourage sales.

To Kickstarter!

But I think a stop to violence needs to happen across the board in media if you want to stop desensitisation to it. Only hitting one medium (though one which blatantly indulges in it) is futile in the grand scheme of things... especially a medium that is still relatively small to a juggernaut like Film.

I can get behind this... maybe even contribute to it in the future if things work out in my favour.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I think that in the future, games will go back to more early gaming style, as *a fairly small percentage of gamers* grow tired of the increasing focus on violence. We are saturated with shooters *because they sell really well*, *a fairly small percentage of gamers* want something new.

Quick fix. Seriously your opinion isn't the same as everyone else. Quit acting like you know what is best for everyone because a small percentage of people agree with you, this is how cults and extremist groups are formed.