I enjoy Ultra-violence (apparently capitalized these days.) whenever it is not taken seriously. Less Manhunt and more Madworld, if you get my reference.
Deus Ex Designer: "The Ultra-Violence Has To Stop"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Deus Ex let me blow a guy up by calling him a Liputan Machine. You could beat people to death with a riot stick. People expload into meaty chunks sometimes.
I don't know, there's nothing wrong with a bit of ultraviolence, I thought Splatterhouse was brilliantly over the top in every sense; but I wouldn't want to play it all the time.
I think he's right in the sense that it's becoming far too ubiquitous in games now, but I still think people are idiots for getting upset over things like the Hitman trailer. Although I'm still working on the assumption that the developer's were telling the truth when they say it wasn't deliberately controversial.
As another poster said, it's all about context.
I think he's right in the sense that it's becoming far too ubiquitous in games now, but I still think people are idiots for getting upset over things like the Hitman trailer. Although I'm still working on the assumption that the developer's were telling the truth when they say it wasn't deliberately controversial.
As another poster said, it's all about context.
I disagree partially. Sometimes I have a bad day, or my bipolar swings into a terrible depression mood sometimes. I feel like the Narrorator in Fight Club when he punches the bleached-white-hair dudes face off. So for those times, I think we should have one super violent game, where people can take their anger out in a non harmful manner. Other people have already said some violent video games stop them from doing real harm to someone or something.
I can understand what Mr. Spector is saying. But at the same time I grew up playing Serious Sam and Pain Killer. Ultra Violence should only be used in games that don't take themselves too seriously. Either that or use it very sparingly while keeping the atmosphere like the Metal Gear Solid Series does. This is one of the reasons why Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance (god they had to choose Revengeance as a word???) looks like crap to most people. Hideo Kojima knows that and so he isn't too involved with the project.
Of course this is "Ultra Violence needs to stop" statement is coming from Warren Spector, and the first Dues Ex let you blow people up literally into smithereens.
This is like if David Jaffe said that game designers should keep their opinions to themselves.
Of course this is "Ultra Violence needs to stop" statement is coming from Warren Spector, and the first Dues Ex let you blow people up literally into smithereens.
This is like if David Jaffe said that game designers should keep their opinions to themselves.
Funny, and here I was pretty certain sales have been going down since the golden age on. Except they have and you're just fooling yourself. Certainly things may be doing better now than say the eighties or nineties, I really don't care enough to look up the specifics, but without children the industry cannot survive, just like any other industry. Kids and teens are the most important audience, and excluding them is the absolute worst decision any Industry can make. If you are only willing to target your adult fans then how in the world is your industry going to expand other than through sheer coincidence?Fumbles said:
I blame evolution; every creature that was born to dislike violence generally died to creatures that did.
Since society tries to get rid of violence though, people look to get their fix from places which do not incorporate real harm, and I'm fairly ok with that. Not that I am all for massive amounts of violent games but I do find it quite hard to consider it a problem the gaming medium has to sort out.
Since society tries to get rid of violence though, people look to get their fix from places which do not incorporate real harm, and I'm fairly ok with that. Not that I am all for massive amounts of violent games but I do find it quite hard to consider it a problem the gaming medium has to sort out.
Really, it´s not slow mo ?Woodsey said:
Weird, but you are right. They always just felt slow-mo-ish to me then.
Then I suppose it ultimately depends on ones reaction to the killcams.
The one time I watched another guy play it, he was positively livid whenever he got to dual-kill guards (or innocents, in times or boredom I guess). And judging from youtube (searching for "human revolution", "best combat moves/finishers/kills") this reaction is reasonably common enough.
And it feels to me that, at least a portion of the takedowns, DOES aim for this particular reaction.
While even the most mine-intensive kills in the first game (always a good laugh to mine the entryway to the airplane, before making Navarre spawn) always felt more "utilitarian" to me.
And again, all I´m saying is that the level of violence and gratuitious violence in HR is higher than in the first DE. Not that it is particularly over-the-top or disgusting (my description of the killcams in the first post was at least in part hyperbole)
It´s getting a bit embarrassing at times, advertisment-wise, yes.Woodsey said:
It's times like this where I'm glad Nintendo exists. They know exactly what's important and don't shun it.Revnak said:
Anyway, Spector is right. I interpret it as that we need more variety in games other than just blowing people's heads off. Either we need to make violence so silly it can't be taken seriously (like Lollipop Chainsaw, Madworld, No More Heroes) or start toning it down and finding other mechanics to base games around. It's kinda led to a very monotone aesthetic and tone in so-called "AAA" games and it's getting old.
It's true. But most songs are not about wanton murder. Nor are most books. Most movies? Maybe if you don't count Bollywood stuff, which is more numerous but has less viewers worldwide. Games? Nine out of ten are about killing people, half of those will fetishize violence, and the rest will just treat it apathetically, without comment or context.Tanis said:
I hope games like Far Cry 3 and The Line deliver on their premises, but I'm not holding my breath.
Very nicely said by Mr. Spector. This is one of the reasons the original Deus-Ex is still my Nr. 1 game because it gives you a choice about using violence or not and you get actual reward or remorse moments out of it. Today I can't heard this crappy "we make the franchise more mature/adult" anymore because it is a synonym for crappy games from the word go. A pity Spector isn't involved anymore in certain titles. Ideas like that are missing in a stalling and (quality wise) declining industry.
Just curious, have you ever played Shadow of the Colossus ?The Random One said:
I know it´s a game that gets maybe too much hype, but I feel it´s very applicable to this specific case, in that "killing" in this game is very much portrayed as, ultimately, the tragic destruction of something unique and beautiful.
That's a pretty tall equine Mr. Spector is sitting on top of. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to play some Grand Theft Auto with my droogs to enjoy the ultra-violence.
I hope that last sentence shows how ridiculous using the phrase "ultra-violence" is when you are expecting to be taken seriously.
I hope that last sentence shows how ridiculous using the phrase "ultra-violence" is when you are expecting to be taken seriously.
I gotta agree here, the violence gets a bit too intense for my tastes. Probably best to ratchet down the couple notches but make sure we ratchet up the sex a couple notches (hey; we can move from adolescent sexuality to consenting adult sexuality. That's a plus right?)
I dont think he was responsible for that Deus Ex, he did the original and the its sequel. The violence in that did not make anyone uncomfortable, it was too hammy to do anything. I wouldnt say that the violence here is what he means by 'ultra-violence' since this is comparatively tame.Caffeine_Bombed said:
I feel things are getting violent without reason other than to be violent. Look at the Mass effect series, the first one was a 12+ age rating in the UK (my country) and the following 2 were 15+. Having played all three I can only say the greater violence led to this rating, a good example would be that in the third one a headshot with most weapons causes the head to explode and blood to pour out of the corpse as it falls to the ground, such a sight wasnt present in the first game and I dont think it was in the second one. To me it just feels like they ramped up the violence because they wanted to sell the game on combat, which means gore and blood now apparently. You could say its realism, but its a science fiction setting so you cant exactly argue it has to be believable or realistically gritty for any story related reason.
That is only one example, my worry is that if this trend keeps on going then gaming will be excluding younger audiences. Thats not fair and it wouldnt be good for gaming in general. Kids shouldnt be excluded from games needlessly, for the sake of violence which adds nothing to the game. The sad truth might be that violence is used in excess to direct attention away from other failings, such as unoriganality or simply lackluster design.
If there is something to be said for games, it's that very very few of them ever encourage the players to show restraint for any reason apart from maybe the threat of death.
SWAT4 is a game where you will fail every single mission if you go in and shoot everything you see. It's one of the very few shooters that rewards restraint and planning on the part of the player, even if just a little and as far as I know, it's one of the only shooters where a low body count is always more ideal than a high one.
I'm not a prude; I'm far too desensitized for that.
But I do see such games where the aversion of overt violence (or even just death) could provide a different challenge for players. There's room for that gameplay logic and I don't think it has to do any of that "Care Bear" shit either.
SWAT4 is a game where you will fail every single mission if you go in and shoot everything you see. It's one of the very few shooters that rewards restraint and planning on the part of the player, even if just a little and as far as I know, it's one of the only shooters where a low body count is always more ideal than a high one.
I'm not a prude; I'm far too desensitized for that.
But I do see such games where the aversion of overt violence (or even just death) could provide a different challenge for players. There's room for that gameplay logic and I don't think it has to do any of that "Care Bear" shit either.
He's right--Spector, that is.
We've taken, and accepted, this stupid, adolescent rendition of violence in the medium at complete face value.
Games, for some reason, seem to still be infatuated with this idiocy and the producers' constant pumping of the same thing over and over again has, I feel, conditioned a large segment of gamers and gaming culture to understand the medium in those very terms, and it works as a self perpetuating loop where newer segments of the fanbase are taught to see this as the norm. They, with the intent of creating something fun and sellable [sic], have defacto ruled that violence = conflict most of the time, and that's just regrettable.
Thankfully, the indie scene is finally taking off and, with it, so do games that require the player to do other stuff besides that, and where fucking shit up is not the only required pathway to achieving a successful resolution of conflicts, and this is way less boring, by far.
Now, violence should not be taken out, but rather it should be kept alongside a bevvy of other options available for conflict resolution. This is not me arguing for less Gears, Halos, or Medals of Honor, but rather for the inclusion of different kinds of games alongside them.
We've taken, and accepted, this stupid, adolescent rendition of violence in the medium at complete face value.
Games, for some reason, seem to still be infatuated with this idiocy and the producers' constant pumping of the same thing over and over again has, I feel, conditioned a large segment of gamers and gaming culture to understand the medium in those very terms, and it works as a self perpetuating loop where newer segments of the fanbase are taught to see this as the norm. They, with the intent of creating something fun and sellable [sic], have defacto ruled that violence = conflict most of the time, and that's just regrettable.
Thankfully, the indie scene is finally taking off and, with it, so do games that require the player to do other stuff besides that, and where fucking shit up is not the only required pathway to achieving a successful resolution of conflicts, and this is way less boring, by far.
Now, violence should not be taken out, but rather it should be kept alongside a bevvy of other options available for conflict resolution. This is not me arguing for less Gears, Halos, or Medals of Honor, but rather for the inclusion of different kinds of games alongside them.