Deus Ex Designer: "The Ultra-Violence Has To Stop"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Many cultures throughout history, if not most, have glorified violence (in warfare at least). For instance, the Greeks, Indians, Romans, Celts, Anglo Saxons, Chinese, Japanese, Aztecs, Zulus, Native Americans... the list goes on. That, by itself, doesn't make it right or wrong. What it does mean that this isn't unique to America and is in fact nothing new. It isn't just a new symptom of consumerism, its underlying cause is something so imbedded within the human psyche that it has expressed itself in virtually every culture in every age.ruthaford_jive said:
The denigration of violence that is present in our culture is a direct result of the Christian tradition (not even Judeo-Christian, because the Jewish tradition is actually quite violent, just ask the Canaanites). Of course in spite of (or more likely because of) its repression of violent tendencies as sinful, the Christianity has historically done some pretty sick stuff. While it preaches peace, it is historically a religion of the sword. Actions speak louder than words. The only ascetic traditions that have really been consistently pacifist are Buddhism and Jainism. And even Buddhism has had its exceptions.
The mainstream abhorrence of war that everyone takes for granted today is actually a historically new phenomenon. In America it resulted from the Civil War, and in Europe it resulted from World-War I. The reason is that war has changed significantly due to improvements in weapons technology, and has become extremely costly and rather counterproductive. And even then, we still had prominent warhawks in our society throughout the Cold War. While they would never say it openly nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than a few Republicans who think that "a good war every now and again boosts the economy and the patriotism of the American people."
As much as one might hate to admit it, war builds empires and fuels technological development. It certainly isn't an unqualified good, but it isn't an unqualified evil either. People who said that the Vietnam war was an unqualified evil obviously value the life of American citizens over the lives of the South Vietnamese, who, make no mistake, were brutally oppressed by the NVA and Vietcong.
At any rate, the primary problem with the glorification of violence in the media is that it is completely unrealistic. As long as people understand that it is unrealistic you don't have a problem. But unfortunately there will always be stupid people, and we can't be expected to accommodate their stupidity.
Ultra violence doesn't need to stop, it merely has to stop being the rule rather than the exception. I wouldn't want violent and non-violent games' existences to be mutually exclusive. There is definitely a problem with too much violence though, the entire industry is M rated. Look around, when was the last time you played an E rated game that was also either not a Nintendo game or an indie title? I don't want violence to leave, just for it to stop being so normal.
I'd still say the dark trends of the eighties and nineties really hurt comics. I do see that there are more kid friendly stuff as of late, which is good. And I suppose that movies have bolstered the industry a good deal, but comics that are capable of delivering to the same audience as the movies must exist for there to be any growth from them, which there is today but wasn't a while ago. I really should have clarified in my first comment I was talking about the dark age.Fumbles said:
There seems to be some real momentum behind this. It feels like the publishers might actually start taking notice. It's not before time.
I don't think the issue is context so much as it's quantity. This DOES need to stop. We do need far less violence in games. It's true, one way of doing that would be to handle violence, where it does occur, more intelligently. But that is hard to do in games where the central mechanic is killing.
In video games, the center ground is M-rated violence. It would be very difficult to get a mainstream, AAA, story-driven game made for a mature audience without it featuring predominantly violent gameplay. That's a ridiculous situation to be in. It's pathetic. It's embarrassing.
"I think we're just appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature." -- Warren Spector
Can we get that printed on a huge banner in time for the next big trade show?
I don't think the issue is context so much as it's quantity. This DOES need to stop. We do need far less violence in games. It's true, one way of doing that would be to handle violence, where it does occur, more intelligently. But that is hard to do in games where the central mechanic is killing.
In video games, the center ground is M-rated violence. It would be very difficult to get a mainstream, AAA, story-driven game made for a mature audience without it featuring predominantly violent gameplay. That's a ridiculous situation to be in. It's pathetic. It's embarrassing.
"I think we're just appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature." -- Warren Spector
Can we get that printed on a huge banner in time for the next big trade show?
Allow me to preface what I'm about to say by pointing out that my point is semantic. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point.Snowblindblitz said:
AAA games are not a genre, though the can be a sub-genre under legitimate genres. Skyrim and Call of Duty are both AAA and they belong to completely different genres. AAA games cater to a certain demographic, perhaps, but that doesn't make them a genre. They are defined by their quality and production value, not by their content. Genre is a matter of content. Now this is not to say that production value cannot significantly modify content, but how it modifies the content depends upon the content.
There is no genus of 'AAA Genre' that directly contains under it all AAA games. Rather AAA would be a sub-genre contained under the genus of specific genres. For instance, Skyrim would belong to the genre 'AAA RPG', which is a sub-genre of 'RPG' because its production value affects its content. In other words, the 'AAA' only applies to the individual through the specific genre. There is no game that is just described as being AAA. Hence AAA would be a class of sub-genres at best.
I understand what you're saying, but 'genre' isn't quite the word you're looking for.
EDIT:
Nope, just did it for you. You're welcome!Revnak said:
Deus Ex is the kind of game where your experience depends on how immersed you get in the world. I'm surprised people are disagreeing about the violence being uncomfortable though. I mean, last time I replayed it I went full terminator mode, with heavy weapons and x-ray vision and killed everyone, but just because I hadn't played it that way before.
When I actually play the game in a way where I feel invested in the story, I have trouble killing people. Not only do characters actually RESPOND to your level of violence at the beginning, which makes you feel like your actions have consequences, but you also are rarely ever fighting straight up "bad guys". The first time I played I made sure to spare anyone who didn't surprise me and force me to fight for my life. I was relieved when those cyborg dudes with the rocket fingers showed up, because I figured they probably had little humanity and didn't need to be spared.
Then I get to the cathedral in France, and find one of those cyborgs' journals. He writes about how creepy his employers are, how he doesn't know what he's even doing in this mission, and how he just wants to go home. And yes, the first time I went through this mission, I read the journal next to its authors' smoking ruin of a body. That made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable.
Compare this to Human Revolution, where right from the beginning you have an on-call violence porn button. Oh wait, you can make it non-lethal! Same shit, just a different caption over the body and a different achievement. Look, I don't think enjoying a violent video game makes anyone a bad person. I know how cathartic it is. But Warren Spector makes an excellent point that the game industry is more or less built on excessive violence. And it's fundamentally adolescent to look at violence as cool and consequence-free.
When I actually play the game in a way where I feel invested in the story, I have trouble killing people. Not only do characters actually RESPOND to your level of violence at the beginning, which makes you feel like your actions have consequences, but you also are rarely ever fighting straight up "bad guys". The first time I played I made sure to spare anyone who didn't surprise me and force me to fight for my life. I was relieved when those cyborg dudes with the rocket fingers showed up, because I figured they probably had little humanity and didn't need to be spared.
Then I get to the cathedral in France, and find one of those cyborgs' journals. He writes about how creepy his employers are, how he doesn't know what he's even doing in this mission, and how he just wants to go home. And yes, the first time I went through this mission, I read the journal next to its authors' smoking ruin of a body. That made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable.
Compare this to Human Revolution, where right from the beginning you have an on-call violence porn button. Oh wait, you can make it non-lethal! Same shit, just a different caption over the body and a different achievement. Look, I don't think enjoying a violent video game makes anyone a bad person. I know how cathartic it is. But Warren Spector makes an excellent point that the game industry is more or less built on excessive violence. And it's fundamentally adolescent to look at violence as cool and consequence-free.
This is the way our society has grown. Morals are on the way out. (And I'm honestly not trying to come off as a religious nut with that statement.)
I'm not even trying to suggest they weren't ALWAYS on the way out. I mean hell look at the judicial system in most forward thinking countries, and you'll notice how things are changing. Murder is no longer looked at in black and white in real life.
The idea of trying to stop or curtail the influx of violence, and acceptance of it in the media is just a flawed way of addressing a very real problem in my eyes.
Instead of crying out with disdain over the constant increase in gore and violence in popular media, why not start looking for ways to better educate and help the populace who would be negatively affected by it? Why aren't more game and movie companies putting forward funds to create organizations to help inner-city youths who might connect with these ultra-violent games?
Where are the commercials with the hotlines for teens who feel isolated and distanced from society?
How helpful would a small disclaimer prior to the start screen of every violent game, informing the player of a hotline they could call to get help if they feel lost or alone?
You can't just ban this stuff. So long as there is a market it will get made. Even if all the AAA publishers stop putting it on the market, do you really think some smaller company wont come fill the void left?
I just think we all need to be looking for better alternatives to help the ones that these forms of media might hurt... As opposed to just banning it for everyone because a small minority can't handle it. After all if a violent video game doesn't exist to trigger their rampage, it doesn't mean something else wont.
I'm not even trying to suggest they weren't ALWAYS on the way out. I mean hell look at the judicial system in most forward thinking countries, and you'll notice how things are changing. Murder is no longer looked at in black and white in real life.
The idea of trying to stop or curtail the influx of violence, and acceptance of it in the media is just a flawed way of addressing a very real problem in my eyes.
Instead of crying out with disdain over the constant increase in gore and violence in popular media, why not start looking for ways to better educate and help the populace who would be negatively affected by it? Why aren't more game and movie companies putting forward funds to create organizations to help inner-city youths who might connect with these ultra-violent games?
Where are the commercials with the hotlines for teens who feel isolated and distanced from society?
How helpful would a small disclaimer prior to the start screen of every violent game, informing the player of a hotline they could call to get help if they feel lost or alone?
You can't just ban this stuff. So long as there is a market it will get made. Even if all the AAA publishers stop putting it on the market, do you really think some smaller company wont come fill the void left?
I just think we all need to be looking for better alternatives to help the ones that these forms of media might hurt... As opposed to just banning it for everyone because a small minority can't handle it. After all if a violent video game doesn't exist to trigger their rampage, it doesn't mean something else wont.
THIS. Seriously, this is exactly what I think about violence in video-games. For the most part, I like games for their characters, story, or immersive atmosphere, but sitting down next to your friend and ripping out his game-character's skull as he's cursing you out is a LOT of fun. There's room enough here for well-made, thoughtful games AND junk games that are just plain fun.Pedro The Hutt said:
Edit: Oh, and by the way, society isn't changing a whole lot. We've ALWAYS had a taste for violence, it just didn't show in media too often. Not because they didn't want to put it in there, but because they couldn't do it too well. (least, i think that's the reason)
I mean, ancient Romans had their gladiator arenas, the 1700's had dueling, wild west had gunslinging, we have american football, hockey, pretty much every sport has some form of violence. And you ought to hear some of the stories my grandpap's told me about his life.
All this "oh god, everyone's so VIOLENT! Society is promoting it! Everyone's going to become serial killers!" it's all bullshit. Society is no more violent today than yesterday, it's just that people try to understate the gritty parts of historical life.
I can't help but wonder what he thinks of Dwarf Fortress violence. It has disembowelment, horrific body explosions, popped eyes, skin rotting off, dwarfs running around with their intestines sewn up OUTside their body, full body liquidation, fat boiling out of eye sockets...
<img width=300>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EkqeCZQnvno/T4TBmEVLTkI/AAAAAAAAA88/7KPmaadYHxU/s1600/Dwarf+Fortress+-+ASCII+Depiction.png
Not much in the way of visual spectacle, though.
<img width=300>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EkqeCZQnvno/T4TBmEVLTkI/AAAAAAAAA88/7KPmaadYHxU/s1600/Dwarf+Fortress+-+ASCII+Depiction.png
Not much in the way of visual spectacle, though.
I doubt there are ANY developers supporting banning or forcing a reduction of violence (except Disney apparently). Games are an art form, and for any art to develop it needs freedom. The problem is, the market doesn't seem to be demanding a particularly thoughtful product. If you took a "violence average" of all the major titles on the market, you would have a level and portrayal of violence that's so adolescent that I think it does bring the medium down a little bit. The body count in most video games is so high it makes it very difficult to tell a story, especially since there's generally little consequence for what you're doing.Sovereignty said:
On the other hand, I wouldn't give away my Devil May Crys, Half Lifes, and Assassins Creeds for anything. But super violent games have their place in the game industry, and it don't need to make up the entire AAA industry.
I don't care for ulta-violence either, and agree it's putting kids in the wrong mindset, but I don't see the need to get on a high horse about it.
One of the things I liked about Deus Ex: Human Revolution (never played the original, which is what the author was referring to, I'm aware) is that I was given the option not to kill my enemies, and I actually made a point of not doing it. Which of course led to me being annoyed that none of the fancy skills I learned had any effect on the bosses, and the game makes you kill those jerks anyway, but eh.
At any rate, I like being given a choice for such things and tend to avoid the stuff that gets too visceral and graphic. Although I'm not going to lie, when it's presented somewhat humorously (think Halo, where the alien antagonists had goofy voices and funny lines), it becomes funny rather than disturbing to me. But I think there's a difference between depicting violence as humorous and depicting violence in a humorous way.
On that note, I think it's not so much the violence as the desperate attempts to make games realistic people have been going for lately that's hurting the industry, overall, depicting these things as plausible and believable. The most heralded games are often the least realistic, the most creative, and the biggest reminders to keep what we do in the game... in the game. And, hell, they're usually the most fun to play.
Afterthought: And after reading a few posts in the topic, I'll say it again: I am so sick of games being called art or people trying for games to be considered art I could vomit. "It's not art unless you're allowed to do whatever you want" is among the most absurd defenses for anything ever, besides.
One of the things I liked about Deus Ex: Human Revolution (never played the original, which is what the author was referring to, I'm aware) is that I was given the option not to kill my enemies, and I actually made a point of not doing it. Which of course led to me being annoyed that none of the fancy skills I learned had any effect on the bosses, and the game makes you kill those jerks anyway, but eh.
At any rate, I like being given a choice for such things and tend to avoid the stuff that gets too visceral and graphic. Although I'm not going to lie, when it's presented somewhat humorously (think Halo, where the alien antagonists had goofy voices and funny lines), it becomes funny rather than disturbing to me. But I think there's a difference between depicting violence as humorous and depicting violence in a humorous way.
On that note, I think it's not so much the violence as the desperate attempts to make games realistic people have been going for lately that's hurting the industry, overall, depicting these things as plausible and believable. The most heralded games are often the least realistic, the most creative, and the biggest reminders to keep what we do in the game... in the game. And, hell, they're usually the most fun to play.
Afterthought: And after reading a few posts in the topic, I'll say it again: I am so sick of games being called art or people trying for games to be considered art I could vomit. "It's not art unless you're allowed to do whatever you want" is among the most absurd defenses for anything ever, besides.
There seem to be a lot of people in this thread talking about "ultraviolence" in the AAA industry. Can I just ask, which violence are you referring to? Because, shooting people is not "ultraviolence" that's just violence. Please stop exaggerating.
The same with "fetishising violence." Just having it in the game isn't fetishising it, it's just having it in the game. Again, please stop exaggerating.
The same with "fetishising violence." Just having it in the game isn't fetishising it, it's just having it in the game. Again, please stop exaggerating.