![Warren Spector: "[T]he ultra-violence has to stop"](http://aiera.ultimacodex.com/files/2012/05/warren-spector-636x310.jpg)
Warren Spector: “[T]he ultra-violence has to stop”
Warren Spector is, it would seem, repulsed by the level and depiction of violence in video games today, and said as much in a recent interview about his thoughts on the recent E3 event.
This is the year where there were two things that stood out for me…One was: The ultraviolence has to stop. We have to stop loving it. I just don’t believe in the effects argument at all, but I do believe that we are fetishizing violence, and now in some cases actually combining it with an adolescent approach to sexuality. I just think it’s in bad taste. Ultimately I think it will cause us trouble.
I left Eidos in 2004 because I looked around at E3 and saw the new Hitman game where you get to kill with a meat hook, and 25 to Life, the game about kids killing cops, and Crash & Burn the racing game where the idea is to create the fieriest, most amazing explosions, not to win the race…I looked around my own booth and realized I just had one of those ‘which thing is not like the other’ moments. I thought it was bad then, and now I think it’s just beyond bad.
These are strong words, and the man seems genuinely disturbed by the trends of raw violence and sexualization that are apparent in gaming today…and then at a level deeper than that of mere principle. But at the same time, I’m sure some of you are wondering: what about Deus Ex?
You know, Deus Ex had its moments of violence, but they were designed — whether they succeeded or not I can’t say — but they were designed to make you uncomfortable, and I don’t see that happening now.
It’s an appreciable intent, but intent only counts for so much: in the end, what will matter is how the audience perceives and interprets the violence as it is depicted in a game. And I can’t speak for all of you, but I know for myself that there was nothing I found particularly disturbing about the violence in Deus Ex.
Still, I do think Spector has a point here. That’s not to say that violence doesn’t have a place in games — it does, as surely as it does in any other form of entertainment media. But there are examples where it — and, to be fair, the portrayal of sexuality — do get taken to excess. And I don’t just mean Lollipop Chainsaw. Consider the blood spatter effect in Dragon Age, or Samara’s bizarre uniform in Mass Effect 2…or the “enhancements” to Cortana that have been made with each numbered iteration in the Halo series. There is a point where these things cross the line from necessary and/or effective game mechanics to what Spector calls fetishizing.
Is there a definite line between the two? No, I don’t think that can be said…it’s something that will vary from game to game, context to context. But are there examples of “too much” to be found? Definitely.
But is Spector right when he says it has to stop? Has to stop? That’s a very particularly strong choice of words, one which implies an…ethical impetus, let’s say. Does it need to stop? Like as not, I’d argue that it doesn’t need to stop, and to say that it does treads too heavily on that persistent and often problematic human right called freedom of expression. If an argument can be made that a game is inciting the behaviours it depicts, then sure…there’s an argument to be made there for stopping that particular game.
But that’s also as much as we can argue should be stopped, not a broader category of game content.
I don’t think it needs to stop, but I don’t think all mainstream games should be quite so full of it.
I’m not a parent, but if I was, there aren’t a lot of games I would want my kid playing. Back in the day, most mainstream games were relatively safe.
I agree with Spector about that excessive violence is usually in bad taste, but I also agree with you about keeping freedom of expression, and it’s the developers’ own choice whether they want to keep using it or not.
And as a non-prude, I have no problem whatsoever with video games including sexuality (games featuring content that actually appeals to their target demographics? SACRILEGE!) as long as the character being sexualized don’t look creepy, like the Mass Effect 2 example you mentioned.
“long as the character being sexualized don’t look creepy, like the Mass Effect 2 example you mentioned.”
As a non-native English speaker, I’m not sure if that came out the way I intended. I meant to say the ME2 case you mentioned is a example of a character looking creepy when sexualized, not the opposite.
I took your meaning in what I think, based on this, is the correct one.
I’m not particularly opposed to sexuality in games either, especially when it’s handled in a contextually relevant and impactful way. At the same time, I can agree that there are games out there that portray both men and women in very fetishized ways. Really, I hold sex in games to the same basic standard I hold violence: if there’s a point to it, I’m fine with it.
If there’s a difference, it’s that whereas violence can serve a point as a progression mechanic, sex…can’t, not really. Except maybe in Leisure Suit Larry. And to be honest, I do prefer the quite reasonably-sized chest of my FemShep to the chainsaw-wielding teen that’s at the centre of the (also Unreal Engine 3-powered) Lollipop Chainsaw.
And now Larry is coming back… too bad about the asshat and his company being involved, but at least Al Lowe is in charge of the game.
I think his point paraphrased would be, “Holy shit! The attention to detail paid to violence in modern games and marketers’ assumptions of consumer demand for such are disturbing. Committing graphically realistic game violence without the slightest antipathy for the mutilation being depicted could be a signal that our culture is numbing us to violence.”
I’m all for art of VERY BAD taste, including yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech is great. But a separate issue is, what kind of person enjoys playing [some] game and relishes each slow-mo [evisceration shot] with rag doll [intestines], [fecal matter] and Dolby Digital [shrieks of pained terror]?”
We all like to see insane violence, because we’re human and that’s what we like. Part of us tells us that it’s sad or sinful, because it is. We can’t change who we are, just how we act. So I worry about the sadists playing violent games, not the games themselves.
To argue for the devil, what if someone made a hyper-realistic game called “Puppy Knife Torture X” with Unreal Engine 4 and AAA graphics and sound. Would you claim freedom of speech when your wife woke up hearing puppy screams and you have to explain why you’re vivisecting a puppy at 1080p with your Wiimote? I understand Mr. Spector on this front.
Holy crap that would be the best game ever!
Sign me up!
You keep Spectors’ garbage, I’ll keep my violent games.
And if anyone actually made that game I’d question their sanity, it certainly wouldn’t be sold in stores like the ‘hyper-violent’ stuff I enjoy.
sup Craig.
Haha. Maybe if they gave it a story explaining that the puppies were “bad” and gave them red eyes to prove it, it would be on store shelves with the rest of them. After all, it’s okay to torture and kill things that are “bad”, ESPECIALLY if they have red eyes.
I’ve always felt that Husks got a raw deal in Mass Effect.
Hahaha… According to this they got a seriously raw deal right off the bat:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Husk
Impalement always equals a raw (ouch, don’t think) deal as far as I’m concerned, much less everything that follows. Your mention also ties in nicely with everything we’re talking about here: our fascination with and acceptance of extreme violence.
The Husks in Mass Effect 2 were the easiest to fight, because if you could break their contact with the ground, they’d die instantly. And you could blast their legs off, which helped with that.
But…heh…what were we just on about?
I’m pretty certain freedom of speech is not a valid defense within the marital relationship. Just try it.
Of course it is; why wouldn’t it be?
Equally, though, if you’re going to use it as such, it’s something you have to establish early on in courtship; you can’t flip from being an opinionless boyfriend to an opinionated husband.
“Now that we’re married, hon, I think I should tell you that my real job is testing cosmetics on animals. And to safely transition back to family life sometimes it helps to play this game. So, sorry for waking you up, I’ll put on the headphones.”
True, WtF. Other than the really ultra bad daemons (if you have any), it’s good to be honest and open from the beginning. From experience however the revelations of that honesty don’t always sink in until she later realizes you weren’t kidding.
One wonders if controversy over a certain scene in the latest Tomb Raider game prompted him to say this.
That’s possible; even Crystal Dynamics is backing away from it and trying to re-frame their earlier characterization of the scene in question.
Has to stop? I don’t know if anything has to happen.
The reason why developers make games featuring sex and violence is because they (probably correctly) think sex and violence sells. If there wasn’t a market for sexual content and violent video games, then people wouldn’t be buying them. I don’t hold the producers of these games to any moral code. The people Warren Spector needs to blame for the production of these games is the people who buy them.
Personally, I don’t want to play “Puppy Knife Torture X”. But, If developers want to spend 100 million dollars developing a game involving the graphical evisceration of puppies, I’m OK with that. I just won’t play it.
Heck, they’ve been making cheesy strip poker games since the early 80s. Has that destroyed society?
I think the societal aspect is circular. People see violence in games, become numb/accustomed to it and the next game made is more violent to compensate. The same thing has happened in film (Hostel, August Underground’s Mordum) and in written fiction (American Psycho). When something becomes common people get used to it.
I hold everyone involved (developers, marketers and consumers) accountable and to my personal standards. That doesn’t mean I want them to be forced to comply with my standards, just that they will held in judgement (by me) according to them. Only in a society without morality/ethics/whatever can revenue be the sole justification for the creation of art which appeals to sociopaths and sadists.
My problem isn’t with violence, it’s with the manner in which it is portrayed in the context of the game. Typically the “story” being told is that you should -enjoy- the violence that is occurring, and not that you should be disturbed by it. Games have always been this way, but with the advance of technology it’s nearing the point where you won’t be able to tell the difference between CGI and reality. Psychologically that makes a big difference and that shouldn’t be ignored.
I largely agree with Kevin here, including his essentially both/and framing of the issue. That’s not to say Dungy isn’t right: if people didn’t want to play a violent, sexualized game like Lollipop Chainsaw, it wouldn’t sell. But it does. At the same time, it’s not like the developers and publishers of it and games like it haven’t done their level best to stoke interest in the game, often using those aspects of it as the main appeal and draw. And people have become desensitized to it. Moreover, this is content that appeals to us on a very basic, subconscious — animal, in essence — level; the human society and technology have grown by leaps and bounds, but a lot of the human firmware isn’t all that different than what was in use 50,000 years ago, when sex and violence were what most folks called a day job.
And he’s also right in noting that it’s a phenomenon that crosses all entertainment media (Fifty Shades of Grey, anyone?).
I think the reason games — and this sort of content therein — gets more attention is because of the interactive nature of gaming. I’m not aware of studies, however, that strongly correlate gaming with violent crime (or sexual crime), so I’m not sure the argument regarding social impact is valid. And it’s worth noting that Spector admits to rejecting that particular argument as well. Which, of course, means we need to ask: if there isn’t a discernible social or societal impact, what exactly is the reason we “need” to stamp out this sort of content?
I don’t think it needs to be stamped out directly, but it says something about us as a species and we need to acknowledge that. Sorta like the first step to sobriety is realizing that you’re an alcoholic. When someone gets murdered in real life, we demonize the killer but fail to realize that the seed of violence nurtured in him lies also within us.
Other than resolving the human animal’s violent tendencies, I’d say an important question is what are the repercussions of being desensitized to violence through media? I also agree that people are probably not more likely to commit violence for having played violent games, so what I’m suggesting is more a question of an indirect connection.
I’ve heard countless times of military and police stating that it was their training that saved them (and those they defended) in situations where their lives were threatened and they were required to use deadly force. I wonder if violent games somewhat parallel the psychological effects of that training, less the skill aspect. If so, playing violent games could make it -easier- to kill effectively once you’ve started down that path, but not increase the likelihood of choosing to do so.