🔒 Locked

Let's make a DISGUSTINGLY violent game

Started by Wavinator Mar 8, 2001 at 2:38 AM 67 replies 6.7k views

Original Post

Mar 8, 2001 at 2:38 AM

EDIT: This is in bad taste intentionally and may offend. Apologies, but the end goal is, I hope, noble. I just read this article and I'm really, really, really pissed. No. Let me rephrase that. I'm so *$#^! mad I can barely type!!!!! Yeah, it's politics. Yeah, it's the way the world works, and yeah I should chill out, but the way that lies seem to be standing in mass media for truth enrages me. The Avault report that the IDSA seems to be failing to stand up to Congress makes me sick. Maybe you don't care, but if you really want to design I think this should concern you. Here in California, on Monday, we had another school shooting and I'm starting to hear the axe being ground again: Our violent media, our violent culture... these violent games.... more scapegoating, yet again. So it takes me a minute to get to the point here, but it's this (and design related): How Would You Use Your Artform To Protest? Art has a long traditon of using it's power to convey ideas in order to protest. Whether you believe that games are art or not isn't important if you accept that games have the power to also communicate ideas. I believe we're being hemmed in. It's slow and deliberate. It's seemingly not serious, and certainly not life and death. Since we designers are about fun, this kind of politics may bore us. As and industry, we may be too young, too naive, or too busy trying to be hip to react. But if you knew your industry was being smeared, that government (in the USA at least) was hysterically reacting, how could you use your power as a communicator of ideas to protest? A Modest Mod Ever hear of Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)? He was a long-time advocate for freeing Ireland from the English monarchy. He got so disgusted with English politics and apathy that he penned A Modest Proposal. This ghastly work essentially advocated that for population control, preserving loyalty, and dealing with famine that the Irish should kill and eat their own children. The idea of the work was to ape dispassionate British nationbuilding policies and-- through controversy-- get the protest circulated. What if we did the same? A form of protest could be drawing attention to the facts of the Surgeon General's report in the most unorthodox way imaginable. Imagine making a completely tasteless shooter mod, full of apalling gore and violence, that uses satire to torpedo the lies spewed by moralists, Congress, and ignorant media. Summon the Spirit of Thomas Harris Think Hannibal. Be *gross*. But make it political. Here's what I'd do: A level based FPS rampage that ends in the player going to Washington and slaying Senator Joeseph Lieberman in effigy. The player's been driven mad by lies and coverups, and ala Sanitarium has to get pieces of his mind back. This can only be accomplished by level after level of satirical torture and barbarity. The level keys would be pieces of the Surgeon Generals Report. The baddies would be moralists, dishonest journalists, and member of US Congress. I'd use something like Unreal for a mod, make the weapons camp (electrocution via lie detector, microphones where the sun don't shine), try to make it funny and popular with gamers, and make folks like Lieberman outraged. With luck, it would be picked up by the media. Every screenshot they could take would have camp, Charles Mansion imitating messages about media lies. What do you think? Maybe it's not dead serious right now, but one day designers will have to stand up for themselves the same way Hollywood is now doing. -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership... Edited by - Wavinator on March 8, 2001 3:46:11 AM

Eight

Mar 8, 2001 at 3:34 AM

Hey.. your game sounds fun.

Personally, I can''t help thinking that the way forward for the games industry in this matter is pretty simple:

Write games which are violent for a *reason*.

We have years and years left of people pointing the finger at the gaming industry, and we need to be able to turn around with our products and say
"Yes it''s extremely violent, but it''s supposed to be. The violence is necessary for the story/realism - it is not gratuitous!"

If anything, while society gets used to the idea of violence in games, maybe we should be using sickening levels of violence. Not sickening in that only Washington/London will be upset, but sickening so that every blow you deal to your opponent leaves you with a tiny seed of doubt in your actions, and even a small feeling of disgust.

One thing is for certain, there''s no way back. Maybe we should accelerate the issue to better illustrate our points???

Andrew Russell

Mar 8, 2001 at 6:53 AM

I like the idea, I have been learning the very complex UnrealScript, it would be dificult, but the best engine to do it on (high level of realism

)

ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Visit Tiberia: it''s bigger, it''s badder, it''s pouyer...

Hase

Mar 8, 2001 at 9:36 AM

As much as i like the idea of a digustingly violent game, all that´s going to happen is that no one will get the irony, the game will get a lot of bad press, be put on the index in a few countries and will generally become a very popular thing to have.

Maybe even a bestseller.

If you look at Resident Evil:Veronica some of the scenes are extremely gruesome and disgusting already, theres not really much left to do. The potential for violence, mass murder and mutilation has been pretty much realized, so "more gore" can´t be a sollution.

What might help though is increased realism. Better sound, better graphics and damage effects that can really turn your stomach. I think that would be the way to really shock people. Games like unreal or quake, even soldier of fortune are too arcade-like, too fast paced, too much like a comic to be taken seriously.

If you want to make people puke in front of the screen make realistic graphics in combination with just a few deaths, but in detail and realism to make it worth while.

In Unreal a guy dies, screams a little and then reappears. In SOF theres a lot more violence, you shoot off a guys leg, he clutches it and screams..... that´s pretty much whats possible right now.

IMHO theres no real way out of this thing. If you make a satirical violent game it will either be forgotten or misunderstood, the only way to go is violence in context, where (just like in a good film) more than one facet comes to bear. Remember the scene in Braveheart where the english lord kills his girl? Not very graphical, but it has more impact then an hour of the texas chainsaw massacre.

Whats been said so far is pretty much what i think. More violence is not the way out, but definitely better violence.

Silvermyst

Mar 8, 2001 at 10:01 AM

Ah all this rubbish about computer games being too violent and leading to violence. For one, I think that when a kid plays a game... he''s playing a game, not kicking some kid''s behind. He''s learning some skill with a computer; something that might come in handy in the future.

If ''society'' really wants to stop violence, have them sit WITH their kids while they play their games. Think it''s bad for your kid to play Doom, but you see he likes it? Sit down and play it with him, instead of saying ''no''.

Back to the subject of a protest game:

I would make a game that takes ALL sorts of examples of other area''s that have a form of violence in them, and that are accepted. Playing cowboy/indian, cop/robber, physical contact sports, etc.

Or maybe go back in history and show times when there were no computer games... but violence was abundant. I''d push all their silly arguments right back in their face. Moral values? I''d show the injustice of the Crusades or something like that. So that at least they won''t be able to use the religious argument (I''ve nothing against religious people, just don''t say you''re better than non-religious people, and don''t keep others from doing what they do because it involves demons and devils -another anti-Doom etc argument)

And I''d make sure to throw in some numbers of people that have died in all sorts of wars in the last few decades. Where were those high morals then? If you''re really so much against violence, how come they haven''t been able to solve it for centuries now. And how come that a new technology has to somehow take the blame?

I wouldn''t necessarily make the game gorey, I''d just make ''them'' look bad.

kseh

Mar 8, 2001 at 2:13 PM

You could have insanly high levels of violence and the most gruesome effects in the world and I think all that would happen is that the game would become a collectors item. I think this goes back to the controversial game idea. You have to be thinking on a different level. One that''s not so socially acceptable.

For the effect that "A Modest Proposal" had, I think you''d need a game possibly set in a nice quiet suburban neighbourhood complete with adults, children, and senior citizens. The AI for the NPCs in the neighbourhood would be quite simple, go for walk, goto work/school, mow the lawn, watch TV. Insert a player character armed to the teeth to go around and slaughter all the NPCs. No opposition. No police. No score counted. No timer. No unique death effects depending on where the bullet hit. Simple user interface. No fun.

And if you still want to keep the game as a collectors item after walking up to a smiling 4 year old with an ice cream cone and shooting him, well then maybe all this violence in games thing is true.

Jonathon

Mar 8, 2001 at 4:12 PM

Hey now! This would be a game to remember. There is a serious problem, though. One cannot exercise such First Ammendment rights to protest those with power. That is an unwritten law. (Come to think of it, there are actually written laws to that effect. Ask Sacco & Vanzetti.)

You''ll only get away with a game this violent if you make the targets powerless. Think community activists. Or door to door solicitors of charitable donations. A game which targets George W., for instance, will bring all the forces of the Secret Service, F.B.I., state and local police, the Attorney General''s office, and the New Yakk Times to bear against you. But a game about slaughtering Jehovah''s Witnesses? Well, there wouldn''t be too many repercussions for that. (Sorry, Wav, that''s just the way it is.)

As for myself, I think that one of the best ways to use game design as an art form is to maintain high standards. When designing a game, why not look for a way to avoid violence if you wish to protest violence? Why not make games in which corrupt politicians are the enemy? Why not make a game in which people living in a Syndicratic Plutocracy are duped into believing that they live in a Representative Democracy? (Or would that be too much realism?)

~Jonathon

Nazrix

Mar 8, 2001 at 4:50 PM

I know this is kind of OT, but the way I see things such as violence in music, movies, television, games, etc is that it is not directly linked to people performing violent acts themselves. However, I believe the problem is that some people do not seem to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Violence in games & movies is romanticized greatly, and some people are not able to see that. The reason IMO, is that children are not taught by their parents as much anymore due to both parents usually working. That''s a whole different topic enitrely, but I do think that when kids commit violent acts it is related to the violence on television, music, etc. They just don''t seem to realize the real effects of their actions.

It is possible that many people may miss the point of such a statement. If I remember right, many people didn''t get the satire in A Modest Proposal, but I''m sure the people it was meant to impress did get the point.

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Landfish

Mar 8, 2001 at 8:52 PM

Sure, make it. It will accomplish nothing.

What are you parodying? I have nothing against shooters myself, but I don''t play them because they already feel to me like the game you''re talking about. Violence showcased with no context.

I certainly don''t think such games are responsible for the mental instabilities that result in eventual deaths, but I hardly see what showing the world more of the same will accomplish. Rather, I would say the way to do it is to forget your anger (which, BTW only proves *them* right) and start focusing on showing them what ELSE games can be.

Sure, that''s the cute fuzzy solution, but hey. All media get blamed for ridiculous things in their infancy. It''ll be over soon enough.

Nazrix

Mar 8, 2001 at 9:00 PM

quote:
Original post by Landfish
All media get blamed for ridiculous things in their infancy. It''ll be over soon enough.

More established media still get blamed such as music, movies, television shows, ect. The thing is that everyone wants someone else to blame when they are the ones that should be blamed.

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Paul Cunningham

Mar 8, 2001 at 9:36 PM

I''ve got to agree somewhat with what people are saying about games like Doom and Quake. They are mindless shooters and they deserve the bad publicity that they get. Low in story these games are nothing more than boring. Yes i''ve had a lot of fun with Doom 2 (doom sucked as did all the quakes), but i think Doom 2 had more story than any of the others mentioned.

I also think its terrible that we have actually named a genre "FPS" it really goes to show how dumb, arrogant and shallow the entire industry is - that includes you and i-

There is no reason why every First Person game has to be a shooter BUT IT IS! We deserve what we get, like it and lump it.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

Nazrix

Mar 8, 2001 at 9:43 PM

quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham

There is no reason why every First Person game has to be a shooter BUT IT IS! We deserve what we get, like it and lump it.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

That's not true. Plenty of RPGs are in the first person view and are not shooters at all.

Although, I do see what you mean. FPS games are sort of like a typical horror movie such as Friday 13th or the like. Killing for the sake of killing.

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Edited by - Nazrix on March 8, 2001 10:49:51 PM

kseh

Mar 8, 2001 at 10:22 PM

I think it wouldn''t work if it was just another violent FPS. (FPS just being what first comes to mind.) The idea isn''t to make a parody so much as to send a message. If a parody is the result then so be it. The idea is to do for FPS games what Saving Private Ryan did for war movies. The right people will take notice. If even for just a little while. You''ll have a chance to explain just what the hell you were thinking because it will be a story. After all... everyone has sat up and taken notice.

I don''t think it can be done with violent content alone. We''ve been desensitized to violence for hundreds of years now. You can''t just create more of the same. If you make something that angers yourself and can barely stand to look at or think about, then you''re on the right track. Personally I also feel that such a game should also not be fun or entertaining, else the message is lost. Putting poloticians or media personalities in the game would make the game just too darn entertaining.

Ironside

Mar 8, 2001 at 10:29 PM

If games caused people to be violent, How come there hasn''t been any mass murderes at the CPL tourniments? I mean think about it.. all these guys (and some girls) who play ID''s games non stop. All in one room, thousands of them. Dont you think that if games caused people to be violent, then that would be the plac to see it? All these violent gamers in one locatoin?

But in actual fact, I dont even think I''ve herad of a single fist fight breaking out at one of these competitions. Just doesn''t add up.

Iron

Wavinator

Mar 9, 2001 at 1:24 AM

quote:
Original post by Landfish

What are you parodying?

As kseh noted, and I said above, this isn''t to parody. It''s to send a message. The message is that of the ignored report that practically exhonerates the hobby from hysterical badmouthing.

quote:

Rather, I would say the way to do it is to forget your anger (which, BTW only proves *them* right)

You can''t be saying that angry expression *IS* violence, now can you? What *they* are trying to prove correct is that computer games create serial killers. That is a lie. But that doesn''t stop moralists and cynical politicians from using the hysteria for their own gain. That is what I''d be protesting.

quote:

Sure, that''s the cute fuzzy solution, but hey. All media get blamed for ridiculous things in their infancy. It''ll be over soon enough.

This too much to me sounds like the seeking of approval from power, which is the surest road to hell when it comes to the search for true artistic expression.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Eight

Mar 9, 2001 at 3:18 AM

Sorry if this get''s confusing, I''m going to respond to a few different posts at the same time.

>If ''society'' really wants to stop violence, have them sit WITH >their kids while they play their games.
Well that''s a sure fire way to stop kids playing games.

>I know this is kind of OT, but the way I see things such as
>violence in music, movies, television, games, etc is that it is
>not directly linked to people performing violent acts
>themselves. However, I believe the problem is that some people
>do not seem to understand the difference between fantasy and
>reality.
Yes. But these people are mad. You can''t legislate for that, and mad people have a tendancy to do mad things regardless of outside influences. They''re always going to be a ticking time bomb and it''s not worth infringing everyone else''s rights, just to stop them enacting a brutal Mortal Kombat move instead of something equally nasty from Shakespeare.

>Although, I do see what you mean. FPS games are sort of like a
>typical horror movie such as Friday 13th or the like. Killing
>for the sake of killing.
So? What''s wrong with slasher movies (or FPS for that matter)?

I know I said we should use violence in games/movies for a reason, but sometimes the reason is a simple as creating a fun, maybe a little scary, experience.

Even the moral majorities the world over aren''t too disapproving of these films anymore. Most major countries have had their "banned classics" released in recent years.

A tad hypocritical if those same people are then complaining about computer games.

Jonathon

Mar 9, 2001 at 10:59 AM

Mass murder at a CPL gathering? What an idea!

I have to say that I think the best way to deal with all this video game violence hullaballoo is to ignore it. By now, everyone in the world has heard the major arguments regarding this issue. But as game designers, I think that we need to concentrate more on our work, and less on argument.

I appreciate the idea of using video games as an art form, and communicating through this medium. And if a game designer wants to use the opportunity to address social issues, I think that that is a noble idea. (Of course, a publisher is likely to value profit over art in every case.)

But maybe the best way to protest something is to set a good example. There may not be as much artistic freedom in a major company. But for those designers who develop amateur projects, there is an awful lot of freedom there. A designer can easily release a simple, low budget freeware game. (And if the designer does a good job, the game will be fun. Then it will reach a wide audience.) Maybe that''s a good way to protest.

~Jonathon

civguy

Mar 9, 2001 at 4:27 PM

quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham

I''ve got to agree somewhat with what people are saying about games like Doom and Quake. They are mindless shooters and they deserve the bad publicity that they get. Low in story these games are nothing more than boring. Yes i''ve had a lot of fun with Doom 2 (doom sucked as did all the quakes), but i think Doom 2 had more story than any of the others mentioned.

I believe you liked Doom 2 more than Doom 1 because it had better action, cool super shotgun etc.. There is NO WAY on earth you could''ve liked it more because of it''s plot. My take is that you''re just cheating on yourself. Mindless gore/killing games ARE fun if done right. Not everything needs a plot to be entertaining.

DungeonMaster

Mar 9, 2001 at 7:17 PM

I think that most of us will agree that playing violent games doesnt turns people into murderers, and that role playing is not an introductory practice for future sect members and gourou.

It's the same for most gamers. ( and for the others we could still put a little informative text about the creators of the game not being serial killers )

The problem is to inform people wich do not play video games.

Talking around you might help a little, but if someone have a more efficient way of doing this I would like to hear of it...

Edited by - DungeonMaster on March 9, 2001 8:18:56 PM

Paul Cunningham

Mar 11, 2001 at 2:05 AM

You could always make a game were you play a kid in school and you''ve got to collects weapons and plan a day with your buddy to go on a shooting rampage. That would get peoples attention :p +at the end of the game you can be quite harsh with who you thank for the reasearch material.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.