Support NeoGAF

[andthebeatgoeson]

Such a huge thread; the title says the author responds but where is this? I read the PC gamer article bit I wanted to see the response. Any links?

 

[Mister Negative]

Well the problem i have with your interpretation is that it seems to put the director in a positive light of sort, the one, in a way, bringing you out of the nightmare.
But i think the "femininity" line, is exactly to paint him in a negative one.

It's a roller coaster ride of sorts. "Oh fuck, is this a rape?" "Phew, just a movie." "Oh, this director is a massive sleazeball."

It's tackling a lot of things in a row. Too many, maybe, for players to process in a meaningful way.

The only real problem I have with this whole situation is that it seems like there are people that are reacting to "rape was depicted in a video game" and not, "okay, in what context was this rape presented?" I have no way of knowing if Sean Duncan is familiar with Hotline Miami. I understand that rape is an INCREDIBLY sensitive subject, and in a way, it's almost a necessity that people react like this, but I'm disappointed that people might be reacting to the subject of rape being touched on, and not its role in the game and what it's trying to say.

 

[UrbanRats]

Such a huge thread; the title says the author responds but where is this? I read the PC gamer article bit I wanted to see the response. Any links?

That's the response.
The response is to the game.

@ Mister Negative: I don't disagree with that.
I also think the scene is meant to upset, so inevitably it'll be too much for some, i think that's fine.
People shouldn't get defensive, when someone is expressing such discomfort.

 

[Speevy]

I don't really have a problem with the idea of rape being shown in a game, but I do have a problem with someone enjoying the simulation of this act.

 

[spekkeh]

I never said it did. However, it does determine to a large degree whether something is considered worse than others to depict in fiction. Mapping that relationship to the real world morals is, as you say, fallacious, but I'm not the one doing that (initially); those making the argument that "Murder is worse than rape, therefore rape should be more acceptable than murder to depict in fiction" are the ones making that fallacy, but in reverse. I never endorsed that argument; I started from the conclusion and worked backwards to examine whether it is supported.


I was not making a moral argument (except for that one sentence about a functioning moral compass not being OK with a rape-centric game; feel free to write it off as me being cheeky); I took pains throughout to state that I was talking about what is considered acceptable in story and fiction. That's a factual question, not a moral one.

I never said that morals are determined by majority consensus; that's absurd.

Then you only stated something that we already knew and was meaningless, that people get upset by rape and not by murder in entertainment.

However you framed your post with that the reasoning by people who found murder to be worse than rape were being illogical, and subsequently used contemporary culture to prove your point. Apart from the is/ought problem or even analytic/synthetic distinction, culture is almost defined as 'human acts that are illogical'.

 

[JABEE]

The most fucked up thing to me is the film director going "And you, work on your feminity" to the actress. Be sexy when you're playing someone getting raped!

I think that is the cue that and the point where what a character is saying is so repugnant and unnatural that author is trying to make a point with the hyperbole.

It's a mechanism that writers of satire use. They will often say things and create a fictional scenario to highlight how wrong something is or to shine light on something. I believe it's supposed to make the player of the game feel disgusted in themselves for consuming the media.

You see it in things like the Colbert Report. People unaware of his act find his opinions to be vile. Someone in the Colbert thread asked why he was asking such mean questions.

I remember sitting in English class with people that actually believed A Modest Proposal was meant as a serious suggestion. They didn't pick up on exaggeration or the extent to which Swift wrote his work to get the point across.

I think you see that in the way game critics react in their writings. They have no experience looking at stories and seeing any kind of nuance in things that are beyond what is explicitly pointed out to them.

The Last of Us does this effectively with their depictions of murder. They make you hate Joel as a person. Many have used this hatred of Joel to criticize the game for not having characters that they enjoyed playing or they thought the tone of the game was too somber.

Gamers have to fight against the idea that every game has to include a protagonist that follows your own moral code. Games should be critiqued in ways that go beyond just fun factor and whether you felt your vision of who a character should be was represented in the final game.

I guess to address your original point. Based on the context of the series, I'm guessing that line was not made as a serious expression of the author's feelings towards women, but as a device to make you feel disgusted and to establish your character and the people he converses with as people who are disgusting human beings in the eyes of anyone with the lowest amount of empathy and morality.

 

[JABEE]

Your post was fine, my issue is with the people pulling it out of thin air.













They've all been called out plenty of times before on previous pages and my intention isn't to start a quote war, I'm just mystified at how quick some people are to equate sharing an opinion with demanding that all dissent to your position needs to be destroyed.

I said later, that censored was the wrong word and I was wrong in saying it. I do not wish for people's criticisms to be destroyed. I have made many posts after that in this thread that expand on my feelings.

 

[Orayn]

I said later, that censored was the wrong word and I was wrong in saying it. I do not wish for people's criticisms to be destroyed. I have made many posts after that in this thread that expand on my feelings.

And I recognize that you elaborated on your feelings, I was just pointing out that you were still one of the people who jumped the gun and pulled out the C-word because your emotions probably got riled up a bit as well. Slightly ironic given the ways people have attacked Cara Ellisson over this, no?

 

[Mister Negative]

I think that is the cue that and the point where what a character is saying is so repugnant and unnatural that author is trying to make a point with the hyperbole.

It's a mechanism that writers of satire use. They will often say things and create a fictional scenario to highlight how wrong something is or to shine light on something. I believe it's supposed to make the player of the game feel disgusted in themselves for consuming the media.

You see it in things like the Colbert Report. People unaware of his act find his opinions to be vile. Someone in the Colbert thread asked why he was asking such mean questions.

I remember sitting in English class with people that actually believed A Modest Proposal was meant as a serious suggestion. They didn't pick up on exaggeration or the extent to which Swift wrote his work to get the point across.

I think you see that in the way game critics react in their writings. They have no experience looking at stories and seeing any kind of nuance in things that are beyond what is explicitly pointed out to them.

The Last of Us does this effectively with their depictions of murder. They make you hate Joel as a person. Many have used this hatred of Joel to criticize the game for not having characters that they enjoyed playing or they thought the tone of the game was too somber.


Gamers have to fight against the idea that every game has to include a protagonist that follows your own moral code. Games should be critiqued in ways that go beyond just fun factor and whether you felt your vision of who a character should be was represented in the final game.

I guess to address your original point. Based on the context of the series, I'm guessing that line was not made as a serious expression of the author's feelings towards women, but as a device to make you feel disgusted and to establish your character and the people he converses with as people who are disgusting human beings in the eyes of anyone with the lowest amount of empathy and morality.

I think the problem with this in video games is that there are some people who just can't help cheering for the player character. There are people who loved being Joel, defending Ellie by committing gruesome murders, and seeing no problem with his actions at the end of the game. These are people who get too invested in their player characters, I think. You see it with Breaking Bad, as well. There are people who just can't help cheering for Walter White even though he's an awful, awful maniac.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Criticism is fine and good. Any sort of criticism. If we don't agree with it or care about it, we don't have to pay attention to it, and that's also fine and good.

I think most people will (and seem to have, in this thread) assume the critic wants the game changed or censored because, honestly, that's what most critics of games with objectionable content have sought for most of gaming's existence. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but in this case it's the wrong one.

I think the problem with this in video games is that there are some people who just can't help cheering for the player character. There are people who loved being Joel, defending Ellie by committing gruesome murders, and seeing no problem with his actions at the end of the game. These are people who get too invested in their player characters, I think. You see it with Breaking Bad, as well. There are people who just can't help cheering for Walter White even though he's an awful, awful maniac.

Not everyone is going to "get it," no matter what "it" is. I'm sometimes annoyed by people, for example, who laugh at horrific things in certain films (where the content clearly isn't supposed to induce laughter), but nobody has any control over how other people react to anything.

All the artist can do is try to present content in a way he or she knows will affect most people in the audience a certain way. Some people, after all, will never surrender themselves to the manipulations of a storyteller. And some people are just fucked up. Nothing to be done about it.

 

[Mistouze]

I guess to address your original point. Based on the context of the series, I'm guessing that line was not made as a serious expression of the author's feelings towards women, but as a device to make you feel disgusted and to establish your character and the people he converses with as people who are disgusting human beings in the eyes of anyone with the lowest amount of empathy and morality.

To be clear, I didn't play the first game and was just expressing how the pixelated pseudo rape didn't phase me while that character saying this disgusted me. Without more context about this game, I'd tend to agree with you. For whatever it's worth this scene will at least get people to talk and think about the issues at hand.

 

[JABEE]

And I recognize that you elaborated on your feelings, I was just pointing out that you were still one of the people who jumped the gun and pulled out the C-word because your emotions probably got riled up a bit as well. Slightly ironic given the ways people have attacked Cara Ellisson over this, no?

It's not ironic, because I didn't attack Cara. In order for it to be ironic, I would have had to attack her.

I do agree that I was wrong to associate censorship with this specific incident.

To be clear, I didn't play the first game and was just expressing how the pixelated pseudo rape didn't phase me while that character saying this disgusted me. Without more context about this game, I'd tend to agree with you. For whatever it's worth this scene will at least get people to talk and think about the issues at hand.

I hope it makes people look at criticism in ways that go beyond just their visceral reaction to something and to value games on how it made you feel good about yourself playing the game. Some games do that and do it very well. And Night-Trekker probably does have the right idea. Not everyone is going to get "it" and what the author intended the message to be even if it's clear to most of the audience. All you can do is disagree with the critic when you disagree with their interpretation.

 

[sonicmj1]

Criticism is fine and good. Any sort of criticism. If we don't agree with it or care about it, we don't have to pay attention to it, and that's also fine and good.

I think most people will (and seem to have, in this thread) assume the critic wants the game changed or censored because, honestly, that's what most critics of games with objectionable content have sought for most of gaming's existence. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but in this case it's the wrong one.

I honestly hadn't considered the connection between earlier hysterical "critics" of game violence like Joe Lieberman or Jack Thompson (or literal censorship boards like Australia's) and current, more nuanced criticism of sex and violence in games until now. They're such different kinds of criticism, but I could see why some people might unconsciously lump them together.

Hopefully people start to get past their kneejerk reactions and see this criticism as part of healthy artistic discourse, instead of some existential threat to their hobby.

 

[DocSeuss]

I think you see that in the way game critics react in their writings. They have no experience looking at stories and seeing any kind of nuance in things that are beyond what is explicitly pointed out to them.

This, right here, sums up my feelings regarding a wide variety of storytelling journalists. I mean, we live in a world where a games journalist who has published a book and written for the New Yorker calls Dark Souls 'Shakespearean' while decrying Skyrim for not making it obvious that a place with "Flagon" in the name was a bar, and saying that this was why it wasn't a good story (rather than, y'know, understanding how Skyrim fails at the basic mechanics of storytelling). This guy went on to write a video game with some really, really shoddy writing.

But he's not the only one. I mean, we've got journalists saying Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite were great works of storytelling (despite kinda sucking at basic storytelling in many major ways, not to mention hammering points home hamfistedly or even purposelessly), or praising Mass Effect 2 and 3 as being great, or... ugh.

There's the flip side of that, too. Journalists not understanding stories that are told really well really bothers me. It seems as if some of the best gaming stories I've encountered are overlooked because they're either on the wrong (non-console) platform, or because they're a bit too subtle--for some reason, if a game isn't extremely overt with its stories, people will overlook things like subtext and nuance. I think it's because participation means that some people are just devoting a lot of time to thinking about the act of playing, rather than thinking about the story itself.

I dunno.

I'm ranting now.

Anyways, yeah. I don't think many games journalists understand storytelling well enough to be able to comment on it. And it's... a big... mess. You've got some people who just write really nicely (but apparently without understanding of what they're writing about) getting echoed by all their journalisty friends via Twitter or whatnot, or you've got writers saying "hey, this is [moral thing] and I want to be on the right side of that issue, so I'm going to make sure everyone hears about it."

And... it just... the impression I have is that there's this big echo chamber of people who don't know a great deal about the medium they're criticizing on doing so very vocally and being empowered to continue doing it. As someone who cherishes the art of storytelling, I'm severely bothered by this, perhaps more than I should be.

Criticism is fine and good. Any sort of criticism. If we don't agree with it or care about it, we don't have to pay attention to it, and that's also fine and good.

Not... exactly. Criticism is, in a way, a kind of education, and bad criticism (that is, criticism that lacks intelligence or understanding) can be very, very, very bad, because it essentially educates people wrong, promotes misconceptions and ignorance, and so on and so forth. To contrive an example, if someone criticizes Old Yeller because they think it justifies animal abuse, their criticism is not fine and good, it's worthless and should be shot down. Giving people a mouthpiece when they fundamentally misunderstand the work they are criticizing is bad.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I honestly hadn't considered the connection between earlier hysterical "critics" of game violence like Joe Lieberman or Jack Thompson (or literal censorship boards like Australia's) and current, more nuanced criticism of sex and violence in games until now. They're such different kinds of criticism, but I could see why some people might unconsciously lump them together.

Hopefully people start to get past their kneejerk reactions and see this criticism as part of healthy artistic discourse, instead of some existential threat to their hobby.

Absolutely. And they don't have to participate in or care about or even pay attention to the discussions, either.

I think that is the cue that and the point where what a character is saying is so repugnant and unnatural that author is trying to make a point with the hyperbole.

[...]

I guess to address your original point. Based on the context of the series, I'm guessing that line was not made as a serious expression of the author's feelings towards women, but as a device to make you feel disgusted and to establish your character and the people he converses with as people who are disgusting human beings in the eyes of anyone with the lowest amount of empathy and morality.

The writer, I think, is making a point about exploitation. Hotline Miami 2 has already been established to be, in part, a meta-commentary on the first game, it's mega-success, and the fandom that has grown around it.

If Hotline Miami is one thing, it's excessive and exploitative (in the same way an exploitation film is.) I feel certain that's what Dennaton is commenting on and exploring with scenes likes these in Hotline Miami 2.

This, right here, sums up my feelings regarding a wide variety of storytelling journalists. I mean, we live in a world where a games journalist who has published a book and written for the New Yorker calls Dark Souls 'Shakespearean' while decrying Skyrim for not making it obvious that a place with "Flagon" in the name was a bar, and saying that this was why it wasn't a good story (rather than, y'know, understanding how Skyrim fails at the basic mechanics of storytelling). This guy went on to write a video game with some really, really shoddy writing.

But he's not the only one. I mean, we've got journalists saying Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite were great works of storytelling (despite kinda sucking at basic storytelling in many major ways, not to mention hammering points home hamfistedly or even purposelessly), or praising Mass Effect 2 and 3 as being great, or... ugh.

There's the flip side of that, too. Journalists not understanding stories that are told really well really bothers me. It seems as if some of the best gaming stories I've encountered are overlooked because they're either on the wrong (non-console) platform, or because they're a bit too subtle--for some reason, if a game isn't extremely overt with its stories, people will overlook things like subtext and nuance. I think it's because participation means that some people are just devoting a lot of time to thinking about the act of playing, rather than thinking about the story itself.

I dunno.

I'm ranting now.

Anyways, yeah. I don't think many games journalists understand storytelling well enough to be able to comment on it. And it's... a big... mess. You've got some people who just write really nicely (but apparently without understanding of what they're writing about) getting echoed by all their journalisty friends via Twitter or whatnot, or you've got writers saying "hey, this is [moral thing] and I want to be on the right side of that issue, so I'm going to make sure everyone hears about it."

And... it just... the impression I have is that there's this big echo chamber of people who don't know a great deal about the medium they're criticizing on doing so very vocally and being empowered to continue doing it. As someone who cherishes the art of storytelling, I'm severely bothered by this, perhaps more than I should be.

Great post. And...

FAKE EDIT INSIDE A REAL EDIT:

Not... exactly. Criticism is, in a way, a kind of education, and bad criticism (that is, criticism that lacks intelligence or understanding) can be very, very, very bad, because it essentially educates people wrong, promotes misconceptions and ignorance, and so on and so forth. To contrive an example, if someone criticizes Old Yeller because they think it justifies animal abuse, their criticism is not fine and good, it's worthless and should be shot down. Giving people a mouthpiece when they fundamentally misunderstand the work they are criticizing is bad.

You are entirely correct.

I guess what I meant was every thread of this type goes back and forth between, "What about freedom of speech?" and "Oh YEAH, but what about the critic's freedom of speech?" Everyone can offer a critique, and that's good. But that doesn't mean every critique is valid, as you're right to point out. And, as I said, nobody has to give a crap about any of the critical discussions either. (From example, I ignore most threads about subjects like this because I know from experience that they generally amount to and accomplish nothing.)

 

[onlyindreams]

I think the problem with this in video games is that there are some people who just can't help cheering for the player character. There are people who loved being Joel, defending Ellie by committing gruesome murders, and seeing no problem with his actions at the end of the game. These are people who get too invested in their player characters, I think. You see it with Breaking Bad, as well. There are people who just can't help cheering for Walter White even though he's an awful, awful maniac.

I don't think there's anythjng wrong with that. It's fiction. Fantasy. Not real.

 

[anatomyhorror]

Can't wait to play this rape simulator.

 

[UrbanRats]

Ok, i'm the first one to say that 99.9% of videogames have shit stories, however, let's not just simplify that issue calling the writers hacks.
Sure some of them, or even most of them probably are, but there are other fundamental problems at play here.

A big one being a structure that doesn't lend itself well to traditional, linear storytelling, like literature and film do.
And an even greater one, is how incredibly focus tested and pre-screened and pre-approved by clueless marketing suits etc etc, every game is.
Sure this happens in Hollywood, too, but in film's case, there's a far smaller divide between an hollywood mega monster and a "normal" film.
In videogames the step is greater, from AAA to self published little indie thing.(although things are changing)

It's not as easy as just having a good story to tell.


EDIT: This was aimed at Doc Seuss.

 

[v1oz]

Some people are too overly sensitive. This is just a video game. It is not reality. The uproar is like the Hot Coffee mod all again.


What do you think Bowser does everytime when he kidnaps Princess Peach?

 

[JABEE]

This, right here, sums up my feelings regarding a wide variety of storytelling journalists. I mean, we live in a world where a games journalist who has published a book and written for the New Yorker calls Dark Souls 'Shakespearean' while decrying Skyrim for not making it obvious that a place with "Flagon" in the name was a bar, and saying that this was why it wasn't a good story (rather than, y'know, understanding how Skyrim fails at the basic mechanics of storytelling). This guy went on to write a video game with some really, really shoddy writing.

But he's not the only one. I mean, we've got journalists saying Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite were great works of storytelling (despite kinda sucking at basic storytelling in many major ways, not to mention hammering points home hamfistedly or even purposelessly), or praising Mass Effect 2 and 3 as being great, or... ugh.

There's the flip side of that, too. Journalists not understanding stories that are told really well really bothers me. It seems as if some of the best gaming stories I've encountered are overlooked because they're either on the wrong (non-console) platform, or because they're a bit too subtle--for some reason, if a game isn't extremely overt with its stories, people will overlook things like subtext and nuance. I think it's because participation means that some people are just devoting a lot of time to thinking about the act of playing, rather than thinking about the story itself.

I dunno.

I'm ranting now.

Anyways, yeah. I don't think many games journalists understand storytelling well enough to be able to comment on it. And it's... a big... mess. You've got some people who just write really nicely (but apparently without understanding of what they're writing about) getting echoed by all their journalisty friends via Twitter or whatnot, or you've got writers saying "hey, this is [moral thing] and I want to be on the right side of that issue, so I'm going to make sure everyone hears about it."

And... it just... the impression I have is that there's this big echo chamber of people who don't know a great deal about the medium they're criticizing on doing so very vocally and being empowered to continue doing it. As someone who cherishes the art of storytelling, I'm severely bothered by this, perhaps more than I should be.

I don't believe this is the case in regards to this article necessarily but you do see this. I believe it comes from the fact that it is applauded that someone is willing to write an article that they sadly know a war will be waged against it. Just the act of writing about a controversial subject, no matter how flawed the analysis is becomes something of a noble action worthy of praise and recognition.

This is outside of what is happening in this topic. At least, I believe so. She made a point about how her problem with this situation was the pause before the director cut in being too long.

 

[Mailenstein]

In my opinion this is on the same level with the "No Russian" mission in CoD:MW2 and GoW3's Kratos/Helios scene. So if the rape scene crosses the line for you, those other two scenes should've done that too.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Ok, i'm the first one to say that 99.9% of videogames have shit stories, however, let's not just simplify that issue calling the writers hacks.
Sure some of them, or even most of them probably are, but there are other fundamental problems at play here.

A big one being a structure that doesn't lend itself well to traditional, linear storytelling, like literature and film do.
And an even greater one, is how incredibly focus tested and pre-screened and pre-approved by clueless marketing suits etc etc, every game is.
Sure this happens in Hollywood, too, but in film's case, there's a far smaller divide between an hollywood mega monster and a "normal" film.
In videogames the step is greater, from AAA to self published little indie thing.(although things are changing)

It's not as easy as just having a good story to tell.

I am not DocSeuss, but you're right. It's also about what it means to tell a story in a medium like this one and how to effectively do so. Developers (the ones who are actually trying) are still figuring out what all the possibilities are.

And isn't that exciting? It's truly one of the things that I like most about video games with narratives. I love storytelling in general, and the varied, new ways of doing that are fascinating.

 

[Screaming Meat]

If a game is giving a player horribly violent and disgusting situations to play through in an attempt to make you question your actions, yet giving you little agency within the game itself to avert such actions, isn't the developer more culpable than the player for creating the violent scenarios and giving the player the opportunity to take part in the first place...? How can they wag their finger at you, especially when they are making a sequel that has essentially the same monstrous violence. It seems a bit of a weird position to take.

...it's 8:30am. Be gentle.

In my opinion this is on the same level with the "No Russian" mission in CoD:MW2 and GoW3's Kratos/Helios scene. So if the rape scene crosses the line for you, those other two scenes should've done that too.

I didn't shoot any Civilians on No Russian. I was more shocked by CoD4's opening level. Heroes don't stab people in their sleep, or get achievements for it.

 

[Mailenstein]

I didn't shoot any Civilians on No Russian. I was more shocked by CoD4's opening level. Heroes don't stab people in their sleep, or get achievements for it.

Well, I just picked some very well known scenes, but you get the message, so yeah.

 

[Night_Trekker]

If a game is giving a player horribly violent and disgusting situations to play through in an attempt to make you question your actions, yet giving you little agency within the game itself to avert such actions, isn't the developer more culpable than the player for creating the violent scenarios and giving the player the opportunity to take part in the first place...? Especially if they make a sequel that has essentially the same mechanics. It seems wierd position to take.

...it's 8:30am. Be gentle.

This is why I absolutely loathed Haze before it was even finished. "We're going to make you feel bad for every bullet you fire." In a game where my primary way to interact with the environment is by firing a pretend gun? Take your finger-wagging and fuck off, Free Radical.

 

[akira28]

Do they think it glorifies rape like it glorifies violence? Is rape not allowed in games? Is it because it was a surprise?
Is it because you don't have a choice? Is it because it's the player being forced in taking part? What's the issue?

 

[Screaming Meat]

Well, I just picked some very well known scenes, but you get the message, so yeah.

I honestly think their is a difference between depicting violence and depicting sexualised violence. Your previous post has a bit of a false dichotomy, tbh.

Do they think it glorifies rape like it glorifies violence? Is rape not allowed in games? Is it because it was a surprise?
Is it because you don't have a choice? Is it because it's the player being forced in taking part? What's the issue?

I'd say it seems to trivialise it, although some posters have made some really interesting points as to why it was included. Did you watch the video?

This is why I absolutely loathed Haze before it was even finished. "We're going to make you feel bad for every bullet you fire." In a game where my primary way to interact with the environment is by firing a pretend gun? Take your finger-wagging and fuck off, Free Radical.

I'm all for post modern criticism of the player/video game relationship and all that jazz, but having thought about what people have said regarding the original HM (I've not played it), it seems self-defeating to not give the player any agency in these situations. I guess you weren't a fan of Spec-Ops either? XD

 

[lvlzero]

sort of off topic sort of on, but uh..
if you were playing a game where at a certain point you're told to

Spoiler

"kill the bitch", you then "slap" a woman, then hold a knife to her throat, then break her neck,

would that be enough for an uproar?

Spoiler'd because well.. it occurs in a game that hasn't been released yet.

 

[Night_Trekker]

sort of off topic sort of on, but uh..
if you were playing a game where at a certain point you're told to

Spoiler

"kill the bitch", you then "slap" a woman, then hold a knife to her throat, then break her neck,

would that be enough for an uproar?

Spoiler'd because well.. it occurs in a game that hasn't been released yet.

Wish I hadn't spoiled the next Pokemon game for myself. Damn :/

I'm all for post modern criticism of the player/video game relationship and all that jazz,

As am I.

but having thought about what people have said about the original HM (I've not played it), it seems self-defeating to not give the player any agency in these situations.

Well, at a certain point your player agency is that you don't have to play the game if you don't want to do what the game design requires you do!

That sounds like I'm being snarky and dismissive, but I'm serious. I don't think HM2 will be wagging its finger at the player for coming along for the blood-soaked ride. I think it will simply be exploring and commenting on the exploitative nature of the series itself. Commentary, not condemnation.

I guess you weren't a fan of Spec-Ops either? XD

Oh, it's on my Steam wishlist. I'll grab it on sale sometime.

 

[Screaming Meat]

sort of off topic sort of on, but uh..
if you were playing a game where at a certain point you're told to

Spoiler

"kill the bitch", you then "slap" a woman, then hold a knife to her throat, then break her neck,

would that be enough for an uproar?

Spoiler'd because well.. it occurs in a game that hasn't been released yet.

I think you know the answer to that!

 

[Chao]

Well I didn't know anything about the game before this, so I guess the publicity stunt worked out for them.

 

[akira28]

I'd say it seems to trivialise it, although some posters have made some really interesting points as to why it was included. Did you watch the video?

I did. It seems like they tried to couch it. I'm asking about the betrayal people are saying they felt, I guess.

 

[sonicmj1]

This, right here, sums up my feelings regarding a wide variety of storytelling journalists. I mean, we live in a world where a games journalist who has published a book and written for the New Yorker calls Dark Souls 'Shakespearean' while decrying Skyrim for not making it obvious that a place with "Flagon" in the name was a bar, and saying that this was why it wasn't a good story (rather than, y'know, understanding how Skyrim fails at the basic mechanics of storytelling). This guy went on to write a video game with some really, really shoddy writing.

I know this is off-topic, but I have no idea how you derived this idea from the article in question. I mean, the only quote with "Flagon" in it is as follows:

It must also be said that creating a world as large and populated as Skyrim's has to be one of the hardest writing tasks imaginable. It is, however, only partially a writing task. So let's imagine you're one of the actors corralled to work on Skyrim. You're given hundreds if not thousands of lines of dialogue larded with terms like "dragonborn," "the Jarl of Windhelm," and "the Ragged Flagon." You're standing alone in a sound booth in Burbank. You've got nothing to respond or react to. You've just got these … words, out of which you're supposed to alchemize a dramatically compelling performance. By now I've spent hundreds of hours playing Elder Scrolls games and never been intrigued or compelled by a single character's emotional predicament, despite these characters' clear intention to intrigue and compel me.

Bissell's criticism of Skyrim was that the bulk of its narrative comes from incredibly clunky and poorly presented one-sided cutscenes about stuff that barely relates to the adventures you're actually doing. In contrast, the writing in Dark Souls (whose tone is "faux-Shakespearean", suggesting style, not quality) is pretty much only concerned with what is directly relevant to your adventure, letting the environments and encounters tell the story themselves.

That could be a poor criticism (I haven't actually played Skyrim, so I can't really answer that), but it's nothing like what you're portraying it as.

 

[v1oz]

There's already games out there that let you do far worse things. Like playing a serial killer and going around murdering innocent civilians. They are even driving games that award points for mowing down pedestrians. Violence is generally a big part of video game culture.

There are films with very graphic scenes of rape. No one complains. With that said there should be freedom of speech in game design. Let the market decide if a game has crossed the line. If you're playing such a bad/evil character that kills people on impulse, such a guy that obviously doesn't follow the normal rules of society then nothing else should be sacred to him.

And as always remember this is a video game not reality. Just as killing virtual people in games doesn't equate to you being screwed up in the head or wanting to kill someone in reality. Playing games like this doesn't mean you favour sexual violence in the real world.

 

[freenudemacusers]

There are films with very graphic scenes of rape. No one complains.

This just simply is not true. I have no idea where this notion came from, because it isn't one borne from reality.

 

[Dark Octave]

I don't really have a problem with the idea of rape being shown in a game, but I do have a problem with someone enjoying the simulation of this act.

I have the same problem with films such as SAW. Who enjoys something like that and why?

 

[Screaming Meat]

Well, at a certain point your player agency is that you don't have to play the game if you don't want to do what the game design requires you do! (That sounds like I'm being snarky and dismissive, but I'm serious.)

It's okay, I didn't take it that way.

It's a pretty common argument to make, but it doesn't really bare scrutiny (it was also why I said, agency "within the game" ). What you are describing is entirely self-defeating, isn't it?

They made a game so violent and grotesque where you can either not play the game, retain the moral high ground and not hear their message (so they've just made a horrible game); or you play it and get told off for doing so. Now they are making a sequel that is equally violent and disgusting and expecting the same thing. It's bordering on paradoxical, isn't it?

I did. It seems like they tried to couch it. I'm asking about the betrayal people are saying they felt, I guess.

I think that was in Cara Ellison's article.

There are films with very graphic scenes of rape. No one complains.

Uh... yeah they do. Just because you personally don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was quite an uproar about Irreverisble and Baise Moi.

 

[Night_Trekker]

It's okay, I didn't take it that way.

It's a pretty common argument to make, but it doesn't really bare scrutiny (it was also why I said, agency "within the game" ). What you are describing is entirely self-defeating, isn't it?

They made a game so violent and grotesque where you can either not play the game, retain the moral high ground and not hear their message (so they've just made a horrible game); or you play it and get told off for doing so. Now they are making a sequel that is equally violent and disgusting and expecting the same thing. It's bordering on paradoxical, isn't it?

Check my updated post. (I edit way too much... bad habit I can't seem to break.)

Basically, I don't think Dennaton will be condemning players for enjoying the violent gameplay. They'll just be commenting on and exploring the exploitative nature of the series without condemnation.

Hotline Miami 1 doesn't have an award-winning script or anything, but the people at Dennaton are clearly intelligent, and I think they would frown upon hypocritical moralizing like that.

 

[BPoole]

Why don't people get all up in arms when shows on Lifetime straight up show a women being raped?

 

[freenudemacusers]

Why don't people get all up in arms when shows on Lifetime straight up show a women being raped?

If a bear shits in the woods and nobody makes a neogaf thread about it...

 

[Devolution]

This just simply is not true. I have no idea where this notion came from, because it isn't one borne from reality.

This plus "people are so sensy" and "why aren't you up in arms about killing" are some tired ass tropes that kill any real discussion.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Check my updated post. (I edit way too much... bad habit I can't seem to break.)

Basically, I don't think Dennaton will be condemning players for enjoying the violent gameplay. They'll just be commenting on and exploring the exploitative nature of the series without condemnation.

Hotline Miami 1 doesn't have an award-winning script or anything, but the people at Dennaton are clearly intelligent, and I think they would frown upon hypocritical moralizing like that.

From what I've been shown, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's very much a case of "look at what you've done", but I've only done that because the developer gave me the opportunity.

Like I say, I have not played the game so I'm only commenting on second hand information I've been given in this thread. I'm not condeming the first game in any way (it actually looks awesome XD), just discussing a possible fallacy. Might start a thread, actually, rather than derail this one.

If a bear shits in the woods and nobody makes a neogaf thread about it...

HAHAHA! You win the internets this day. +1

 

[v1oz]

This just simply is not true. I have no idea where this notion came from, because it isn't one borne from reality.

Uh... yeah they do. Just because you personally don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was quite an uproar about Irreverisble and Baise Moi.

As far I'm aware works like Stanley Kubricks classic movie A Clockwork Orange are highly respected. Never heard anyone complain. People realise its art. They even study both the film and books in Academia.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The scene in question is "whatever" in my current opinion, given it's context, but the "faux outrage" comments are funny because none of you have personally been murdered. People reading this right now have been raped. Battle Raper will never be as acceptable as Mortal Kombat. The (made up for the sake of argument) flash game N*gger Slapper will never be as acceptable as Mobsters was on Facebook, despite, you know, killing a fuckload of people being worse than slapping a black person.

Is it faux outrage if as a person of color I wouldn't want N*gger Slapper on XBL but I want games where I can go as far as to kill people? Would I not have the right to voice my opinion and be upset by the game N*gger Slapper?

If I would have the right to voice my opinion (in the situation more relevant to me) and be upset without it being called "faux outrage" amongst other things, then maybe there is a lot more complexity to the discussion than simply comparing severity of crimes.

That's a good post, and the N*gger Slapper analogy is spot-on, I'm surprised no one else commented on it.

And while it has been posted earlier in the thread, I think Jim Sterling's take on rape vs. murder bears repeating, because it sums up the problem really well:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder

I also liked this comment on the video:

I think another matter to consider in the Rape vs. Murder argument is the fact that when people commit murder in a game they aren't really doing it for the murder, per say. People don't murder people in video games because they enjoy murder, they do it because they enjoy the thrill of combat and of vanquishing a foe. If most people enjoyed just the sheer act of murder we'd see more video games where you stab people strapped to beds in a dark basements, and the few games we do have like this are generally found to be just as disturbing as games featuring rape. Sure there are things like GTA where you can shoot random people walking down the street, but that too is less about the murder more about breaking the rules and enjoying the thrill of chaos. It's very human to enjoy combat, victory and chaos, and so we're fine with it as long as it's simulated. If you rape someone in a video game, you are getting off on raping someone, even if that person is fake, and that is messed up and creepy.

 

[Dark Octave]

This plus "people are so sensy" and "why aren't you up in arms about killing" are some tired ass tropes that kill any real discussion.

But both of them are true. I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that killing is worse then rape. Yet killing is ok and rape isn't. And yes, people love to over react to things like this.

Bottom line is if the devs want to put it in then it belongs and nobody should have the right to ever say anything about it. It's the dev's vision and nobody else's. This is also a benefit of being indie.

 

[Sblargh]

Cara made a very good point, I think. When I first saw the sentence, my reaction was to think that Hotline Miami do crosses lines, always did, and that this was one more; but her saying that the game removed her rom the position of the one doing the evil stuff to the one suffering the evil stuff is a very crucial point.

I think Hotline Miami's hyperviolence have a very important place in the industry. It pushes boundaries, makes us think about the hobby, create feelings, etc.; but that only works if you are hitting the target, i.e., if you are in the shoes of the drug-fuelled maniac murdering people. If a rape scene ends up being bigger than this - and to some women this will definetly be the case - then the game conceptually bit more then it could chew, in my opinion. It went for a boundary it is not ready to tackle.

I respect them for trying, but I also respect this kind of well thought criticism that shows how they might have failed. I think gaming, if we are to keep believing is an artform, can't shy away from this very troubling subject; but the way this game in particular handled it might have missed the mark. It shows that if we want to discuss certain complex issues, we have to grow enough in order to deserve this debate. We're not quite there, yet.

 

[freenudemacusers]

As far I'm aware works like Stanley Kubricks classic movie A Clockwork Orange are highly respected. Never heard anyone complain. People realise its art. They even study both the film and books in Academia.

You must not have paid much attention to the movie's history. Two seconds of google will straighten you out.

 

[Sblargh]

But both of them are true. I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that killing is worse then rape. Yet killing is ok and rape isn't. And yes, people love to over react to things like this.

Bottom line is if the devs want to put it in then it belongs and nobody should have the right to ever say anything about it. It's the dev's vision and nobody else's. This is also a benefit of being indie.

Time to lock all threads related to Hotline Miami, I guess.

 

[Screaming Meat]

As far I'm aware works like Stanley Kubricks classic movie A Clockwork Orange are highly respected. Never heard anyone complain. People realise its art. They even study both the film and books in Academia.

That doesn't exactly mean there isn't any controversy about films or books depicting rape, does it?

A Clockwork Orange caused quite a stir upon it's first release. It is highly regarded in hindsight, much like all of Kubrick's work.

Bottom line is if the devs want to put it in then it belongs and nobody should have the right to ever say anything about it. It's the dev's vision and nobody else's. This is also a benefit of being indie.

Let me get this straight: you are against censorship of games, but are for the censorship of criticism of games?

 

[v1oz]

You must not have paid much attention to the movie's history. Two seconds of google will straighten you out.

You will always get people on the fringes. But the broad consensus was positive.