Braben started out on a good note basically blaming parents for not paying attention to the ratings put out by whoever rates the game in their country. I give him kudos for that.

Then he says that games like Manhunt 2 shouldn't be allowed because they will cause controversy. I don't quite get that. So game developers shouldn't push the envelope because some people might be offended. If we lived by that standard in every walk of life, we would be stuck with clothing that covers us from neck to toe, women not being able to wear blue jeans, movies, books, and music without cursing or violence, etc.

Sometimes someone needs to push the envelope to progress. Not all games, movies, music are meant for everybody, and just because someone doesn't like it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be made. Sure there are limits when using real life tragedies, but in fictional worlds, there is basically no limit.

The issue of violence in games isn't a problem for the industry, its a problem for those that don't like it. People need to realize that times change and they need to keep up with it. All the tools are made available to them, such as ratings boards and parental controls. They just need to use them and be more responsible.

p.s. the violence for its own sake IS a concern in society...it is what is behind random vandalism and assault. Games are not causing it by any means...our love of violence for its own sake is what causes games like ManHunt 2 to even be conceivably popular.

The only way the industry would shoot itself in the foot would be pandering to those who want us to play nothing more than Elmo's letter adventure, American Idol The Game or any of these other kid friendly games.

If movies, books, or even drawing and sculpture did this, none of the greatest works in history would have ever come to exist

@Goodrobot

Of course both have a right to be made, and I'll defend both. The major point I got from the article was just that we should be trying harder to make more art to be taken seriously as a medium.

That doesnt mean any less violence, more if anything, vioence can accomplish a lot on an artistic or sociopolitical level. I just think in the end thats better off.

My beef with manhunt 2 is more about its intention than its content, though I am making assumtions on its content for which I apologise. My view however is that in part the game was made aas violent as it was just to piss off people, and while they should have the right to do that I think in the end the game is lessened by that intention.

Even art in any other medium that tries pushing boundaries for the sake of just doing it seems sloppy, and resultantly seems one dimensional and lacking.

Did he try and makes Gears of War seem not as violent as it is?

I would go as far to say that it is worse than Manhunt 2 simply due to the graphical quality. When heads explode in Gears it is a sickening sight. I don't think this fucker has even played the games he talks about.

[...] Designer says Manhunt 2 Damaging the Industry http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/09/n...game-industry/ Quote: [...]

"..it is not the sort of game the industry should be making, as it is inevitably going to attract controversy."

This sentence does worry me a lot. Because it implies that you should not make something that attracts controversity. Following that line of thought leaves you with not making anything that attracts controversity.

Something i'd consider outright dangerous.

There is an ongoing problem with such arguments as this.

Manhunt is merely 1 game out of how many in existance? And even if you point the finger at everything Rockstar itself makes, Rockstar is one company out of how many?

The truth is that there are a great many genres of TV shows, movies, books, video/computer games, music, etc. And not every individiual is going to like every single genre of every single medium. Let alone every single product within every single genre.

Quite frankly, to point the finger at Manhunt and say it's to blame for the overall negative view of the industry, or to even say it SHOULD be the cause of negative views of the industry, is no different than taking a controversial belief taught by a single preacher and holding it up and saying it's beliefs such as this that mean you should never hold a religious belief of any kind because we don't like what this guy is saying and it reflects negatively on ALL religious beliefs.

Critics are well known for painting broad brush strokes when looking at what they feel to be flaws. See something they don't like, and it supposedly is an excuse to give negative criticism to everything they look at not related to it or only vaguely similar.

Manhunt 2 needs to be criticized for it's own strengths and/or weaknesses and leave the rest of the gaming industry alone.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I say the day Manhunt 2 is not allowed to exist the way it was originally intended is the day that free speech got shot in the foot.

So the guy is saying don't make controversial games or else the industry won't be allowed to make controversial games?

I worked with ol' Breadbin several years ago and while I do agree that all of the controversy damages the industry as a whole (certainly publishers now want less violence because they're all scared of being sued) if you've ever talked to the man, you just can't take him seriously because hes a bit like a retired boxer: years ago he was pretty good, but now, he's just a bit embarrassing.

@nightwng2000
Sadly, people do exactly what you described in your religion example fairly often.

Regarding what Braben said, I think I somewhat understand it. I do not mind a game that "pushes the envelope" if there is a good and valid reason for its content in the context of the game and the story and atmosphere the devs want to create, but I despise pushing the envelope just for the sake of doing so. I know movies and stuff do it all the time, but I don't like it there either. With video games getting so much negative attention, it's an especially bad time to do it.

Of course, I tend to try and avoid being too critical of Manhunt 2, not having any experience with it or first-hand knowledge about what it is like.

Uh, no.

We need to stop the perception that there is no place for games like these. There is nothing wrong with horrifically violent, gory, and/or sexual games. As long as they are labeled as such, they have just as much a right to be developed and sold and we have a right to play them or not as we see fit.

No game should be damaging to the industry. That's the fault of an incorrect perception, not the game or the developer. Public perception is what we need to change.

Andrew Eisen

“…the video game industry would eventually deal with the outrageus practice of marketing mature-rated games to kids when those within the industry began to ostracize those among them that do that.

I was right. That process has begun, as this story proves. ” –Thompson

Reading comprehension skills, Thompson. Do you have them?

Braben is not criticizing the marketing of mature-rated games to kids. He’s criticizing the industry for producing games that cause controversy (when he ought to, in my opinion, be criticizing the dip sticks who make these games controversial).

Andrew Eisen

Jack, get some new glasses and READ the article first, k?

This has nothing to do with marketing mature games to kids at all.

"The issues over ratings, over the ‘Hot Coffee’ incident, Manhunt 2, Bully, and the business over Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man - even though the criticism of Resistance was not deserved - have all helped keep… respectability away."

The criticism of Bully wasn't deserved either.

JACK, MANHUNT 2 IS NOT BEING MARKETED TO KIDS. ANYONE, INCLUDING YOURSELF, THAT THINKS THIS, IS AN IDIOT BEYOND BELIEF AND NEEDS TO BE STERILIZED.



Jesus. Some people never learn. *facepalm*

I don't think the issue is with violent games in general so much as with Rockstar in particular.

We've all seen the games they produce. We've heard dubious stories from those that have worked with the company. They've been involved in scandal and controversy like none other. The company has a history of deliberately pushing the envelope on their titles, seemingly just because they want to see how much they can get away with. And because the president of the company is a very shrewd and calculating individual, there are now rumors that Rockstar submitted an AO version of Manhunt 2 /on purpose/ to generate additional buzz and hype, meaning that they've used the ESRB to play us like pawns. That makes them look like quite the black spot on the industry's face.

If Rockstar produced a selection of games that were aimed at younger audiences as well, instead of only all these big tough manly games aimed at the beer-drinking college fratboy demographic, they wouldn't be under such suspicion.

Attention Mr. Thompson:

LEARN. TO. READ.

How does anyone think thats actually JT?

@ Andrew Eisen
Why does there have to be a place for that type of game? I mean, we call a book that is nothing but badly written sex and violence trash, on the merit that it is nothing but sex and violence. Same thing with movies that are just sex and violence with no coherent story. Now why are games different? We are trying to claim them as a legitimate literary genre and yet we keep arguing the merits of something we would not except in any other medium. If a game has a thought provoking storyline that actually makes a point or gets people to ask questions, and happens to be horrifically gory, there is no issue here. If a game is based on causing horrific gore and death then it is trash. Just like anything else would be.

@chris

I disagree. Games that are made, just to be controversial are ESSENTIAL for art. And sofar, no politician succeeded to make a law that is constitutional, not even close.

As far as controversial games goes: If you don't like it, then don't buy it.
But there will allways be a person that DOES like it.

Horror movies are also made, just to be controversial, and that has been done so many times, the act itself isn't controversial anymore.
Just like paintings. Back in the day, the paintings from Impressionist painters were ridiculed, and back in the day even voices of censorship were stirred.

Oh, and Dennis, please ban Jack Thompson, because lately, he's just posting to be an ass. (Yes, a Jack-ass)

Tristram,

Why does there have to be a place for that type of game?

Simple. Because there's an audience for it.

I mean, we call a book that is nothing but badly written sex and violence trash, on the merit that it is nothing but sex and violence.

True, but we don’t ban trashy books nor do we judge an entire medium by them so I’m not buying your comparison.


Andrew Eisen

don't agree with this guy... and he shouldn't be able to speak for "the industry" as a whole

'respectability' is a subjective word... there's respect from the parents of teenagers who don't want to have to worry about what's in the games that their kids are playing... and respect from people who want to see artistic expression in interactive media...

a baby-boomer age guy in the suburbs (US) wants to see violence in the Sopranos and smut in Sex and The City (i don't regard either of these to have artistic merits -but some would disagree)... and there's no controversy or question of "respectability" or credibility loss from HBO or the producers of these TV shows -in fact, our culture celebrates these 2 TV shows and regards them almost as high-art (which i disagree with)

my personal view is that sara j parker stabbing a guy in the balls in a way that's supposed to be cute and morally justified because "men suck"... is not different than a guy being cut with a pair of pliers to show an act of violence, in a violent context... one instance does not cause controversy and one does.

so... it's a question of whether video games are for kids (*castrates the bunny* "silly rabbit" hehehehe) or maybe they will one day be entertainment for tomorrow's 50 and 60 year olds... and what will happen in between?

@jt... i would say that entertainment marketing in general is very focused on teenagers (outside of Paul McCartney at Starbucks)... and that the content of games is not so different than entertainment in general (Movies, Music, TV)

"I told the American Bar Association, in a 1999 address to one thousand people, that the video game industry would eventually deal with the outrageus practice of marketing mature-rated games to kids when those within the industry began to ostracize those among them that do that."


Wrong again Jack. You see if the industry wants to stay alive then it will have to produce product for its largest target audience, adults. You only assume that these games are being marketed and sold to children because you cannot accept the fact that there is an adult audience for this. R rated movies are marketed and sold to adults, just as M rated games are intended for adults.

Or do you also believe that there should be no R rated movies because only children watch movies?

Tristram,

“The point is not should it or shouldn’t it be allowed, it is should it or should it not have been made…”

Romance novels (trashy or not) should be made because many people enjoy them.

Gratuitously violent and sexual games (even the ones without a noteworthy plot or sociopolitical commentary) should be made because many people enjoy them.

What more do you need?

Andrew Eisen

@JT

What have you've been smoke in? Whatever it is, I suggest you lay off it and try to look at all the facts for once before spouting your nonsense(No matter how unlikely that is).

Sorry GP but I'm left feeling that your quotes are marginally out of context and people would have been less up in arms if you'd left the padding in. For those that haven't read the full interview, I suggest you do. While his comments _are_ controversial its hard not to agree with a fair few of them. Mainly I have to agree that the games industry still has very little respect and while we can all sit back and say "we're new and it will come eventually", developers like Rockstar, and publishers Sony) are setting us back.

GP: sorry you feel that way. It was a lengthy interview and it's not fair to CVG for me to reprint all, or even most, of it. But more telling is that CVG took Braben's comments the same way. Check out the headline on this extract of theirs.

@Jack - you are wrong once again - this has nothing to do with marketing games to children, and everything to do with acceptable content in general.

Also, it is just one man's opinion.

I suppose this COULD make you a Nostradomus, though - spewing SO many theories that eventually something looks somewhat similar to what you said at one point. That you can keep track of your own blather is nothing short of miraculous.

You need to go back to school, knucklehead.

Let's ask ourselves: Does Rockstar's intentions need to be pure in order to justify this game? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is no. Unfortunatly, I've seen too many well-intentioned people whose main interest is protecting the status quo. The reason is not because the want to take anybody's rights away, it's just that they think it's for the greater good. If these people had their way, there might not be a video game industry at all. That's why I think that every medium needs to get a little "dirty" every once in while. It's also why I think the "bad boys" of the industry shouldn't be automatically silenced so everyone else can cover their asses

To everyone here who aruges otherwise because Rockstar is 'being controversial for controversy's sake" and is interested in profit,' I ask "And?" That's not new, and it doesn't automatically discount the game at hand. A good example is GTAIII. Rockstar likely knew it would draw controversy, and that a good deal of advertisement would be word-of-mouth. They (or at least their publisher) probably also expected they would see a return in what they invested in it. That's a simple fact of life for art: Many artists expect some form of compensation, whether it be money or prestige, for their work. Yet GTAIII was (and still is) lauded by the industry and the gamer community for its innovative free-roaming gameplay. Did Rockstar intend for such an impact? Probably not. Nethertheless, the effect likely would have been the same if they had made it a plan from the start.

Before you start complaining "MH2 won't be that meaningful!" I ask you: What do you know about the game? Other than a trailer and a unfinished version nobody here seems to have played, what do we know about the plot? We don't know much, so why assume. What I do know from the first Manhunt is that it did sort of touch upon the elements of human sadism and our innate desire for carnage (again, perhaps unintentional). Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, this game won't be looked upon as a masterpiece. However, you can say the same thing about movies like Hostel and Saw. Neither of those movies are well known for their plot or message either, they're known for their gore and shock value. Just like MH2, their ad campaigns centered around it (remember the "paramedics had to be called..." line from Hostel's trailer). And yet, nobody is saying we'd be better off without those movies. This is probably the part where you think I'm beating a dead horse and say "Movies can get away with that." Well of course they can. Do you know why? Because people became familiar with the concept that movies can do this sort of thing. That likely wouldn't have happened without the presence of earlier 'gore' films like Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Thus, MH2's significance in the long run might, MIGHT be more than we think.

I realize my post is running a bit long, so allow me to sum it up by saying: I disagree. I disagree with the notion that artistic direction and profit motive are 100% mutually exclusive. I disagree with the idea that dislike of the artist is a good enough excuse to censor art. Finally, I disagree that the video game industry will be better off without games that push the content envelope.

[...] Thomas J. Watson throws down a challenge to the games industry following David Braben’s weightless assertion that it should not be making games that attract any kind of controversy. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

@ CK20XX

Umm.. Rockstar Table Tenis?

@Tristram

Even at a time where the industry is under the microscope, they shouldn't just fall into what the people that don't like it want. They may do that for now with the intentions of just making violent games later, but what if when they try it later, they get the same result. They may not accomplish anything by doing that. It may also work. Its essentially a crap shoot.
(Now why would I resort to name calling, thats just childish.)


This whole ordeal over violence in video games reminds of the comedian Jackie Kashian. She said that she likes violent video games, the more violent the better. She then said if their was a game where you stabbed babies, she would think it was horribly wrong but after a bad day she would be sitting there stabbing babies.
You can see the clip at http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=493...
its a little over half way through.

What's with JT's constant insistence that the VG industry markets violent games to children?....

Oh yeah -- Jack said, "They advertise them on SportsCenter."

Now, I don't watch ESPN, but I'm pretty sure there are beer commercials during airings of SportsCenter. Why hasn't Jack said that beer is being marketed to kids too?

Also -- Jack said, "They advertised Bioshock on WWE Smackdown!"

Well, what about all those commercials for R-rated movies? War, Halloween, Shoot 'Em Up, to name a few. Yet Jack doesn't care one bit about that, does he?

Jack, if you really cared about the children, you'd point out stuff like beer commercials and R-rated movie commercials on shows that you think are aimed at teens or younger, wouldn't you?

At any rate....

I only have one thing to say...

I think Jack's law license deserves the same fate as those Halo 3 thieves' Xbox Live accounts. ^_^

@arowe87
I am now in love with her. But I still think games can be just as fun without being horrific. In fact, the most popular games aren't.

@Bizzo

Look, if they made Manhunt 2 about a vigilante who was doing this stuff while running from the police and threw in moral and ethical considerations, then I would agree. Pushing the envelope when you have a point to prove is a good thing. They wanna prove that they can do it? Let's do it... let's show a game where you see the horror of genocide first hand. Let's show wanton violence and its horror and futility. I cannot, however, sympathize with pushing the envelope to test the system when it is simply a case of, "well, I think people will have fun brutally torturing people on hdtv." I have yet to see anyone test the system by speaking out against socially accepted evils like letting people live in poverty and squalor or letting genocides occur like those across Africa. Or a game testing the possibilities of the US governments Patriot Act...hell, you don;t even have to believe it is wrong in order to "push the envelope." After all, I'm sure the makers of Manhunt 2 aren't claiming they believe torture and slaughter is acceptable in real life.

Sorry, I cannot accept that argument when the industry has maintained the status quo in every other way.

@Bizzo

I'd disagree that violence for violence's sake is worthwhile for the sake of pushing boundaries.

I think its sloppy and ends up being less artistic because of it. People should push boundaires and try to push boundaries, but not because the boundaries are there but because they have something to say not because they just want to go against the grain in the end that lacks creativity as it is still defined by boundaries, and usually moreso (just how far theyre passed).

Its like trying to get some cheap laughs in stand up by using the N word (if youre white) Whats so brave or worthwhile by just doing what you cant? anyone can do that it had little validity in of itself.

Thats just my opinion, like I said I abhor violence for violence's sake, saw was terrible, not for the violence but because there was nothing else. Give me blood, guts, castration, decapitation and mutilation in any degree you care to make, but do it for a reason beyond just that you can because thats childish in my opinion.

That said people who do want to do violence for violence's sake should always have the right to, I just dont personally find it to be entertaining. and I think if we want the medium to be taken seriously we should try to make more serious games.

In the end I could be wrong, manhunt 2 could have an indepth examination of the mind of a killer, display a unique moral and philosophical standpoint it tries to show us, and in that case I'll applaud it, but either way I'll defend it's right to be made. I would just prefer something substantial to have to defend.

@gs2005


anyone wanna take bets on what said crazy act will be?


I've got a feeling itll be a while before he plays GTA and then shoots up a gamestop, in the meantime I think......He'll attempt to have everyone overseeing his disbarment disbarred.

@chris

only a matter of time until he subpeonas inanimate objects

@Austin,

or a copy of GTA

Could he try to subpeona a videogame character?

@chris

Hey, thanks. BTW, you bring up another point I'd like to add to. For critics of any medium, the "trash" is just the same as the "art." Video games are no exception. In their minds (and they have certainly made them up) F.E.A.R. is as bad as Manhunt, both are equally decried by groups like the NIMF (cannabilism, anyone?). The matter of whether or not MH2 will be a fufilling piece of art doesn't make much difference. For many of these idiots, the fact that it's being made by Rockstar is enough (remember the "Columbine simulator" claims for Bully?).

Based on all this, a move to restrict MH2 to appease/discredit these people would not only fail, it would backfire, creating precident that would work against any developer who would try to tell a good story with Manhunt's level of violence (ala Sin City). Condemned 2 is a good example. That game actually had excellent moments of horror, and yet the ESRB's early ruling on MH2 has caused them to tone done their content. GP covered this a while ago: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/25/condemned-2-team-works-with-esrb-to-a...

I do not want shockwaves to come and persuade developers to abandon violent themes in their games. As GoodRobotUs pointed out, violence is often an important part of storytelling, and can be for video games too.

Has anyone ever watched the movie Dead Alive? Tell me that really has something to say. I liked the movie for what it is, an over the top blood and gore fest. Why can't I enjoy a similar type of game? Why is the game somehow worse than live recreations of blood and gore in movies?

I gotta say, to be fair, the designer has a point. Although from what I can see, he's speaking from a different angle although he takes Manhunt 2 as an example. A game like Manhunt 2 may be damaging to the game industry and from what I can depict from his statement, it's "better safe than sorry" or "don't make games like Manhunt 2, save the gaming industry."

However, there's also truth in what Thomas, a poster here said, when he said something like let the people catch their breath first and in the future, they can accept this game and realize that it's not something bad. For me also, Rockstar actually set the limit line for violent video games as to where people can still accept it. Let alone be appreciated in the future.

For my final stand, I have to slightly disagree with the veteran designer. As I've said before: Manhunt 2 was edited, ESRB gave it a Mature rating, let the people who want it buy it, leave it alone for those people who doesn't want it. Our freedom, our choice. We decide. Simple as that.

Oh and I don't think it'll be that damaging to the gaming industry. After all, dare I say, games are already part of most people's veins, making a non-gamer a gamer. Wii proved that. People WILL continue to play games.

Manhunt is the video game equivalent of putting elephant feces on a statue of the virgin mary and calling it art.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Has this guy even played Gears or Manhunt? Gears has a carbine with a freakin' chainsaw bayonet, and some of the most gruesome gibs and blood particle effects ever..

"and the business over Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man - even though the criticism of Resistance was not deserved"

Speaking of which, has anyone heard anything new on that subject matter?

Hey folks. Let's not paint Manhunt 2 as a worthless piece of shit with no redeeming value until the game has been released. All we know about the game is one of its play mechanics and the outline of the story.

Frankly, judging by what I've read in previews and on the official website, Manhunt 2 looks like it has a very interesting and in-depth story. Maybe it's chockfull of sociopolitical commentary and satire. Judging by Rockstar's past games I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Or maybe it's just a shallow game full of mindless killing. Who knows? We haven't played it yet so let’s not judge its worth until then.

By the way, a game's worth is judged solely on its entertainment value. If someone enjoys it, then Rockstar was completely in the right to make it.

I enjoy deep, thought-provoking games that challenge me on an intellectual level. I also like games that are completely mindless and appeal to my baser sensibilities. There’s room in this market for both types of games.

I mean, gee wiz, it’s not like every game is Manhunt 2. How boring would that be?

About as boring as every game being Bioshock, Shadow of the Colossus, or [insert artful game of your choice here].

Andrew Eisen

Off topic, but there's a speedrun of Manhunt at http://speeddemosarchive.com/Manhunt.html.

I haven't watched it yet, but if you are interested in the Manhunt controversy, I'd at least recommend watching the speedrun to give you an idea about Manhunt 2. Given that the sequel got an AO rating followed by an M rating, it's made me interested enough to see what went on in the original.

I really doubt the sequel would really be as bad as it is claimed to be. Knowing Rockstar, I seriously doubt they would add a useless game mechanic of casteration with no effective benefit, especially when such actions are an automatic "AO" rating.

For those telling Thompson that he's an idiot for saying games aren't aimed at children, do me a favor and ask yourself to answer this question.

"Can I walk into Toys R Us and purchase a copy of Gears of War?"

Now if the answer is yes, ask yourself why. An extremely graphically violent game being sold in a toy store with a gargantuan cartoon giraffe as their mascot. It creates the misconception that game developers and publishers are advertising to children, but the problem doesn't lie in conscious decisions made by developers and the industry itself.

Games are still seen by the general public and by retailers as TOYS. People buy them as if they were toys, people sell them as if they were toys. Pundits like Thompson as well as game fans and proponents of the medium seem to have difficulty realizing that when one side says "They're advertising their violence to children" and the other says "We can't get people to take us seriously" they're arguing about the SAME PROBLEM.

In order for any of this to be fixed there needs to be a way not in how gaming FANS view the medium, but in how seriously everyone ELSE looks at it. Video gaming is still a pretty young artform, but it's hitting the point where it's beyond that of just a simple tinkertoy. We're long past Pong, we can have games where players need to make moral choices, where the storylines can evoke different emotions in every player who experiences them, where if we want to we can see acts of gratuitous violence played out by a psychopath if we so choose. But unless the industry, politicians, retailers, and the general public all are willing to accept that video games are now a valid entertainment medium rather than just a simple child's plaything, we'll be stuck in this same loop of controversy for a long time.

Specifically speaking to Thompson, even though I'm not sure you'll read this: You have to understand, no matter what game manufacturers and advertisers do, there are still people who won't pay attention to it. The industry does the best it can, but there's still so many people who won't take what they say seriously because "it's just a toy". The parallel with movies in their early days has been brought up many times, but it's still fitting. The medium is evolving, and it's time for people to take it seriously. It's not a grand controversy to corrupt the youth of America, it's an industry maturing faster than people are willing to accept. Do what you can to tell people that they need to take it seriously, but there will always be people who don't listen because they simply don't care.

It doesn't matter, it's still extremely strange that M-rated games can be bought in a toy store. Consider more of a comparison to movies. You won't see Schindler's List next to Barbie Magical Princess Journey 6 on the shelf just because they're both on DVD. You can't say the same for how video games get shelved and sold, and I'll be the first to admit that that's not right in the slightest.

"You won’t see Schindler’s List next to Barbie Magical Princess Journey 6 on the shelf just because they’re both on DVD."

I really have to beg to differ with this.

I don't see this as the industry shooting itself in the foot. Most of the controversy comes from people that aren't gamers. That means that politicians and soccer moms may not buy the game, but they wouldn't anyway. A controversy that would hurt the industry more would probably be to over-hype a game that eventually sucks.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/violence/

'Brute force was accepted and even respected in the Middle Ages. Violence played a major role in family disputes, in the justice system, and even in education and entertainment.

In the late Middle Ages, a father's money and power passed to his eldest son upon his death. This often caused deadly family rivalries, such as the one shown here.

A kneeling man is blindfolded and about to be executed. Through the doorway, another man is about to be drowned. The men in the window above the executioner are the ones who ordered the assassinations. They look on coolly as their relatives are brutally killed.'

So, let's hear again about this 'modern' fixation with violence.....

@Tristram,

True, as I've said before, it's hard to seperate stories where violence is a 'motor' and where violence is a 'purpose', much of Shakespeare included violence, but wasn't the focus. Romeo and Juliet is a good example, however, the use of Sex and Violence has powered just about every story written from Gone with the Wind to the Odyssey. But it's not just the Dark Ages that violence has been prevalent in the description of the Era by the artists of it's time.

The thing is violence has a place in Art, there's no doubt about that, and as for entertainment value, it's a bit of a minefield. I mentioned the new Rambo trailer earlier, that is violence purely for the sake of entertaining a crowd, there's no real message to it other than 'Rambo can kill lots of people', yes, there's a story involving hostages etc, but the purpose of the movie is to show Rambo blowing stuff up. It promotes the tricky question, 'Does that makes the movie 'Rambo' less entitled to Constitutional rights than, say, the movie 'Schindlers' List"?

But then is this word of mouth resultant from the game itself? or the larger issue at hand concerning violent video games? And is more exposure what we need to enlighten the ignorant masses as to the nuances of our medium?

If anythign this discussion has made me want to buy MH2 to see what artistic merit it has, too bad I'm on airstrip one where its not available

I would just prefer if the press and debate were over a game I really wanted or enjoyed, something really groundbreaking.

@EZK

true, and my view is that using that controversy as the basis for a game is sloppy and stagnates creativity if controversy is so basic.

I keep wondering, are we actually going to convince the ignorant masses of the benefits and merits of gaming? or will they stay resistant to chnage till the end? Will our victory only come when we are the controlling generation? just as has been in the past.

Idiot. Artists shouldn't invite controversy? Guess he should decide what games 'should' and should not be made. Wouldn't want to offend anyone. Or god forbid the children get a hold of it. I mean, they can Google videos of people eating feces and fake snuff films, or watch people realistically tortured and killed in Hostel, but put it in a videogame and the world ends. I can't believe this guy makes games. I think he 'should' think about what if people found that the games he make 'shouldn't' be made.

Avoiding controversy will never bring about change. Who is this tool?

And BTW, if the chainsaw in Gears of War isn't ultra-violent, WTF is? I doubt Manhunt 2 has anything worse.

Tristram,

“Part of the problem is that the industry, and its primary consumers, have not yet figured out what they really want. Do we want games to be art, or do we want them to be entertainment?”

Well, all games are already art so that’s a pretty silly problem to ponder.

Before I put words into your mouth, how exactly are you defining art?


Andrew Eisen

games can be both entertainment and art. some are more of one than the other, though.

Skill and imagination yes, expression of those things yes, but not all games are made for those reasons

everyone madden of sports reiteration for example isnt made to express imagination any skill in creation is merely improvement to keep repetition at bay.

I know where youre coming from, But I believe you need the intention to make art, someone could make madden and try to make aesthetic beauty for art rather than recycling a concept.

I think it demeans art to include all things simply by their creation. How do you feel about my damien hurst analogy?

Butchers are definately artists. How can you not admire and be moved by a specially crafted Sirloin cut?

Yes I am serious.

As for not all games being art, I don't think that is it. What it really comes down to is that not all games are good art. Madden to me is not good art, but it is art.

If you went to halmark and told them their greetings cards were not art, they would laugh at you. Sure they are not Piccaso Micheangelo, but they are art.

Entertainment in its purest form is an artform. Whether it is the old fashion story telling around the fire to video games. Entertainment is art. Whether it is good art or not is a totally different discussion.

My point about the butcher was when does an act become art? because art can be anything and without that differntiation we can end up calling everything art, sure a butcher can be an artist, but does that make the act alone art? or that to do it will skill and imagination is art.

But fine, I'll concede your point at least, if only for my love of a good cut of steak (fillet trumps sirloin).

But I'm going to impose the semantic of art and true art for my differentiation of intention and motivation behind the act. for me real art speaks, no matter what the message is. Thats just my opinion though.

It says elite but what level is he? If it's anything below 72 color me unimpressed. Of course they'll have to nurf him in the x-pac.

Braben made a popular 8-bit game, then tried to make it over and over, failing worse each time. I sure liked Elite, played it til the disc wore out, but frankly I didn't even know the guy was alive. How's he "noted"?

Here's my take: There are games that push the envelope of good taste and acceptability. There are publishers that do so deliberately. There's also books that do the same thing, but is anyone suggesting that there should be a government review board for books, music, or any other art? And even if you don't buy into whether or not games are art, are we going to submit to a review board that determines whether it is or isn't acceptable art?

If Manhunt is hurting the industry as you suggest, then I guess market forces will sort it out, won't they?

No Problem Chris. I also enjoy a good debate and discussion on the net. There have been times in this very site that have been less than intelligent, but that is inevitable with the nature of the internet and some lawyers.

I have enormous respect for Braben, but he's simply wrong here; the only way that gaming will get more respectability is if the designers are fearless. If they self-censor, they're going to reinforce the idea that games are only supposed to go this far, but not that far. Non-game players already have a problem with thinking that only children enjoy interactive media; this is going to prove it in their eyes.

Respectibility will come from artistic credibility, and artistic credibility cannot exist without the fearlessness to explore dangerous ground.

Besides, Braben's being a bit disingenuous here. Elite was plenty violent; it just happened to be sanitized by the graphics. Death-by-explosion is no less horrible than death-by-guy-with-plastic bag.

don't delete!