Torture or no Torture

[CloudAtlas]

If you want to force the player to be the perpetrator of torture, i.e. force the player to do something really terrible, and show it in vivid detail, you should come up with a damn good reason for it. It should be beneficial for your narrative, and your narrative better be good in the first place. But the act of torture should always be portrayed as evil, an necessary or emotionally justifiable evil perhaps, but an evil nonetheless.

But yea, you better tell a good story if you do it.

I think this comes as close to my own thoughts on the subject as one can, although I think the "necessary evil" thing is a little too much for me to allow, at least on torture. Even if you make it as unpleasant and demonized as possible (even excluding the necessary part), just having the player go through it is desensitizing to the effects of torture if enough games include it.

Due to the interactivity of video games, I don't think I'll ever really be okay with the depiction of torture in them, at least ones the player directs and participates in. It's just over the line to me.

After reading your comment, I feel inclined to agree with you here. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you do want to tell a really dark tale, and do want to show torture, wouldn't you achieve the same effect if you let another character than the player character perpetrate it?

There's a lot of inconsistency in this thread.
A lot of people setting out rules as to when torture can and cannot be shown in games and rules as to how torture should be treated. Rules that people would never dream of assigning to other criminal acts (like murder and theft).

People can put whatever the hell they want in their games and assign whatever tone they want to it.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I know you guys are all about freedom of speech and freedom of arts and what not in such cases, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of response.
Few people (I guess) are saying that Twilight should be banned, but that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to say that it's a really bad role model for girls, that you shouldn't write books like this. Just because Infinity Ward is free to create a game with such fucked up, problematic 'Murica! story like CoD:Ghosts doesn't mean it should.
Game makers, like creators of any form of art or entertainment, have a social responsibility too. It's up to them if they accept it, though.

And you can tell the darkest tales you want without a narrative full of problematic messages. You just have to think a bit harder about your story... and, well, actually tell a good story. Now I won't go as far as to say that game creators have a responsibility to tell good stories as well, but games would hardly be worse for it.

 

[Smeatza]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I know you guys are all about freedom of speech and freedom of arts and what not in such cases, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of response.

This was a little confusing to me at first.
When I say freedom of response I'm referring to one's freedom to criticise other's works.

Few people (I guess) are saying that Twilight should be banned, but that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to say that it's a really bad role model for girls, that you shouldn't write books like this.

"This character is a bad role model" and "you shouldn't write books like this" are two whole worlds apart. One is a criticism, one is an appeal to the creator to give up their work because you have decided you don't like it.

Just because Infinity Ward is free to create a game with such fucked up, problematic 'Murica! story like CoD:Ghosts doesn't mean it should.

You can criticise all you want but when you cross the line into telling someone they "shouldn't be doing something" you should have some solid, tangible evidence that they shouldn't be doing so. Rather than just a personal distaste.

Game makers, like creators of any form of art or entertainment, have a social responsibility too. It's up to them if they accept it, though.

Social responsibility doesn't mean one has to pander to the sensibilities, prejudices and norms of an audience.

I don't believe in setting arbitrary rules for when certain subjects can be used in fiction and in what light they can be used. Torture is no exception to that belief.

 

[CrazyCrab]

No and if I had the power to Id remove all torture scenes from games where the player is supposed to somehow like the character doing it. If the goal is to kill the person doing it, why not. In my humble opinion torture is humanity's biggest crime and there is no need for portrating it as something useful or making the character doing it a hero.
Freedom of arts? Sure, but there is a limit and seeIng that kids play games like GTA V I find it digusting.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't really have any major issues with torture being in a game as long as it's justified in some way. That's the part where I feel the torture in GTA5 failed. Not that it wasn't justifiable within the plot or in relation to the chracters, but that there seems to be honest confusion about why it was there in the first place. I feel that if RockStar had done their jobs, there wouldn't be any debate over whether it was sadistic enjoyment for the player or a timely commentary on the modern era. It would be obvious what they were going for to everyone.

Also, I feel that there really shouldn't be any issue over a player not enjoying a scene like the one in GTA5. In actuality, it's the sort of thing that extends to the game as a whole where the protagonists are, in a simple term, unlikable. Not that developers should always have to make their protagonists likable every-persons, but just that not liking the characters (or not wanting to participate in a torture scene) is a perfectly valid reason to not get into a game.

 

[Jamash]

The Punisher was subtle?

That game was on it's way to being classified as Adults Only by the ESRB until the developers lower it's content enough to get M rating by adding a grey-scale effect and a premature cut-away on some of more excessive scenes.

There's nothing somewhat subtle about a comic book adaptation and movie tie-in game who's torture scenes were so strong, so unsubtle, that the game was almost officially classified as unsuitable for everyone below the age of majority as hardcore pornography.

Compared to the many fantastic and inventive torture scenes in The Punisher, the one torture scene in GTA V would be in the running for the 2013 Most Thought Provoking and Artistically Tasteful Scene in Media award.

 

[Vern5]

I love torture in games, but those games are too brutal for me to like. When I torture people I like to do so using friendship speeches and brainwash them to join you.

Ah yes, the JRPG protagonists' guide to torture.

OT: I don't mind torture in games but I don't like being forced into it. I would rather be asked if I want to torture someone for their information or skip it if I'm feeling squeamish.

If the players are being forced to watch or engage in torture scenes, then the only people who are really suffering are the players. The devs are psychologically traumatizing their poor fans with torture scenes. And while I can appreciate the devs making these scenes for the sake of their art, they should probably understand that the scene they made to make people uncomfortable is going to make people uncomfortable. People don't like being uncomfortable. Hence the many complaints.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Anything should be allowed in fiction.
Just apply the adult advisory label where necessary.

This.

I'm not going to comment on any specific torture scene... because I don't care. I haven't played any of these games with torture scenes (not my kinda game for the most part), but as noted, torture is something that really happens. It can be tragic or necessary - or both - but it exists and thus should be portrayed.

Now, if the complains are that it's being portrayed badly (or being glorified), then I could understand them as long as the complaints remained at the level of critique - an announcement of one's distaste over a piece of bad art. There's a difference between saying "I don't like this piece of art" and "this art shouldn't exist because I don't like it" - the former is fine - encouraged even - while the later is toxic. As veloper says, anything should be allowed in fiction. If you don't like one specific thing, then try some other fiction.

 

[Psychobabble]

I love torture in games, but those games are too brutal for me to like. When I torture people I like to do so using friendship speeches and brainwash them to join you.

The characters and reasons have a strong influence, but one of the reasons I dislike it is I don't like hitting people who can't hit back. If the characters are just trying to get information that's one thing, but at least in GTAV they seem to enjoy it.

"If you don't tell me what I want to know it's the friendly kittens again for you!"

"NO NO!! NOT THE KITTENS!! ANYTHING BUT THE KITTENS!!! AYEEEEEE!!!! .... I love you."


If it supports the narrative and has a point for being included, I suppose it's fine. Though personally I have little interest in seeing such activities touted as "entertainment". And sure as hell don't want to be forced to take an active part in such activity simply because the game maker demands it, such as GTA V did. And on the subject of the whole GTA thing, it annoyed me due to the fact it felt both gratuitous and was a clear instance where the game maker felt their little story was far more important than anything the player might want. So the whole torture malarkey there felt like a big "fuck you" to the audience, at least to me.

 

[white_wolf]

There could also be rage generated because non gaming parents still wrongly assume games are for children and ergo shouldn't contain such things but then these are the same parents who bought them that M game in the first place w/o researching it or watching youtube lets play videos to see the content before they spend their money on what Jhonny or Sussie wants.

For me I've got no problem with me the character being tortured, its dramatic if used correctly or it can even strengthen my desire to fallow the lead or protect him from future harm in Sleeping Dogs for instance you are tortured it seems to me they also edited it but really when they started drilling my knee cap I couldn't watch it! The only complaint I had was, " Dude you just drilled my leg yet now that I'm free I can run, jump, and kick but like it didn't happen WTF?" So yeah we got the after torture problem with that game. MGS tired to have after torture moments that worked well I find this the some of the most unforgettable parts of the game and bond me to Snake it could also be due to the fact I had to suffer with him! But I also like him as a character the most here he's human not brickman. As far as the other games OP mention I haven't played them. I have watched some of the Punisher gameplay and that's not subtle torture just as in SD I can smash someone's head into a fan and watch it spray his blood about this is pure gore the moves are there to give this gore they aren't needed but are optional.

I do however have a problem with me the player being forced to torture npcs deserving or not in order to progress the game or have this torture in the plot as part of the cutscene without my consent. Again its done for the drama occasionally to flesh out a character's personality but for me this is not appealing I don't want to have to be forced to do this even if its minor like place broken glass in a man's jaw and punch him that's uncalled for and with some games it makes me want to toss the remote down and go FU I'm done with your series. If its optional and I'm not forced to do it I find I can stay with the series because its my choice to do those things but when its in the narrative or part of advancing the story and you must stay and watch or participate you can either lose me after that game or make me never want to pick up your game in the first place.

 

[kommando367]

Keep the current amount of torture seen in today's games (about 1 torture scene every 10-15 games), but increase the prevalence of masochistic torture victims just to mix it up.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hey, have you seen the stuff Batman does to goons in Arkham Origins? I don't care how good at martial arts he is, most of the moves he pulls would actually kill people, and most of others would be likely to leave them crippled for life.

Batman has a code, man. It literally prevents him from killing. The cooooooooooode.

If it's cartoony and obviously ironic, then it's a bit less iffy. I mean, I want a game where I lock a person in the room and tell them "Talk, or I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU THE BEST OF JERRY SPRINGER!" The mere threat should be enough to make anyone spill the beans.

You...You MONSTER!

But seriously, and OT:

Torture is nothing new, but I can see why people would be bothered by being asked to partake in torture. Especially without warning.

It doesn't bother me. Not because I'm a heartless sociopath or I get off on it, but because the people on the screen aren't real. My brain doesn't react the same way to something I know is fake. And I'm not saying others should get over it, I'm just saying it doesn't impact me. It's no worse than slaughtering thousands of people in a video game. In the real world, I worry about hurting people if I raise my hands in self defense (not because I'm a badass, but because I have this thing against harming people). In vidya gaemz? I will jump into the middle of a thousand people and mow them down with whatever weapon the game gives me.

I think veloper has a decent point, though:

Just apply the adult advisory label where necessary.

I think part of the thing about the GTA controversy is that it came out of nowhere and was never spoken of again. It's not particularly in tone for the series, and that's odd to say considering my GTA death toll.

People really just need to, for lack of a better term "harden up" when faced with this stuff.

If you want people to alter their emotional state, why not prove how easy it is by demonstrating empathy for others?

Telling people to toughen up is a specious solution. Not everyone processes things the same way. It's unreasonable to ask for a one-size-fits-all remedy, anyway, but this one is particularly unrealistic.

After reading your comment, I feel inclined to agree with you here. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you do want to tell a really dark tale, and do want to show torture, wouldn't you achieve the same effect if you let another character than the player character perpetrate it?

Given the more visceral response from the first person act of torture in games like GTA, I would think that the act of having to do it yourself seems to drive the point home. I've seen Jack Bauer fans complain about GTA V.

Then again, I'm the one watching Burn Notice and thinking they probably could have had the same effect with 90% of the explosions removed, so I'm not entirely inclined to disagree.

I also don't buy that it was necessary for GTA's satire. Most of GTA's satire is to state the thing they're condemning unambiguously, then make a gay/black/transsexual joke. If GTA V's torture scene was indeed to make criticism on the state of gamers, it is far too brilliant for the game it's in.

I know you guys are all about freedom of speech and freedom of arts and what not in such cases, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of response.

Especially if said speech or art is also commercial in nature. You want people buying your stuff. That's kind of the point.

 

[Callate]

I tend to fall on the "never say never" side; I don't think any material should be inherently forbidden, though I'd prefer it be handled well. But I do find the "mainstreaming" of torture more than a little disturbing. It's appalling that it may still be occurring in real life, and possibly even perpetuated by my country; I'm uneasy with it becoming something we're culturally "okay" with.

In any of a hundred games you "kill" hundreds or even thousands of people, just as in any of a hundred action movies the hero does the same. But almost invariably, those are people who are also trying to kill you/the hero (GTA and its sidewalk-driving antics being the obvious exception).

It's becoming something of a trope- the bad guy smugly sitting back, knowing the "good guys" will never sink so low as to hurt a prisoner, despite how wretched and vicious that prisoner might be, or how important the information he has is to the good guys' cause. But, ah ha, he's assumed too much, pushed too far, and now he'll get his comeuppance, and we'll feel vindicated. I get how and why it works dramatically, but I worry that there are people who think this is how the situation plays out in real life. People tend to forget that "good guy" tends to be a matter of perspective, and there are real reasons to demand that all prisoners be treated humanely.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I love torture in games, but those games are too brutal for me to like. When I torture people I like to do so using friendship speeches and brainwash them to join you.

The characters and reasons have a strong influence, but one of the reasons I dislike it is I don't like hitting people who can't hit back. If the characters are just trying to get information that's one thing, but at least in GTAV they seem to enjoy it.

Of course they enjoy it; both of the characters in that scene are complete fucking psychopaths. I'm with ya, though, honestly. I cringed during that whole scene. But I guess unlike you, I don't really have anything against torture scenes in a game.

Someone mentioned glorification earlier... I don't think the scene in GTA V glorifies torture in any way. I think anything Trevor does is, well, less than glorious. Splinter Cell... maybe. I mean you're supposed to like Sam Fisher, and I don't know that we're supposed to like Trevor. So when Sam tortures somebody for the "Greater good," that's maybe skirting a little close to glorification. When Trevor does it, he's doing it for enjoyment, and getting information is just a bonus. He literally says as much as the scene begins.

Let it be known that Trevor is one of my favorite characters of all time, but I don't like him. You know?

 

[Jamieson 90]

I'm not against torture per say but if it's going to be included it should be a fully contrable option on the players part.

 

[frizzlebyte]

Social responsibility doesn't mean one has to pander to the sensibilities, prejudices and norms of an audience.

I don't believe in setting arbitrary rules for when certain subjects can be used in fiction and in what light they can be used. Torture is no exception to that belief.

True, and as a writer I don't want people telling me what I can and can't place in my works, either. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that people can't think including certain content is enormously irresponsible, and thus speak out about it. The risk of normalizing something as abhorrent as torture in the public consciousness is exactly the kind of thing that I will rail against to my dying breath. People are still free to include it, and defend it, as well.

And anything that I write about that someone thinks is irresponsible or offensive can shout at me, and I will defend my works.

See: Gentleman's agreement!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

If you want to force the player to be the perpetrator of torture, i.e. force the player to do something really terrible, and show it in vivid detail, you should come up with a damn good reason for it. It should be beneficial for your narrative, and your narrative better be good in the first place. But the act of torture should always be portrayed as evil, an necessary or emotionally justifiable evil perhaps, but an evil nonetheless.

But yea, you better tell a good story if you do it.

Isn't that kind the opposite of what you want? If it's beneficial to the narrative and it's done well then it could make someone go, "Well I don't like it... but I can see why it was done."? As apposed to just wanton cruelty that's done poorly and makes a person say "Why do that?! That's horrible!"

 

[Smeatza]

True, and as a writer I don't want people telling me what I can and can't place in my works, either. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that people can't think including certain content is enormously irresponsible, and thus speak out about it. The risk of normalizing something as abhorrent as torture in the public consciousness is exactly the kind of thing that I will rail against to my dying breath. People are still free to include it, and defend it, as well.

And anything that I write about that someone thinks is irresponsible or offensive can shout at me, and I will defend my works.

See: Gentleman's agreement!

One could argue that due to mankind's long and friendly history with torture, that it is already normalised within the public consciousness to a certain degree.
Plus I don't think fiction on it's own is enough to do so.

But if that's how you feel about torture in fiction then fair play, I'm happy as long as you're not advocating for enforced censorship of the subject.