Torture or no Torture

[CloudAtlas]

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.

What exactly is social responsibility in your eyes then?

Does an author that writes one of the most popular series of novels with young girls not have some responsibility toward her audience to not give them really awful role models? Do the creators of one of the most popular game franchises not have a responsibility toward their audience to not tell a story with very problematic messages? Do game makers not have the responsibility to apply great care if they want to make the player complicit in torture in their work, one of the most horrible things human beings can do to each other?

Now of course they're still free to do all that, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize them for that - which, to me, implies the statement that they should've done differently.

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!"

I understand your point, but I don't agree. I think you can show at the same time that, yea, it's understandable why someone does it in extreme situations, someone you sympathize with, but still portray it as something really horrible to do. Random acts of cruelty can be beneficial for your narrative as well, no question, but to let the player character himself, or people he is supposed to care about or identify with, do that, for no real reason, I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

If you're saying "Should we be allowed to show torture in video games?" the answer is an instant and unreserved yes.

Fiction is fiction and literally everything can be portrayed. I'm not using the word "literally" lightly either. I truly believe that any aspect of anything can be incorporated into fiction in some way.

 

[Lieju]

Are the torture scenes in modern video games really a big deal, or do activists just need something else to moan about?

What I saw a lot with the GTAV wasn't activists moaning, but people being made uncomfortable because they were forced suddenly to commit torture. GTA is a series that is sold on freedom, you get to do what you want, drive over people and go on rampages, but it's a choice you make. I don't think many of those people would have had such an issue with it if had been something you could do.

But the game wanted to tell it's story, and make people uncomfortable, so why be surprised people didn't like that they lost their freedom and were made uncomfortable?

As for torture in games in general, of course it can be done, but it should be used sparingly, and it can be criticised if it's done badly or glorified.

I think in an interactive media, you shouldn't force things like that on the player, you should give them a choice to do so, and let them make the decision themselves.
You could put them in a very desperate situation, and give them the choice of trying to torture the information out. And then make them face the brutality of it, and how it doesn't necessarily even help.

I think the same way about murder, honestly. Killing is overused in games.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Sure.

Implement torture.

But with a proviso. Give me the ability to report the perpetrator to the authorities (I highly doubt that any info gained under torture would be valid).

 

[Smeatza]

What exactly is social responsibility in your eyes then?

Well I'd call what you are referring to "corporate social responsibility." Individual or creative social responsibility is much more vague and difficult to define.
For instance, one might feel it is their social responsibility to challenge the "sensibilities, prejudices and norms of an audience."

Does an author that writes one of the most popular series of novels with young girls not have some responsibility toward her audience to not give them really awful role models?

(For the sake of this point I'm going to assume the novels don't differ significantly from the movies.)
No, she doesn't, well she does, but your question isn't entirely fair.
The media in question (Twilight) is designed and marketed to children. Such criticisms can only be relevant to media aimed at children.
But even then only in a limited capacity. There are plenty of positive role models in the Twilight series. Plus a child can pick what you deem a positive role model for negative reasons and vice versa. There are few characters that can be solidly defined as good or bad role models.
A child could choose Finn (of Adventure Time) as a role model, not because of his desire to help, protect and care for others but because of his love of violence.
A child could choose Bella (of Twilight) as a role model, not because of her many flaws but because of her fearlessness or determination.

Do the creators of one of the most popular game franchises not have a responsibility toward their audience to not tell a story with very problematic messages?

There goes that phrase again "problematic messages." Surely you mean "problematic implications" as such "messages" aren't (as far as I'm aware) a primary or intentional part of the game.
In any case while I may find the serious tone combined with the jingoistic elements of the Call of Duty series distasteful, I don't believe they're of any obligation to change.

Do game makers not have the responsibility to apply great care if they want to make the player complicit in torture in their work, one of the most horrible things human beings can do to each other?

You forgot to put the word fictional in front of torture, it makes a world of difference.
And in the case of Grand Theft Auto, I think they have a responsibility not to treat the subject with this reverential respect you suggest. It would be inconsistent with the overall style and tone of the series, and a lost opportunity for comedy.
As it stands, that was one of the few moments in the game where the joke really hit the nail on the head. The segment was a wonderful piece of dark comedy with a farcical twist, it reminded me of shows like Robot Chicken.

Now of course they're still free to do all that, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize them for that - which, to me, implies the statement that they should've done differently.

I personally wouldn't use the term "should" unless I had some objective reasoning. I wouldn't use it for personal criticism.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I think it is the assumption, like in Splinter Cell, that torture works and gives reliable information every time. I can't think of a game that didn't take this tact.
It is a tacit approval of torture. I am willing to tolerate a LOT of stuff in my video games, but the "good guys" torturing people is not one of them.