Warren Spector: "Adolescent sexuality?"

[LookAtYouHacker]

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/the-ultraviolence-has-to-stop-warren-spector-6382680

Could someone inform me of what he means by this and what provoked it? It strikes me as adultist. It's my belief that those who constantly exhibit attempts to define maturity are childish themselves, as a child does so in order to duplicate the behaviour of adults.

The "adult" is nothing more than a physical condition and not a form of enlightenment or the biological key to maturity. Only a child sees it as anything more. Mature thinking is an individualistic mental process that one has to develop within themselves.

What does "adolescent" sexuality even define? In my mind sexuality is sexuality.

Be aware this only pertains to my mindset.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

You could always just ignore it. :s

 

[Zhukov]

Eh, dude has a point.

I have nothing against violence in my games, but I would like to be able to play more story-based games that don't require me to murder 50 guys before breakfast.

Also, while I'm not sure that "fetishizing" is quite the correct term, there's no denying that a lot of games dwell on their violent content in a slightly creepy manner. Ever played Sniper Elite V2?

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think he's making a good point incorrectly.

There was casual, "sexualized" violence in games 20 years ago. Rise of the Triad (1995) is still gorier than most titles today. What has happened is that graphical technology has improved to the point where the same level of violence stops being cartoonish and silly and starts to become disturbing, because it's relatable to real violence.

He also scores points for not making the media effects argument, not that it will matter to the countless people lining up to assume he made a media effects argument and argue against that like good little trained seals.

When you're making this kind of argument, which is going to cause knee jerk reactions, you need to be a lot more careful and specific than he is being. That doesn't change the fact that I think he's making a good point.

That said, I disagree with it to some extent. I love the Hitman series, because up until now I think it's been creative, tongue in cheek and known full well that it was very dark and very silly. But a lot of modern 'ultraviolent' games do not even have that excuse. Extreme graphic violence has just become a lazy cliche for developers and publishers who know (or at least believe) their audience is composed of poorly socialized manchildren and think - correctly it seems - that it will score points.

That kind of lowest-common-denominator marketing is probably something we need to rise above. I'm not saying no game should do it, just that not all of them should.

 

[McMarbles]

Adolecent sexuality?

Video game sexuality standards would actually have to mature to reach the level of "adolescent".

 

[neversleep]

why the hell is everyone within the gaming industry suddenly crying out for censorship?

Ultra violence is fun and if a developer wants to make a game like that, yay! If it sells yay!

It does not damage society, it's a game.

 

[Kahunaburger]

censorship?

Choosing not to design something badly is not the same as censoring bad design.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

You could always just ignore it. :s

*Hugs and kisses*

 

[Preacher zer0]

Not games...

Media.

learn2saw

Hostel much?

Watch any anime? Ever? (j/k, just the vast majority).

Ever read any of Craig Shaw's horror short stories?

Not a games industry problem... a human culture problem.

Scapegoating makes the masses feel better for a while, but the expression of fetishistic violence will use any media available, games could vanish from existence tomorrow and all these problems would still persist.

If we don't play it, we'll watch it, draw it, write it, read it, talk it, hear it, sing it...

So lay off the games or any other single method of expression and take a look at the real source... ourselves and our desire to express these things.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

You could always just ignore it. :s

*Hugs and kisses*

Yes yes, hugs and kisses for everyone.

Not games...

Media.

learn2saw

Hostel much?

Watch any anime? Ever? (j/k, just the vast majority).

Ever read any of Craig Shaw's horror short stories?

Not a games industry problem... a human culture problem.

Scapegoating makes the masses feel better for a while, but the expression of fetishistic violence will use any media available, games could vanish from existence tomorrow and all these problems would still persist.

If we don't play it, we'll watch it, draw it, write it, read it, talk it, hear it, sing it...

So lay off the games or any other single method of expression and take a look at the real source... ourselves and our desire to express these things.

I'd like to throw my bids in with this person. Humans are inherently violent, which is expressed one way or another. We're also attracted to that which scares us. Violence is a scary thing when occurring in real life. Potentially fatal violence scares the hell out of most commonfolk when happening near them. But it attracts us because our natural curiosity drives us to know what's happening.

But I also think that people are enamored with the many difference ways we can CAUSE violence. Violence will always be there, whether in games, movies, books, songs and any other kind of media. The only difference with games is that we can cause that violence ourselves. What I think is really the disturbing part is not that game developers make this violence possible, but that we, as humans and video game players, want to cause that violence. We play these ultraviolent games so we can, and we think it's awesome that we can do it this way or that way.

Like say two people got into a fist fight, what are people going to do, look away or watch? Most of, if not the whole crowd, is going to watch. Plot twist: One of them has a knife! He swings it out and bam, the crowd's watching him because he's got a knife and thus he's going to cause violence in a much more interesting way than someone with their fists will. It's because we desire to see this violence, and in flashier, more impressive ways to cause it, that these ultraviolent games exist. They're here because it's what people want to see, and I honestly don't believe they're going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Geekiest]

What you're looking at here is the complaint of an artist that other artists or consumerists are negatively impacting the respectability and artistic value and integrity of his medium.

Exactly that.

He's not blasting anyone. He's not saying these things shouldn't be "allowed". He's simply expressing that it's not productive and he'd love to see his contemporaries move beyond it.

And the term 'adolescent sexuality' is actually quite accurate. There is a phenomenon in adolescents while making the transition to adult culture and experience-of which sexuality is a part- where they tend to overcompensate for previous inexperience or lack of awareness with a hyper-awareness and a still decidedly juvenile take on what is supposed to be less of voyeuristic achievement-fest and more of an interpersonal culture of relational exploration. See the prototypical stereotype of certain fraternities turning sexual acts into an achievement system or other 'games' that mature adults rightfully look down on as an insensitive and immature handling of something that is an expression of intimacy with another human being.

 

[Grygor]

What you're looking at here is the complaint of an artist that other artists or consumerists are negatively impacting the respectability and artistic value and integrity of his medium.

Exactly that.

Yeah, but the man currently makes his living helping a large media conglomerate profit off an IP that by all rights should have gone public domain decades ago if not for its owner abusing their outsized political influence to repeatedly ram through copyright term extensions.

Making Mickey Mouse games for Disney is pretty much the antithesis of artistic integrity.

 

[Geekiest]

What you're looking at here is the complaint of an artist that other artists or consumerists are negatively impacting the respectability and artistic value and integrity of his medium.

Exactly that.

Yeah, but the man currently makes his living helping a large media conglomerate profit off an IP that by all rights should have gone public domain decades ago if not for its owner abusing their outsized political influence to repeatedly ram through copyright term extensions.

Making Mickey Mouse games for Disney is pretty much the antithesis of artistic integrity.

The nature of one's position doesn't make someone "no longer an artist with integrity". It's the art one creates. Mickey games may not be the Mona Lisa, but this series in particular does put an emphasis on ART. So he collects a paycheck from people who may or may not give a crap about artistic value or integrity. That doesn't mean he doesn't care. Artists these days often end up working within a framework that isn't exactly a paragon of creative freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't make excellent creative effort.

 

[viranimus]

Ive got to ask... Is that even the point of the OP? I get that the article is about hyper violence, but the phrase in question reads.

combining it with an adolescent approach to sexuality.

So I get the feeling what Spector means by that is that games take a child like approach sex that has been SOP, and we are merging that childish approach to a childish approach toward violence.

Or at least thats what Im seeing it as, and not as a focus on the violence portion of the article.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I think soemone is jealous because he can not sell his Micky Mouse game to as many people....

 

[Grygor]

The nature of one's position doesn't make someone "no longer an artist with integrity". It's the art one creates. Mickey games may not be the Mona Lisa, but this series in particular does put an emphasis on ART. So he collects a paycheck from people who may or may not give a crap about artistic value or integrity. That doesn't mean he doesn't care. Artists these days often end up working within a framework that isn't exactly a paragon of creative freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't make excellent creative effort.

I didn't say he doesn't care - I implied that his opinion is meaningless.

Actions speak louder than words. He can complain all he wants about "ultraviolence" being "bad for the industry", but at the end of the day, he draws a paycheck from a company - one he chose to work for, mind you - that actively supports IP policies that are bad for ALL creative media and regularly abuses it's influence to enact such policies, AND he's working with the very IP that is their primary impetus for pursuing such policies.

 

[Geekiest]

The nature of one's position doesn't make someone "no longer an artist with integrity". It's the art one creates. Mickey games may not be the Mona Lisa, but this series in particular does put an emphasis on ART. So he collects a paycheck from people who may or may not give a crap about artistic value or integrity. That doesn't mean he doesn't care. Artists these days often end up working within a framework that isn't exactly a paragon of creative freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't make excellent creative effort.

I didn't say he doesn't care - I implied that his opinion is meaningless.

Actions speak louder than words. He can complain all he wants about "ultraviolence" being "bad for the industry", but at the end of the day, he draws a paycheck from a company - one he chose to work for, mind you - that actively supports IP policies that are bad for ALL creative media and regularly abuses it's influence to enact such policies, AND he's working with the very IP that is their primary impetus for pursuing such policies.

The policies of his company does not constitute an invalidation of his opinion. Is everyone who works for the US Government responsible for the opinions of it's congress? This isn't a man who sets company policy. He's not giving money to them to support their policy. He in no way represents himself as anything other than a project employee. He's doing his job and being artistic to the extent he is permitted. He's making money doing art. That isn't an easy thing to do, and it's not some kind of dirty thing, regardless of it's source. It does not sully his opinion or make it null and void. You're holding him responsible for supporting something he has no control over, and has made no clear gesture of support to other than employment with them.