A History of Violence: So Where Do We Go From Here?
The absence of new business models and platforms is the least of E3's worries - the press conferences were a brutal and troubling experience
Does E3 still matter? By now, you no doubt have your own view on the subject, and we here at GamesIndustry International have made no secret of our own, but this year's expo moved me in ways I didn't anticipate.
A week before the madness started, we published an article questioning the relevance of a show like E3 to an industry that seemingly changes with each passing month, expanding rapidly in every conceivable direction. This question is more relevant now than ever before, but unless you have a very short memory you'll know that this isn't the first time it has been asked.
Each year the same discussion begins, and each year it develops along very similar lines. And for all the compelling arguments that E3 is little more than a lumbering relic from a bygone era, the most convincing response is always the same: exposure. E3 is the one moment that those with no vested interest in the games industry give it more than a cursory glance, and this, we are told, really matters.
"This year, more than any other in memory, the act of watching the E3 press conferences was a truly discomfiting experience"
Exploring whether that notion holds any water would require a column of its own, but for the purposes of this argument I'm taking it at face value. E3 - and specifically the E3 press conferences - are the mask that the industry's biggest companies wish to present to the world, yet this year, more than any other in memory, the act of watching those presentations was a truly discomfiting experience: hour upon hour of elaborately choreographed mayhem and violence, interspersed with infrequent moments of quiet that only served to amplify the gleefully gruesome spectacle.
Goons were impaled by arrows, engulfed in flames, savaged by tigers, strangled, bludgeoned, shot and stabbed, mostly in the neck - E3 2012 was either the year of the bow or the year of the neck-stab, depending on who you ask. The stifling majority of demos were defined by or culminated in acts of loud and glorified violence, often accompanied by enough "fucks" and "motherfuckers" to make Quentin Tarantino blush.
I don't much mind that the Far Cry 3 demo opened on a pair of painted breasts, or that Crystal Dynamics believes that the ugly threat of rape is necessary for its new take on Lara Croft - as always, I'll put my faith in the creators, and allow the work to justify their decisions. But taken as a whole, the texture of this year's press conferences struck me as deeply unpleasant, and far removed from the endlessly diverse, creative and fascinating industry I write about every day.
We're so preoccupied with justifying E3 as the one moment that everyone's attention is on video games that we haven't stopped to consider what those people are actually seeing, and the thoughts that must wander through their minds as they turn away for another year. Violence has been a selling-point in games for as long as I can remember. I'm not so naive that I expect that to change, and I accept that others may see things differently, but I can't recall a time when it felt so dominant, so unapologetically central to how these companies see their audience and judge the value of their products.
"We're so preoccupied with justifying E3 for grabbing everyone's attention that we don't stop to consider what those people are actually seeing"
This was never more clear than during the climactic demonstration of The Last of Us at the Sony conference. Naughty Dog's next project is as beautifully rendered, richly atmospheric and skilfully performed as we can rightly expect from the creators of Nathan Drake and Uncharted. It is also stark and unflinching in its brutality; violence so immediate and forceful it left me breathless. But the crowd responded differently: they applauded as one assailant's windpipe was crushed between a wall and the protagonist's muscled forearm; they whooped and cheered as, moments later, his face was pulverised against the edge of a wooden desk.
The demo ended abruptly, as a human head was vaporised by a point-blank shotgun blast. The lights came up, the focus returned to Sony's Jack Tretton for his closing remarks, and in the brief moment before his unflappable professionalism kicked in, I swear I saw a look of utter confusion in his eyes. He clapped, he smiled, he said something along the lines of, 'How about that, huh?', but there was a glimmer of recognition that, in the world of AAA games in 2012, this is how you leave them wanting more.
What did Naughty Dog think of its game being used so hopelessly out of context, as the climax to so much amped-up, slo-mo destruction? I'd very much like to know. It seems clear to me that the intention behind The Last Of Us is not to whip crowds into a state of frenzy, but to create a sense of unease, a creeping disquiet at the unvarnished, punishing reality of a punch to the ribs or a lead pipe to the head.
Indeed, part of me hopes that it will prove to be Naughty Dog's final farewell to violence as a cornerstone of its work, so it can devote more of its time and attention to all that character, dialogue and storytelling stuff for which it so justly praised. But it's the same part of me that believes SimCity was the stand-out game of the show, and regards David Cage as a shining beacon upon the rocks; the same part of me that wished Watch Dogs' many impressive tricks were at the service of something more interesting than making a clean and efficient kill; the same part of me that hopes this grim parade of violence is not necessarily what we want, only what we are given.
A few years ago, the talented, thoughtful programmer and designer Chris Hecker gave a talk in which he warned of the very real danger that games will end up in the same "pop cultural ghetto" as comics books. As that medium developed, the comic publishers became so fixated on regurgitating the same profitable superhero characters they effectively destroyed their own credibility. Even a Pulitzer Prize winning exploration of the Holocaust couldn't remove the negative stigma entirely, and only now is that veil beginning to lift.
"E3 is supposed to be the best we have to offer, but it felt like the same familiar meal served over and over and over again"
The worth of any form of entertainment, Hecker said, can be judged on four metrics: revenue, units sold, cultural impact, and diversity of content. This year, E3 spoke of an industry with a laser focus on the first, an over-inflated sense of its own success in the second, and barely a passing thought for the others. I won't pretend that I like every movie at the cinema or all of the songs in the charts, but even at their worst the film and music industries have rubbish for every taste, and that is what allows them to endure.
But E3 is supposed to be the best we have to offer - there's no denying the skill and craft on display - but it felt like the same familiar meal served over and over and over again. The next generation of technology that so many of us wanted to see will give us higher fidelity explosions, more realistic bullet wounds, and better particle effects on exploding heads, but I suspect the problem runs deeper. I've seen what Unreal Engine 4 is capable of and it won't save us from a lack of ideas.
I am now in my Thirties. I cannot remember a day when there wasn't a computer or console waiting on the desk or under the television. I expected the friends I played with as a child, a teenager, and a young adult to retain their interest in gaming, but with only a few exceptions they all willingly left it behind. They aren't prudes or snobs or prigs; just people for whom snackable mobile games hold no interest, who demand more substance than a game of motion-controlled bowling can provide, and have no stomach for endlessly shooting the same five guys until the credits roll. They love the look of Bioshock, they love the ideas, they love the world, they want those production values, but do we really have to kill all of those bad guys?
There are exceptions, of course. I am certain we already have the games to change their minds, but, like me, they look to E3 for a glimpse of the present and near future of gaming, and they are left with only this: a knife stabbing a human face, forever.
I should mention that I am looking forward to some of the games in question, but at this point it's starting to feel a little like Stockholm Syndrome.
Part of the problem, I think, isn't that violence is so prevalent, but that it's nothing but violence. Films can be shockingly violent, but have a core of character and emotion - Battle Royale, or any Takeshi Kitano film - but to have emotion, empathy, characterisation, you need writing. And writing is the most overlooked part of games. As an example, everyone complains about how DA2 re-used environments, but there were less complaints about what a god-awful story it was, even if the central conceit was decent.
Another aspect - somewhat contentious, maybe? - is that the culture can define the promotional material. E3 is an American show, so compare it to Hollywood and the preponderence of cinematic violence makes sense. What of other shows? TGS, for example, could be seen as the Cannes Film Festival, perhaps? A mixture of glossy American films and art-house culture? I think there is definitely a place for E3, but just like there's Cannes, the Sundance Film Festival, the Venice Film festival, there needs to be more emphasis on other shows which feature less crazy-ass explosions, and more games along the lines of Dear Esther, the new Amnesia game, Company of Heroes 2.
But isn't it the same with movies at the moment? Why is Saw 35 one of the best box office movies? A movie that started as a idea of two students, greatly visualized with an open ending but nothing left to say- now reduced to it's violence just for the violence itself. People didn't get it, that's it.
Good thing is: There are still good and fun things coming like "Wreck it, Ralph". The E3 showed mostly the brutal face of the industry and not the games behind it. It's something everyone understands and just like with the Saw series- if people don't get the plot, let us speak to a bigger mass of people who at least understand the violence in it.
This E3 showed again, that the industry still fears to become more serious. As a consumer I still feel treated like a child when it comes to video games.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Joe Winkler on 12th June 2012 10:14am
There's no way to top the technical showcases of the last couple of years (BF3, Rage, Uncharted 3, etc.) with current console hardware, and most developers will be focusing resources on next-gen games which they can't show yet. So one of the most cost effective ways to differentiate yourself is through shock value. (Unless, as it turns out, everyone else has the same idea.)
I don't think most of the games that were trailed with compilations of their most brutal bits are going to be as relentlessly violent as Manhunt or God of War anyway.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-05-ellen-page-to-star-in-new-quantic-dream-ip-beyond
I also heard from a friend who saw the behind-closed-doors demo of Quantic Dream's Beyond that David Cage was constantly reminding everyone that the majority of the game wasn't as explosion-filled as the vertical slice being shown.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Matthew Handrahan on 12th June 2012 11:07am
I honestly believe that both Metro 2033 and Metro: Last Light represent clear examples of the more adult, mature, intelligent story-telling so glaringly absent from most Western titles and also deal with violence and acts of killing in a relatively sober way. In both Metro 2033 and Last Light, the player is frequently given the option to avoid conflict with other humans altogether. Entire levels can pass without a shot being fired. As a disclaimer, I have the privilege of working on both titles.
Since working on Metro, I have found it very difficult to engage with or enjoy most 'AAA' single player campaigns because they feel.... so utterly ridiculous and distasteful by comparison. Outside of 'work', most of my gaming is now devoted to XBLA / iOS titles that are purely gameplay rather than narrative driven.
I'm not pretending Metro is a faultless paragon of pacifism, but anyone wondering whether a AAA production can deal with violence and death without ever glorifying the player's power should give it a try, because I have a feeling it answers some of the questions being asked here...
Now, I'm not saying there aren't still action films like that being made today... but it feels like there are fewer. You could even compare within a franchise between the two periods: e.g. Batman, Superman, James Bond. The more recent updates of those franchises have had completely different tones and, arguably, more 'intelligent' scripts than their 80s counterparts.
Here's hoping that some intelligent writing and game design kickstarts the process again sooner rather than later...
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Colin McBride on 12th June 2012 1:53pm
Im personally Excited about Ni No Kuni and Zone of the Enders HD. Both very Japanese in nature.
But I think its not E3, I think the gaming industry is at fault because Violence is the current trend in hardcore games. I mean I think no matter what event, the result would have been the same. This is why im eagerly looking foward to this years TGS.
I liked games like Beyond: Two Souls, WatchDogs, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, Darksiders 2, Assasins Creed 3, Rayman Legends, SuperMario bros U, HAlo4 and dead or alive 5. I was also excited about the Wii U.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 12th June 2012 2:20pm
In fact, make it hard for people to obtain projectile weapons or particle beam objects, limiting most agression to melee in the initial instance
This thus leads to a different level of game mechanics rewarding for different gaming styles
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 12th June 2012 4:40pm
in the real life you dont find ammo lying about conveniently. You have to raid a gun store or police station
Since my employers aren't one for attending E3, I don't ever get to see it first hand, but it's always great to see what's coming out of there.
This years was... well. Let's just say I won't be handing over much money in the near future for any new titles, unless some neat indie releases come our way that offer unique gameplay styles.
*looks at your employer*
Can we blame EA? :p
(Sorry, couldn't resist. :) )
Let me start out by saying this past E3 was my second one ever. The simple fact that last year was my first one makes it nearly impossible to top. That being said, I won't say I was unsatisfied by the stuff in the show, but it was certainly missing that 'something totally new' aspect of the first one.
A lot of them were rehashes of the original IP or the previous title in the serie. Yes, a lot of them were violent (most of them pretty much). I will be completely honest, I've always loved the violent video games. It's a means of stress relief. It's either that or shoot about 200 rounds of ammo through my AR-15... both that and a video game cost about the same amount, but one lasts longer than five minutes.
The industry focuses on what it can make money on, the last couple years this has been violence. When people stop buying the games, Publishers will stop making them. But for right now, as a publisher, you're much better off going with a violent game because THAT'S WHAT SELLS. With todays AAA production costs being upwards of a hundred million or more, you're not exactly going to make something all new, and non-violent, and expect to break even... Unless you have an IP that does just that. With today's economy, a publisher is MUCH LESS WILLING to make a gamble with a couple hundred million, only to have the sales fall way short of the goal and lose money in the long run.
Don't get me wrong... some of my alltime favorite games are like Assassin's Creed and Hitman, which usually have a very in depth storyline that justfies the killing of 'the bad guy'. These games reward you for killing the minimal number of people. Then you have games like Knights of the Old Republic (the original game and KOTOR 2) which were absolutely amazing, and had a perfect balance of combat and role playing so that it wasn't all killing, all the time. Even in those situations, you still had the option to kill somebody or find a peaceful solution.
Nowdays we have a game like Skyrim, which also has a pretty good bit of Role Playing, but it also has it's share of slashing a guy's throat from behind and laying him out before he can say anything. Then we have the new Assassin's Creed, and all the old ones. These games have always been filled with history, detailed and in depth storylines, and rewards for killing the minimum number of people. BUT, it also has it's fair share of violence as well. I dont think it's fair to say that the industry is almost nothing but violence nowdays, because it's not like every game is a linear shooter where you kill wave upon wave of bad guys until you get from point A to point B.
Humans are a violent race, and have been since the dawn of man. Conflict forces evolution, perfection, and a competetive nature that is constantly pushing us to be the best. To say that there is too much violence in video games and that people dont want violence in video games is essentially denying what makes us human. Conflict will always be a driving factor in not only today's society, but also the forseeable (and unforseeable) future.
There are plenty of violent video games, there are plenty of non violent video games (not many of which are good by the way). The options are there. If you dont want a shoot em up wave after wave of badguy game, get a role playing game. Still too much violence? Play a zelda game or a mario game. Still too much? At that point you're left with Nintendogs and Cooking Mama. There are plenty of choices, but until the mainstream hardcore gamers stop buying violent games in the millions, the top tier publishers will continue to put them out. Give the consumer what they want, that's how the market works. Plain and simple.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-30-former-bioshock-devs-create-the-fullbright-company
Look at the ever growing indie marketplaces. All of the most creative, interesting and original releases are there and nowhere else. Those ideas, with some larger cash injections, have the potential to bring back creative gaming over the relentless headshot-expeditions that plague the shelves.
I believe with violence you can do only so much and if you limit yourself to violence you limit your game and the players experience.
Violence can play its vital part used in the right way. It can make a scene more realistic, increase the threat to the player or make him feel uncomfortable to encourage him to prevent this kind of situation in further gameplay.
If the sole purpose is to show off blood like never before then you should back it up by something else that levels the experience.
The only way out perhaps might be with the spread of ever easier indie development tools and opportunities may bring more new styles of games and genre's into the market and demonstrate such concepts have a saleable market so that mainstream publishers will consider developing for them, for the days of publisher's creating truly innovative triple a titles beyond the bounds of minor innovations to existing selling formula's seems to have passed, though I don't see a way back on the violence front for traditional genre's, it's become the norm.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alexander McConnell on 12th June 2012 9:27pm
I agree with the author of this article that the lack of balance between the innovation of graphics, animation and AI is starting to become embarrassing. When it comes to the latter we are still in the dark ages and it makes you wonder why this subject is so utterly overlooked and ignored by developers and publishers.
I'd like something I can talk about with friends. Like: "Oh I did that level last night too, but I completed it by doing X instead". With something like CoD it's: "Yeah! I totally shot that guy who came out of the building on the left too, then I shot the guy on the bridge too, and then I shot a guy round the corner too, and stabbed the one in the doorway too! Just like you!"
Currently the fashion is violence. Not so long ago it was dancing and music games. Sometimes it is sports games and sometimes motor racing games.
This violence is aimed at pubescent boys with top much testosterone and too little education. A pretty narrow demographic. The marketing reality is that there are far bigger markets to tap. Just look at Hollywood and how the really violent films are just a small niche. So commercial realities will see the move away from violence in games. Nintendo have repeatedly proven that there is more profit elsewhere.
I don't care to have involvement in this type of industry. Period. Hence why I'm such a believer in Android, iOS and web games.
I think people really sell the industry short on a lot of these experiences. No one complains about the amount of blockbuster movies full of guns, gore, and disposable lives, but throw in a dozen violent games at E3 and it warrants an entire article claiming they all are? Are we ignoring all the award-winning non-violent games from the show like Rayman Legends, Pikmin 3, Scribblenauts Unlimited, Unfinished Swan, Epic Mickey 2, Forza Horizon, Papo & Yo, Luigi's Mansion 2, New Super Mario Bros U and 2, Super Paper Mario, Sly 4, Wonderbook, SimCity, Need for Speed, Playstation All-Stars, Kingdom Hearts 3D, Harvest Moon: A New Beginning, Sonic & Sega All Stars Racing, Wii Fit U, Just Dance 4, Dance Central 3, Skylanders: Giants, Nintendoland, LittleBigPlanet Karting, Rabbids Land, Beyond: Two Souls, Theatrhythm Final Fantasy, New Little King's Story, Pid, Sound Shapes, Quantum Conundrum, Ni no Kuni....
There are so many more. More than I could possibly fit in an article. You think because the press conferences had some high-violence moments that's representative of this industry? Bullshit. They are a narrow selection of an industry that's more broad than ever. All those games above were at E3. I played most of them. How could you possibly go to E3 this year and think that it was one-note, and focused on violence? How could someone who writes for a gaming site possibly write an article this misinformed?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nicholas Pantazis on 13th June 2012 11:23pm
So if you are tired of shooters, there are a plethora of artsy abstract titles already on shelves and headed there soon. I don't complain that those titles dilute the pool of quality games on the market or that they rarely take advantage of the technological advances that have been made this generation. So don't publish articles claiming that the labors of so many developers and the hobbies of so many gamers are some kind of tragedy in your overly sensitive world. As long as we live in a world where men are manly, this will be the state of gaming. So you cook like a mama and just dance all you want. You play your tablet while you're getting a manicure. WE, I say WE, will be anxiously awaiting the next big, loud, action packed, neck stabbing, arrow penetrating, mother-fucker laden piece of technology this wonderful industry gives US.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Gregory Hommel on 14th June 2012 2:42am
The one element I'd like to bring to these discussions is contextual aggression.
With regards to the Last of Us, one thing to appreciate is it is trying to present a fairly realistic portrayal of what humanity would do, to survive should a massive calamity occur tomorrow, whereby our perceived notions of fairness, fiat economy, refrigerated foods and drinks, connected public transport are taken somewhat for granted.
If anything, the game will probably portray that within a zombie apocalpyse, humanity is its own worst enemy. Forget the zombies, forget the hazardous conditions - being able to live day to day, scrounge for extremely limited resources, where monetary currency has no value and all producing it in a tasteful beautiful way contrasted with the sometimes unfortunate but NECESSARY violence to SURVIVE!
Lets say, over the next few months - the Euro crashes, the Deutschmark returns, civil war erupts (in the establishment of the United states of Europe), the middle east descends into crazy WW3 conditions - meanwhile the Sun wakes up and fries the Earth with multiple CMEs. The Elites hide in their bunkers and FEMA camps established across the US to contain the masses whilst false flag wars/fear/situations erupts controlled by the media. Worldwide blackouts occur, and food/water/fuel are scarce.
What would you do?
That last cold cola is a distant past. Food goes rotten, and those with supplies get overridden by the hungry masses who rather pillage, loot, and even kill to brain what others have. Neighbours turn on one another and its a case of survivors retaining a sense of humanity, without descending into the level of crassness and privileged pontification of graphic violence in games.
I think, overall Naughty Dog brought together a whole swathe of people to create something incredibly important, because maybe art is imitating real life that may/may not happen tomorrow. It might be even useful to know what to do to survive.
Being prepared is potentially useful!
http://bit.ly/M6lHFW