We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.
Wii

Warren Spector on E3, Violence, and Epic Mickey

by Nate Andrews - June 14, 2012, 12:15 pm EDT
Total comments: 31 Source: GamesIndustry International, http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-14-w...

The industry veteran talks about the recent convention and a trend he deplores.

In an interview posted today by GamesIndustry International, game developer Warren Spector relayed some of his thoughts on the tone of the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo, as well as his studio Junction Point's upcoming sequel, Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two.

While he noted that he was preoccupied for much of the convention this year, Spector detailed several qualities of the show that stuck with him.

"This is the year where there were two things that stood out for me. One was: The ultraviolence has to stop. We have to stop loving it. I just don't believe in the effects argument at all, but I do believe that we are fetishizing violence, and now in some cases actually combining it with an adolescent approach to sexuality. I just think it's in bad taste. Ultimately I think it will cause us trouble."

Spector, who mentioned he left developer Ion Storm and Eidos in 2004 after becoming disconcerted with the violent tone in the games being made around him, noted his appreciation of being able to fit in at Disney.

"We've gone too far. The slow-motion blood spurts, the impalement by deadly assassins, the knives, shoulders, elbows to the throat. You know, Deus Ex had its moments of violence, but they were designed—whether they succeeded or not I can't say—but they were designed to make you uncomfortable, and I don't see that happening now. I think we're just appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature. It's time to stop. I'm just glad I work for a company like Disney, where not only is that not something that's encouraged, you can't even do it, and I'm fine with it."

Spector's other observation: Games have become secondary to the message of the conference.

"The second thing I noticed was that the most interesting part of the press conferences had nothing to do with games. When the games are the least interesting part, there's a problem. When did the game conference become about interfacing with Netflix? I just worry a little bit. The thing that's ironic is that I feel like we really are in a golden age, in a weird sort of way. Nobody knows what the future of games is. Nobody. At a time like that Notch can come along and do Minecraft, and Chris Hecker can finally do his incredible party spy game, and Jon Blow can do Braid, and I can do a triple-A Mickey Mouse game—anything is possible.

"Pretty much all I saw at E3 was, 'Well, we're going to do what we always did, but bigger and bloodier! And we're gonna talk about Netflix!' I just don't get it."

Spector's latest game, Disney Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two, was shown at the conference, and he touched upon the feedback they had received from the demo.

"I wouldn't say I was surprised [by the feedback received]. I was really pleased to hear—not everybody, you're never going to please everybody—I was surprised at how many people told me either they loved the first game, but the camera was a problem, or they wanted to love the first game but couldn't because there were three or four things that bugged them, and almost without exception the people I talked to said 'Wow, you guys addressed all of the problems.' That was really gratifying to hear, because that's certainly one of our big goals.

"... You never know how people are going to respond to what you're selling at E3. I was genuinely worried that the boss battle that we showed—I just wanted to unask some questions. I wanted to show a 2D platform level inspired by a real cartoon because people were asking me all the time, 'Are those coming back?' So I wanted to be able to say yes, here they are, you can play one. And the other was 'Are you going to have boss battles?' and is the whole choice and consequence thing going to happen even in the boss battles. I wanted to show that off too. But that boss battle, it comes sort of midway through the game, and it's really frenetic, and I worried that people would find it too frenetic given that they were dropping into the game for the first time, and nobody said that. Everybody really got off on it. I breathed a sigh of relief. That was really gratifying.

"We're deep in alpha now, which means we're doing daily bug triage, and tuning the gameplay. There was one day when for some reason we had a big spike in the bug count for some reason, and everyone was really glum. I said, Don't worry about it, everything's going to be fine, but they were glum. So I said, Look at the game we just reviewed today. It doesn't sound like any other game, it doesn't look like any other game, it doesn't feel like any other game. People can say they don't like it, but you can't say we did something that just went along with the crowd. For me, that's huge. At E3, you've got 15 seconds to stop somebody who's running from one meeting to another and get them to notice what you're doing. You've got to do something that stands out. If people don't like it, they don't like it, I don't control that. But we do control doing something unique, and we've done that, and I'll take that to the bank."

Talkback

leahsdadJune 14, 2012

Wow. 

I have to wholeheartedly agree with both of his observations.  "appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature" is spot on, though I really don't see what can be done about that.  That oxymoronic pairing of adolescent and "mature" is what sells video games.  Always has.  Remember Mortal Kombat?  Not nearly as good as its contemporaries, but it had fatalities and gore, so it was hot.  And then the Doom craze after that.  I think it's a cultural thing that we can't really change.

PicoliJune 14, 2012

"I think we're just appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature. It's time to stop."

I could not agree more.

EnnerJune 14, 2012

Great to hear how much the development team has improved the sequel to Epic Mickey. I stayed away from the first game due to all the negative criticism I've read and heard about the game.

Chocobo_RiderJune 14, 2012

I have never, ever, ever used this gif before.... but Warren has earned it:

http://thesecularity.com/download/file.php?id=7457

I wholeheartedly agree with every point.  I even put together my own piece on the violence aspect a few days ago which can be found here.

broodwarsJune 14, 2012

I'm really starting to get tired of people bitching about the violence (and in one case, implied sex as well) of essentially 4 titles at E3: Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, God of War Ascension, and The Last of Us.  Every single one of the press conferences featured at least one (if not more) nonviolent or "cartoon violent" title.  There was still plenty of titles for gamers of all ages to enjoy at E3, especially on Nintendo's side.  People talk about how they want this medium treated on par with film?  Then they're going to have to accept that there's a lot of violent **** in the film industry, and like it or not that stuff sells.

Maybe Warren Spector might want to spend less time whining about "Violets in Gaming" and more time making sure he actually makes a good game this time (I hope so. The Epic Mickey setting has so much potential).  Perhaps one where he doesn't have to issue statements about how people "are playing the game wrong" and "it's not a platformer" when his faulty camera breaks.

UltraClaytonJune 14, 2012

There were way more than 4 violent titles at E3

broodwarsJune 14, 2012

Quote from: UltraClayton

There were way more than 4 violent titles at E3

Those 4 are the ones that have been focused on the most, and frankly I'm sick of the hypocrisy in the gaming media.  A year ago, this is the same bunch who were dancing in the aisles over the Mortal Kombat reboot because it was excessively violent and gory, but apparently now it's something we should all be ashamed of.

If you don't like the violence, fine.  Don't buy the games.  But let's not pretend that there was nothing there for gamers of all ages.

I'm sure Warren Spector is a nice guy, and I like what he's trying to do with the Epic Mickey games.  But all the hand-wringing over a relative handful of games is getting annoying, especially when compared to other industries it's still pretty tame because no one will make an AO-rated game in the console space.

Ian SaneJune 14, 2012

I'll admit that between 11-15 I thought violent videogames were fuckin' cool.  The fact that Mortal Kombat and Doom had blood and gore made them all the more awesome in my mind.  Of course I was young and immature and as I got older that kind of thing had no more draw for me.  But this was back in 1994.  This isn't anything new.  The only really new thing is that the graphics are more detailed now which can make depictions of violence more disturbing.  The 2D Mortal Kombat's are just downright goofy in comparison.

What I like is Spector pointing out how incredibly non-game related everyone was at E3.  I don't care for that at all.  I bitch about Nintendo's casual interests and how it feels like I'm neglected, but Sony and MS do that, too.  Videogames used to be this kind of geeky hobby, and then it expanded to be more mainstream, and now it seems like the original geeks are getting kicked to the curb.  It isn't about games anymore, it's about being the main electronic device in the living room.

Nobody wants the "gamer".  They want "regular" people playing casuals games, watching movies, listening to music, surfing the net, chatting with their friends, etc.

broodwarsJune 14, 2012

Quote from: Ian

I don't care for that at all.  I bitch about Nintendo's casual interests and how it feels like I'm neglected, but Sony and MS do that, too.  Videogames used to be this kind of geeky hobby, and then it expanded to be more mainstream, and now it seems like the original geeks are getting kicked to the curb.

Yeah, Sony and Microsoft seriously neglected your needs as a core gamer with such casual exclusive titles as Halo 4, Gears of War Judgement, Beyond: Two Souls, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, God of War Ascension, and The Last of Us.  And those are just the casual titles they had on-stage, with other 1st party casual titles like Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time also releasing this year.  Microsoft and Sony (especially) really sold out to the casuals this year.

LouieturkeyJune 14, 2012

If any of those 4 games were made 20 years ago, they would get the AO rating.  Spector is right.  There are too many violent games out there.  Yes, there are non-violent games as well, but the majority are violent now. 

Please point me to the article that quotes Warren Spector saying he loved the new Mortal Kombat because of its violence.

It's funny, I didn't notice it until I read one review of E3 stating how amazed he was at the sheer volume of violence in the games at E3.  Then I went back in my head and reviewed what I had seen and I found I was getting desensitized.  The games they are starting to show are feeling like they are going for the shock value (a la Saw) rather than having it for a reason.  Tomb Raider and The Last of Us are more justified with their violence based on the stories they are telling and what they want to portray.  The other two and many other games at E3 were upping the violence just because they could do it.

I really hope that this trend starts to fade away like the Saw movies did and as other shock horror movies did progressively worse as the years went on after the Saw movies. 

broodwarsJune 14, 2012

Quote from: Louieturkey

Please point me to the article that quotes Warren Spector saying he loved the new Mortal Kombat because of its violence.

I was clearly referring to the gaming media (for example, Shane Satterfield of GameTrailers' Invisible Walls podcast or the crew of the Giant Bombcast) as a whole when I spoke of that, not Warren Spector specifically.  Spector's comments just reminded me of it.

LouieturkeyJune 14, 2012

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: Ian

I don't care for that at all.  I bitch about Nintendo's casual interests and how it feels like I'm neglected, but Sony and MS do that, too.  Videogames used to be this kind of geeky hobby, and then it expanded to be more mainstream, and now it seems like the original geeks are getting kicked to the curb.

Yeah, Sony and Microsoft seriously neglected your needs as a core gamer with such casual exclusive titles as Halo 4, Gears of War Judgement, Beyond: Two Souls, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, God of War Ascension, and The Last of Us.  And those are just the casual titles they had on-stage, with other 1st party casual titles like Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time also releasing this year.  Microsoft and Sony (especially) really sold out to the casuals this year.

I agree here.  M$ made it no secret that their main goal in getting into the console gaming business was to be the centerpiece in the living room.  Netflix, movies, being a media hub, is all part of that.  Seeing this stuff at E3 is pretty much what should have been expected.

LouieturkeyJune 14, 2012

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: Louieturkey

Please point me to the article that quotes Warren Spector saying he loved the new Mortal Kombat because of its violence.

I was clearly referring to the gaming media (for example, Shane Satterfield of GameTrailers' Invisible Walls podcast or the crew of the Giant Bombcast) as a whole when I spoke of that, not Warren Spector specifically.  Spector's comments just reminded me of it.

Quote:

A year ago, this is the same bunch who were dancing in the aisles over the Mortal Kombat reboot because it was excessively violent and gory, but apparently now it's something we should all be ashamed of.

So this implies that Spector is part of "this...same bunch who were dancing".  The article was about what Warren Spector thought.  It was not about what the people that were super happy about MK last year thought about the violence shown this year.  I'm guessing those people that you were referring to probably do not share Warren's perspective, yet you imply it here.

broodwarsJune 14, 2012

Quote from: Louieturkey

Quote:

A year ago, this is the same bunch who were dancing in the aisles over the Mortal Kombat reboot because it was excessively violent and gory, but apparently now it's something we should all be ashamed of.

So this implies that Spector is part of "this...same bunch who were dancing".  The article was about what Warren Spector thought.  It was not about what the people that were super happy about MK last year thought about the violence shown this year.  I'm guessing those people that you were referring to probably do not share Warren's perspective, yet you imply it here.

Nice of you to cut out the sentence that came right before that quote which put that in context.  Here:

Quote:

Those 4 are the ones that have been focused on the most, and frankly I'm sick of the hypocrisy in the gaming media.

leahsdadJune 14, 2012

This may be one and the same, but I don't think the tragedy here is that violent games exist.  And I don't think the tragedy is that violent games are popular and appealing to 11-15 year olds.  I think the tragedy is that violent games are taking the attention of those 11-15 year olds away from really, really good games --- no, far superior games that are not ultra violent and are, in every way, better.  The games I refer to, of course:  Nintendo games.  Mario.  Zelda.  Metroid.  Picross.  Pikmin.  I can go on and on.  Of course, Zelda is not devoid of violence.  Neither is Metroid.  But you don't take headshots on Space Pirates.  You don't cut the limbs off of goblins in Zelda.  And before anyone points out the violent end to a certain Zelda game involving Ganon, may I remind you that you didn't directly see the violent act--  it was obscured.

But that's not the point.  I like these games not because they're non-violent (or less violent).  I like them because they're sublimely designed and put together.  It's just a shame that for a lot of kids, the lack of violence actually steers them away from these amazing games.

ROiDSJune 15, 2012

I agree with Spector. Most of the time when I'm in Youtube or some other forum, I always find these comments made by these so-called "hardcore gamers" bashing a game and calling it casual just because it's not violent or bloody. To them, a game is not "hardcore" unless it's a mature rated game. When did mature rated games automatically equal hardcore? Most of these "hardcore gamers" also seem to believe a more core and much more depth game like Pokemon a casual game. Hell, Pokemon has more depth than most generic shooters combined, which makes my blood boil whenever I see a "hardcore gamer" talks it down and calls it a casual game just because of its colorful art direction. Speaking of art direction or art style, I also find those "hardcore gamers" commenting about certain games being casual just because the game uses non-realistic approach on the visuals. It's like everything to them has to be realistic looking to be hardcore or to be good. When did visuals and mature content equal good game? I lost all gaming respect on these mofos.

oohhboyHong Hang Ho, Staff AlumnusJune 15, 2012

While I fully agree with his second statement, I cannot fully support his first.

The underlying basis of all games is conflict on one level or another. Hiding the conflict behind cartoon characters doesn't necessarily make it less violent. You fight a boss and you beat them, in an ultra violent game, they are dead, that is it, there is no further suffering beyond that, but what happens to a boss in a low violence game? Are they just as dead or have you banished them to some cartoon hell to suffer for the end of time to go mad? Have you arrested them, thrown them in some prison and threw away the keys? What about rehabilitating them?

Violence unfortunately has its place and hiding it with self-censorship is disingenuous, no better than going over the top which has the courtesy to be up front about it. He is right in a way there are games out there that are sold only on unquestioned violence. But with almost all games, violence is the only option including games like Mario, Epic Mickey, Pokemon, Mario Kart and it incentives that violence by making thee game easier by removing an obstacle with violence. It's the underlying conflict that makes games, games. Violence in one form or another is your only option. You can never get away from that as long as you make games that has some form of conflict. Even Tetris can be ever so slightly violent if you have ever played the bomb bliss version

What is needed is more games like Deus Ex and Metal Gear that allows for a low/non violence option. This approach isn't available for most games as there is no way you can fit that mechanic into every game without removing the conflict, destroying the game. It would be ridiculous to have a game like God of War to have a non-violent option, it's a mythical Greek tragedy, of course it is going to to have violence or a side scroller with no shooting.

In Deus Ex you got berated for going Rambo on everyone on the first level and rewarded for being nonviolent, but that was ok since you were given the option to be relatively nonviolent by knocking everybody out, it made you question the violence.

A problem was that if you failed in your use of nonviolence, you invaribly had to fallback and turn the game into a bloodbath as if you have been playing it like that all the time. In the end it was easier to kill people with a silenced lethal weapon than to try to spare their digital non-lives. In someways he was successful with Deus Ex where in certain situations you are ordered to execute an unarmed prisoner. When violence ensured, it has an impact because your given the option to try to save him, however it would require you to use extream violence yourself. It was the greyness that made the impact, the violence was the vehicle.

In the end, the problem he really has is that the marketing of games is nothing but Blood and Guts. Because of this, it pushes for games that are nothing but Blood and Guts which causes more marketing for it. He is fustrated by its circular degenerate nature. But he is mistaken in his belief that making cartoony games is the counter to this. The counter to this is to make better games, whether they be extremely violent or otherwise. If the underlying game is good, the violence then becomes window dressing, a vehicle to deliver an emotional impact instead of the game itself.

ThePermJune 15, 2012

you know what violent? Minecraft! Its also bright cheery and colorful, and wonderful in a number of ways.

That being said there is too many war based games, whether modern warfare, or WWII. Im just not interested in games like this.

The whole "hardcore", "mature" thing are also misnomers. We really need to come up with better terminology for our stuff. Hardcore porn and Harcore wrestling are not equatable to hardcore games, we shouldn't say hardcore games, maybe we should say dense, epic, or depthy games. Ambitious is what Ians been using lately. I like that too.

i just don't like any of these arguments Spector is throwing out. Netflix is good, and if possible it would be a good place to watch Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is primarily a film star after all.

Violence is a necessary part of life. I equate violence with action though, not necessarily going on killing sprees or abusing people. As far as games go without some sort of action they would be pretty violent. And also, damn old and good mickey mouse cartoons were pretty violent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-i_dgZV7WQ

id come up with a better example, but i dont rememebr what the name of the really violent one i watched. I just remmebr watching it and thinking "shit even mickey mouse was violent"

broodwarsJune 15, 2012

Quote from: leahsdad

I think the tragedy is that violent games are taking the attention of those 11-15 year olds away from really, really good games --- no, far superior games that are not ultra violent and are, in every way, better.  The games I refer to, of course:  Nintendo games.  Mario.  Zelda.  Metroid.  Picross.  Pikmin.  I can go on and on.

Funny you should bring up Pikmin, because when you really think about it that franchise is pretty violent.  Just think about what you're doing in those games: you spend a pretty large chunk of time throwing your Pikmin at these feral creatures, who slowly beat them to death while the beasts are simultaneously trying to eat large chunks of them.  One the Pikmin kill their prey, you have them carry the carcass back to your HQ to make more Pikmin.  Despite the happy cartoon aesthetic, Pikmin may very well be Nintendo's most violent franchise.

ThePermJune 15, 2012

yeah and not only that they make you feel bad when pikmin die

cubivore was really violent too, actually i would love more cubivore games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYaGhUvkBZA

speaking of colorful yet violent games: Castle Crashers was pretty awesome too.

Go watch the ending you get in the original Pikmin if you run out of time without fixing your ship and then tell me that game's all happy and family friendly.

house3136June 15, 2012

Violence has been in video games since they have been around. Take Contra on NES for example, that game is technically violent, but not graphic to the point you wouldn’t want a child to play it. Violence in games is appropriate for adults, but it’s targeted at teens because that’s the market; not all, but a good portion. Games don’t need censorship. I think what Warren Spector is talking about, is how a lot of new games are specifically built around being violent instead of introducing new types of gameplay, or offering something unique.  Why should developers stop making these violent games when millions of people are buying them? I’m sure there were lots of new IP’s introduced this year that aren’t violent, but look at The Last of Us, Beyond: Two souls, Watch Dogs, and ZombiU; the gameplay is built around violence. There’s nothing wrong with that, in fact I’ll probably be picking at least one of them up. Nintendo creates games that max out at what, E10+? (Who knows, maybe Link will be able to impale and sever limbs in the next Zelda, that would freshen it up right?) There’s a market for that, and a level of creativity that doesn’t require extreme violence or 7-second long beeps of The Last of Us demo being played on television (I honestly thought something went wrong with the demonstration). But there is a market for that as a well, and PS3 owners demand games like that. At the end of the day it’s about the paycheck, but it would be nice to see some of these great developers minds show us something more than how realistic they can make a shotgun blast to the face look. One of my all-time favorite games is Resident Evil: 4, which is pretty gory. I played it because it was fun, not because it was violent. But it would make me uncomfortable to let other people, like my family, see me playing a game that was so graphic.

PlugabugzJune 15, 2012

In that case Burnout Paradise is a threat to society and roads all over the wordld.

Chocobo_RiderJune 15, 2012

Let's not confuse violence with shocking brutality.

broodwarsJune 15, 2012

Quote from: NinSage

Let's not confuse violence with shocking brutality.

Pikmin is a shockingly brutal game.  ;)

If you really look at what's happening in that game, it kind of is. They just gloss over it with bright colors.

leahsdadJune 15, 2012

Quote from: broodwars

Quote from: NinSage

Let's not confuse violence with shocking brutality.

Pikmin is a shockingly brutal game.  ;)

Oh, most definitely.  There is a kind of violence and/or brutality in most games, and most Nintendo games too.  What are you doing to the poor Goombas in Mario, really?  But what Spector is objecting to is the marriage of the ideas of "violence" and "mature" --  If it is violent, it is mature (the ESRB echoes this), if it is mature, then it is violent, and if it is not violent, then it is not mature.

And the thing is, you'll see kids (and adults) say things like "Whoa, that headshot was awesome in Call of Duty" or "oh, you can do an awesome fatality in Mortal Kombat."  Violence is the draw here, a tickbox which is checked off in conjunction with other game  features.  "Multiplayer?  Got it.  Unreal Engine 3?  Got it.  Exploding bloody heads?  Got it."  No one says "Oh man, those fireballs really killed the Koopa Troopas!  That was awesome!"  Violence is not the spectacle in a Mario game.

But like I said I don't think there is really anything you can do, nor should you do anything, about violence in media.  It's nothing new, and it will always be in vogue.  But I think it's a shame when something that is less over-the-top violent is dismissed, not because it lacks in quality, but because it lacks in gore.

ThePermJune 15, 2012

I think as a society we have to recognize the ages between 3rd grade and 6th grade can handle more than those in infancy - 2nd grade and that 7th grade and on are a different age group that can handle anything. I think the paradigm is really messed up. If anything in my opinion T rated games would be appropriate for someone who is 8 years and up. Everyone knows that kids aged 13 and up get M rated games, I certainly did. If anything there should be another rating like T15+ that is what M is now

it should be ec, E, E8+, T, T15+, M, AO

Ian SaneJune 15, 2012

Most games have a very basic gameplay of "kill or be killed".  In Space War your goal is to kill the other ship.  Right from the beginning videogames had violence.

What's disturbing is when causing human suffering is the source of entertainment.  That's pretty sick and I don't want that to be normal.  There is a difference between taking joy in that and just the thrill of what is essentially videogame self-defence (only a hardcore pacifist wouldn't shoot the demons in Doom; they're trying to kill you, you have a gun.  What else would you do?)

The problem is that any real attempt to track down on legitimately disturbing and sadistic violence in videogame or in movies is often overblown.  You give someone the power to censor and they turn into a tyrant.  Games will be significantly restricted if you allow this.

The industry has it's own independent ratings board.  Perhaps the ESRB should just pop out the AO rating more often for games where the player's entertainment is directly related to causing human suffering.  There is a big difference between sadastically murdering someone and just shooting the guy who would have killed you.  If the ESRB does it, then those games can still be made for those that want them.

OblivionJune 15, 2012

Human pain and suffering has been a form of entertainment for over two thousand years. It's deep rooted in every culture. Why would this be any different?


I'm not an advocate for these violent games, but I'm not against them either. Let people play what they want to play. There's no concrete data that it harms them mentally, so why not let them play it. I can understand if they are too young, but don't make these games AO so NO ONE can enjoy them.

Ax23000June 19, 2012

Let's not get side tracked into whether Spector is saying that violence doesn't have a place in games.  This is one of the chief minds behind Deus Ex, which he brings up in the very interview we're discussing.  If you've played it you know that this was a violent game, rife with guns, bombs, soldiers, etc.


The issue Spector is raising is more subtle than "Violence is bad."  The issue he raises is one of how violence is portrayed in video games and what it means within the world of most games.


Several posters have mentioned movies and other art forms and how violence has a long standing role in those other art-forms.  They go on to ask why, therefore, video games should be treated any different.  The difference is that those other art-forms, taken as a whole, provide a much more well rounded view of violence.


A quick dirty example: Saving Private Ryan is an incredibly violent movie, but it asks very real questions about the nature of violence and war.  While there have been war games whose story plays lip service to similar ideas (all be it almost always in a superficial way), the gameplay nearly without exception tends to glorify the action and violence.


To be sure, there are plenty of stories, plays, movies, and poems that glorify violence.  But there are also many more that use violence to ask hard questions of the characters and the world that they (and we) inhabit.


Another, more complicated, example.  Beowulf.  The earliest surviving English epic poem is in many ways the ancient equivalent to a video game story.  It stars a larger than life male role-model.  Beowulf is hardcore to the max.  He spends his time wandering around beating down monsters, swimming in a full suit of armor and just generally all around kicking ass and taking names.


But where video games stop there, Beowulf digs deeper...much deeper.  It asks hard questions about violence and what it means to live a violent life.


Video games, and many video game developers, seem terrified to do this.  They don't want to dig deep.  They want to provide gamers with an easy, mindless, escape and violence (which is rooted deep down in the human psyche) tends to be the way they go about this.  And to be sure, there is a place for mindless violent games, but the industry seems unwilling to make anything else.


That, as I see it, is the problem that Spector is addressing in his remarks.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement