September 16, 2007
Vince Desi, the man behind developer Running with Scissors and the controversial Postal series, has never been a guy who pulls his punches.Desi was interviewed recently by Gaming Today, revealing, among other things, that everyone's least favorite film director, Uwe Boll, will appear as a character in the upcoming Postal 3. From Desi's other comments (parts NSFW):
The issue of “handling controversial content” is more a financial marketing consideration than anything moral...It’s a total bunch of bullshit and hypocrisy when you have games being pseudo-rated and banned. The whole [ratings] process is flawed and misses the point.
Major companies have millions invested and will do whatever it takes to protect their investments. Small independent companies like Running With Scissors don’t have the money muscle to ‘sway’ the political minds and corporate watchdogs, and actually we serve them just fine by being their scapegoat...
I just saw a TV commercial for the John Woo game, Stranglehold, and it point blank states you MUST engage in bloodshed.. blah.. blah.. Hey, I have no problem with it. But, it’s real hypocrisy when a game like POSTAL, which actually punishes you for violent behavior, is held up as the evil example of video games.
...The sad thing is that the real story, the real controversy, should be the hypocrisy and ill politics that our industry is mired in.
Comments
I agree with you on this.
The sad thing is that the real story, the real controversy, should be the hypocrisy and ill politics that our industry is mired in."
I agree wholeheartedly.
There's a lot of shell gamery going on. By politicians, by some individuals in the industry, and sometimes, even the consumers.
It's like stereotyping any form of media or even any genre within any given form of media. It's easy to lump a group together, point out negatives of individuals, and say those negatives are a part of the entire group. What has never been easy to hold each individual product up, and hold it responsible for its own merits on its own merits alone.
For example, many politicians would say "look at the violent games" then list Postal, Stranglehold, Bioshock, Prey, GTA (any), The Godfather. A good reviewer would hold up each individual product and state positives or negatives about each individual product, initially without a comparison or contrast of any other product. After which, a comparison/contrast of other products MIGHT occur. But in seeking agendas, some politicians say "let's look at violent games", list those games, say "they are all violent, hence they are bad" and that's it. No apprent understanding of the differences of each product. No context of the content. Just "they are all violent, hence they are bad".
It may not be what Mr. Desi was saying overall, but it's the way I preceive how things are going.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"It’s easy to lump a group together, point out negatives of individuals, and say those negatives are a part of the entire group"
Its also more fun and exciting that way! Remember people don't listen to details, they listen to claims. Loud, sensationalist, claims to grab your attention, which usually amount to nothing more than a sack of BS.
also, Uwe Boll is a terrible movie-maker.
@ Nightwng2000: Well said.
I've never played his games but he's right and Nightwng2000 pointed something out that I agree with they do lump games together as Violence is bad...if they ever brought out a game where you were begged grabbed hold of various things given a reason to be all "erg...why am I killing these things they're so pathetic!" They'd still stay "see this game...Violent means bad...." -_-;
I dont like Postal, if you want to make a game based on violence thats a bit sand boxed, how about blood or duke 3D, awesome fun, Postal is mindless shallow fun, I dun care for it LOL
But hey the only games I loath are the 50$ mediocre or worse crap the industry pumps out and wonder why they are having"consumer" difficulties!
Speaking of difficulties how well is bioshock selling?
The game is almost a solid 8 the more I play it the more its a 7 the bugs and mouse issues are as annoying as the "simplification" >>
Having never had experience with game like GTA or Postal though I have no way to be sure how much basis this idea has. Can anyone testify?
I'm the follower of the idea that fantasy and reality are totally seperate.
The realist part of me is well grounded in reality. Cause and effect. Everything has a consequence (positive or negative). Some things you just can't take back. Etc. My personal "moral system" may not equate exactly to any other individual, but it does recognize those basic tenants and my actions must be adjusted accordingly, irregardless of what I feel or think.
The part of me that thinks in fantasy terms, however, believes there are absolutely no limits that can or should be set. So long as fantasy does not bleed into reality, anything goes. And why not? If I WANT consequences in a particular fantasy, fine. If I DON'T, that's fine too. It is, after all fantasy. Now, as some folks know, some people fantasize and want to do those things in reality. But, should a fantasy bleed through to reality, then that fantasy becomes reality and MUST follow the system of reality. While my "moral system" may have strict limitations, set by me or otherwise, my fantasy "moral system", technically, doesn't exist at all. I can be as moral or immoral as I choose.
That being said, I do have likes and dislikes for each genre for each medium. From a consumer standpoint, I'm very nitpicky. And I realize that my... uh... nitpickiness (?)... isn't the same as everyone else's. Thank goodness. I like my individuality, as I'm sure everyone else does.
Not everyone likes romance novels. Not everyone likes erotica. Not everyone likes porn.
Not everyone like Science Fiction. Not everyone like Fantasy. There are some who like both individually but not combined.
There are some who like being the hero. There are some who like being the Anti-hero. And then there are some who just want to run out and slaughter every virtual Human in sight, and probably do it all with just one hand... ahem. Yet, they make treat reality completely differently simply because they are well grounded in reality.
Heck, some people may be extremely nitpicky and you can't tell exactly WHY they will choose one fantasy over another. They may choose to play GTA but not The Godfather. It may have to do with reasons other than the character to be played... or not. Heck, the individual making such a choice may not even know why choose one over another.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
But in a game, anything goes. Is it "stress relief"? I dunno about that. I've never been angry at someone and then went on a GTA rampage and felt phsycially or mentally better afterwards. But it's a curiosity thing, yeah. I honestly think games like this help society in this regard, by allowing people to funnel their "what if" thoughts into them.
What's that word again? Catharsis? Feeling better about something you're afraid or curious about by seeing it realized in front of you? That's it.
"Heck, some people may be extremely nitpicky and you can’t tell exactly WHY they will choose one fantasy over another. They may choose to play GTA but not The Godfather. It may have to do with reasons other than the character to be played… or not. Heck, the individual making such a choice may not even know why choose one over another."
I've noticed that in myself as well. I wasn't even interested in the Godfather game (loved the movie and didn't want to see the story muddled by a video game) But I did pick up the Blackhand edition for the Wii, mainly because of the control interface.
The whole manhunt 2 bs reveals a fatal flaw to us as far as ratings go. A rating that cannot be sold is nothing more then a ban hammer for games. I feel that ao games should be avalible to adults to play. While I personall can't say that I agree with his sentiment about Stranglehold, I understand his point, the game makes no bones about it's blood shed, styleized as it my be. While a fun game, with great cinematic presentation, the game is a straight up blast fest with little variety and few, if any scruples about killing.
We need to either allow ao games to be played, or we dispose of that rating and replace it with a rating that is viable. Thats how I see it.
We need to either allow ao games to be played, or we dispose of that rating and replace it with a rating that is viable. Thats how I see it.
At this point the inertia is such that discarding and replacing it is the only realistic option. Kind of like how the MPAA discarded the X rating and replaced it with NC-17 back in the early 90s.
Getting the AO rating to be allowed would require changing the minds of console makers, and retailers at the least; the general perception of it at the worst. Neither of those is particularly likely to happen.
Personally I found Postal quite funny, purely because they took things to such ridiculous extremes of parody, that to call it a purely ultra violent game would be to miss the point somewhat. You can however easily see why to a non-game player, some of the game features would easily be seen as atrocious and barbaric.
Don't forget computer gaming is still in its early age. When "grown-up" and older people (who didn't play video games) began to see games with a mature content (violence, sex, etc.), they were frightened, and still are. It's a normal evolutionary process. When they are all dead (metaphorically speaking), the next generation (us) will consider the whole video games phenomenon with less hysteria, and as it really is: a hobby sometimes childish, sometimes adult-oriented. And, to some extent, an art.
In fact, computer gaming is following the exact same path as all the other arts once followed. Cinema, comics, acting, all gained their maturity eventually, and respect from the public. Heck, even classical music, poetry and literature were once accused of being evil by the equivalent bigots of Jack Thompson.
Marlowe mate, you're thinking of pointlesswasteoftime.com, and while that article was amusing, there were better ones. *thinks of the one saying '5 Reasons Why Jack Thompson Is Right (And Wrong)'*