Curmudgeon Gamer
11 March 2008
Review: God of War: Chains of Olympus (PSP)
In about the last year I've played God of War and its sequel God of War 2 to completion. The former is better with plot and the latter with combat, but both are well above average in both departments. With blood and nudity and a mythological soap opera, the God of War series strikes me as the modern male escapist fantasy equivalent of Burroughs's A Princess of Mars.
Last week the PSP received its own God of War game and I'm pleased to say that it recreates everything I loved about the PS2 games, including a decent story. Frankly, with external developer Ready at Dawn creating this prequel, I was concerned the plot would be second-rate. However, its proficiency at storytelling lags the original slightly while outdoing the sequel. This time we follow the adventures of Kratos, the superhuman servant of Ares, just prior to the events in the first God of War.
While Chains of Olympus succeeds at many things, I was most impressed by the pacing:
Interestingly, my favorite moment in the game didn't involve combat or a puzzle. As you may know, heavy doors and objects are lifted in God of War by pounding the circle button repeatedly. Near the end of Chains of Olympus, Kratos has to commit a difficult act of personal sacrifice which is acted out through circle-button mashing. It's a simple variation on a common mechanic, yet I thought it was effective in conveying the emotional weight of the moment.
All around, I enjoyed God of War: Chains of Olympus a great deal -- both for its gameplay and its furthering the story of Kratos -- and I recommend it.
Last week the PSP received its own God of War game and I'm pleased to say that it recreates everything I loved about the PS2 games, including a decent story. Frankly, with external developer Ready at Dawn creating this prequel, I was concerned the plot would be second-rate. However, its proficiency at storytelling lags the original slightly while outdoing the sequel. This time we follow the adventures of Kratos, the superhuman servant of Ares, just prior to the events in the first God of War.
While Chains of Olympus succeeds at many things, I was most impressed by the pacing:
- The opening level presents the game's biggest boss (but not the toughest one).
- The third is full of puzzles.
- The fourth provides you with the truly enjoyable hit-reflection ability.
- The sixth takes you to a whole new setting, with several new enemies.
- The seventh introduces a new and immensely rewarding weapon.
- The eighth is a series of strenuous battles, a plot twist, a final battle, and a clever little conclusion that leads directly into the story of the original God of War.
Interestingly, my favorite moment in the game didn't involve combat or a puzzle. As you may know, heavy doors and objects are lifted in God of War by pounding the circle button repeatedly. Near the end of Chains of Olympus, Kratos has to commit a difficult act of personal sacrifice which is acted out through circle-button mashing. It's a simple variation on a common mechanic, yet I thought it was effective in conveying the emotional weight of the moment.
All around, I enjoyed God of War: Chains of Olympus a great deal -- both for its gameplay and its furthering the story of Kratos -- and I recommend it.
--jvm at 20:41
Comment
[ 2 ]
05 November 2007
Why the Manhunt 2 situation stinks
Josh prodded me with this link and asked my opinion.
[ Update: Josh has posted his thoughts. Favorite line: "The problem with that is that the ESRB continues to act more like a political body than as a standards body." Bingo. ]
Here's what I think: I read the ESRB press release last week, and I think it's mostly crap.
The ESRB is digging a hole. Are they regulating what consumers see? If so, then Hot Coffee should never have been an issue, since it could not be activated from within the unaltered game. Are they regulating what's on the disc? If so, then Manhunt 2 should be re-rated, since the images and animations and sounds are all on the disc.
I think the real problem will eventually be whether they are regulating data or code. At that point, I think the current system fails. Suppose I release a program (dressed up as some "game") which takes a user-supplied set of data (say, a music CD, a la Monster Rancher series) as input for algorithms that generate what appear to be images of humans having sex? They aren't actually people, mind you, but the visual images would be called sexual by any reasonable adult. As the developer, I never create models explicitly. I never create animations explicitly. But my program definitely generates what appears to be a sexual image.
Now, will the ESRB regulate what "ships on the disc"? It's just code. Maybe not even textures. Will they regulate what the user sees? They can't know, because the user will supply the data.
The whole idea of regulating media is very thorny. Ideally the ESRB needed to stay as vague as possible about everything they do. History will show that their real error was trying to get specific in response to Hot Coffee. Now that they've written something down, they've got to live by it, and more of their energy will be devoted to making every future controversy square with the first. That system is destined to fail, because the respond to the original controversy was to create a system which regulates what's on the disc, regardless of how it's used.
I think it's possible for us to start having a real conversation about what comes after the ESRB fails.
[ Update: Josh has posted his thoughts. Favorite line: "The problem with that is that the ESRB continues to act more like a political body than as a standards body." Bingo. ]
Here's what I think: I read the ESRB press release last week, and I think it's mostly crap.
The ESRB is digging a hole. Are they regulating what consumers see? If so, then Hot Coffee should never have been an issue, since it could not be activated from within the unaltered game. Are they regulating what's on the disc? If so, then Manhunt 2 should be re-rated, since the images and animations and sounds are all on the disc.
I think the real problem will eventually be whether they are regulating data or code. At that point, I think the current system fails. Suppose I release a program (dressed up as some "game") which takes a user-supplied set of data (say, a music CD, a la Monster Rancher series) as input for algorithms that generate what appear to be images of humans having sex? They aren't actually people, mind you, but the visual images would be called sexual by any reasonable adult. As the developer, I never create models explicitly. I never create animations explicitly. But my program definitely generates what appears to be a sexual image.
Now, will the ESRB regulate what "ships on the disc"? It's just code. Maybe not even textures. Will they regulate what the user sees? They can't know, because the user will supply the data.
The whole idea of regulating media is very thorny. Ideally the ESRB needed to stay as vague as possible about everything they do. History will show that their real error was trying to get specific in response to Hot Coffee. Now that they've written something down, they've got to live by it, and more of their energy will be devoted to making every future controversy square with the first. That system is destined to fail, because the respond to the original controversy was to create a system which regulates what's on the disc, regardless of how it's used.
I think it's possible for us to start having a real conversation about what comes after the ESRB fails.
--jvm at 19:47
Comment
[ 7 ]
04 November 2007
Maybe Ebert's Right
I enjoy the movie reviews in The New Yorker. This week, I read David Denby's review of "American Gangster", a movie about 1970s drug kingpin Frank Lucas, and this passage stuck with me. It's all worthwhile, so I can't really boldface any specific line:
Our loyalties are split between the hero of virtue and the hero of vice. We don't have to choose, which is fine -- irresponsibility is one of the pleasures of narrative movies. But can we accept the movie's glorification of Frank Lucas in the terms in which it's offered? It's true that movie audiences have always relished gangsters. They act out our fantasies of unlimited aggression, and when they are punished with death we are purged of the guilt we've felt from enjoying their rampages. The greatest gangster movies, however, deepen this transaction, taking us closer to the gangster's hopes and illusions, and then turning them inside out. In "The Godfather: Part II," Michael Corleone grows in power and then ravages his family -- the thing he most wanted to protect -- and we can see him rotting like a dead oak.Things that came to mind after I read this:
- There are no heroes of virtue in GTA. It really is a one-sided portrayal.
- We don't have to choose in GTA either, except not to play or just play driving/stunt games with its cars. Movies have an excuse for lack of choice (linear media) while games don't.
- Unlimited aggression is rewarded handsomely in GTA but death is never a real, serious punishment. It's a minor setback, nothing more.
- There is nothing even close to a character like Michael Corleone in GTA, or really any game. The GTA games are all scenery (to mimic specific movies) and no character.
Labels: characters, movies, story, violence
--jvm at 22:27
Comment
[ 5 ]
21 September 2007
Distinction without difference
Kris Graft has a Tokyo Game Show impressions/interview piece up at Next-Gen.biz about Ninja Gaiden 2. You might want to check an earlier post about NG2. Anyway, here's the quote I wanted to highlight:
It sounds like they're saying that their intention to make a game that extends the Extreme Combat genre is a defense, while the effect will be to make a game that has horrific imagery. Imagery like this description Graft relates:
What's the difference between a game that sets out specifically to let you brutally dismember a person and a game that claims it's about making fun combat and along the way rewards brutal dismemberment?
For the record, I have experimented with sadistic acts in games which allowed me to do it. There is a parking garage on the second island in GTA3 which is near your second hideout, and I recall spending time with Bob experimenting with the NPC crowds and explosives. For example, you could kill a bystander, watch the NPCs run up to help him/her, and then toss a molotov cocktail in amongst them, and more people would come over to help those victims, and so forth. Eventually, the game would punish you if you let your wanted rating get too high. Even then you could try to extract rewards, though. If you waited until the FBI cars showed up, you could escape in one of them, and keep it in your garage as a prize, provided you were skillful and lucky.
(Disclaimer: I have written and continue to write for Next-Gen.biz.)
"[Violence is] one method that you can use to really bring a player into a game and make it more satisfying... It's one portion of making this game the best action game on the market, but it's not like we have a specific goal to [make this the most violent game ever]."I don't buy it. If you're making a game and you're thinking "in this game, we want the player to behead and dismember his enemies limb by limb" then it is technically true that you may not want to make the most violent game ever. But the effect will be the same.
It sounds like they're saying that their intention to make a game that extends the Extreme Combat genre is a defense, while the effect will be to make a game that has horrific imagery. Imagery like this description Graft relates:
Chopping off an enemy's arms won't necessarily kill him, for example, but will leave him with no way to wield a weapon. Chopping off an enemy's legs will drop the torso to the ground, immobilizing him, but he'll pull out a grenade and try to blow himself up along with you from his stationary position.Delightful.
What's the difference between a game that sets out specifically to let you brutally dismember a person and a game that claims it's about making fun combat and along the way rewards brutal dismemberment?
For the record, I have experimented with sadistic acts in games which allowed me to do it. There is a parking garage on the second island in GTA3 which is near your second hideout, and I recall spending time with Bob experimenting with the NPC crowds and explosives. For example, you could kill a bystander, watch the NPCs run up to help him/her, and then toss a molotov cocktail in amongst them, and more people would come over to help those victims, and so forth. Eventually, the game would punish you if you let your wanted rating get too high. Even then you could try to extract rewards, though. If you waited until the FBI cars showed up, you could escape in one of them, and keep it in your garage as a prize, provided you were skillful and lucky.
(Disclaimer: I have written and continue to write for Next-Gen.biz.)
--jvm at 12:01
Comment
[ 5 ]
12 September 2007
The future of violent videogames
The future. Not the future (and probably NSFW for some people). Just so you know.
The longer version is that we've reached the point where more graphic gore doesn't actually make games more appealing. You can have more blood. You can have more fluid-like blood. You can have severed heads and limbs that bump around the environment with amazingly realistic physics. You can even have those severed heads and limbs give off appropriately heavy or squishy sound effects in Dolby Digital 5.1.
But it's all for naught. I think Valve has put their finger on what matters: a visually appealing game that is (hopefully) fun to play. It will be more broadly appreciated. It's not that terribly far removed from Looney Toons that we've all watched as kids.
I don't know what a game like Ninja Gaiden really thinks it will accomplish with gore like that, but the one thing it won't achieve is mainstream acceptance.
The longer version is that we've reached the point where more graphic gore doesn't actually make games more appealing. You can have more blood. You can have more fluid-like blood. You can have severed heads and limbs that bump around the environment with amazingly realistic physics. You can even have those severed heads and limbs give off appropriately heavy or squishy sound effects in Dolby Digital 5.1.
But it's all for naught. I think Valve has put their finger on what matters: a visually appealing game that is (hopefully) fun to play. It will be more broadly appreciated. It's not that terribly far removed from Looney Toons that we've all watched as kids.
I don't know what a game like Ninja Gaiden really thinks it will accomplish with gore like that, but the one thing it won't achieve is mainstream acceptance.
--jvm at 01:07
Comment
[ 11 ]
09 July 2007
Enough blame to go around
In a conference call to investors today Strauss Zelnick, Take Two Interactive's chairman, said (my emphasis):
The system that is broken here is the consolidated videogame retailer market. I know we're all tired of movie-to-game comparisons, but I think the one I have in mind is fitting. Bear with me. There will be nudity, if that matters to you.
It is my belief that smaller video rental shops can survive by offering the one thing that Blockbuster (et al) will not: dirty movies. The independent video stores in our old city all had naughty sections in the back -- tastefully separated from the mainstream movies by curtains. According to a grad school friend who used to work in one, they made a killing off of the dirty movies. (Aside: He was even encouraged to watch a variety of them so he could advise customers.)
Then all of those shops seemed to disappear and only Blockbuster remained. If you like getting your movies from behind the curtain and Blockbuster is your only option, then consolidation has limited your options. (Perhaps cheap broadband access and a river of porn on the internets killed the smaller video shops, but I have to think that Blockbuster did the most damage.)
The connection to games should be obvious. I look around and I see that in my current city the small independent game shops are gone. Instead I can now drive to a half-dozen GameStops in under 15 minutes, all with nearly identical stock. If you don't want to buy your games there you can go to Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City. That's about the end of it. Or you can shop online.
Look, I understand that Sony and Nintendo refusing to license AO games in the U.S. is also a problem, but even if they weren't there, the big retailers who control most of the market would still balk at stocking an AO-rated Manhunt 2. I'd even guess that some of Sony and Nintendo's reluctance is based on the positions of the retailers. After all, lots of crazy stuff gets licensed and released in Japan and sometimes Europe.
As Josh has said recently, the ESRB should focus on informing consumers about what's in the game. The user-generated content issue notwithstanding, I think they're doing that. What happens after they assign a rating isn't really their problem.
The real problem is that Rockstar and Take Two are trying to squeeze a filthy, violent camel through the eye of a conservative corporate needle. The conservatism comes not from the ESRB but from the console manufacturers (who can be swayed, I believe) and the retailers. So yes, let's blame the retailers.
Can they be swayed too? Perhaps, but I'd rather we have a case like Manhunt 2 where Sony relents and permits a download of the game to PlayStation 3 owners and it sells like gangbusters. If the retailers smell enough profit, I'm sure they'll come around.
"We don't see ourselves in the AO business," Zelnick explained. "But if we find ourselves in the AO business, it would be because we have a title that we consider art and entertainment, that we consider is appropriately rated at AO, that we'd like to bring to market, and that I and Ben [Feder, CEO] are prepared to stand behind.Let me disagree completely.
"In that instance, one has to ask oneself what's the purpose of a rating if it in fact means that a title cannot be released? But I don't think that that issue falls at the door of retailers. Retailers are acting responsibly, frankly, and I think a retailer has a right to say, 'This is what I'm prepared to put on my shelves.' It's not correct to be critical of the retailers at all.
"Because this is a voluntary ratings system in the US, we have to be critical of ourselves if we've allowed a system to develop that prevents us from bringing a title to market that we want to bring to market. That's something that we have to address."
The system that is broken here is the consolidated videogame retailer market. I know we're all tired of movie-to-game comparisons, but I think the one I have in mind is fitting. Bear with me. There will be nudity, if that matters to you.
It is my belief that smaller video rental shops can survive by offering the one thing that Blockbuster (et al) will not: dirty movies. The independent video stores in our old city all had naughty sections in the back -- tastefully separated from the mainstream movies by curtains. According to a grad school friend who used to work in one, they made a killing off of the dirty movies. (Aside: He was even encouraged to watch a variety of them so he could advise customers.)
Then all of those shops seemed to disappear and only Blockbuster remained. If you like getting your movies from behind the curtain and Blockbuster is your only option, then consolidation has limited your options. (Perhaps cheap broadband access and a river of porn on the internets killed the smaller video shops, but I have to think that Blockbuster did the most damage.)
The connection to games should be obvious. I look around and I see that in my current city the small independent game shops are gone. Instead I can now drive to a half-dozen GameStops in under 15 minutes, all with nearly identical stock. If you don't want to buy your games there you can go to Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City. That's about the end of it. Or you can shop online.
Look, I understand that Sony and Nintendo refusing to license AO games in the U.S. is also a problem, but even if they weren't there, the big retailers who control most of the market would still balk at stocking an AO-rated Manhunt 2. I'd even guess that some of Sony and Nintendo's reluctance is based on the positions of the retailers. After all, lots of crazy stuff gets licensed and released in Japan and sometimes Europe.
As Josh has said recently, the ESRB should focus on informing consumers about what's in the game. The user-generated content issue notwithstanding, I think they're doing that. What happens after they assign a rating isn't really their problem.
The real problem is that Rockstar and Take Two are trying to squeeze a filthy, violent camel through the eye of a conservative corporate needle. The conservatism comes not from the ESRB but from the console manufacturers (who can be swayed, I believe) and the retailers. So yes, let's blame the retailers.
Can they be swayed too? Perhaps, but I'd rather we have a case like Manhunt 2 where Sony relents and permits a download of the game to PlayStation 3 owners and it sells like gangbusters. If the retailers smell enough profit, I'm sure they'll come around.
Labels: business, esrb, game stores, sex, violence
--jvm at 22:54
Comment
[ 1 ]
28 June 2007
Manhunt 2 rating, Rockstar presumptions
From a post on My Strategyinformer, found via Game | Life, you can read an email response purportedly from Rockstar about Manhunt 2. The bit that struck me:
Which, of course, is what they're getting at in the second sentence. They don't like the discrepancies between movies and games. (Or at least they're saying they dont' like it. See last paragraph.) But isn't developing a full-scale game a huge risk to take just in the service of challenging the game rating system? Why not do it with something small intended for Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare, or the PlayStation Store? Maybe the idea is to use the weight of a full-scale game to shock people into changing the system, but it smells a bit more like inciting a riot than arguing your case in court.
I believe Ruffin speculated to me when he visited last week that Rockstar has a toned down version of the game waiting in the wings that they can just burn to a disc and produce if they don't get an M rating with the current version. Perhaps they've come to grips with the problems posed by the ESRB and the Jack Thompsons of the world and decided that it's better to use its enemies as guerrilla promotion than try to reason with them.
The game was developed as a horror experience, and to be an M rated title, aligning it with similar horror content created in other forms of media. Unlike many other people, we do not think video games should be singled out for special treatment from the authorities.That's inconsistent logic, I think. If the game is intended to be M rated, then you go by the guidelines for M rated games. As I've said before, it's not like Rockstar was unfamiliar with the system in which it lives. So it should know that you don't, for example, look at what R rated movies are doing and design your game to look like them. Movies are held to a different standard. That's just the reality of it.
Which, of course, is what they're getting at in the second sentence. They don't like the discrepancies between movies and games. (Or at least they're saying they dont' like it. See last paragraph.) But isn't developing a full-scale game a huge risk to take just in the service of challenging the game rating system? Why not do it with something small intended for Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare, or the PlayStation Store? Maybe the idea is to use the weight of a full-scale game to shock people into changing the system, but it smells a bit more like inciting a riot than arguing your case in court.
I believe Ruffin speculated to me when he visited last week that Rockstar has a toned down version of the game waiting in the wings that they can just burn to a disc and produce if they don't get an M rating with the current version. Perhaps they've come to grips with the problems posed by the ESRB and the Jack Thompsons of the world and decided that it's better to use its enemies as guerrilla promotion than try to reason with them.
--jvm at 22:49
Comment
[ 0 ]
20 June 2007
Rockstar should welcome Manhunt 2's AO rating
I don't understand why Rockstar is dismayed that their upcoming game, Manhunt 2, is slated to get an AO rating. And, unlike Josh, I don't really care whether it is for violence or sexual content or a mixture of the two.
If Rockstar really wants to make a game that includes content that pushes it over a line that society has set (by proxy through the ESRB) then they should just accept that. Society self-censors all the time. Parents limit what their kids can see, to varying degrees. Communities set limits on where a bars -- with our without dancers -- can be run. Stores put magazines behind the counter or on the top shelf, out of reach of youngsters.
And now Rockstar has made a game that's been judged to have an AO rating. Them's the breaks. If you're really confident in the game on its own merits, then deal with it. If you really made something you think is remarkable, but deals with subject matter than society doesn't want some youngsters to have, then that's the world you live in. Perhaps your game will change some minds and future ratings will be made differently. Embrace that you're truly breaking new ground and show people that you're not just skirting the line to earn some extra money.
As for me, I'm not buying another Manhunt. These past few years I've had to face images of a three-year-old child with one leg blown off and men with heads covered entirely by the smooth scar flesh that grows after the original flesh has burned away. I don't need a game to remind me of what horrors humanity can inflict on its members.
Update: Having read the comments, let me try to distill my point a bit: The material in Manhunt 2 already limits the audience that society would find acceptable. The rating is intended to communicate that to potential buyers, and it sounds like that's precisely what will happen. It's not like Rockstar didn't understand the environment in which it was working.
If Rockstar really wants to make a game that includes content that pushes it over a line that society has set (by proxy through the ESRB) then they should just accept that. Society self-censors all the time. Parents limit what their kids can see, to varying degrees. Communities set limits on where a bars -- with our without dancers -- can be run. Stores put magazines behind the counter or on the top shelf, out of reach of youngsters.
And now Rockstar has made a game that's been judged to have an AO rating. Them's the breaks. If you're really confident in the game on its own merits, then deal with it. If you really made something you think is remarkable, but deals with subject matter than society doesn't want some youngsters to have, then that's the world you live in. Perhaps your game will change some minds and future ratings will be made differently. Embrace that you're truly breaking new ground and show people that you're not just skirting the line to earn some extra money.
As for me, I'm not buying another Manhunt. These past few years I've had to face images of a three-year-old child with one leg blown off and men with heads covered entirely by the smooth scar flesh that grows after the original flesh has burned away. I don't need a game to remind me of what horrors humanity can inflict on its members.
Update: Having read the comments, let me try to distill my point a bit: The material in Manhunt 2 already limits the audience that society would find acceptable. The rating is intended to communicate that to potential buyers, and it sounds like that's precisely what will happen. It's not like Rockstar didn't understand the environment in which it was working.
--jvm at 09:46
Comment
[ 13 ]
06 February 2007
Why Manhunt 2 may not appear on PS3 and Xbox 360
Today Rockstar announced that Manhunt 2, sequel to the sadistic original game from 2003, will be published for the PlayStation 2, Sony PSP, and Nintendo Wii. While I am dismayed that another sadistic piece of garbage will be published, the choice of platforms is very interesting. If Rockstar were to simply port the version from the PlayStation 2 to the more powerful Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, they would be skewered for the lazy effort. They may avoid a full version of Manhunt 2 for those newer platforms, one that takes full advantage of the next generation hardware, because the end result would tread a little too close to real not just for the likes of Jack Thompson or even the ESRB but for the general public.
The passing generation of console hardware can do some amazing things. One has merely to look at Halo 2 and God of War 2 to see what the hardware can accomplish in capable hands. Yet those games fall measurably short of photorealistic. Most average people can still tell that the images on the screen aren't real.
For the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, however, the gap has narrowed. Moreover, this is Rockstar, creators of Table Tennis for the Xbox 360, a game lauded for its realism. On these newer platforms, the expectation of photorealism -- or some close approximation -- will be intense. Were Rockstar to make a photorealistic Manhunt, they'd need to show all the gore that had previously been chunky and blurry in the lower polygon, muddy textured PlayStation 2 game.
Manhunt is the kind of game that celebrates the image of a man's vain attempt to stuff his entrails back into his lacerated gut. No doubt there is a segment of the market that not only wants to see such sights, but in fact to cause them to happen. But the segment that stomached low resolution approximations of that scene on a PlayStation 2 is probably a good bit larger than the segment that wants to see a high resolution version, complete with pulsing, steaming, veiny intestines.
And Rockstar aren't alone in avoiding the bleeding edge of graphics. One of the most savvy moves I saw in the market last year was Valve's re-invention of Team Fortress. Imagine applying today's graphics to this original vision of TF2:
You would not come up with the form of TF2 that Valve has settled on:
So Rockstar has chosen to hit the platforms on which it can get away with this kind of game without crossing a virtual boundary. Beyond that boundary lies a whole new reality, the likes of which we have only begun to understand. I don't begrudge Rockstar's decision to avoid applying the full power of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 to the kind of game that would force us to ask some uncomfortable questions. I wish them luck and I'll be watching as always, an interested observer. However, the questions are still there: How real is too real? Which virtual activity will we, as a society, be willing to tolerate?
The passing generation of console hardware can do some amazing things. One has merely to look at Halo 2 and God of War 2 to see what the hardware can accomplish in capable hands. Yet those games fall measurably short of photorealistic. Most average people can still tell that the images on the screen aren't real.
For the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, however, the gap has narrowed. Moreover, this is Rockstar, creators of Table Tennis for the Xbox 360, a game lauded for its realism. On these newer platforms, the expectation of photorealism -- or some close approximation -- will be intense. Were Rockstar to make a photorealistic Manhunt, they'd need to show all the gore that had previously been chunky and blurry in the lower polygon, muddy textured PlayStation 2 game.
Manhunt is the kind of game that celebrates the image of a man's vain attempt to stuff his entrails back into his lacerated gut. No doubt there is a segment of the market that not only wants to see such sights, but in fact to cause them to happen. But the segment that stomached low resolution approximations of that scene on a PlayStation 2 is probably a good bit larger than the segment that wants to see a high resolution version, complete with pulsing, steaming, veiny intestines.
And Rockstar aren't alone in avoiding the bleeding edge of graphics. One of the most savvy moves I saw in the market last year was Valve's re-invention of Team Fortress. Imagine applying today's graphics to this original vision of TF2:
You would not come up with the form of TF2 that Valve has settled on:
So Rockstar has chosen to hit the platforms on which it can get away with this kind of game without crossing a virtual boundary. Beyond that boundary lies a whole new reality, the likes of which we have only begun to understand. I don't begrudge Rockstar's decision to avoid applying the full power of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 to the kind of game that would force us to ask some uncomfortable questions. I wish them luck and I'll be watching as always, an interested observer. However, the questions are still there: How real is too real? Which virtual activity will we, as a society, be willing to tolerate?
--jvm at 18:53
Comment
[ 9 ]
30 January 2007
Disheartening obsession with violence
The videogame scene is exciting to watch most of the time. The endless cheerleading is infectious, and occasionally even somewhat warranted. On the other hand, it produces the videos linked to in (WARNING!) this NeoGAF post. You know that your morbid sense of curiosity will get the better of you, but don't feel bad about stopping watching after only a few seconds.
The post itself is harmless. The videos, on the other hand, are distressingly concentrated, brutal, heartless violence. I'm still scarred from playing Manhunt and the video there brought back the feeling that I need to wash off the ick with a blisteringly hot shower. The video of The Punisher is even worse.
I keep thinking: that polygonal man was some polygonal woman's son, and how would she feel seeing her little texture-mapped boy heartlessly cut up into piles of red polyhedra? Or something like that.
The post itself is harmless. The videos, on the other hand, are distressingly concentrated, brutal, heartless violence. I'm still scarred from playing Manhunt and the video there brought back the feeling that I need to wash off the ick with a blisteringly hot shower. The video of The Punisher is even worse.
I keep thinking: that polygonal man was some polygonal woman's son, and how would she feel seeing her little texture-mapped boy heartlessly cut up into piles of red polyhedra? Or something like that.
Labels: violence
--jvm at 20:58
Comment
[ 3 ]
Feedburner
