-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jonathan Blow Twitter Drama, E3 and Violence
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
The timing is unfortunate given Orlando, but ultimately, I don't think EA is at much fault for showing their games off at E3. Companies make these violent games because gamers buy them and have fun with them. Violence sells. The masses loves violence in their entertainment, that goes for TV shows and films too.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I'm not making an assessment of him as a person. I'm drawing a conclusion on what he's currently saying based on what he's said on the subject in the past.
And of couse you should justify sharing your opinion. Otherwise you're just filling the air with sound and that doesn't do anyone any good. By sharing your opinion to the public you're opening it up to criticism. If you're trying to make any sort of point to other people you should probably make sure what you're saying has some substance to it.
YankeeDonB
Member
Good question. I take a fairly strong Aristotelian stance that our personal ethics are grounded by daily practice and calibration. Most of us, most of the time, aren't really tested in a serious way. With the proper grounding we're more likely to rise to the occasion if it occurs (run into the burning building instead of away, etc.) I keep thinking of how I should be oriented toward the world around me, and then find ways to practice and reinforce sympathetic behaviors.
So, indeed, I self limit my exposure to hyper violence. Mind you, I'm not all that interested in hyper violence, so this would still fit the "play what you enjoy" rubric. Is that because I limit my exposure and have trained myself not to like it? Because I'm wired to be squeamish? Chicken and egg.
I'll not say anyone should self limit exposure to violent games if that's what they enjoy. I do believe that humans are changeable and susceptible to all sorts of cultural winds, so I guess I do think it incumbent on each of us to consider and attempt to self reinforce some ethical stance through some means or other as a bulwark against the banality of evil.
Maybe you play violent games on Saturday but work at the soup kitchen on Sunday (or help care for an aging parent/young child, engage in thoughtful and pro social discussions with friends in your softball league or on Neogaf, help a friend move, whatever). Of course, it's all a balance, and my core argument (that ethical behavior is the product of practice as opposed to immutable belief) is certainly debatable.
As an aside, I think you could sub in violence for sex in your last graph and it still works fairly well (aside from representation in work force). Violence can be just as much of a crutch as sex, in some ways, though I take your point that it's more intimately integrated with core gameplay mechanics.
N° 2048
Member
%100.
My 12 year old niece told me she saw the movie Saw ON T.V.
Just being played randomly.
Blow isn`t saying there`s any connection, which he also clarified in a later tweet. He`s just saying that studios are building murder fantasies, which are games he doesn`t like. This isn`t a new view of Blow, he`s been critical of the endless barrage of murder in big games for years and years.
People need to be able to distinguish people being tired of murder in every big game with people saying that those games cause people in real life to murder. Blow is CLEARLY not saying the latter, so that just turns into a strawman to attack a view he doesn`t hold.
SolidSnakesMyStepDad
Member
I love how two people disagreeing on Twitter is now drama. Regardless I understand where Blow is coming from yet it's more of a emotional response not quite a logical one.
LordRaptor
Member
Doesn't this suggest that AAA titles emphasising violence aren't just reflecting what an audience wants but attempting to shape it though?
Like that doesn't already happen.
Embarrassing replies all throughout this thread. Blow didn't say anything wrong at all. It's completely true that companies are glorifying needless violence and murder to sell their games. Just look at Battlefield.
And he didn't make any link to real life violence or the Orlando shooting or banning violent video games. People tripping over themselves to make these outrageous leaps of logic over something that he didn't suggest at all. Reading comprehension is at a sad state these days.
Anyway, there's definitely value in what he's saying. But people are in such a rush to defend their precious videogames against even the smallest hint of criticism that they go crazy.
As for Notch. Money doesn't buy you happiness, class, or intelligence.
And he didn't make any link to real life violence or the Orlando shooting or banning violent video games. People tripping over themselves to make these outrageous leaps of logic over something that he didn't suggest at all. Reading comprehension is at a sad state these days.
Anyway, there's definitely value in what he's saying. But people are in such a rush to defend their precious videogames against even the smallest hint of criticism that they go crazy.
As for Notch. Money doesn't buy you happiness, class, or intelligence.
Jailer of Hope
Member
The Verge is much more guilty of this than Blow is. His wording, as always, is just awful. Plus Twitter. I do find it interesting that these controversies are popping up within the industry itself, now that mass media outlets have kind of forgone the traditional video game scapegoats in recent years.
Oh really?
Seems to have 0% effect on the TV and movie industry outside maybe of age-ratings system. Which is fine for gaming as well. By all means, slap an M rating on super violent games.
Will probably be the same for games then.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Notch is right, even if he phrased it in the most cringeworthy way possible, though. People buy Shooty-games, companies make Shooty-games. That's how it works.
Not with EA conferences where they always had a big portion of it dedicated to their yearly sport rehashes and the occasional Sims/NFS stuff.
M.W.
Gold Member
Exactly.
Darkstorne
Member
Completely agree with you. And I used to be really vocal about this ~5 years ago - not the need to censor violent games, but the need for more games that weren't so reliant on violence as the primary (and sometimes sole) gameplay mechanic.
We've not only been seeing games like Portal, Life is Strange, and No Man's Sky, where violence is almost non-existant. We're seeing games rely less on violence to engage players and more on dialogue, such as The Walking Dead series and even The Witcher 3, where violence is still a common theme but far less of the player's time is spent engaged in combat. Kind of like how action films and TV have got this great balance between combat scenes and character development / dialogue, games are finally figuring it out. Game of Thrones is an immensely violent TV show, but 90% of the screen time is dialogue and character development. With games we're used to 90% of our time being engaged in combat, and that's finally switching to a more engaging balance.
A videogame developer discusses videogames and the videogame section of a videogames forum reacts.
But go ahead, there is a offtopic section.
You're in the Game of Thrones thread too, no? People often complain about the use of violence (and sex) in that show.
And as i said in pages back, films like Martyrs and such get blasted constantly.
Also, this tweet will probably have little to no effect on what EA will be working on next.
If that wasn't his intention (and i do believe it wasn't) saying it right after the Orlando shooting wasn't smart.
Especially with a quick tweet, which format is basically designed for inflammatory nonsense.
Blow isn`t saying video games had anything to do with the Orlando shooting. That The Verge article was dumb, but Blow is just saying something he`s been saying for years and years. He`s been banging the drum of the big publishers having so many murder games and how fucking boring that is to him for years. It has to be possible to say that during the biggest marketing event for games without reactionary people jumping down his throat about him saying that VIDEO GAMES CAUSED THE ORLANDO SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!, which is something he clearly doesn`t think. Look at his follow up tweets.
Relativ9
Member
That's gaf for you. Earlier in this thread some people were jumping on me for saying that most Americans complain about violent video games, when in fact what I said was that it seemed to me that most people complaining about violent video games were Americans.
On gaf, the order of words doesn't matter -.-
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
I will say that the general public that does not play video games will look at trailers for only the violent examples and think that's all there is to the industry. The fact that we're approaching a point where we can depict it from a technical perspective with more detail can be a little much for people.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
You get to experience a war in the safe comfort of your own home without the guilt of killing anyone real. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
It's the same reason why realistic sport games or racing games are so popular despite being activities you could pursue in real life as well.
It`s the biggest week for video game marketing. If you can`t say it now when the big publishers are pushing those games, when can you say it? I agree that the tweet was a bit too snide, but people should take a moment before they attack it now especially when he has clarified it.
Something like GTA doesn't sell north of 60 Million copies because it's not something people want. Marketing has limits. Violent/Actiony entertainment has been popular for Millenia, it's not a new thing.
There is more room than now for other stuff, sure, but to believe that the lowest common denominator violent action game will not always be at the top or near the top of the charts is really being blind to what's been popular during all of human history.
John Kowalski
Banned
Going by your post and its relation to the context at hand, as far as you can tell isn't very far at all.
BudokaiMR2
Member
This is how I feel regarding this situation as well, although I am already regretting that I spent any time at all thinking about twitter drama.
Think I am just gonna carry on now and teach my co-worker how to kill fools in Overwatch.
Heckler456
Banned
I'm sorry, I think I didn't quite make my point as well as I could have. What I was trying to say was that he shouldn't have to write an essay just to earn the right to tweet out a simple observation. I'm sure he has a very well thought out opinion on this subject, as do you, seeing as you seem to be keenly aware about what he has said in the past about it.
blankempathy
Member
Except the community is not going to grow up. Its simply going to expand. Which means more ideas and more people to make different types of games for. Its already happening. Things have already changed a lot but don't expect some video game revolution.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
About as good as 'Violence sells in the triple A market'. Stunning.
Ah a twitter slapfight...
Did the person personally address you? No. You as a person identified yourself as part of a certain subset X of society and X was being criticized as a group and that made you feel offended. But, it's your own choice to feel part of X and additionally, just because you feel offended because of your indirect association, it doesn't make the accusation (whatever the fuck it is, I lost track of the arguments against 'criticizing violence is stupid') less true.
Besides, and this is really funny, criticizing something like violence in games, how can that ever be insulting personally? How can that offend you, _personally_ ? Someone has an opinion about something that's in entertainment I sometimes enjoy, OOPS! I'm offended! You use words like 'intellectually dishonest', it would be great if you would then also use a more intellectual approach to the whole debate, right? More like debating a point of view with arguments about the topic at hand instead of pulling the 'I'm offended' card
. Nowhere is that implied nor stated. Their point is the other way around: they formulate a point of view, namely: why are games so violent and why do we see it as entertainment or better: why is it fed to us as entertainment? You can then ask the question: is the violence in games (and entertainment in general) a reflection of the moral decay of society?
Simple questions which have different answers depending on what your own situation, PoV is etc.. The funny thing here is that by answering them some people think that the answer given by person A is personally addressed to them to criticize them personally. Nothing is further from the truth: it's an argument about a point, that's how debates go.
Audioboxer
Member
Well reasoned response, thanks.
potatohead
Member
I think in this particular instance mental illness played a greater role than religion did.
At least that's what I gathered from reading.
Why do people treat media outlets like they're a single person? What's wrong with media outlets accommodating a variety of opinions?The problem with that Verge article:
You could say the same for Notch, or anyone on Twitter really. Why Notch has to act like a big baby all the time I don't know.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Being self-contradictory to the point of irrelevance does sound pretty hypocritical to me.
I think that videogames are a result, a product. We buy violent games(movies, books, etc) because we *are* violent as a species. At least we have this violence deep down in our minds, because there was a time where violence was the only solution to a large part of our problems as animals in the wild. And we're the offspring of these "problem solvers".
Our enterteinment will revolve around violence because it's common to everybody. Maybe it will eventually decrease its relevance in our media, maybe not.
Discuss violence in gaming should be a later step. We need to fix ourself first.
I'm not saying that it's bad to like violent media. For the 99.9999% of us it means nothing and is harmless. Just... That's reflect who we were and maybe who we still are as humans.
Our enterteinment will revolve around violence because it's common to everybody. Maybe it will eventually decrease its relevance in our media, maybe not.
Discuss violence in gaming should be a later step. We need to fix ourself first.
I'm not saying that it's bad to like violent media. For the 99.9999% of us it means nothing and is harmless. Just... That's reflect who we were and maybe who we still are as humans.
Violence in one form of another has always been central to many videogames.
The only difference is that now because of improved graphics it can look more realistic than ever.
Notch is right about the game industry and violence.
Violence is the key mechanic of most AAA games and the industry will continue making them so pretending otherwise is hypocrisy.
Without violent videogames the industry would be much, much smaller.
Violence is inherently dramatic which is why it features so heavily in literature, art, movies, TV and games.
The only difference is that now because of improved graphics it can look more realistic than ever.
Notch is right about the game industry and violence.
Violence is the key mechanic of most AAA games and the industry will continue making them so pretending otherwise is hypocrisy.
Without violent videogames the industry would be much, much smaller.
Violence is inherently dramatic which is why it features so heavily in literature, art, movies, TV and games.
I agree with what Blow was trying to say.
He explicitly said it's not about the games/violence argument. It's about why there is so much violence in gaming.
Of course, I think the way he goes about his argument is childish. Just calling out the problem without offering much of a solution or anything outside of making nonviolent games himself. But it really is an issue with our present day society. Violence is glorified in the media and that's not healthy.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying violent games or movies. But when a vast majority of high budget movies and games are center around the idea of violence, it really speak volumes about our society. That and when a majority of these movies or games don't offer any real commentary or intellectual thoughts on the horrors of violence, war, etc. It doesn't make these experiences constructive at all.
He explicitly said it's not about the games/violence argument. It's about why there is so much violence in gaming.
Of course, I think the way he goes about his argument is childish. Just calling out the problem without offering much of a solution or anything outside of making nonviolent games himself. But it really is an issue with our present day society. Violence is glorified in the media and that's not healthy.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying violent games or movies. But when a vast majority of high budget movies and games are center around the idea of violence, it really speak volumes about our society. That and when a majority of these movies or games don't offer any real commentary or intellectual thoughts on the horrors of violence, war, etc. It doesn't make these experiences constructive at all.
I mean, it wasn't the 140 character limit that made him accuse developers of "making it cool to play out your mass murderer fantasies".
It's not inflammatory because he didn't make it an essay.
Please enlightened us to how the Orlando shooting was related to videogames.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
When VR makes it big you and I both know we're gonna jump from virtual violence to virtual porn being the primary mechanic of most of gaming
and i'm already ready
RichiRamjag
Member
Religious fanaticism. Pointing it directly to religion is no better than blaming all Muslims imo (not that this was your intention I'm sure).
YankeeDonB
Member
Sure, I appreciated the tone of your replies as well - there's all sorts of room for nuanced disagreement on this stuff. Doesn't have to be zero sum....