Spector Slams Grand Theft Auto
Design milestone undermined by content claims beard-stroker.
Deus Ex creator and acclaimed game developer Warren Spector has added his voice to what has been described by some as a sensible majority, addressing Rockstar on its Grand Theft Auto series and the content therein.
In something of a scathing condemnation of the series, Spector says he’s angered by what he sees as gratuitous content undermining what is a very important videogame.
"I'm really angry at the Rockstar guys," Spector said in an interview on Wednesday at the Montreal International Game Summit. "Not like I'm going to go beat them up and yell at them, but they frustrate me because Grand Theft Auto III, in particular, was an amazing advance in game design. It was a stunning accomplishment as a game design. And it was wrapped in a context that completely for me undid all the good they did on the design side. It's like I want to tell my mother 'This is what games can be.' But I can't because they don't get past the beating people up with a baseball bat, stealing cars and crashing them, and the foul language and stuff. And I don't think it is necessary. At this point, GTA is the ultimate urban thuggery simulation, and you can't take a step back from that. But I sure wish they would apply the same level of design genius to something we really could show enriches the culture instead of debases it."
And perhaps Spector is the first developer to put his finger on what has been something of a dichotomy for critics in the games industry for some years now. It’s difficult not to enjoy Grand Theft Auto for the piece of seminal programming it undoubtedly is, though its content is questionable. This writer for one gleans zero enjoyment from being subjected to violent and abusive imagery for hours on end, though for others at the SPOnG office, the gratuitous tongue-in-cheek violence and misogyny of GTA is a real draw.
"The more kids and young adults start turning to games to pass the time, to educate themselves and entertain themselves, the more the parents and the cultural gatekeepers will pay attention. And as we're seeing, they're feeling threatened. And that's not something I think we can afford to ignore. There's a whole generation of folks out there who do not get games. They grew up without computers. They grew up bugging their parents not by playing Doom but by wearing their hair long and playing rock 'n' roll loud. They don't understand why their son is barricading himself in his room killing demons all day. And they don't understand why their daughter, instead of playing with Barbies which is something they understand, is instead raising families of little virtual electronic people. They don't get it. And people blame and fear what they don't understand."
Spector went on to outline another oft overlooked point. With technological advancement comes added realism, which in turn demands added responsibility.
"Escaping from a 16-colour virtual world populated by stick figures is one thing. Killing a cop who looks like a cop...or being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion. Is it any wonder non-gaming adults in positions of power fear us and our influence? This is not just something we can say 'Ah well, screw them. They're all going to die some day. The problem is there is a really fine line between waiting for a problem to go away, because you know it inevitably will, and just sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. And the fact is things could get a lot worse for us and it could happen very soon. Because right now, pretty much all we offer is a cheap adrenalin rush."
Whether you agree with Spector or not is entirely your decision, though it’s refreshing to see someone in the games industry stand up to say that we have more to offer than lowest common denominator entertainment.
Next week on SPOnG – jokes about wanking. Don’t miss it!
In something of a scathing condemnation of the series, Spector says he’s angered by what he sees as gratuitous content undermining what is a very important videogame.
"I'm really angry at the Rockstar guys," Spector said in an interview on Wednesday at the Montreal International Game Summit. "Not like I'm going to go beat them up and yell at them, but they frustrate me because Grand Theft Auto III, in particular, was an amazing advance in game design. It was a stunning accomplishment as a game design. And it was wrapped in a context that completely for me undid all the good they did on the design side. It's like I want to tell my mother 'This is what games can be.' But I can't because they don't get past the beating people up with a baseball bat, stealing cars and crashing them, and the foul language and stuff. And I don't think it is necessary. At this point, GTA is the ultimate urban thuggery simulation, and you can't take a step back from that. But I sure wish they would apply the same level of design genius to something we really could show enriches the culture instead of debases it."
And perhaps Spector is the first developer to put his finger on what has been something of a dichotomy for critics in the games industry for some years now. It’s difficult not to enjoy Grand Theft Auto for the piece of seminal programming it undoubtedly is, though its content is questionable. This writer for one gleans zero enjoyment from being subjected to violent and abusive imagery for hours on end, though for others at the SPOnG office, the gratuitous tongue-in-cheek violence and misogyny of GTA is a real draw.
"The more kids and young adults start turning to games to pass the time, to educate themselves and entertain themselves, the more the parents and the cultural gatekeepers will pay attention. And as we're seeing, they're feeling threatened. And that's not something I think we can afford to ignore. There's a whole generation of folks out there who do not get games. They grew up without computers. They grew up bugging their parents not by playing Doom but by wearing their hair long and playing rock 'n' roll loud. They don't understand why their son is barricading himself in his room killing demons all day. And they don't understand why their daughter, instead of playing with Barbies which is something they understand, is instead raising families of little virtual electronic people. They don't get it. And people blame and fear what they don't understand."
Spector went on to outline another oft overlooked point. With technological advancement comes added realism, which in turn demands added responsibility.
"Escaping from a 16-colour virtual world populated by stick figures is one thing. Killing a cop who looks like a cop...or being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion. Is it any wonder non-gaming adults in positions of power fear us and our influence? This is not just something we can say 'Ah well, screw them. They're all going to die some day. The problem is there is a really fine line between waiting for a problem to go away, because you know it inevitably will, and just sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. And the fact is things could get a lot worse for us and it could happen very soon. Because right now, pretty much all we offer is a cheap adrenalin rush."
Whether you agree with Spector or not is entirely your decision, though it’s refreshing to see someone in the games industry stand up to say that we have more to offer than lowest common denominator entertainment.
Next week on SPOnG – jokes about wanking. Don’t miss it!
Read More Like This
Comments
config 4 Nov 2005 12:44
1/5
"Killing a cop who looks like a cop"
Kinda like all those movies where cops, uniformed or undercover, get blasted to bits. You'd let your kids watch a movie with that content? Nope.
"being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion"
What about those multi-angle slo-mo's in televised boxing matches? You let your kids watch that? Hm?
On the content of GTA, I'm one of the SPOnGers who likes it for its dark humour. No, not the "humour" that is kicking the s**t out of prostitutes to get your money back (or beating bystanders to death - funny that they never get a mention in the rabid press coverage). No, it's the daft signage, witty radio commentary and thick coating of irony. Yeah, even the hooker health re-gen brought a smile the first couple of times.
Puerile or not - take it away and the game takes one big step towards dull.
The vital component of GTA, the essence that Spector is frothing about, is the free roaming, do anything aspect.
GTA features large cities - counties even! How would you suggest we get about such a vast area, Mr Spector? Do we take the bus or train, wait to flag down a taxi or just run everywhere? How about we allow the player to just jump in any passing car. He;s a criminal, so it fits. It's simple, effective, fun. Great game design.
Keeping in mind that the protagonist is a criminal, and the thrust of the story is to make it from petty crim to don, it's natural to expect the odd fight with the "bad" guys. Does Spector suggest Rockstar North should have only allowed the player to shoot the bad guys, but attacks on bystanders cause them no harm. Yeah, that's a real, living, breathing city.
I can see an argument that Rockstar have taken these activities and given them the sicko treatment due to the manner in which they're executed. I argue that it's all part of it's dark humour - the way in which people are dragged from their cars, the comments from pedestrians - it wouldn't be the same game without it.
Yes, the brutal, nasty aspect of GTA is big turn-off for some, and children should most certainly should not be exposed to the game. However, if you take away the elements that make this game "abhorrent" and you take away the elements that make it ground breaking and an "amazing advance in game design"
Kinda like all those movies where cops, uniformed or undercover, get blasted to bits. You'd let your kids watch a movie with that content? Nope.
"being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion"
What about those multi-angle slo-mo's in televised boxing matches? You let your kids watch that? Hm?
On the content of GTA, I'm one of the SPOnGers who likes it for its dark humour. No, not the "humour" that is kicking the s**t out of prostitutes to get your money back (or beating bystanders to death - funny that they never get a mention in the rabid press coverage). No, it's the daft signage, witty radio commentary and thick coating of irony. Yeah, even the hooker health re-gen brought a smile the first couple of times.
Puerile or not - take it away and the game takes one big step towards dull.
The vital component of GTA, the essence that Spector is frothing about, is the free roaming, do anything aspect.
GTA features large cities - counties even! How would you suggest we get about such a vast area, Mr Spector? Do we take the bus or train, wait to flag down a taxi or just run everywhere? How about we allow the player to just jump in any passing car. He;s a criminal, so it fits. It's simple, effective, fun. Great game design.
Keeping in mind that the protagonist is a criminal, and the thrust of the story is to make it from petty crim to don, it's natural to expect the odd fight with the "bad" guys. Does Spector suggest Rockstar North should have only allowed the player to shoot the bad guys, but attacks on bystanders cause them no harm. Yeah, that's a real, living, breathing city.
I can see an argument that Rockstar have taken these activities and given them the sicko treatment due to the manner in which they're executed. I argue that it's all part of it's dark humour - the way in which people are dragged from their cars, the comments from pedestrians - it wouldn't be the same game without it.
Yes, the brutal, nasty aspect of GTA is big turn-off for some, and children should most certainly should not be exposed to the game. However, if you take away the elements that make this game "abhorrent" and you take away the elements that make it ground breaking and an "amazing advance in game design"
marmaduke 4 Nov 2005 13:20
2/5
Saying 'TV is just as bad' doesn't make the moral bankruptcy of the Grand Theft Autos any better. They're great games, but they do occasionally let the veneer of black humour drop and turn genuinely nasty.
For this reason Vice City was the best of the series. It was never less than completely ridiculous. The eighties hook that ran through the whole thing was impossible to escape, and so at no point did it stop being complete fantasy.
Anyway, the great leap in game design he's talking about is the one that he's always been trying to achieve- complete player freedom. Where Deus Ex was basically a series of boxes to rattle around in, GTA presented a coherent world where you could go anywhere and do what you like. It is possible to concieve of a game that offers that level of freedom and interaction without having the prostitute beating quite so prominent.
For this reason Vice City was the best of the series. It was never less than completely ridiculous. The eighties hook that ran through the whole thing was impossible to escape, and so at no point did it stop being complete fantasy.
Anyway, the great leap in game design he's talking about is the one that he's always been trying to achieve- complete player freedom. Where Deus Ex was basically a series of boxes to rattle around in, GTA presented a coherent world where you could go anywhere and do what you like. It is possible to concieve of a game that offers that level of freedom and interaction without having the prostitute beating quite so prominent.
more comments below our sponsor's message
TwoADay 4 Nov 2005 14:11
3/5
The way the argument goes (not that I necessarilly agree with it) is that the difference is that the game player gets to kill the cop, rather than just watching. but whatever.
I agree with Spector to a point. It is an empty game, but that's what many think is great about it - jump in, jump out, and you don't have to wait around for story and whatnot. The lack of choice when approaching situations is kind of disappointing. For me, the game gets stale after an hour of playing: Drive, kill, run. Drive, kill, run. yawn yawn yawn. Drive, kill, run. being given a choice (for VC: join the coke baron? kill him? join one of his rivals? become a NARC?) would have made a silly, shallow, but ultimately pretty good game one that is truly sweet.
There are only so many times you avoid the cops before you say...I've been playing the same mission under different names for the past hour. Time to play something with real choices / variety.
I agree with Spector to a point. It is an empty game, but that's what many think is great about it - jump in, jump out, and you don't have to wait around for story and whatnot. The lack of choice when approaching situations is kind of disappointing. For me, the game gets stale after an hour of playing: Drive, kill, run. Drive, kill, run. yawn yawn yawn. Drive, kill, run. being given a choice (for VC: join the coke baron? kill him? join one of his rivals? become a NARC?) would have made a silly, shallow, but ultimately pretty good game one that is truly sweet.
There are only so many times you avoid the cops before you say...I've been playing the same mission under different names for the past hour. Time to play something with real choices / variety.
config 4 Nov 2005 15:09
4/5
TwoADay wrote:
The way the argument goes (not that I necessarilly agree with it) is that the difference is that the game player gets to kill the cop, rather than just watching. but whatever.
Aye. It's old and not entire valid argument, depending on which "study" you happen to read this week.
I agree with Spector to a point. It is an empty game, but that's what many think is great about it - jump in, jump out, and you don't have to wait around for story and whatnot. The lack of choice when approaching situations is kind of disappointing.
Well, there's plenty of choice, just no ramifications. Spector seems to be celebrating the true free roaming city, which is actually the bit I like about the GTA. I'm not looking for moral dilemmas, karmic feedback, complex narrative - I just want to get out there and explore. Do what I want, and see where it takes me. There's a touch of punishment for the bad, in the form of star rating/authority awareness, but of course that is reset in a blink. In fact, once I've had a star rating and the cops are on to me, I sometimes go all out to see how high I can get it without getting wasted. I'm not interested in putting bullets through the heads of police, FBI agents or solidiers - I might just want the challenge of staying alive in a three-wheeled car whilst being attacked by tanks.
I think that, if you take away any of the free elements, or constrain the game with karmic feedback, you'd end up ruining the very essence that Spector reveres. It's all too easy to spoil a game by ignoring that it's a game, something that's meant to be fun, and imposing too many real-world boundries.
For an example, look at these three games that try so hard to be realistic, real roaming worlds; True Crime: Streets of LA - Luxoflux did a fine job of creating a free roaming play area, but IMO it just wasn't fun. You could be good cop or bad cop, but no matter how I played it, it just didn't draw me in. I'm still looking forward to True Crime NY, which apparently takes takes your actions and projects their effects onto the environment - ignore random crimes and the neighbourhood goes to s**t.
The Getaway was okay-ish on the missions and a fine rendition of England's capitcal, but was dull otherwise - there was nothing really enjoyable to do outside of the missions besides sight-seeing. The same can be said about Driver 3, which forgot how to be fun and tried to be "real" (though the less said about that Driv3l, the better ;)
For me, the game gets stale after an hour of playing: Drive, kill, run. Drive, kill, run. yawn yawn yawn. Drive, kill, run. being given a choice (for VC: join the coke baron? kill him? join one of his rivals? become a NARC?) would have made a silly, shallow, but ultimately pretty good game one that is truly sweet.
There are only so many times you avoid the cops before you say...I've been playing the same mission under different names for the past hour. Time to play something with real choices / variety.
There are only so many times you avoid the cops before you say...I've been playing the same mission under different names for the past hour. Time to play something with real choices / variety.
There was a similar option in GTA2. You could opt for missions with chosen gangs, which resulted in their arch enemies trying all-out to kill you. Now, I don't recall there being any moral difference between these gangs - no one had a virtuous calling fuelling their murderous ways - but it did make things interesting when traversing the city.
I guess there's also the constraints of the current generation to consider. It's clear the graphical limitations that hinder GTA on the poor little PS2, but there has to also be a limit on the background factors that are measured, evaluated and direct gameplay. Perhaps we can hope for more cause/effect content in the next generation of free roaming games.
Let's not forget that games are about fun. I'm don't for a morality play when jumping on Koopa Troopers, I just want some fun. That applies to most games, whether they're dressed as day-glo cartoons or a gritty underworld. If the content isn't appropriate for the kids, don't let them at it.
TwoADay 4 Nov 2005 23:52
5/5
config wrote:
I think that, if you take away any of the free elements, or constrain the game with karmic feedback, you'd end up ruining the very essence that Spector reveres. It's all too easy to spoil a game by ignoring that it's a game, something that's meant to be fun, and imposing too many real-world boundries.
I argue that there really aren't many choices in GTA. Really, I do. Sure, you can go anywhere. Then what? there's some mini games that break things up, but for me, all the missions played the same. Wreck a car. kill a guy. get out. Those missions started out fun, but got boring a little too fast.
Example of what I'm talking about with choices: In VC you are asked to be a strike buster. you go around, beat some guys, and shoot the barrels. There are too few ways to attempt this mission, in my opinion. sure, it's fine to do it that way, but wouldn't it be cool to try other ways? snipe the barrels from a building? Too bad we can't -- the rifle is locked at that point. For me, I see more limitations with GTA because I'm allowed to run around, and supposedly have choices. My choices in this game are "do mission A, or B?" well, it doesn't matter, since I'll end up doing both, not to mention they're almost identical missions (kill a guy, grab a briefcase, or drive from spot to spot)
I think Deus Ex gives me more options. Even though I cannot choose where to go, I'm given situations where I can try different methods. THAT is what is truly lacking.
I don't moralize when I play games, but I would expect a game that has a reputation of "letting you do whatever you want" actually give me opportunities to try out different ideas, or different ways to approach missions, rather than drive drive kill, run run shoot. yawn yawn yawn. power off.
GTA, for me, is a facade. Illusions of freedom, hampered by lack of approaches to situations, as well as sloppy controls / cameras (although that is more of a technical issue, and we're discussing other aspects of the series)