Call of Duty Director Bigs Up Call of Duty Murder Controversy
Developers can get de-sensitised... so more controversy is required
"Look into my eyes"
Director of the Call of Duty: Black Ops (and other 'Modern Warfare' titles) and Creative Director / President of PCB Productions, Keith Arem has handed the anti-gaming lobby a huge bonus by basically stating that the only way to get away from desensitisation is with more controversy.
Speaking at GCD in March, Arem exposed some of the inner workings of the development of Black Ops and the No Russian airport sequence in which gamers are asked to follow a terrorist group as it murders civilians in a Moscow airport.
"When you see it actually come together and you hear all the voices," says Arem, "and you see what the team bought to that, it's very brutal. It's a difficult experience for anyone to go through.
"At the same time, creatively, when those decision are unanimous between the team we try to make them as engaging as possible. Unfortunately we're pretty much committed once we make that decision because the development cycle is so far in advance of the release of the game."
He then provides grist to the anti-games lobby with, "Sometimes we become desensitised to the fact that this is going to be so controversial and when it comes out we have to remind ourselves that people are seeing this for the first time and they're also taking in the complete experience for the first time as opposed to seeing it in the various stages of production."
That's right, developers become desensitised, not to the violence, but to the possible 'controversy'. A fantastic piece of semantic gymnastics. It's apparently not dawned on Mr Arem why the scene was controversial.
"Sometimes they bring something to the performance that is actually even more tragic or more powerful than anything that we would have actually envisioned. By them bringing that to life, it really engages the player emotionally," he said.
So, how re-sensitized was he? "The first time I played it - when the team bought the idea to me I actually raised the point of how controversial this was going to be - and then playing through the game the first time, and actually seeing it put together, at least for me, I didn't engage any of the civilians.
"I was hanging back although I was forced through this level and to go through the experience."
What of the second time? Anyway, it appears that the utility of CONTROVERSY to sell a game is something that EA and Activision both agree about.
Do you still have thoughts on the inclusion of deliberately controversial elements in games? Is there a difference between controversy and game-play enhancing scenes? Tell us in the comments?
Speaking at GCD in March, Arem exposed some of the inner workings of the development of Black Ops and the No Russian airport sequence in which gamers are asked to follow a terrorist group as it murders civilians in a Moscow airport.
"When you see it actually come together and you hear all the voices," says Arem, "and you see what the team bought to that, it's very brutal. It's a difficult experience for anyone to go through.
"At the same time, creatively, when those decision are unanimous between the team we try to make them as engaging as possible. Unfortunately we're pretty much committed once we make that decision because the development cycle is so far in advance of the release of the game."
He then provides grist to the anti-games lobby with, "Sometimes we become desensitised to the fact that this is going to be so controversial and when it comes out we have to remind ourselves that people are seeing this for the first time and they're also taking in the complete experience for the first time as opposed to seeing it in the various stages of production."
That's right, developers become desensitised, not to the violence, but to the possible 'controversy'. A fantastic piece of semantic gymnastics. It's apparently not dawned on Mr Arem why the scene was controversial.
"Sometimes they bring something to the performance that is actually even more tragic or more powerful than anything that we would have actually envisioned. By them bringing that to life, it really engages the player emotionally," he said.
So, how re-sensitized was he? "The first time I played it - when the team bought the idea to me I actually raised the point of how controversial this was going to be - and then playing through the game the first time, and actually seeing it put together, at least for me, I didn't engage any of the civilians.
"I was hanging back although I was forced through this level and to go through the experience."
What of the second time? Anyway, it appears that the utility of CONTROVERSY to sell a game is something that EA and Activision both agree about.
Do you still have thoughts on the inclusion of deliberately controversial elements in games? Is there a difference between controversy and game-play enhancing scenes? Tell us in the comments?
Read More Like This
Comments
Anon 15 Mar 2011 13:51
1/1
Well, it sells so it serves the industry well in terms of coverage, but surely alienates all others. I don't understand how a games developer cannot be aware of world events in regard to whether something is controversial or not. I think this is a ruse. Surely game developers don't live in a box, disconnected from the outside world? I fail to see how the Russian airport scene in MW2 actually enhanced the gameplay. It could have as easily been a cut scene if it wasn't for the fact that they personally gave you the choice of whether to add to the massacre or let the terroists do it. It added to the overall story but not the gameplay. I personally find MW a bit close to the bone sometimes, especially when you have just seen another video on YouTube of US soldiers killing civilians. Maybe i'm overly senstitive, maybe most people are conditioned, but either way i prefer my shooters to be less related to the 'real world' or mirror current events.