Gaming is in the midst of its own maturation, similarly to film at the turn of the 1930's. Once colour and sound were introduced, the commercial apparatus around them began to balk at the prospect of fully realised hedonism and violence - that's what led to Hollywood's Hays Code. VR, in particular, adds a confrontational culpability to the player: you're looking through the eyes of the protagonist, their hands are your own.
Triple A can be quite disquieting, but their content is mostly disturbing as a work of graphic viscera. Cyberpunk, however, had a mission where you could crucify a convict, which I was utterly disarmed by. I find CD Projekt's approach to morality to be a pretty effective subversion on the inherent solipsism of single-player titles. When the implication is greater than the act, I find its provocation to have resonance. I think indie and VR titles will change the form, rather than challenge it - one for its statement unbound by commercial expectation, the other for the directness of its message.
Do you believe that a stricter code will be created, or people will just be desensitize? I understand that we already have our own ratings, and that it also varies by country. An act without meaning lacks souls, but will do commercially well, sometimes. I've been curious on diving into indie VR titles, as I have no clue how that community is looking.
I think discretion will still be in the hands of the publishers. If they have a particularly extreme product with provocative content, they might bypass traditional storefronts to distribute it themselves. The ERSB - US rating system - is voluntary - since most stores require a rating to sell the game, publishers oblige. They can use homebrew, third-party independent platforms, etc.; PC VR seems like the likeliest frontier for these developers. The consumers will decide whether this would be a viable model, yet it would be a great disadvantage if your game was not featured on Steam.
Has there been any cases where the bypass was necessary and it lead to a commercial success? I know that GTA was wild for its time, but I guess you can't make an A rated game and be a success. Though, I know that Conker was rated A at one point. And regarding Steam, there are a lot of questionable games in that platform if you go deep enough, but I know that they're there because you'd have to go deep to find them.
Just fron cursory digging, I found that there was a title on the DS called '100 Classic Books' that bypassed ESRB (https://youtu.be/9FC5ioaCs2E?feature=shared) - not quite on the scale of GTA, though. I remember Postal 2 was banned in Australia, yet still available on Steam for some time? Now it has a conventional 15+.
Most major commercial titles need ESRB for their console/physical releases. Even though Steam doesn't require ratings for its games - hence why there's such a glut of NSFW titles - simultaneous releases need to conform to the system. Itch.io and similar indie platforms are outside of the mainstream, which would provide the best avenue for full expression.
The first time I got uncomfortable while playing a game was more like frustration: I think it was a colony-building/management game, and while getting a specially-worded achievement, I got really bummed out about reality. I was frustrated/uncomfortable because the fantasy of the game was taken away from me at that moment. I think I find entertainment more important than content in that way. Games are escapes for me in a way books and music can't be. There's something more tangibly virtual(?) about games that let me complete satisfying tasks at no cost besides my sanity (and money). Even when they're disturbing, I appreciate the artistry and find it hard to draw a line and forbid some things over others.
I wonder if the issue is the discomfort or even the content of the games. Is it harmful to play immoral games? How do we engage with them outside of play? Does the fault only start with the content, or can it also start with the reaction? I think it's good to feel uncomfortable(and to have something "harmless" to react to). But I also think that communicating why we feel uncomfortable deserves more grace. Rather than a game that goes too far, I'm more uneasy about the resulting communities/culture around disturbing games, or devs who only push boundaries for the sake of shock value, perpetuating an ugly cycle.
I think the key thing is the purpose behind it and the execution, at least, when it comes to wanting to convey an actual message. That's what I tried to say when it came to me playing Outlast and seeing certain things that either come off as edgy or purposeful. I think horror does that a lot, as they'll just throw many things just for shock value. But, I really do agree that if the people behind it are trying their best and are being honest, then anything is allowed.
But first, the first uncomfortable game was probably GTA 2. Knowing that I could get money for running innocent bystanders over, after a while, made me question if I should be playing it. I haven't gone back to GTA since.
As for the line...I honestly don't know. Traditional artists have been exploring that line forever. I guess maybe there is the start of an answer in whether the game is art (expression of the maker) or both the game and playing it is art (cocreated between maker and player)?
I remember my dad asking me, "You know you shouldn't do this, right?" when he saw me playing GTA, I nodded yes, and he just let me be.
I'd like to believe that every game is made with a purpose, so I'd lean towards expression of the makers, as each piece is created with something in mind. I completely forgot to mention Ready or Not's controversy.
The most recent game i remember (though mot the exact name) was because it was actually banned from steam, which one would think takes a good bit of effort. It was iirc a self described rape simulator. So yea. I think its helpful and probably necessary on this topic to delve deeply into specifics, ie. game x was actually banned, and the reasoning for it was y.
I mentioned specific games, some banned and some that weren't banned, but I could 100% be much more specific and elaborate way more. To be clear, I was questioning the content that is available to the general public type of thing. I'll be more clear next time I do this.
Not particularly researched opinion is, that violence in games has not been shown to actually cause violent behavior. However, now that video game porn is readily available on steam even, I feel like I should mention that the effects of porn on attitudes and behavior has been a lot more studied. And the studies show if you watch a bunch of porn that is misogynistic (and it literally all is) that does actually affect things in a bad way.
I believe there are studies that say they cause aggressive behaviors, but in general, just like with the porn, it's a little bit complex and a lot of people at fault. They are both terrible things that effect people, though.
Epic article. The game that first actually "disturbed" me is outlast trials that you mentioned.
Extremely gory but as you said it is fun, especially with the pals.
So true, king.
Gaming is in the midst of its own maturation, similarly to film at the turn of the 1930's. Once colour and sound were introduced, the commercial apparatus around them began to balk at the prospect of fully realised hedonism and violence - that's what led to Hollywood's Hays Code. VR, in particular, adds a confrontational culpability to the player: you're looking through the eyes of the protagonist, their hands are your own.
Triple A can be quite disquieting, but their content is mostly disturbing as a work of graphic viscera. Cyberpunk, however, had a mission where you could crucify a convict, which I was utterly disarmed by. I find CD Projekt's approach to morality to be a pretty effective subversion on the inherent solipsism of single-player titles. When the implication is greater than the act, I find its provocation to have resonance. I think indie and VR titles will change the form, rather than challenge it - one for its statement unbound by commercial expectation, the other for the directness of its message.
Do you believe that a stricter code will be created, or people will just be desensitize? I understand that we already have our own ratings, and that it also varies by country. An act without meaning lacks souls, but will do commercially well, sometimes. I've been curious on diving into indie VR titles, as I have no clue how that community is looking.
I think discretion will still be in the hands of the publishers. If they have a particularly extreme product with provocative content, they might bypass traditional storefronts to distribute it themselves. The ERSB - US rating system - is voluntary - since most stores require a rating to sell the game, publishers oblige. They can use homebrew, third-party independent platforms, etc.; PC VR seems like the likeliest frontier for these developers. The consumers will decide whether this would be a viable model, yet it would be a great disadvantage if your game was not featured on Steam.
Has there been any cases where the bypass was necessary and it lead to a commercial success? I know that GTA was wild for its time, but I guess you can't make an A rated game and be a success. Though, I know that Conker was rated A at one point. And regarding Steam, there are a lot of questionable games in that platform if you go deep enough, but I know that they're there because you'd have to go deep to find them.
I thought that the ERSB thing was obligatory.
Just fron cursory digging, I found that there was a title on the DS called '100 Classic Books' that bypassed ESRB (https://youtu.be/9FC5ioaCs2E?feature=shared) - not quite on the scale of GTA, though. I remember Postal 2 was banned in Australia, yet still available on Steam for some time? Now it has a conventional 15+.
Most major commercial titles need ESRB for their console/physical releases. Even though Steam doesn't require ratings for its games - hence why there's such a glut of NSFW titles - simultaneous releases need to conform to the system. Itch.io and similar indie platforms are outside of the mainstream, which would provide the best avenue for full expression.
The first time I got uncomfortable while playing a game was more like frustration: I think it was a colony-building/management game, and while getting a specially-worded achievement, I got really bummed out about reality. I was frustrated/uncomfortable because the fantasy of the game was taken away from me at that moment. I think I find entertainment more important than content in that way. Games are escapes for me in a way books and music can't be. There's something more tangibly virtual(?) about games that let me complete satisfying tasks at no cost besides my sanity (and money). Even when they're disturbing, I appreciate the artistry and find it hard to draw a line and forbid some things over others.
I wonder if the issue is the discomfort or even the content of the games. Is it harmful to play immoral games? How do we engage with them outside of play? Does the fault only start with the content, or can it also start with the reaction? I think it's good to feel uncomfortable(and to have something "harmless" to react to). But I also think that communicating why we feel uncomfortable deserves more grace. Rather than a game that goes too far, I'm more uneasy about the resulting communities/culture around disturbing games, or devs who only push boundaries for the sake of shock value, perpetuating an ugly cycle.
I think the key thing is the purpose behind it and the execution, at least, when it comes to wanting to convey an actual message. That's what I tried to say when it came to me playing Outlast and seeing certain things that either come off as edgy or purposeful. I think horror does that a lot, as they'll just throw many things just for shock value. But, I really do agree that if the people behind it are trying their best and are being honest, then anything is allowed.
Oof it's a heavy but interesting question!
But first, the first uncomfortable game was probably GTA 2. Knowing that I could get money for running innocent bystanders over, after a while, made me question if I should be playing it. I haven't gone back to GTA since.
As for the line...I honestly don't know. Traditional artists have been exploring that line forever. I guess maybe there is the start of an answer in whether the game is art (expression of the maker) or both the game and playing it is art (cocreated between maker and player)?
Also, forgot to ask, is it only GTA games, or is it also game like GTA?
I think its games like GTA now that I think about it. I haven’t really touched many games like it.
I remember my dad asking me, "You know you shouldn't do this, right?" when he saw me playing GTA, I nodded yes, and he just let me be.
I'd like to believe that every game is made with a purpose, so I'd lean towards expression of the makers, as each piece is created with something in mind. I completely forgot to mention Ready or Not's controversy.
The most recent game i remember (though mot the exact name) was because it was actually banned from steam, which one would think takes a good bit of effort. It was iirc a self described rape simulator. So yea. I think its helpful and probably necessary on this topic to delve deeply into specifics, ie. game x was actually banned, and the reasoning for it was y.
I mentioned specific games, some banned and some that weren't banned, but I could 100% be much more specific and elaborate way more. To be clear, I was questioning the content that is available to the general public type of thing. I'll be more clear next time I do this.
Not particularly researched opinion is, that violence in games has not been shown to actually cause violent behavior. However, now that video game porn is readily available on steam even, I feel like I should mention that the effects of porn on attitudes and behavior has been a lot more studied. And the studies show if you watch a bunch of porn that is misogynistic (and it literally all is) that does actually affect things in a bad way.
I believe there are studies that say they cause aggressive behaviors, but in general, just like with the porn, it's a little bit complex and a lot of people at fault. They are both terrible things that effect people, though.