Warren Spector angry at Rockstar

[ExMonk]

From http://wham.canoe.ca/

“I’m really angry at the Rockstar guys,” Spector said in an interview 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.”

I agree with him. You will too, if you know what's good for you.

 

[bryce777]

Now that I have GTA III, I have no need to beat old ladies to death in real life. Which is good, because it's hard to do with without getting caught.

 

[Sarvis]

Why should the onus be on Rockstar to create something which enriches the culture? Why doesn't he do it?

There is nothing whatsoever keeping someone from designing a game that uses design elements of GTA for something less violent and more artistic. I just wouldn't expect Rockstar to do it... it's not what they do. They make money selling violence.

 

[Twinfalls]

Why should arsonists stop lighting fires? It's what they do, after all?

Are you saying Sarvis that anything can be excused if it makes money? Televangelists stealing from old people are all OK because 'it's what they do, it makes money'? Cigarette companies marketing to kids is OK? There should be no onus on these people to do any different?

I completely agree with Spector. GTA is a disgrace. Pitched heavily at children (and immature adults), its gameplay retards the imagination. Compare with a similar, but much older game - Elite. That game was a positive force, it expanded the imagination. And don't no-one give me 'but u ken sell slaves in it' crap, you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Stella Brando]

What Western Civilisation needs is more quality art like Touched by an Angel, and less violent gutter trash like The Illiad.

 

[Chefe]

And Poison! We need to bring back Poison!

 

[Twinfalls]

Our cultural high point has come and gone - Warrant's "Cherry Pie".

Yeah, SB, just because 'both have teh violence', GTA=The Illiad.

 

[Chefe]

GTA=The Illiad

Paris = C.J.
Hector = Big Smoke
Achilles = Officer Tenpenny
Odysseus = Silent Guy
Helen = That bitch from the 'Hot Coffee' mod

 

[Section8]

I completely agree with Spector. GTA is a disgrace. Pitched heavily at children (and immature adults), its gameplay retards the imagination. Compare with a similar, but much older game - Elite. That game was a positive force, it expanded the imagination. And don't no-one give me 'but u ken sell slaves in it' crap, you know what I'm talking about.

Then you don't agree with Spector. He's lauding the game design, not saying it retards the imagination. He's criticising the wrapper that the gameplay is intrinsically linked to, ie the "criminal elements."

And I tend to agree. GTA III and it's offshoots are superbly crafted and a very effective fusion of a broad scope of game "genres". They also have a great range of exploration rewards, acquisition rewards and elements peripheral to the core gameplay.

But what makes the games really stand out is the excellent quest/mission design, far exceeding most games. It would have been all to easy for the game to be FedEx questing in a car, but they constantly strive to explore and innovate the possibilities, which is more than I can say for most RPGs.

A few that stick out in my mind.

* Motivate a captive to talk by strapping him to the bonnet and driving like a fucking madman.
* Drive a motorbike up the rear cargo ramp of a transport plane, kill everyone on board and then bail out.
* Parachute from one plane to another.
* "The Bus that couldn't slow down."
* Steal a car, rig a bomb to it and bring it back.
* Dirty Harry style payphone chasing.
* Burning crops.

If a game like Morrowind put even half as much effort in making it's quests interesting and distinct, it would be so much better. And that's what Spector is getting at, the use of brilliant game design for good rather than evil.

As for the "pitched to children", I think the biggest promoter of GTA 3 sales in Australia, ironically, was the OFLC. There's no surer way to attract the attentions of teen audiences than banning something.

 

[merry andrew]

GTA=The Illiad

Paris = C.J.
Hector = Big Smoke
Achilles = Officer Tenpenny
Odysseus = Silent Guy
Helen = That bitch from the 'Hot Coffee' mod

There's a huge difference between GTA3 and GTA:SA. Namely, I enjoyed GTA3 but can't seem to enjoy either of its successors.

 

[Stella Brando]

Yeah, SB, just because 'both have teh violence', GTA=The Illiad.

I was just trying to point out the silliness of the old families + christian values = art/mean guys + naughty language = trash argument.

Comparing GTA to Taxi Driver might work better.

Oh, and because this is RPGcodex, I guess I have to call you a fucking retard for not understanding me.

Fucking retard.

 

[Twinfalls]

Then you don't agree with Spector. He's lauding the game design, not saying it retards the imagination.

Crap. I agree with him - the imagination point is my own, not his. It's an impressive game for its design, yada yada, no disagreements. It's also a fucking indictment of the industry. And society too, for example public space - the entire bodies of buses in major cities for example, are devoted to flogging this dehumanising, imagination-stunting, crap.

As for the OFLC, what kind of spurious argument is that? They're damned either way on censorship issues, it's the nature of publicity from their decisions. It's still Rockstar, Sony, MS, who are overtly selling this stuff to kids.

 

[Twinfalls]

I was just trying to point out the silliness of the old families + christian values = art/mean guys + naughty language = trash argument.

It's not Christian values - I ain't fuckin' Christian.

And it ain't art either. GTA is commerce. Get it? COMMERCE. It's NOT FUCKING ART. Comparing it to the Illiad is as pointless as comparing it to Taxi Driver.

GTA has NOTHING TO SAY, unlike art. GTA exists purely to sell. Sure, there were some wry and witty radio pieces, which I enjoyed. But that satirical aspect is not representative of the games.

Oh, and because this is RPGcodex, I guess I have to call you a fucking retard for not understanding me.

Fucking retard.

This isn't ChefeCodex, you know.

 

[Section8]

Crap. I agree with him - the imagination point is my own, not his. It's an impressive game for its design, yada yada, no disagreements. It's also a fucking indictment of the industry. And society too, for example public space - the entire bodies of buses in major cities for example, are devoted to flogging this dehumanising, imagination-stunting, crap.

Fair enough, I interpreted your previous statement to be "it has no gameplay merits and it's only selling point is the 'edginess'." To me, GTA: San Andreas is the epitome of "AAA title." It's got all the common bloat (famous voice actors, licensed music, etc.) but despite that, it's also a fucking great game, and has a lot of substance to it when you look past the juvenile appeal of it.

On the other hand, even if you view it as a "shock" title, it outdoes anything else that can be likewise termed. Postal and it's sequel are utter shite in terms of gameplay and design.

Now, as much as I hate commercialism, I'd be a fucking hypocrite if I didn't recognise that it can also provide the occasional gem. There's also the fact that nearly every game ever made was done so in order to sell said game. Commercialism and art may be at opposing ends of some spectrum, but they can still overlap.

That overlap becomes a problem when the commercial aspects override the artistic, rather than complementing it. At best, commercialism can provide the assets required to realise an artwork, and in return it reaps the rewards from those willing to pay in order to experience said art, and I think that's a fair compromise. An author can reach so many more people if their literary work is widely published, as opposed to say printing off a few copies and giving them out to friends, and the same applies to games.

As to whether the GTA series is made exclusively for commercial purposes, we don't know that. I could just as easily assume that the developers made the games to fulfil their own deviant criminal fantasies than to sell them to others. And you can assume they just did what it took to make a buck.

As for the OFLC, what kind of spurious argument is that? They're damned either way on censorship issues, it's the nature of publicity from their decisions. It's still Rockstar, Sony, MS, who are overtly selling this stuff to kids.

It's hardly spurious. Do you honestly believe that the publicity generated, and the fact that something is labelled as taboo doesn't motivate teens? Did you patiently wait until you turned eighteen before you tried alcohol? Or what about in the early teens when <music> is so fucking cool because it offends your parents, and <other music> is even cooler because it's been banned from sale and your friend imported it? I know I went through a phase where "Get in the Ring" and "So Fucking What?" were the two greatest songs ever written.

I'm still dubious about the "selling to children." I think that's just a by product. The game certainly contains elements that are essentially off limits to pre-teens and adolescents, and so it appeals to them. Also, there's the fact that marketing is inherently evil and a fucking blight on society. That doesn't mean Rockstar incorporated the appealing elements specifically as a marketing ruse.

And I know it's not related to this argument, but I think the links higher up in the chain need to show some responsibility. Publishers should be able to release whatever the fuck they want, and retailers and parents should be accountable for children getting their hands on inappropriate material. Oh and all marketing should be abolished, not just marketing toward children.

 

[RGE]

I remember a similar opinion voiced by at school when I was a kid. We were shown a few comics while the teacher initiated a discussion about what they depicted, and one of those comics was a scene in The Mercenary where the mercenary had been jailed together with his female companion. In order to lure the prison guard inside the woman got naked and the mercenary pretended to rape her. Once the guard got inside he focused on the mercenary, while the woman snuck around, lifted the guard's pointy helmet off of his head, and shoved the point into his brain.

I thought this was incredibly cool, but the teacher's assistant said that it was a shame that the artist didn't use his talents for something better (Vicente Segrelles is quite talented and does the comic in oils). I gave that opinion some thought later on, and for some reason I began to resent it. Strongly. I am of the opinion that if someone goes through the trouble of learning a craft and then use it to create something they feel is worth their time and effort, then who the fuck am I to tell them that they shouldn't create what they think is worthwhile, but instead create what I think is worthwhile?

So yeah, if Warren Spector wants good games, he can bloody well copy the gameplay he likes and merge it with the theme he prefers. Instead of getting angry or frustrated at people for not creating what he thinks is right he should realise that people are different, so not all people are going to have his particular taste. In fact, if he can't make a game that is as fun as GTA III apparently is, then perhaps there is something wrong with his taste.

The games that Rockstar Games sell are obviously commercial, but that doesn't mean that they were created by businessmen. Or maybe they were? Maybe a bunch of businessmen sat down and met with a few focus groups and just decided to chuck every little thing requested into the game, come hell or high water? Well, I doubt that, so I'm going to go with "talented game designers who know what's fun and what's not". Thus I think that they're entitled to create whatever they want as long as it's within the law. Whiners be damned.

 

[Balor]

Well, actually, I'm quite agree with him.
Not that I into that political correctness and 'stop violence!' crap, I just find playing nigga gangsta (or equivalent) completely boring.

Well, you can always try some optional stuff like pizza delivery and so on - but those are just mini-games...

Well, anyway, if someone did that in one setting, someone else will do it for other one, that will please me more.

 

[LlamaGod]

San Andreas has better gameplay then a majority of games that come out now.

Violence or not, it's a good game.

Sissies.

 

[Nutcracker]

San Andreas is a pale imitation of Vice City. The whole "level up until you can survive a fall off a bike at 150mph" didn't impress me at all. Some people here might have enjoyed it because it was "RPG-y", but i don't think stuff like that has a place in a gangland-sim, which is what the series is about. This is one series which should be about player skill, not character stats.

 

[DarkSign]

The whole thing boils down to whether you think videogames influence culture or not.

I doubt that GTA, in any form, is trying to send a message to anyone. Sure there's a plot line, but is it supposed to be a morality tale? Do we ultimately see that goodness is rewarded or has intrinsic value?

The urban/hip-hop argument that "we're holding a mirror to life" doesnt really change a violent game into an artistic message either. With the oversaturation of hip-hop culture in today's popular media, it's impossible for anyone not to know that poor people have it hard in urban areas. When have they not? The message that racism still exists is overstated too. I dont see much exploration of African-americans' own racism so the message at best is lazy.

So Spector's point that good game design trapped in a cliched setting is worthy of lament rings true if only partially for me.

Games dont have to have a message to be fun. And let's face it, as society as a whole moves away from religion, we're allowing ourselves to revel in violence more than we ever have. I personally make no apologies for it. But let's recognize what it is.

Rockstar is making money off the teenage/middle aged impulse in males to want to smash something. The market dictates whether people want to play that or not. If I really thought a videogame influenced crime rates, Id be actively campaigning for less violence - but I dont.

Part of me says that any exposure to any conceptual behavior (i.e. getting to act out violence) has to shape a mind somehow, but the other half says that parenting and personal conscience can teach people to weigh morality correctly.

So if the game mechanics are worthy of praise, take them as inspiration and go put them in the genre you prefer if that matters to you.

 

[Balor]

Well, no one objects that it's a great game.
Choice of setting is a bit questionable, though... too 'pop'.
Now, if it was nonlinear and you can join police and get quests that are better then 'FedEX-equivalent'...

 

[DarkSign]

Sounds like the MMO that's being built by one of the originators of GTA called All Points Bulletin

Im guessing its going to turn out like Counter-Strike: The MMO with objectives to take over and win back and forth.

 

[Chefe]

I hated GTA: SA mainly for the "gangsta" setting, but also because C.J. was a total pussy. Fuck, if he can take down hordes of gang members with machine guns and legions of officers with flamethrowers, why the hell does he back down when Tenpenny points a gun at him? I was packing some serious heat at the end... GOD DAMNIT C.J. JUST KILL THAT FUCKER! If you're going to make the lead character get bullied around by a common officer, don't let that character be able to run around the city with a rocket launcher while successfully escaping SWAT teams.

 

[dipdipdip]

Fucking nit-pickers with your shallow criticisms. The "gangsta" stuff and the stats weren't that large a part of the game.

I liked San Andreas way more than Vice City, which aside from the soundtrack, was the least inspired game of the PS2 trilogy.

 

[LlamaGod]

Fucking nit-pickers with your shallow criticisms. The "gangsta" stuff and the stats weren't that large a part of the game.

I liked San Andreas way more than Vice City, which aside from the soundtrack, was the least inspired game of the PS2 trilogy.

winner, winner, chicken dinner

 

[Chefe]

The "gangsta" stuff and the stats weren't that large a part of the game.

Oh yea, of course, it's not like the game was about... GANSTAS... and the missions involved doing... GANGSTA THINGS... and the huge side mission wasn't, obviously, GANG WARS. Of course not.

Not to mention it wasn't like your stats determined if you hit your mark or were brutally slaughtered or anything. Nope. Why, with a Shotgun stat of zero it was pretty much the same as when I had it at 100, right? Of course, how could we be so fucking blind?

Shithead.



Stats were another thing I hated about GTA: SA. I had to fucking grind, like a MMORPG, if I wanted to be able to hit at least the broad side of a barn. It's not like I could just pick my favorite weapon and only use that, because the game would often throw you into these situations with different weapons that you may or may not suck completely with. And if you did suck and never trained them, you were fucking screwed. Like the last mission when you were shooting from the car. Thank god I upgraded that shitty weapon I had to use. Despite my awesome arsenal of a much better machine gun I had to use that sissy thing.