The advertisement itself is a shameless troll for controversy. Press sells whether it is positive or negative especially regarding a Space horror game. The decision makers here are just hoping that someone like you will write a shrill opinion piece in order to get some buzz regarding their game. Congratulations, you have fulfilled their goal.

I agree with this 100%

The vast majority of "video game journalists" are essentially paid forum trolls though. They will basically pick up this ridiculously irresponsible promotion by EA and would likely fill the post with snark and BS with the sole intention of appealing pseudo-cool to 12 year olds.

These kind of things are what cripples our industry - are what prevents us from getting funding from the larger, cultural mainstream. What prevent us from getting pre-sales, from expanding our methods of raising money and attracting investors, of widening the influence of games. These kinds of things relegate games to being, as Chris Crawford said, one step up from pornography.

I enjoyed Dead Space because it's a survival horror, not because of how many different ways Isaac or the Necros could be killed, so when I read about something this shallow and think back to Visceral's comments about how Dead Space 2 will have Modern Warfare-levl action, I can't help but be bothered and let down.

I agree Tomiko, they're trying to appeal to the 12 year old mentality. I'm lowering my expectations of DS2 quite a bit. I doubt it will be remotely as enjoyable as the first.

This comes a day after an interview about how violence porn is OK in God of War because it "fits with the character".

If we're on a pedestal, how ridiculous is the concept of "survival horror" at all? If the only thing kids care about is shooting zombies in the throat, and it helps kids sit down with a pencil and paper and create something (rather than doing nothing) then what's the harm?

...unless video games made them all blood thirsty killers in the first place, and don't we all make a stand whenever someone says that's the case? I ripped plenty of heads off with Sub Zero back in the day... are John Tobias and Ed Boon now horrible people in retrospect?

wow really? It's ok for children to kill monsters in a myriad of creative ways that real professionals came up with, but asking them to come up with their own ideas, and suddenly it's baaad? What does that say about all of us professionals? Are we just sick twisted horrible people for coming up with all of this violence? Or does our position shield us from the drama? Maybe it's ok because it makes us money.

Design a finishing move. Happy now?

I hope the winning entry description is:

"Isaac throws a PDA at an enemy with a casual game on it. The game is so addictive, the creature dies of malnourishment. The game is..." then goes into a thorough explanation of what it's playing, and sells the idea that it's dangerously and lethally addictive to its player. Make a design doc out of it.

Now THAT is a heck of a way to get your foot in the door, and make a splash in the video game industry.

Well-said, Brandon.

It's virtually guaranteed that some news outlet staffed by non-gamers -- which could be anyone from ABC to the NYT on another Pulitzer hunt, not just Fox News -- is going to hear about this and jump to be the first to breathlessly report on how "video games are encouraging our kids to kill."

It's bad enough that game developers contribute to the coarsening of society by making a majority of their games about shooting living things in the head and taking their stuff. This "contest" is just begging the public to hammer the entire industry for that practice.

Why do that?

This certainly isn't as bad as the time Acclaim offered to pay the speeding ticket of anyone who got one on their way to purchase Burnout 2 (or something to that effect), but I agree that it's not a good way to market the game.

It's kind of a sad statement about our industry if "what's the sickest way we can kill things?" is how we think we're going to get people interested in what we do. I remember how upset people were after GDC last year when Heather Chaplin accused most game developers of acting like adolescents, and yet look at how EA/Visceral are trying to market their game . . .

People who think "survival horror" (which is redundant by the way - like saying "funny comedy") is about the physical killing acts don't get it. It's not. It's about the feeling of... well... horror. You don't have to show things to give that feeling.

I saw Alien the other day for the umpteenth time. When the Alien attacks or kills things, you almost never see it. The most frightening moments are when you *don't* see it. So getting so hung up on the physical act over the sensation just reveals limited imagination.

"These kinds of things relegate games to being, as Chris Crawford said, one step up from pornography."

Personally, I believe gruesome violence to be worse than pornography, but regardless, I agree that neither are anything to be proud of if they're only done for their own sakes.

But in a society in which an entire film series is devoted solely to exhibiting graphic torture, I'm not surprised to see our other forms of entertainment to basically be on the same level.

In one hand you are right, they shouldn't have done this, people shouldn't be worring about how to be the coolest killing creatures, the bloodiest the better. In the other hand, it's working, people love to be creative even if it is killing. A tricky conclusion comes to my mind. How rationallity can be split this way? People don't agree when comes to decide what is right and what is wrong.

But, it's a game, and it's fun.

"Yes, this is what many of us do every day – there are those of us who design combat and combat scenarios for a living. But asking fans to do it is just too much."

Man, that was one of the most cynical, coward comment I saw in months. As someone said before... it's OK for us to do that, and bad for the kids? Why? What's the psychological difference between playing the kills we create and designing them? In both cases kids are moved by/filled with the "what if" feeling, that is the fuel that drive their creativity and desire to play/design violence (or any other subject). And it does not apply only to kids, but to all players/people.

Or it's OK for everybody to play and design violence, or it's bad for all - there's no exception, as it's all the same things, the same experiences - no matter who created it. It's bizarre to conceive that EA doesn't saw that, but I say the same from you saying such shallow things.

I don't see a problem with it. Whether you are playing the game or designing the game it's still the same thing as far as being exposed to what many people here consider "filth"

I bet if the same people who submitted their idea's, created a Conan comic book, or horror movie, it'd be more acceptable. Which is wrong because it, again, is the same thing.

So all this confuses me.

Give the players a little more respect that what you are, they are paying the bills and I'm pretty certain that anyone who is legally playing the game based on the ESRB ratings know the difference between reality and what goes on in a videogame.

Personally , I see no problem with the promotion. And as a promotion, this article itself enforces how successful it was. And it seems disingenuous to cheer the game, which the death animations are a big part of, while chiding them at the same time for featuring this fact in their advertising.

Look: games are fun. Nothing wrong with having fun. I can certainly understand the arguments above, but I'd say crack open a beer, take a load off, and play some Dead Space. This isn't something to take seriousely.

I know many gamers aren't kids, but many guys, say 15-24 would respond well to this advertising method. Guys 15-24 often like game violence -- dismemberments, slicings, dicings, liver0gobbling, what-nots -- and there is nothing wrong with that.

Personally I'm more offended by games that glamorize war over games that have you kill monsters, but hey, I see the futility in dealing with this issue just as much as this one. This situation is just a reflection of society's violent, uncaring realities.

Violence sells. The propensity to violence and the excitement it often brings is very, very deeply rooted in our collective and personal identities...

I would argue the negative reaction to this advertising campaign is perhaps an over-compensatory response to the still prevalent notion that games are primarily the territory of juvenile males, which offends us who hold games in very high regard.

Healthy young males are in a good place if they are at home, enjoying advanced recreational technology, coming up with funny and brutal ways to kill animated characters. Its the friends of these kids that are out on the street in a gang, joining the army, or doing drugs, that should be more a concern.

This article is complete BS. It assumes that 1) there are children playing this game and then participating in the contest 2) that these children, who obviously have access to M rated games other than this one, are some how going to be perverted by this contest. I see this contest as a step forward. Dead Space 2 will have much more hype around it, especially when everyone is going to buy it just to see if their animation was used in it. Also this lets the consumer feel like the product they are buying was, in a small part, crafted by their own hands.

I personally am sick of this whole "Save the Children from Video Games" movement. I am an adult, I enjoy entertainment geared toward mature audiances. My experience with a video game should not be diluted because some scum bucket of a parent can't read the huge, single letter rating system slapped on every game out there. I say down with censorship, and long live responsibility. I don't let my toddler drink out any jug that has a big poison label on it, why would I let her watch an R rated movie or play an M rated game. So no, I don't have a problem with a company holding a contest geared toward adults for a game made for adults.

@Brandon
"First, it’s acknowledging that games can inspire fans to think of ways to kill. Second, through promotion, the contest is saying this is a good thing to do, or that it would be fun, posing ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’"

1) The entire POINT of many AAA games is to inspire players to think of ways to kill! Just pointing out that your criticism of the contest ought to be extended to violent video games as a whole, if it's not already?

2) Again, the game mechanics of many AAA games reward killing in game. I'm curious what your opinion of that is in relation to your opinion on the contest doing the same?

Despite my challenging you on these views, I do agree the contest is shit. How do you think the combat designers feel? What are they getting paid 70 - 80K for again? Also, they said video could be an acceptable submission? I'm having nightmares of all those wrestling videos years ago of little johnny and his even younger 3yr old sister getting her nose inverted because he wanted to try out a move.

Oh, we all know that kids get their hands on violent media and games despite the age restrictions. The question is, are we going to pass the buck and claim we aren't responsible for the things we create? It's bullshit. There are so many ways to make a horror game. Why not one where you don't kill anyone but you try to inject them with a serum to turn them back into humans?

I personally believe that a studio has the right to design their game how they want and, if they so choose, it can be violent. However, I also think that this particular example is a blight on the Dead Space series itself, which should be known for the terror that it inspires in gamers and not it's brutally violent "finishing" moves. It all seems like a step in the wrong direction....

This is just par for the course with Visceral. Remember the marketing for Dante's Inferno? They're just trying to gain visibility via controversy. It's in bad taste, sure, but it's not the sign of the apocalypse. Every industry has had to endure some group's shameless marketing stunts, and this one is no different. Let's just hope no one gets hurt (or worse) in the process.

I tend to ignore this kind of advertising, since it feels like its overcompensating for something.

Really Brandon, I think this is mountains and molehills.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with doing something cheeky to gain attention. The real arbiter of that is whether what you do is funky or rubbish. Beyond that, who honestly cares about the hand-wringing of a self appointed minority who are determined to handwring at every opportunity? It's that kind of fear of blame that stunts so much creativity in this industry.

Sometimes it's okay to own our art and tell the moralists to take a hike.

"To prove to the Visceral development team that they have the right stuff, players have to demonstrate Isaac Clarke defeating or dismembering various Necromorphs including the Slasher, Lurker, or Leaper using their own signature kill."

If I had to pick the worst line out of the press release, it would be that. This is so obviously aimed at a young male audience - proving that you have the "right stuff" is reminiscent of the ads that go between Saturday morning cartoons for nerf guns and ActionMan toys. I think that's part of the reason why this feels so abhorrent - it seems to be marketed directly to that audience. Would anyone over the age of 13 going to care about "proving themselves" by showing that they can think up a way to kill someone in the most gruesome way possible?

Just generally a poor article.
Throws together a bunch of cliches, get controversy going(views, clicks, etc), typical yellow press material(omfg all media is yellow now)
I hope future articles are more on substance and less on controversy.
Regarding the contest, then it is just no comment. Just typical human nature, people will do anything to sell shit. Absolutely anything. Some spent their lifes creating something unique and engaging, some just copy and paste and slap numbers on the end of their "creations", come up with catchy description "survival horror" and cheap marketing tricks.
So next time want to write article about violence in games, just put the glasses on get some research going, use published scientific papers on the subject. So there is some value in the article, not just views and clicks.

Really disagree with this article. Dead Space is an M rated, survival horror game, with some very violent scenes but it also has a solid story line and keeps a "horror" feel to it all, keeping the violence in that atmosphere. The main character can be heard screaming when he's attack and the game has a constant tense feel to it, that makes you feel as though there's a sense of desperation. The violence isn't over glorified like Manhunt or a Mortal Kombat and as a whole we've seen the games industry become much more responsible. To me this is a pretty nice prize for a big fan of the series, being allowed to participate in the creation of the game.

Also, if anything while under scrutiny and being pushed by censors, it's more important to NOT back down. If the game industry were to back down at this point, and work as a whole to tone down violence in games, or keep it "under the public's radar", it would make for a bigger problem down the road. Consumers LIKE violent games, violent games sell, just as violent movies sell. If the games industry backs down it's turning it's back on a good number of consumers that have supported their products over the years, responsible adults that work hard to pay for the entertainment provided by these games. If violence is toned down *or* if violence is kept under the radar of the general public it's just going to make for a bigger controversy when a game IS made for the gamers that enjoy violence ((and someone will *always* make that product, there's demand and we have freedom of speech)), or if one of those "under the radar" games catches a closer look from the wrong people, it will lead to a much bigger problem in the long run. Suggesting the contest is in bad taste but the game isn't just tells me that you like the idea of the general public not being aware of the content of these games. That's a terrible, terrible idea.

Also mentioning children in this game is just a poor argument. It's an M rated game. It's up to parents to be responsible and watch what their kids are doing and stay informed on these things.

Is this any worse than having a contest where people attempt to write the most gruesome horror short story? Even if you had a contest like that directed at kids, I don't think people would bat an eye.

Being embarrassed by the actions of other developers is okay, but vilifying them to the public as if to say "We're not all like that" just comes off as shameful. Just deal with it.

@ John Mawhorter:

He is dealing with it. He's writing an article about it.

@Brad: Agree 100%.
It's totally within theme, and if I were a kid with the chance to contribute on a quality product I'd be thrilled.

Of course it's a promotional tactic. No less so than cereal boxes with a series of tokens to collect in order to win a mail-order prize. It keeps the audience focused on the product by interacting (albeit indirectly) with the product itself.

@Jason Bakker: Heaven forbid a survival horror game promotional campaign be targeted at the proper audience?

i can see both sides i guess. good for survival horror, bad for everything else.

its corny and stupid, just like Visceral, but every industry needs its Troma i guess.

Regressive? Get off your high horse.

The fans of the original Dead Space were in love with the death scenes, leading to discussions of which were the best and video compilations all over YouTube like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIdkR85kpKs

This is Visceral paying attention to the community and giving them a chance to contribute. Good for them.

"Man, that was one of the most cynical, coward comment I saw in months. As someone said before... it's OK for us to do that, and bad for the kids? Why? What's the psychological difference between playing the kills we create and designing them? In both cases kids are moved by/filled with the "what if" feeling, that is the fuel that drive their creativity and desire to play/design violence (or any other subject). And it does not apply only to kids, but to all players/people.

Or it's OK for everybody to play and design violence, or it's bad for all - there's no exception, as it's all the same things, the same experiences - no matter who created it. It's bizarre to conceive that EA doesn't saw that, but I say the same from you saying such shallow things."

His problem is that it makes the industry look bad/worse.

I do agree that this does seem inappropriate in the context it's in, but if this was in any other context, the idea is a good one. People out there obviously know what they want in a game and giving them the opportunity to be part of the development process is wicked awesome. Having more input from gamers themselves, and particular the ones that play those kinds of games, is always a good thing.

At the end of the day, any effect a context has on children, is still a result of their ignorant parents letting them buy it in the first place. It's just common sense.

M-rated game holds M-rated promotion! Stop the presses!

Bad press is good press. The whole contest just makes the game feel so cheap. Maybe the franchise will incorporate Babalities or Friendship style moves.

I am going to design a finishing move where the creature grabs Isaac in a head lock with his head inside a clear bucket so he can still read the comments in this thread on a VDU. Isaac eventually dies drowning in his own tears of emo.

I'm not truly amazed that some people still get scared about this 'new interactive media' called games.

We've requested 'ideas to how we can kill enemies' in the game I'm working on these days 'Bloody Mayhem'. We do this to get inspiration and to engage our users and fans. Believing that players get depraved using their imagination is basically conservative thinking - being afraid of the future. This is not how we should react. I'm convinced and believe that players and people in general actually CAN see the difference between reality and imagination. Otherwise is believing very little in other peoples.

This user suggestion we've got shows it quite well to me - he is playing along and actually makes fun of the whole scenario while engaging himself:
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=zaxis+games&init=quick#!/photo.php?pid=3120455
8&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=373817285119&aid=-1&id=1288302359

We also got fun suggestions on Twitter where some fans made it a contest to top each other of in their suggestions: "Kill him by sticking a spoon in through his ear into the brain!" Going over the top in this example is playing along and understanding the difference between 'game' and 'reality'.

Interaction is a scary thing, and we've got to learn to live with it. The opinion expressed in this article is not a proper way to react, in my humble opinion.

Good points in the article and comments, but I don't see how giving in to what the censors want is doing anything but encouraging these silly sensationalist groups that try to paint video games as a danger to society. That is not how progress against censorship gets made. I don't mean to relate video games to pornography, because I think they're very different, but on a censorship level it was people like Larry Flint and movies like Deep Throat that were highly controversial (Deep Throat even sparking a major FBI investigation) that were able to push the boundaries and bring about social reform. If game developers live in fear of what pro-censorship groups want, they'll let those groups push the artform known as games backwards instead of forwards. In the words of Gandhi, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Raph Koster said it best -- the games industry needs to *earn* the right to be taken seriously. Although I can see the appeal, I'm not convinced this promotion is a step in the right direction.

Mmmm...

I wasn't really chocked about this, it's just buzz in the end. If someone would have asked fans to design a "Finish Move" in an upcoming "Mortal Combat" game, would it have been better received ?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have seen all this debate if the same contest had been launched on Dead Rising 2.

You do a game about killing monsters, you manage a community of fans, a niche of people who actually liked to kill monsters in various different ways. So to create some interactivity in your community, you ask them to imagine how they would creatively kill a monster. You're talking to your public and they're basically the only ones who might be really interested in it, others just wanna talk about the concept of it, but is this whole debate really interesting, in the end ?

Games are about fun, and years of experience have proved that we can have fun by killing monsters.

I am shocked that so many people agree with this opinion. The controversy surrounding violence in videogames has come along way from Mortal Kombat II, and the good news is we won! Stop pandering to the censors, and let's push the boundries further.

"Here we are in an era of video games coming under intense scrutiny for their violence, and for any hint of sexuality. This is an era in which the Australian and German governments are rejecting the sale of certain games by the handful, Venezuela has banned all “violent” video games with sweeping terms, and psychologists study the effects of violent games on behavior around the clock."

That does NOT make me want to hide my tail between my legs and cry, in fact the opposite. Things like this make me want the absolute most violent, sexually explicit game I can find.

There has always been violence in artforms. From Shakespeare on to Hollywood there has always been extreme violence. With videogames there is no difference. From Texas Chainsaw Massacre on the 2600, to Exidy's arcade Chiller, violent games are part of our past and will be our future.

Disagree 100% with this opinion.

Tom, the thing with violence in those other artforms, especially the Shakespeare you cite, is that it is for a reason. It says something. Until the videogame industry can grow the fuck up and actually say something, rather than just glorifying gratuitous and shallow (immature) violence for the sake of "pushing boundries" [sic], then these kind of stunts will continue to be regressive for the format as a whole. It's just a bunch of kids playing around with virtual snuff films.

This has the bad smell of a marketing move with an after-taste of whatever.

Shakespeare is filled with rape, incest, murder, suicide, blackmail; etc. and the reason? - entertainment! At the time anyway, all the pretentous meaning was added years after the fact.

Wow. Why so serious?

They call this a shallow marketing stunt err... anyone remember ATVI's Airport scene explode in the press globally. Now that's what I call a marketing stunt.

Valid points in the article but I don't think it's necessarily anything about the contest or content itself that's off. It's more important, I think, that it's known that the video game is not just guts and gore and well... gorn. Take a look at movies like Saw or Hostel - incredibly violent (conceptually and visually depicted) movies ostensibly marketed to the mass audience but truthfully marketed to the niche splatterhouse film fan. Related genres of horror and slasher films are also targeted. But I don't think anyone believes that such films, even those that complain that such films degrade film as a whole, believe that those are the only films. Dead Space and other survival horror games with similar content are in the same vein. They're not just survival horror... they're also splatterhouse. They've got both the gameplay genre and the content genre.

We can be mature and want to broaden the acceptance of video games. I don't think we should do this by disowning and distancing ourselves from something like this. Rather by one upping and informing people that video games aren't interactive splatterhouse films; by saying, yes, we do make violent stuff... but we also make this other stuff which is more than just B-movie quality with laughable content.

Virtual snuff films? Are you kidding? Dead Space does *exactly* what horror movies do, it builds tension, has some good jump points and scares and, shockingly enough, in going with the idea that it's a survival HORROR game, it has violence like every horror movie out there today. How this is any worse than any of the main stream horror films we see today just blows my mind, the only argument for it being worse than what film does that I've heard to date is "Well, it's interactive, and that makes it too much, and that's bad."
How about some proof that the interactivity of games causes problems? Also, how is it pushing boundaries? If anything Manhunt, Mortal Kombat, those pushed boundaries, Manhunt in a way that was arguably in poor taste, Mortal Kombat in just the over the top amount of violence, but really Dead Space has the violence in the game put into a cohesive story that has a quality narrative and a film-like quality to it all.

If you have a problem with the violence in Dead Space you're probably also going to have problems with Night of the Living Dead, The Thing, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Aliens, Predator, and who knows how many other films. If you don't enjoy that type of thing, it's very simple, don't support that product. That's your right as a consumer. Say you dislike it and move on.

@Brad - Sure... accountability for your own actions is always a good thing, but that's not exactly what Brandon is bemoaning in his write up. At best, this is a foolish step sideways from a company that is experienced enough to know better... or maybe they're simply experienced enough to know exactly how far to push up against the line in order to increase media attention and sales.

I'm cynical enough to agree with others - it's a stunt and their hoping for some mild backlash. Look what it's done for sales of other titles. That's pathetic in my book.

"Games are about fun, and years of experience have proved that we can have fun by killing monsters."

Thats not true. We don't have fun just by killing, there is a context, a history, goals, puzzles, etc. At the end what makes it fun is the context where u are playing and the "how you achieve your goal", not just the act of kill.

And the worse of all this whole thing is not if its violent or not, its the way they are doing. They are selling the idea that designing a kill u can get somehow into the industry, and thats not true. I dont think they are going to hire anyone just for design a kill, just because that doesnt means that u r good for game design.

All this contest look like a trashy TV show. :(

I just don't see anything all that wrong with it, it's a creative promotion for the game, the first game was very well done throughout, it's not being marketed towards children and this promotion isn't something that seems to be that well known. Personally I just think it's a really cool prize for a fan of the series.

And if they do catch some mild backlash I'd honestly prefer Dead Space is brought up, because it's horror movie influences are so obvious, the good guys/bad guys are very clear, anyone that's ever seen a horror movie in their life can watch Dead Space for a few minutes and say "That's not a big deal, it's an interactive horror movie."

Really this article still gives me the impression that the argument is for making the amount of violence in a game like Dead Space less noticeable to the media and general consumer, and not actually tone down the violence. That's just a really, really poor argument, saying "Look, the content is okay, we just can't have THESE people knowing about it because it could hurt gaming as a whole."

First of all, hiding something like this only makes it worse. People will ALWAYS have a problem with things like this, hiding it only makes it seem as though it's being marketed as a "safer" product then it is.
By being upfront about the content the game makers are less likely to offend. Sure, some people are going to get upset, but they're going to get much much much more upset if they see the game, don't understand the level of violence involved, buy it and only then discover it. Now those people, if you're upsetting them, they're potential customers. A good portion of the people that are going to get bent out of shape over the game regardless are the same people that have problems with horror movies, Marilyn Manson, and anything that isn't cute puppies wearing hats. They aren't the target audience and sure, they might complain and say it's awful, but it wasn't aimed at them and they don't have to buy this product, and if they know what it is they simply won't.

I wish that the creators of this game and contest would think carefully about their actions. Violence is wrong, and violence against so-called "Necromorts" (or whatever) in a virtual game world is just as bad or worse.

I hope that EA and Visceral Games will consider my words carefully and consider more peaceful alternatives such as, "Design a Leaflet Campaign Against Necromorphs!" or "Create An Isaac Run And Hide Situation!"

In closing I'd like to add that their parents must be ashamed.

Vidya games r srs bzns.

I hate the 'think of the children' argument for this, its BS. It's an m rated game, game companies are forced to deal with a ridiculous standard as is, lets not compound it by self regulating ourselves to death.

The articles point, which was NOT against game violence as a whole, but about the contest 'pushing players to go to the bloody part of their brain to design a kill move. I agree that you would be having players focus more on the death move than they normally would, stuff happens in a blur for me in a game, I don't hyper analyze every action generally. As a designer I'm not that interested.
Anyway I could certainly see a problem if you're asking a max security prison inmate population to design the move, but basically what you're implying that either you or the non gaming population at large thinks all gamers are sick ****s who might carry out these death moves. I don't think a design competition is really much cause to think a crazy person is going to suddenly snap. We have no idea or comprehension of what the cause and effect of some unknown crazy is. I wouldn't want to feed a unbalanced person, but I also believe its unlikely to make much difference. No amount of self induced exposure to a video game is going to cause the level of violence anti-game advocates talk about.

The main problem is people are implying that we need to have some sort of responsibility for the industry's sake. That's bunk, have some for society's sake if you feel personally responsible, but how others percieve the industry- that's the PROBLEM not the effect. Fact is the industry has done everything it can to change the perception that we're all psychopathic murders and that adult games have their place. Fact is, those people who still hold that opinion will.... not.... be... satisfied. For them games will always be the little bleeps and bloops little Timmy was playing. The only solace we can find as an industry, is that the gamer population ages and grows- and the 'midwestern soccer mom mentality is becoming the niche.

As mentioned earlier on in this thread, players are always looking for the "I wish I could" type of gameplay. Fine, but encouraging the general public to realize or act out on his\her fantasies for killing something whether it be virtual or not is going too far in my opinion. This is taking user generated content to a whole new level. If the designers on 'Dead Space' managed to develop game play systems around having a choice to either kill or not kill someone into their game to make people accountable for thier actions that might change the debate.

The panties... unbunch them!

A+ to their marketing team.

Thinking of ways to kill enemies happens nearly every moment you are playing a mature game. Egads, don't write down your ideas though!

I thought the article would be discouraging competitions where fans have creative input in their product attall, which is certainly a touchy area. I think that it depends on the franchise. Sometimes fan feedback is important, and disgarding the courted public's ideas as not relevant would be silly. They are people after all.

But sometimes I think it's good for the developers to keep the project insular and secretive, as this maintains their independance as a group of people with similar ideas who have got together, and they'll explore avenues that the wider community don't think worthy of exploring but which the developers know will will result in something quite valuable to a lot of people.

I think this competition is no bad thing really. Though I was raised to hate violence, i've come to realise will always be an integral part of being human. Of course violence is a bad thing, all the more reason to observe it occasionally, for a fresh reminder of it's plain nastiness, to refresh your stance on it, to be on guard for it. I just don't think society can reach a point where people just don't know about violence and so don't do it. A headshot will always be vaguely imaginable. You can murder someone with words anyway, so it's not as if obliterating old skool physical destruction will do away with all evil.

When executed well, as it is by Quentin Tarantino, it seems like an important part of growing up, and makes you appreciate your limbs etc. Then again, when executed badly, like in Mad World for Wii which is blatantly just a wannabe output for sadistic urges, it's rather tiresome.

In the context of the game Dead Space, where you are fighting for your life against these hideous apparitions, the player is supposed to emote with the character- anger, repulsion, fear. And the violence you inflict on these villains in self defence, is quite naturally good news. The fans appreciate what has been achieved when they can experience all this from the sofa as culture.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I don't think that fan's smilies are without irony and detachment. To come up with a design these players have to imagine being Isaac Clarke and defending themselves against the oncoming necromorphs, asking themselves what would they do to the monsters. What kind of horrible destruction would they wreak that is most shocking and nightmare inducing? Will make a desensitized audience feel the dark husk of violence again? Because that is obviously what the game needs.

It's all perfectly horrid. A little celebration of, like, what they did there with Dead Space.

I think industry high brows need to accept that this dark side exists, otherwise they are just kidding themselves. Your and the rest of the media's belief that the human psyche isn't versatile enough to play as a wrecklessly free, merciless mass murderer in a toytown such as GTA without becoming corrupted and generally slowly incurring the destruction of all that is true and good, speaks of their skepticism about whether people mean well. It seems they fear that the next generation, once allowed to play about with the idea of being let loose with a shotgun in a video game, will realise that this is somehow what they wanted all along. As if none of us believe the lessons in peacefulness, kindness and morality and are really selfish buggers who need to be kept on a short leash, away from dangerous ideas. In the end, I think GTA is a fairly educational experience for gamers. Who denys that going on a murderous rampage wasn't thought provoking? Maybe not high drama, but the fact that we haven't all turned out to be psycho killers as 90s news reports ominously intoned, shows that the human race has come farther than previously thought. I think being able to safely experiment has only reinforced my previous conclusions that trying to kill everything I see would be a bad thing. And perhaps being virtually set free in more areas will only be a good thing. A way to learn through enactment that no other medium offers. Some people don't seem to play like this, like my dad, but I think he does when alone and in a bad mood. He just won't admit it.

I'm off to play japanese rape sim. lolwhut

@Will - Your post reminded me of a good point Penn Jilette made a while back about the Rapelay controversy. You could pretty much swap out the context of "rape" with the context of "violence" and it would still be just as relevant to this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ACSsUhFk7I

"Their complaint is that this game normalizes sexual violence; normalization of sexual violence, the article says. I think that blaming a video game for rape is normalizing violent sexual behavior.

I think what that says is, we are all rapists and that rape is just under the surface of us and all we need is just a video game to just push us a little way. What blaming the video game does is it shows compassion for the rapist, it shows understanding. At some level, in some small amount, it says 'it is not really the rapist's fault, it is society's fault for putting this stuff out here.'"

And I feel it is true. If people are up in arms because this contest is asking people to fantasize about violence and engage in a contest to describe that violence, that that very act will harm us. It will override personal responsibility of a mature audience and corrupt them and cause them to in turn act on that violence simply because they fantasized about violence... That is self righteous, morally pompous bullshit.

Unbunch panties, indeed!

To shy away from violence in games at all lets the censors win. This is a completely legit (and effective) way to get people interested in the game.

Video games are a perfect home for family oriented fun, entertainment for children, and entertainment for senior citizens. BUT Video games are also a perfect home for violence... Ultra violence at that. Bring it on.

This is a free country, driving by markets, vote with your dollars. You don't like violence, don't buy AvP or God of War. Millions of people throw 60 bucks at games so they can press buttons and rip off people's heads (like in GoW3).. and guess what, no one is real life has gotten their head ripped off by a God of War "Addict". On the other hand millions of people throw money at Cooking Mama and Guitar Hero pretending to be a chef or a rock star.. it's perfectly fine.

Use the game industry rating system, buy appropriate games for your lifestyle and live out your fantasies in a virtual world.. it's the beauty of technology!! It's a wonderful new way to tell amazing stories!!! Everyone can enjoy games.. But I guess some people can't have fun and have to try and rain on everyone else's parade... such a bummer... and for no reason.

yea i sense a terrible double standard.. like a porn star saying.. i do this for a living but... what kind of license does one need to be certified in finishing moves? While it isn't the most positive of contest to promote, it is for a mature game and thus the people playing these games should be adults. game on

Careful of the porn star comparison though. It seems kinda messed up that as game devs, journalists and/or enthusiasts, we get forced into these comparisons with things like porn, guns, cigarettes, etc. Games are just another medium, books, tv, and movies. Maybe there ARE some of these other media that should never be (have been) made, but we shouldn't globally paint games into a lump with the worst.

Would a movie studio hold a contest for desiging a scene in hostel or saw though?

Hey Caleb! Fancy meeting you on here.

I'm actually surprised at what you covered in this article Brandon. I was reading down waiting to see some perspective on the reality of gradualism of violence all together. Who, after WWI AND WWII AND the Cold War AND the Golf War AND the Vietnam War that we'd be making video games out of these inhumane historical events? This game is trying to externalize the violence, and maybe it's not working, but I think there's bigger questions that we've overlooked, such as 'why are American developers still making games about killing Communists?' And 'why do we develop games that include killing other races of people?' It's outrageous! People are pointing fingers at the Middle East claiming 'terrorists!', but the west gives more achievements to kids who shoot more Chinese, Japanese, German, Russian and Middle Eastern people in video games! Australia has seen it's share of war and doesn't want to go back there, hence their stringent laws on video game themes. Germany has no real reason to harbor the encouragement of violence with their history, and so good on them for being stringent as well.

A lot of violent history is over and done with and Earth should never bear those scars again, but publishers keep on going don't they, and government says freedom of speech is AOK, and we still have bigot rednecks in suits willing to put money down on these deals. So in response to the article, Visceral simply means more money, and we can't expect anything less from developers and publishers alike - particularly the west.

The only thing that is hurting the video game industry is articles like this. The worst thing about this article is that video games are games they are not meant to be taken seriously, but every time an article about people fearing that video games are the cause of violence is another point for people who love to blame video games for their actions. I don't care what you say everyone has played a video game that they thought could use some improvement in who one player brutally murdered another (Mortal Kombat) and would like to see their own creation replace said kill. Every time those anti-gaming people see a gamer put out an article that shows they see video games as something more than games it just fuels the machine against the gaming industry. It is a game and nothing more.