   Sucking up to the public
  Artistic merit is a big plus for me, game design being no exception. I've been having a little trouble imagining the stress studios like Rockstar Gameshave when they release yet another game that have 40 year old mothers rally emergency PTA meetings and protests. We know that the media and/or the average American pretty much treats Grand Theft Auto as a scourge of humanity, or at least a bad influence worthy of finger-wagging. Many of Rockstar's releases are indeed violent, and maybe even a bit twisted like executions in Manhunt or the unexpected evolution of Conker the Squirrel. My question is: What happens in these studios to protect their right for freedom of expression while keeping the public submissive enough to not beat down their doors while holding torches and pitchforks? Personally, I feel a little refreshed every time a game that could traumatize kids hits the market since it shows an unfazed creative entity in the face of bureaucracy. But how much can I believe in that if I become a reputable enough developer to spark outrage when my team releases a game that had one too many organs flying around?[Edited by - zyrolasting on September 4, 2009 6:30:47 PM]
  I think they love the press and it just makes kids want to buy their game more.   ;  Ultimately any game made will have to face certain standards from the business side of the studio and publisher, license holders, as well as ratings body.  Don’t be disappointed if the business turns to you and says that you have to rework your blood and gore feast to fit a PG rating. Because they are targeting a younger market with the game now.   ;Quote:Don’t be disappointed if the business turns to you and says that you have to rework your blood and gore feast to fit a PG rating. Because they are targeting a younger market with the game now.I would not debate with the people who pay me. [smile] Sorry if I was not clear, but the studios are not the scope I'm aiming to discuss here, it's the public. To put it bluntly, what do developers, publishers, etc do when they are on the receiving end of public outrage? Say you made a game and I found it repulsive, and I rallied people to challenge the studio. What do you do? Surely unhappy consumers are an issue, and developers would be cautious not to leave it at "Don't like it? Don't buy it!" Hence the title of the topic: Do developers HAVE to suck up to them enough to minimize mob rule against them?I'm assuming the studio in question is in the middle of this ordeal. Rockstar games came to mind given the continued badgering "politically correct" people place on the company's back. I know on one occasion, that patched Manhunt II to censor executions. Why did Rockstar cave in and do that? They have not really done that kind of thing before, from what I understand.   ;  Well Rockstar rereleased GTA with the hot coffee scene removed from the code after they were told that the rating would change from R to AO if they didn't.  So does that answer your question?   ;  Well, I think a lot of times it's just like any other business decision.If you are bound to get sued for your game, and the profit doesnt justify the legal expenses, you're going to have to tone it down.Australia has pretty strict guidelines about what games are or are not ok to sell there, so if you think Australia is a large enough target market to matter and you think they won't accept your game, you're going to have to tone it down.If you are making a game with lots of blood and guts for the sake of it (Mortal Kombat FTMFW), the "negative press" is actually positive press because your target market is people who think that's awesome you can rip out someones intestines and strangle them with it.no magic bullet answer, it just depends on what you are going for :PEDIT: and like the poster above mentioned, content can affect rating which can affect how many people are able to buy your game (more people able to buy your game = more profit usually!)   ;Quote:Well Rockstar rereleased GTA with the hot coffee scene removed from the code after they were told that the rating would change from R to AO if they didn't. So does that answer your question?No, not really. The games were developed to be as explicit as they were because that's what Rockstar wanted to do. Sheer pressure of political correctness had them go back on what they originally had, demeaning freedom of expression. That's really my issue here. There are several other games that have equally violent or more so content like modern COD games. Where is the line here? COD games are not as gory, but carry a very realistic sense of anguish, and GOW games have nice sexual themes of their own, although they had to go through the same rating system.Quote: Well, I think a lot of times it's just like any other business decision. If you are bound to get sued for your game, and the profit doesnt justify the legal expenses, you're going to have to tone it down.Australia has pretty strict guidelines about what games are or are not ok to sell there, so if you think Australia is a large enough target market to matter and you think they won't accept your game, you're going to have to tone it down.That makes a little more sense, but consumer interests are volatile. As I said, Game A has explicit content, but takes heavy heat, while Game B has similar content and goes what only seems to be scott-free. Take Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude. Australia banned this, but other countries released it, even though it was borderline AO. The time between this game and the GTA hot coffee scene is not long. Other games nowhere NEAR as bold can end up not being released at all. Thrill Kill was bold, but it was just your next bloody fighter. The US banned it while Mortal Kombat gets messier and messier and the graphics for it all gets more realistic! I just can't find consistency in the values just here in the US... But then again, that's the USA for you. =/[Edited by - zyrolasting on September 4, 2009 2:51:43 PM];  Zy, you say you don't want to suck up to the public, right? So who exactly is "the public"?The umpteen million people who bought GTA 23 in spite of its unsavory reputation?Or the couple thousand "politically correct" people who picketed Best Buy because it was selling GTA 23?If you make a game that "umpteen million people" want to buy, then some people would say you had "sucked up" to those people.If you make a change to a game in order to  reduce the number of picketers at Best Buy, then fans of GTA 23 would say you had "sucked up" to those people.So who exactly are we talking about not wanting to suck up to here? Either way we go, we're sucking up to somebody.I guess my first point is, you can't satisfy everyone all the time. And my other point is, what's your goal in making a game? If you want to make a game that is artistically pleasing to you but it doesn't sell well, then clearly you didn't suck up to anybody.But if you want to sell more units, then you have to make some compromises on your "artistic" vision. I do not think that's "sucking up." Essentially, your thread here is all about "selling out," which is the topic I wrote about in my September IGDA column (it hasn't gone live yet).We have to make compromises between business and art - but if you go around calling that sucking up or selling out, then clearly your interest is on the art side, and you are perfectly free to pursue those interests instead of profitability.   ;  Sorry guys, apparently I have not been clear, but if I'm going to be continuously taken out of context, I'll just do the research myself. I'm not going to rephrase my question again. (Seems I was asking one with no real answer anyway. [smile])Thanks for your responses.Cheers!-Zyro;Quote:Original post by zyrolastingSorry guys, apparently I have not been clear, but if I'm going to be continuously taken out of context, I'll just do the research myself. I'm not going to rephrase my question again. (Seems I was asking one with no real answer anyway. [smile])OK, well, when you've gotten your research results, it would be interesting to hear. Hope you publish the results.