Opinion: We Should Never Ask Fans To 'Design A Kill'
March 18, 2010 5:00 PM |
[In this opinion piece, Game Developer EIC Brandon Sheffield takes Electronic Arts and Visceral to task for their competition asking fans to "design a kill" for Dead Space, calling it "incredibly regressive for our industry."]
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.
It’s in this climate that EA has chosen to launch its Design a Kill for Dead Space 2 contest, which to me runs second only to Acclaim’s attempt to buy ad space on tombstones in terms of irresponsibility.
Here’s the text from the press release, describing the contest:
"Have you ever played a video game and thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ Well, Visceral Games announced that fans of the critically-acclaimed Dead Space franchise can make their “what if” dreams a reality. This is their chance to design a kill and get it in the game. Players can submit ideas via text, video or still images.
Since the contest began last week, there are over 1,000 entries already, so the cooler the kill, the better chance it has of winning a place in the upcoming Dead Space 2 video game. 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.
The grand prize winner will not only have an opportunity to have their dismemberment move recreated in the game but they’ll also win the opportunity to have their likeness modeled onto a non-player character in the game."
Where To Draw The Line?
I don’t believe we should shy away from violence in games – violence is a part of life, and can make for very interesting scenarios in games. And it’s no secret that a large majority of fun video games are based on conflict, much of which is combative. But I also believe that asking fans to think as hard as they can about an innovative way to kill someone is a very regressive thing for our industry.
Just think for a second about what EA is actually asking people to do. 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.
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…’
Third, it’s implied that this is a proper way to enter the industry (that’s part of the implication, that this design will be your foot in the door). That really hammers home the misconception that all we do is think of ways for things to kill each other.
Fourth, it asks for documented evidence of this fan violence. EA must certainly have plenty at this point, with over 1,000 submissions, which anyone will be able to view once the competition is over at the official Facebook page.
Fuel For The Fire
Many in the mainstream media, parent-advocate groups, and in the public opinion at large consider the game-playing population to be mostly children. And for better or for worse, it’s likely that a number of children have in fact played the M-rated Dead Space. This kind of contest is amazing fodder for the groups that want to limit and restrict games, and it’s hard to believe EA or Visceral would not be aware of this.
If they are not aware of the regressive nature of this competition, as the video on the official page seems to suggest, that is incredibly unconscious, and certainly indicative of the immaturity of our industry. This seems like the sort of thing you should really think through. Perhaps we’re all so desensitized to violence in this industry that they did not think about it in this light.
If the intention is to get the contest to stir up controversy, well I suppose they may achieve their goal. If the mainstream media does get wind of the competition, and they get hold of even one video of a kid doing a “brutal kill” on his brother, the shitstorm begins. I do not think the results of this storm will be positive for anyone.
Little To Smile About

One of the images that accompanies the press release (above) shows a sample entry from an actual fan, in which all the descriptions of actions are accompanied by smiley faces, such as "knee in the head ^^." This description comes after the one that says "grabs the head and shoot in the neck."
You could argue that since the creatures you kill are not human, this is not so bad. I would disagree. They are humanoid enough, and asking fans to figure out a way to kill anything is enough to cause a horrified gut reaction in any parent or politician that may see it. A company as large as EA cannot simply make the “games are just fun” excuse. I do not believe this is an overreaction. I believe the reaction from those outside the game industry would be magnitudes above what I write here.
You could argue I’m bringing more attention to this contest by mentioning it here, and you’d be right. I think we have to take these things to task when we see them, and I can only hope that if an intrepid journalist is researching this “brutal kill” phenomenon they might see this article and pause before decrying the entire industry as actively breeding violence in its players.
Know that the assumptions and drives of one marketing campaign do not reflect the majority. There are those among us who recognize that this is regressive, and I would caution any game company against taking this sort of action in the future.
Categories:








10 Comments
I actually thought this was going to be about a Battlefield Bad Company 2 ad I've been seeing lately. Above a picture of a running soldier, text asks, "How would you kill me?"
This struck me as kind of a weird approach to selling BC2. I mean, that's never the interesting question in a team-based shooter like this. A kill is a kill is a kill. What changes are the weapons and the tactics, and that's the interesting challenge. But EA decided to ask gamers how they'd go about killing a man, as if they were marketing a snuff film and not a videogame.
Weird and a little troubling that the same company has taken really similar approaches to promoting these titles, by making "killing" the hook.
Rob Zacny | March 18, 2010 7:38 PM
The goal of an artist, IMO, is to transmit a message from her/his medium to the audience. At first, i thought "But why should Visceral or EA care?", but then i realized that as artists, they have to think about their message.
But, i think they just don't care. If it makes money, it's worth having the devil hold on to your soul. What i feel is irresponsible is to associate art with commercialism--the message becomes popular, dull, and loses much meaning.
Splinter of Chaos | March 18, 2010 8:23 PM
I can't avoid understanding this conflict as trying to resolve a cultural dissonance by eliminating one's right to hold their own. Developer's shouldn't have to be accountable for such extreme reactions, however predictable they happen to be.
To my understanding, Dead Space is a horror game, and violence is a very good tool of inducing such emotions. Particularly the character's death sequences, which i believe create an amazing sense of frailty, one so important to the genre
In fact, i welcome this types of activities. This one isn't particularly good or exciting, but it indulges a relationship between the developers and fans that is very good for the medium.
John | March 18, 2010 9:12 PM
Its a contest for a horror game. Horror games and movies have people/creatures die in crazy disturbing ways. Its a contest for fans of the type of game it it.
I know its hard to understand if you aren't a fan of the genre but to me this contest doesn't even sound weird.
Becoming mainstream is a better goal then hiding.
Corey Holcomb-Hockin | March 18, 2010 11:40 PM
This doesn't really seem like a huge deal to me either.
If anything, the reaction in this piece feels a little like promoting the idea that "see, violent games aren't a problem, it's the people sitting in their rooms *imagining* violence that we need to worry about." I wouldn't want to come down on either side, but I think this rests on claims about whether it's "worse" to sit down and imagine a gruesome scene "from scratch" or to enact it in a video game world.
I don't think there's an obvious right answer, but I think they're pretty similar or at least highly related, so if you have a big problem with one, I think you'd need to have a big problem with the other. In all, I think this post is a bit of an overreaction, really.
Pippin | March 19, 2010 12:05 AM
Violence begets violence. Violent tendencies, implied or fantasized are just as powerful and impactful as those that are executed. A disturbing image or scene in a film or game is supposed to unsettle us, not fill us with glee.
Horror movies of late (post SAW era) are not horror films, they are glorified snuff films. They are uncomfortable to watch because they are depicting brutal action taken on innocent human beings.
Yes it very much IS a big deal, because this is not meant to create an "interaction" between developer and fan, nor is it meant to spark any kind of meanigful discourse (which it won't other than this format) It is a simply a feeble attempt at creating a viral marketing campaign, thus it becomes a pointless and therefore detrimental event for the industry.
Frank | March 19, 2010 9:17 AM
I agree with you, that this is an image problem for the medium, but I don't agree with all the reasons.
First, the idea that some minors maybe have played the game should matter - at all - doesn't sit well with me. M-rated games are M-rated for a reason, and it's not like kids don't get ahold of R-rated movies or novels with an equivalent amount of violence and sex. I watched Pulp Fiction when I was 13. Does that mean we should acquiesce to puritanical demands for censorship in movies?
Second, the idea that something in a game could be portrayed in a light that could be used against the medium is reason enough to be wary is problematic to me. We need to do more mature things with games, and that means taking risks on offensive content.
My problem with the promotion is that it's juvenile. And not juvenile in a new and hilarious and genuinely offensive way like their Dante's Inferno promotions. Juvenile in a tired, boring way. This is an image problem not because it can be twisted against us, this is an image problem because it's the kind of thing a 13-year-old would come up with. It makes us all look like stagnant uncreative teenagers, and it's not by censoring ourselves that we'll gain legitimacy, it's by being genuinely progressive and genuinely creative, even when that's risky or offensive.
Julian | March 19, 2010 1:57 PM
we should be having "design a money shot" contests, instead, we'd all be much better off.
Raoul Duke | March 19, 2010 2:00 PM
Since this is an act of advertising, rather than gaming.
Shouldn't the advertising industry be held accountable for such things rather than the games industry?
kriss | March 21, 2010 6:34 AM
It's interesting that almost all of bsheffield's points relate to how this is going to be *perceived* by non-gaming media as opposed to what it means for gamers. Is this fine for gaming fare? It seems the comments split it at about 50/50.
I associate these posts with an aspect of *shame* about themselves and the industry as a whole, about how they will be *perceived*, and not about how they feel about it themselves when they think about it honestly. I personally don't see the problem -- you're asking people to be creative and social. There were an awful lot of smiles in that video for it to be "about" simulating violence.
Kids... *KIDS* used to play cops and robbers, and they would pretend to *shoot you* and you *would die*. Sometimes they would be fairly graphic about what happened in this imaginary world. No one says this is training them to be murderers.
It's interesting that this sort of thing is immediately called "juvenile" but Miyamoto's next game will be called a "masterpiece", even though that's still aesthetically catering for a five year old. The short of it is: yeah it's juvenile, but *look at those guys*. They're roleplaying *Aliens* and generally acting like five year olds and *having a ball*, which beats *this* cigar smoking hippie article!
Maybe if they got to do this more when they were 12 instead of 32 they'd be over it by now...
Sunny Kalsi | March 26, 2010 7:17 AM