Warren Spector Angry With Rockstar

[fitbabits]

Courtesy of wham! gaming (http://wham.canoe.ca/) comes news that Warren Spector is pretty ticked off with the people at Rockstar.

You can read the whole story by clicking here (http://wham.canoe.ca/news/2005/11/03/1291070-cp.html).

MONTREAL (CP) — As a video game developer, Warren Spector marvels at Grand Theft Auto. But the hugely successful franchise from Rockstar Games also makes him grit his teeth.“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.”
GTA lovers, go to the blue corner. Warren Spector lovers, go to the red corner. Seconds out! Round one. *ding ding ding*

[StGeorge]

If he doesn't like GTA, then he can go make his own game that matches his vision. Amazingly, he is probably one of the few people in the world who can actually do that. So I don't understand the whining. He made several of the greatest games of all time, most notably Deus Ex. Go make something that "enriches the culture"! You are better than this, Warren!

[Sloth]

Warren Spector is great, but I don't get how GTA is any worse than stuff in Deus Ex and Ultima 7. I mean you could kill babies in ultima 7 and use their corpses as backpacks. As far as telling your mother, this is what games can do, why would you want to do that?

[Abednigo]

First I must say that I have enjoyed GTA III and GTA: VC, but he does have a point. Rockstar has raised the bar of what games can be, but they've also chosen to raise that bar with games that are excessively violent, sexually explicit and with a lot of bad language. Does gaming need those extremes? Perhaps. But most, if not all, of their games in recent years have pushed those boundaries (GTA, Manhunt, etc). They could do so much with other genres, why do they keep making games like that? They seem to almost thrive on the negative media their games get, then they push it more. I'm still kind of amazed that they lied about Hot Coffee saying it was a user created mod before admitting they put it in there.

Like I said in the beginning, I enjoyed the couple GTA games I played on the PC. But for me the violent, ganster aspect got old quick. I enjoyed just driving around most of the time making massive jumps in different cars.

[Atorak]

Funny, when I was playing Deus Ex 2, I wished I had a baseball bat...

[Kelegacy]

Does he hate the Sopranos and Godfather for ruining our culture as well? They put Italians in a bad light, and show the dirtier aspects of humanity. The franchise is called Grand Theft Auto, not Happy Happy Bunny Land; of course there are going to be murders, thefts, and vulgarity. That's what makes the game great. Of course, it's not for everyone, especially children. But adults can appreciate the content and have fun with it.

[Heretic Machine]

I don't see anything wrong with Grand Theft Auto, or the path it has taken. But at the same time, it'd be nice to see Rockstar do something different too. I think at this point they are just maintaining their image.

[fitbabits]

Does he had the Sopranos and Godfather for ruining our culture as well? They put Italians in a bad light, and show the dirtier aspects of humanity. The franchise is called Grand Theft Auto, not Happy Happy Bunny Land; of course there are going to be murders, thefts, and vulgarity. That's what makes the game great. Of course, it's not for everyone, especially children. But adults can appreciate the content and have fun with it.
Oooh, can you design a game based on the concept of Happy Happy Bunny Land? Kinda like Jumping Flash for the PlayStation, but with no violence.

[XxSATANxX]

Uhm I really angry at what they did to DX2

[Nesta]

Does he hate the Sopranos and Godfather for ruining our culture as well?

I didn't read in there where he says they are ruining our culture, they are just choosing not to expand their horizons and continue with the same theme, game in and game out, and that upsets him.

I don't put the onus Rockstar to get that done, however. I think that there should be other games out there that take from that sort of game design and show us something new and creative, instead of the violence and crime of the GTA series.

[Xaerin]

How exactly does Deus Ex "enrichen the culture"? Why does Warren Spector's mother's opinion matter?

The answer to both is: it doesn't.

Games are for fun, the fact that people get a kick out of simulated violence is a symptom of human nature and not a fault with Rockstars game design. Clearly, since they recognise this and have capitalised on it.

[Oddmaker]

Rockstar can do what they want. Is'nt that where they made all there money from?

[bapenguin]

Uhm I really angry at what they did to DX2

Classic!!!

[mpsmith]

He's not bashing them, you retards. He just says he would like to see their skill applied to something that can appeal to a wider audience, perhaps.

[Tohoya]

I completely agree with Warren Spector. GTA was a work of genius, showing that a free-form, real, nonlinear universe was not only feasible, but that it could be a helluva lot of fun. GTAIII is the most innovative and industry-changing game since Super Mario Brothers, on the design level. Games like GTA we can hold up as proof that games are art to non-gamers. Except, oh no, we can't, because the nongamers can't get past the random killing of civilians to see the game's true design genius.

[EvilBob46]

I think he's making a point. Rockstar is trying too hard to have a "bad boy" image by filling the games up with badass cursing crazy-ass motherfuckers and touchy gameplay situations just for the sake of getting media attention and what not. I thought a lot of the cursing, plot details and missions in San Andreas were dumb as hell because Rockstar tried too hard to make them edgy.

The hot coffee scene is probably the best example of that: who in their right mind would come up with shit like this? Low-polygon game characters having awkardly animated sex. Did Rockstar think they were actually being cool by hiding a minigame like that in the game? Just like the kid on the playground who wants to be cool and keeps using keyphrases like "fo shizzle" (the kind of kid that you want to strangle), it gets on my nerves after a while.

[LilAbner]

Spector absolutely has a point. While GTA isn't the end of civilized beings, I long for a GTA-style game for kids that I could play with my son. A "sandbox" game without the thuggery.

I am by no means calling for an end to the GTA games as I love them, I just think the idea could be expanded infinitely.

[Syl]

I'm just mad at Rockstar North for only making GTA games, simply because I loved the non-GTA titles they made in the past...

Uniracers, Body Harvest, Space Station Silicon Valley, Lemmings - Those were all made by DMA design, whom later became Rockstar North.

I mean, imagine what they could do with GTA technlogy in a sequel to SSSV or Body Harvest, they were remarkebly free-roaming games themselves, but the science fiction and humor elements were top notch.

I also just really have a soft spot for Uniracers, its just a lot of fun.

[Beelzebud]

Funny, when I was playing Deus Ex 2, I wished I had a baseball bat...

You summed it up nicely for me.

[laggerific]

I love them both...although I'm ticked he let Deus Ex 2 get created by some lacky...someone with no concept of what makes games like Deus Ex and the original System Shock friggin awesome.

[GodFather]

I got bored with the GTA series after playing the games for a couple of hours, the game didnt do it for me like it did for the rest of the public.

[Goronmon]

The point isn't that violent games are a bad thing. Its that its hard to show people outside of our "culture" why gaming can be so great when the most well known and some of the best selling games ever are also among the most graphic and crude series of games ever developed.

[EvilBob46]

I love them both...although I'm ticked he let Deus Ex 2 get created by some lacky...someone with no concept of what makes games like Deus Ex and the original System Shock friggin awesome.

Harvey Smith was the Lead Designer on the first Deus Ex though...

[Kefkataran]

I think he has a point. But I think the best solution would be to be out there making comparably impressive games in different settings rather than just complaining about it. Not that I think he's a huge whiner anyways (this is certainly the first I've heard him complain of GTA since it became huge), so whatevs.

[F3nyx]

I love Deus Ex and Grand Theft Auto alike, but I don't know where Spector is getting the idea that his games hold some moral high ground. Deus Ex was an extremely thoughtful game at some parts, but most of the time you were just wandering around, free to kill any cop, tourist, hooker, or child without serious repercussions -- Grand Theft Auto with less cars and sunlight, and more nanotech and skill levels.

Spector absolutely has a point. While GTA isn't the end of civilized beings, I long for a GTA-style game for kids that I could play with my son. A "sandbox" game without the thuggery.No doubt this is one of those "you'll understand when you've got your own kids" things, but please humor me. I'd say that at least 50% of the fun in Grand Theft Auto derives from driving around, exploring the city, doing stunts and completing odd challenges. You never even have to pick up a gun.

Now, I can perhaps understand that you wouldn't want your kid staring at all the low-poly streetwalkers, and there's no denying that the game makes far more provisions for busting caps than for raising a healthy virtual family (or whatever infinite expansion would involve), but generally speaking, most of the thuggery in the game must be sought out by the player.

Harvey Smith was the Lead Designer on the first Deus Ex though...Sometimes this seems like the "But Clinton...!" of Deus Ex fanboy vs. fanboy arguments. Project Director on DX1 was Warren Spector. Allowing Harvey Smith to move up to that position gave Smith the power to make changes which Spector has implied he himself wouldn't have. Smith was by no means the sole source of suckage, but he unmistakably made his mark.

[Goronmon]

No doubt this is one of those "you'll understand when you've got your own kids" things, but please humor me. I'd say that at least 50% of the fun in Grand Theft Auto derives from driving around, exploring the city, doing stunts and completing odd challenges. You never even have to pick up a gun. Now, I can perhaps understand that you wouldn't want your kid staring at all the low-poly streetwalkers, but generally speaking, most of the thuggery in the game must be sought out by the player.
I assume by play with his son, he meant let his son play too, not just make him watch.

Plus, if you are to do any missions in GTA:SA you are pretty much going to kill someone.

[Taco]

I really don't think it's that good of the game. It only sells because of the thuggery.

It's better than DX2 though.

[TrackZero]

Does he hate the Sopranos and Godfather for ruining our culture as well? They put Italians in a bad light, and show the dirtier aspects of humanity. The franchise is called Grand Theft Auto, not Happy Happy Bunny Land; of course there are going to be murders, thefts, and vulgarity. That's what makes the game great. Of course, it's not for everyone, especially children. But adults can appreciate the content and have fun with it.

I think it's more to the point that ALL of Rockstar's games (GTA, Manhunt, Bully) have to throw out this excessively violent content, instead of only some of their projects. They have a great design team, but it's a shame to see them continually beating a dead horse like this. I'd like to see them take a crack at something new.

[Taco]

Harvey Smith was the Lead Designer on the first Deus Ex though...

I think you got that backwards. Spector was lead on the first and took a more hands off approach to DX2 and Thief3 while Harvey Smith took over. In any case I blame Eidos. I can't believe the good guys at Ion wanted to make a piece of shit console hack job.

[Taco]

Does he hate the Sopranos and Godfather for ruining our culture as well? They put Italians in a bad light, and show the dirtier aspects of humanity.

It's been my experience that Italians enjoy Goodfells, The Godfather and The Sopranos more than anyone though ;).

/half Italian

[F3nyx]

I think you got that backwards. Spector was lead on the first and took a more hands off approach to DX2 and Thief3 while Harvey Smith took over. In any case I blame Eidos. I can't believe the good guys at Ion wanted to make a piece of shit console hack job."Lead Designer" is a misleading title -- that position was subordinate to "Project Director", Warren Spector's position during DX1 development. Harvey Smith moved up to Project Director for DX2.

Plus, if you are to do any missions in GTA:SA you are pretty much going to kill someone.The point was that only a minor fraction of the fun in GTA derives from actually doing the missions. What about pizza delivery, or fire-truck mischief, or taxi driving?

[Taco]

Eh whatever. Call it "person most directly in charge of game development" then. Warren for 1, Harvey for 2.

[Goronmon]

The point was that only a minor fraction of the fun in GTA derives from actually doing the missions. What about pizza delivery, or fire-truck mischief, or taxi driving?
That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the content is finding inventive ways to kill people.

[XxSATANxX]

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the content is finding inventive ways to kill people.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

[F3nyx]

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the content is finding inventive ways to kill people.But, as I said, you'll only play those parts if you actually attempt to find inventive ways to kill people. You can keep bumbling happily around the game world without doing any of the missions.

[Liquidize105]

I love Deus Ex and Grand Theft Auto alike, but I don't know where Spector is getting the idea that his games hold some moral high ground. Deus Ex was an extremely thoughtful game at some parts, but most of the time you were just wandering around, free to kill any cop, tourist, hooker, or child without serious repercussions -- Grand Theft Auto with less cars and sunlight, and more nanotech and skill levels.

You forgot to mention that there's a real sense of aversion to wanton killing in Deus Ex, like in real life. When something walks and talks like a real person (and they talk a lot!), you don't go on a killing spree unless the situation calls for it (even then the characters in the game discourage you from indiscriminant killing).

You should try it in Deus Ex - kill every single NPC you find. It feels totally wrong.

[Crabby]

Truth. I feel about the same way and I would speculate that more people feel like expressing his sentiments toward the GTA series than those satisfied with it.

[Kelegacy]

The good thing about GTA is that it's open-ended. You don't have to kill anyone if you don't want to. Just dick around in the game world exploring and driving. It is up to the gamer to do what he wants, and if that means killing innocent civilians, then he can. Run into the police station and kill cops? Yup, you can. Drive around town and follow traffic laws? Sure, if you want. You can also take over the role of a cop and chase down bad guys, or put out fires as a firefighter, or help hurt people as an EMT.

If you decide to go on a cop killing spree or drive down the sidewalk murdering people with your bumper, that's your problem, not Rockstar's. They created the freedom; it's up to you how you want to use it.

[Kefkataran]

You don't have to kill anyone if you don't want to.

You do have to keep the game going though, which in most cases is required to actually even open up all the game has to offer. It's open-ended, but it's not *that* open-ended.

If you decide to go on a cop killing spree or drive down the sidewalk murdering people with your bumper, that's your problem, not Rockstar's. They created the freedom; it's up to you how you want to use it.

Again, there's not that much freedom. You've got to do some missions even to just open up most of the areas available in the game, and that means you WILL be killing people. I'm not saying it's bad or Rockstar should be shunned or anything. I'm just saying, you're making it sound like there's a lot more choice than I think Rockstar ever intended.

[Kelegacy]

You do have to keep the game going though, which in most cases is required to actually even open up all the game has to offer. It's open-ended, but it's not *that* open-ended.



Again, there's not that much freedom. You've got to do some missions even to just open up most of the areas available in the game, and that means you WILL be killing people. I'm not saying it's bad or Rockstar should be shunned or anything. I'm just saying, you're making it sound like there's a lot more choice than I think Rockstar ever intended.

I have a cousin that plays the game without killing anyone. She just drives around, and when she accidentally gets a cop's attention and they start chasing her, she gets upset.

Most of the time, your actions are warranted in the GTA universe. Someone is usually mixed up with the wrong sorts of people, and if you are ordered to kill them, then they likely have it coming. I cant remember the last truly innocent person I killed in GTA.

It took me a very long time before I made progression in San Andreas. I have only opened up the second city, and I havent really driven through it yet. I have enjoyed beefing my character up at the local gym, driving around without a care in the world, increasing stats with cars, motorbikes, cycles, running, swimming, weapons, etc. You can customize your character with tats, hairstyles, and clothing. There is a LOT to do besides the main story. I've been lost in the world and have forgotten the missons many times. I am free to play the game at my own pace, and most times I do. It's not the basis of the game, but there's enough content in the GTA games to make regular games appear ill in comparison.

[Steamtron]

I understand why people don't agree with his comments, but I've got to say I agree with him to a point. The GTA games were fantastic for the advances they made, but I can't see anyone really being able to defend the some of the things in the GTA series. Picking up a prostitute, having sex with her then running her over to get your money back is just unnecessary. And yeah, I know people say that it's no worse than a lot of the other stuff in the game, but when people started to hear about it, especially younger people, they wanted the game just so they could do this. From the experience I've had with people buying the game, they bought it for the violence. They didn't buy it because of any of the innovations the game featured and I think that in that regard, Rockstar cheapened the series for me.

[Morrolan]

I agree with Warren, as usual (Warry, why don't you call?) but only to a degree. I think it's unfair to direct this hate at Rockstar in particular, even though they do go out of their way to make rediculously violent games. The point is that a lot of companies do that. I think that the 'ultimate thuggery simulator' would be a noble goal, if that were a novel idea. However, it's not. Half the damned industry is making games that could legitimately fall into that category (well, maybe not the 'ultimate' part.)

I, too, wish that there were more games I could show to non-gamers to say 'see? This is why I think games are so great.' It's difficult for them to see past the hooker-shooting, hobo-greasing, blood-spurting and guts-flying to see the game systems that are so great. My girlfriend at the time sat and watched me play through almost the entirety of Beyond Good and Evil. It was a fantastic game, and she was able to see that because she wasn't immediately turned away by the presentation.

Violent games have their place, and I hope they never go away (not that they will.) But I wish they would become less prevelant.

[TKO]

I think he's making a point. Rockstar is trying too hard to have a "bad boy" image by filling the games up with badass cursing crazy-ass motherfuckers and touchy gameplay situations just for the sake of getting media attention and what not.
The thing is, once a game series called "Grand Theft Auto" becomes hugely successful (ie: GTA3) How do you actually ride that success without carrying on with that game-title? And if you use that game-title, and continue with the anti-hero main character (which fans will naturally expect in a sequel), and keep upping the realism.. How do you portray gang-culture without the language?

I thought Vice City did a good job of keeping the language largely clean. I can't see how they were to do a good job of San Andreas without doing it the way they did. I was suprised with how morally 'good' the main character ended up being. ..Sure, they could have kept it cleaner than they did. But it looks to me like they just know they are onto a good thing, so why funk with it?

The hot coffee scene is probably the best example of that: who in their right mind would come up with shit like this? Low-polygon game characters having awkardly animated sex. Did Rockstar think they were actually being cool by hiding a minigame like that in the game?
Do you really think they kept that hidden in there just for kicks? If they wanted people to find it, and make it a selling point, or publicity stunt, or anything like that, don't you think they might have finished the textures on Michelle and her room? ..or fix the clipping on Barbara's clothes? ..or even make the girls naked? (as was one of the options for hot coffee.)

It doesn't take a genius to see that the coffee scenes were unfinished. I'd bet the truth was that they realised the hot coffee game simply *wasn't* *fun*, like most of the girlfriend stuff, and a quick bit of jiggly-camera outside was the best way to finish that up and get on to completing more important stuff.

But hey, they do like their controversy. I'm sure they were more than happy to quietly ride the media-storm (and resulting sales) ..and give the appearance of responsibility and release a patch when the law finally decided leaving unfinished assets in the install was 'bad'. :)

[Liquidize105]

I have a cousin that plays the game without killing anyone. She just drives around, and when she accidentally gets a cop's attention and they start chasing her, she gets upset.
I hate that!

Back in the days I had Need for Speed 3 Hot Persuit on my pc. I was driving under the posted speed limit when the cops radioed in: "Suspect fleeting northbound in yellow Diablo..."

I was like WTH?! :rolleyes:

[TKO]

Need for Speed 3... I was driving under the posted speed limit when the cops radioed in: "Suspect fleeting northbound in yellow Diablo..."

I was like WTH?! :rolleyes:
:) ..I really liked Porsche 2000 (Porsche Unleashed in some territories.) I could always play that as a pure racing game. None of this police crap that I had no interest in.

[Frogleg Special]

DX2 is a letdown. Check again your weener, Mr.Spector because it ain't standing.

[Sloth]

I am not a GTA expert, i've only played Vice City, but from what I've seen, everyone you have to kill to advance the story is a bad guy in some way. Either he's a crooked politician or a gang banger. It is not like the missions require you to kill a family out for a stroll.

The freedom is there to do that, but if you do it, its not rockstars fault anymore than it is God's fault serial killers go around chopping people up.

[F3nyx]

DX2 is a letdown. Check again your weener, Mr.Spector because it ain't standing.No matter what you think of what he's saying now, do NOT blame him for DX2 because he had only an informal advisory role in its development.

[Morrolan]

DX2 is a letdown. Check again your weener, Mr.Spector because it ain't standing.
First of all, Warren didn't make DX2. He had little to no input on it.

Second. What the hell did you just say?

[MasterKwan]

For me, the random killing and thuggery were what was fun in GTA. When I play a game like that at the end of the day, driving in rush hour traffic, putting up with the other A-holes in the world. I like nothing better than killing whores, stealing cars and gunning down random civilians. It's a release from the pressure cooker. I'll look over my shoulder sometimes and make sure noone's watching when I pull off some especially heinous act.

If it was an open ended though boring world where you had to work for a living or be law abiding, it would have been a flop. Most people have this cruel inner child that likes nothing more than being mean. We control it so, we can live in society. In game, I don't have to control it any more. Really Mafia was a toned down GTA and while I played it, I didn't get the same visceral pleasure out of it because it wasn't mean enough.

It serves it's purpose. It gives me an escape. San Andrea's doesn't give me the same thrill for some reason. I believe it's the car selection though.

[Taco]

Heh. I don't think the only choices in gameplay are "working" and "beating hookers".

[thecrazyd]

Heh. I don't think the only choices in gameplay are "working" and "beating hookers".
And are those really mutually exclusive?

[Frogleg Special]

No matter what you think of what he's saying now, do NOT blame him for DX2 because he had only an informal advisory role in its development.

Hmm, I think he knew what's happening with DX2 during development and he didn't stop Harvey dumbifying DX2 because Warren himself believes in mainstreaming games.

[Kefkataran]

Most of the time, your actions are warranted in the GTA universe. Someone is usually mixed up with the wrong sorts of people, and if you are ordered to kill them, then they likely have it coming. I cant remember the last truly innocent person I killed in GTA.

Relative to your moral beliefs. You might agree with that guy in the Las Vegas thread who says the death penalty should be used for everyone.

but there's enough content in the GTA games to make regular games appear ill in comparison.

If amount of content is your main criteria for judging a game.

[Frogleg Special]

First of all, Warren didn't make DX2. He had little to no input on it.


But he's aware of the dumbing down at least. He supported the universal ammo mechanic of DX2 without attempting to save the franchise.

[LilAbner]

I assume by play with his son, he meant let his son play too, not just make him watch.

Plus, if you are to do any missions in GTA:SA you are pretty much going to kill someone.

My son is 7. He does not play nor watch any GTA game because I won't allow it.

[Conner Dain]

Any successful gaming experience has some element of performing some action that you can't do in real life. But where do you draw the line? If you can take a baseball bat to someone, why can't you rape them? Both are violent physical assaults. Please undestand, I'm not advocating a rape game. I'm trying to clarify that there are some lines that probably should not be crossed. (And yes, I know that there have been rape games.)

[Kelegacy]

Relative to your moral beliefs. You might agree with that guy in the Las Vegas thread who says the death penalty should be used for everyone.



If amount of content is your main criteria for judging a game.

Are you on a warpath today? In the game's context, the people you kill are usually bad. It's the underbelly of urban life, so you associate with dirty cops, pimps, and drug dealers. The game rationalizes their deaths. You are never sent to kill innocent children or puppies. The people you snuff out are bad, and your character is always the anti-hero.

Do you hate GTA? The content added expands an already deep game, though most of it can be ignored if you so choose. Me, I don't really enjoy dressing my guy up in new duds or cornrows, but some people might. Rockstar gave people the freedom to choose and added these new "RPG" elements to add depth to the experience, I think.

Eh, I'm done with this thread. I'm bored. If you want to argue Kef, let's do it where we're actually passionate about the subject matter. Like when fitbabits and I argue about boxers vs. tighty whities. Boxers win every time.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

I understand why people don't agree with his comments, but I've got to say I agree with him to a point. The GTA games were fantastic for the advances they made, but I can't see anyone really being able to defend the some of the things in the GTA series. Picking up a prostitute, having sex with her then running her over to get your money back is just unnecessary. And yeah, I know people say that it's no worse than a lot of the other stuff in the game, but when people started to hear about it, especially younger people, they wanted the game just so they could do this. From the experience I've had with people buying the game, they bought it for the violence. They didn't buy it because of any of the innovations the game featured and I think that in that regard, Rockstar cheapened the series for me.

I gotta go the opposite way on this. I just don't think it's fair to make such a statement (as WS did). The fact is, Rockstar made a game they were happy with. For someone to say they are angry with them over that is lame.
Grand Theft Auto is what it is. Rockstar seems to like making violent games. What makes them bad for this? Why get "angry" with them over it? Why target them specifically?
This upsets me a bit, as I expect this from the "mainstream" media who does not know any better. But from a game designer's perspective, how can you get upset at a company for making their vision? So what if he does not like it ... why must he publically shake his finger at them?
To do such a thing is condescending actually, and is talking down to them.

You know what I find the oddest? People point out certain industry people and say they do not like them for some comment they made. John Romero for example says a lot of dumb things. For that matter, Scott Miller of 3D Realms says even more dumb things. What has Rockstar ever said to annoy anyone? Is it rehashing the same games? If so, why doesn't anyone point out that Neversoft has been doing that with Tony Hawk for years? I read a lot of magazines, web sites, etc and never see them doing anything wrong from a PR POV. As a matter of fact, I go to their web site and see them promoting creativity by sponsoring short film contests and such. While not the biggest fan of their titles, I am often surprised by how much heat this company has taken for simply laying low and being successful.

[TheKeck]

of course there are going to be murders, thefts, and vulgarity. That's what makes the game great.

My opinion... that's not at ALL what makes the game great. Not even a little bit. What makes the game great is that IT'S A GREAT GAME. That is, it's fun to play, it's an amazing concept (at least it was in GTA 3), it's well done. The fact that it has the adult content is purely a sidenote in my book.

I have felt the same way as Warren Spector. Well, similar, at least. I wish people could see past the bad publicity the game has and understand that it's truly a remarkable thing. I wish people could understand that gamers DON'T like this just because it's got offensive content.

[Nikells]

I see what Warren is saying.
Its irresponsible of Rockstar as a games developer to keep churning out these ultra violent games when the industry is already under such scrutinising.

By making one crime simulation after another they are just adding fuel to the fire. I bet "Protective Mothers Against Violent Videogames" love Rockstar deep down.

Sure, I enjoyed GTA3, but anyone who says the GTA games are perfectly acceptable has an incredibly biased viewpoint.

[Deadend]

Know what Rockstar should be hated for?

Having a name like Rockstar, and yet hiding all the fucking devlopers from the press. I don't even know who was responsible for making GTA awesome! But I know other games.

GTA:SA made a RPG of a thug-life.
I am not sure if GTA 3 was revolutionary in design, or if it was technology finally catching up with the designers ideas.

[TKO]

I have a cousin that plays the game without killing anyone. She just drives around, and when she accidentally gets a cop's attention and they start chasing her, she gets upset.
Now that is the really great thing about GTA, you can just have fun and look around and stuff. I would like it if there was an option to start a mission-less game, where the whole world is unlocked with no restrictions. But I can understand why they didn't do it that way..

The missions do introduce you to sections of the landscape, just a little at a time, so you aren't overwhelmed with the enormity of it all. And you are led to places you might never find otherwise. It's like a super-violent tour-guide. ;)

I would like to give some friends a completed save-game, so they have the whole world to look around. But I'd also feel the need to show them stuff from time to time. Because it really is too huge to find everything on your own.

I have only opened up the second city, and I havent really driven through it yet. I have enjoyed beefing my character up at the local gym, driving around without a care in the world, increasing stats with cars, motorbikes, cycles, running, swimming, weapons, etc. You can customize your character with tats, hairstyles, and clothing. There is a LOT to do besides the main story. I've been lost in the world and have forgotten the missons many times. I am free to play the game at my own pace, and most times I do. It's not the basis of the game, but there's enough content in the GTA games to make regular games appear ill in comparison.
100% agreed. But dude, you *gotta* open up the whole city. There are some awesome things in that last third of the map. Planes, boats, casinos, another stadium, another two girls (one of them *very* useful ..unfortunately I only found her long after completing the story), the quarry.. Oh, just too much to see and do.

The morning fog of San Fierro may be cool, but the sand-storms of the Las Venturas desert are amazing. And both are the most hair-rasing things to try to *fly* through. This game may be known for its sex and violence, but what annoys me is when people don't get past those points to see the beauty of the San Andreas world.

[Kefkataran]

Are you on a warpath today? In the game's context, the people you kill are usually bad. It's the underbelly of urban life, so you associate with dirty cops, pimps, and drug dealers. The game rationalizes their deaths. You are never sent to kill innocent children or puppies. The people you snuff out are bad, and your character is always the anti-hero.

The game hardly rationalizes your death. I seriously think you're stretching here. Yes, the people you're killing are generally bad, but in many cases they're no worse than the main character, anti-hero or not. Once you get into the gang warfare it's even more hazy as to whether or not the people you're killing are really bad guys.

Do you hate GTA? The content added expands an already deep game, though most of it can be ignored if you so choose. Me, I don't really enjoy dressing my guy up in new duds or cornrows, but some people might. Rockstar gave people the freedom to choose and added these new "RPG" elements to add depth to the experience, I think.


Nope, I've always dug the GTA series since even before GTA3. I just think it's a bit ludicrous to suggest that Warren's point is null since you don't *have* to kill anyone. You DO have to kill people if you follow the missions, and regardless of the option of not following the missions, killing people is obvious a major focus in the game. Thus what he's saying: the media's going to pick up on that no matter what other minor extra features are in the game. Man, I spent a ton of time in GTA: SA playing Barbie with my guy, though.

If you want to argue Kef, let's do it where we're actually passionate about the subject matter.

Nothing I'm more passionate about than videogames and their place in society.

My opinion... that's not at ALL what makes the game great. Not even a little bit. What makes the game great is that IT'S A GREAT GAME. That is, it's fun to play, it's an amazing concept (at least it was in GTA 3), it's well done. The fact that it has the adult content is purely a sidenote in my book.

Exactly! And I think maybe that's what Warren was trying to get at here. We could have a similar style of game to less of an adult extreme and still have just as great of a game.

Its irresponsible of Rockstar as a games developer to keep churning out these ultra violent games when the industry is already under such scrutinising.

Maybe not irresponsible, persay, but at the very least it's not going to help the situation or the acceptance of games as a whole.

[Goronmon]

I gotta go the opposite way on this. I just don't think it's fair to make such a statement (as WS did). The fact is, Rockstar made a game they were happy with. For someone to say they are angry with them over that is lame.
Grand Theft Auto is what it is. Rockstar seems to like making violent games. What makes them bad for this? Why get "angry" with them over it? Why target them specifically?
This upsets me a bit, as I expect this from the "mainstream" media who does not know any better. But from a game designer's perspective, how can you get upset at a company for making their vision? So what if he does not like it ... why must he publically shake his finger at them?
To do such a thing is condescending actually, and is talking down to them.
The problem isn't that Rockstar makes violent games. The problem is that they are pretty much regarded as the king of the "sandbox"-type gameplay. Yet all the've been doing is pumping out more and more violent versions of GTA.

If Rockstar made a game that people of all ages could play, with the same depth and immersion of the GTA series, imagine how many minds it could change about the state of gaming today. Instead, people see the top-selling GTA series and figure that most gamers like to kill people for fun.

[bean19]

Games by Warren Spector taken from this bio (http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,127/).


Thief: Deadly Shadows (2004), Eidos Inc.
Backyard Wrestling: Don't Try This at Home (2003), Eidos Inc.
Deus Ex: Invisible War (2003), Eidos Inc.
Whiplash (2003), Eidos Inc.
Cel Damage (2002), Electronic Arts Inc.
Deus Ex (Game of the Year Edition) (2001), Eidos Interactive, Inc.
Frequency (2001), SCEA
Deus Ex (2000), Eidos Interactive, Inc.
Thief: The Dark Project (1998), Eidos Inc.
Crusader: No Remorse (1995), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
CyberMage: Darklight Awakening (1995), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Dragonsphere (1994), MicroProse Software, Inc.
System Shock (1994), Electronic Arts Inc., ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Wings of Glory (1994), Electronic Arts Inc.
Ultima VII, Part Two: Serpent Isle (1993), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Ultima VII, Part Two: The Silver Seed (1993), Electronic Arts Inc.
Wing Commander: Privateer - Righteous Fire (1993), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Ultima Underworld 2: Labyrinth of Worlds (1992), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (1992), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Ultima: Worlds of Adventure 2: Martian Dreams (1991), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Wing Commander II: Vengeance of the Kilrathi (1991), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Wing Commander: The Secret Missions 2: Crusade (1991), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Bad Blood (1990), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Ultima VI: The False Prophet (1990), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Wing Commander (1990), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Wing Commander: The Secret Missions (1990), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.
Space Rogue (1989), ORIGIN Systems, Inc.


To his credit, he has Wing Commander, Ultima, Deus Ex, and Thief:Deadly Shadows.

What occurs to me is that while he has made some industry and critically acclaimed games, he has never made a game that has also catered to console gamers that has been successful. His cultural impact has been indirect. . . He effects the industry that then goes on to make games that effect the culture.

Get out there and make another morally impactful open-ended RPG, or another FPS/RPG with levels and multiple paths to the level objectives (but give it good art this time).

Also, I think it is clear from his titles that he doesn't have a problem with violence in games. . . just random thuggery. I disagree about GTA though, I think the random thuggery is part of the immersiveness. I don't go around killing bums during GTA play sessions, but I COULD do that if I wanted to do so. What I want from GTA is better graphics and better controls when playing as a human and not a car.

[Karmakin]

The one thing that his comment really..well..disappoints me. He's impressed by GTA but doesn't like the subject matter?

Sorry. Can't be any different.

From a game design perspective, any sort of urban sandbox with the depth of the GTA series, by NECESSITY is going to have to delve pretty deep into a criminal element. Sure, there have been other games that have tried to have the urban sandbox, but they usually lack the depth. For starters, the ability to steal cars is essential to the gameplay experience. Everything in the game stems from that.

Actually, when you think about it, that's the only real degenerate thing about the game that's necessary. Everything else is part of the story. It's the freedom that causes all the controversy.

[Karmakin]

The problem isn't that Rockstar makes violent games. The problem is that they are pretty much regarded as the king of the "sandbox"-type gameplay. Yet all the've been doing is pumping out more and more violent versions of GTA.

If Rockstar made a game that people of all ages could play, with the same depth and immersion of the GTA series, imagine how many minds it could change about the state of gaming today. Instead, people see the top-selling GTA series and figure that most gamers like to kill people for fun.

You can't.

So tell me this. You create an urban simulator. You can't steal cars. But you need some way to obtain the various missions. Fine. Not as immersive however. And when you're in the missions you drive automatically to the destination, having to follow the speed limit and all traffic signs.

No, that would be a disaster of a game. And it wouldn't be "sandbox" anymore. And the last thing it would be is immersive. Or even fun for anybody.

The immsersive "sandbox" style of game that GTA presents, requires the criminal element to be present. I'm not the biggest fan of GTA myself, the controls and gameplay I find to be too unresponsive for my tastes. But the game wouldn't be possible without the content. And really. The game isn't that violent itself compared to other games. It just ALLOWS you to be really violent.

[MasterKwan]

"Crusader: No Remorse" was an awesome game. In that game, you could torch people and watch them run screaming till they fell down in an ashy heap. It was at least as violent as any of the GTA's.

I'm kind of surprised at how many of you gamers seem to advocate censorship. By saying Rockstar is hurting the industry with their violent games, you're indirectly saying they should be censoring themselves. As long as they aren't violating any laws, the first amendment says they can express themselves any damn way they please. Your attitude as gamers should be "I may not like what you say but, I'll defend your right to say it". The minute you start placing limits, you start down that slippery slope where, today you're censoring GTA and tomorrow, it's HL2.

Specter is totally off base (I have a feeling his comments are 1/2 in jest though). He has no right to be angry at Rockstar. If he doesn't like their work, he should make his own "sandbox" game and show the world how it's done. It's alot easier to complain about someone elses success than it is to be successful yourself.

[Kefkataran]

I'm kind of surprised at how many of you gamers seem to advocate censorship. By saying Rockstar is hurting the industry with their violent games, you're indirectly saying they should be censoring themselves.

Ack. I was afraid this might be misread as that, and it shouldn't be. I in NO WAY believe Rockstar should censor themselves. I think they should keep making whatever games they want, and chances are I'm gonna keep playing them, because like I said earlier, I totally love the GTA series. I just think Warren has a very strong point that they aren't helping people take videogames more seriously when, with the game design skills they have, it seems like they easily could. Whether or not they choose to is still, as always, up to them.

As long as they aren't violating any laws, the first amendment says they can express themselves any damn way they please. Your attitude as gamers should be "I may not like what you say but, I'll defend your right to say it". The minute you start placing limits, you start down that slippery slope where, today you're censoring GTA and tomorrow, it's HL2.

Like I said up there, defending myself at least, I totally think they can make and say whatever they want. Just like I can say whatever I want in criticism of them without implying that they shouldn't be able to continue saying what they want.

Specter is totally off base (I have a feeling his comments are 1/2 in jest though). He has no right to be angry at Rockstar. If he doesn't like their work, he should make his own "sandbox" game and show the world how it's done. It's alot easier to complain about someone elses success than it is to be successful yourself.

I think he does like the GTA series a lot, though. But I also agree with you that he should be trying to work on his own game to match or top this that fits his standards better. I also sort of got a half-joking vibe, but who knows.

[kickmybum]

Who the hell is Warren Spector?

[The Iron Weasel]

I refuse to believe that a genius of game design would have taken part in some of the filth on that bio.

[51|RandoM]

Eh, funny to watch you guys get your panties in a wad and go all crazy defending GTA.

Warren is commenting more on the people than he is on the game itself, specifically those people who can't get past the context of the game to see then place any value/judgement on the design itself. He then extends that point by giving rockstar the credit for brains enough to realize that this is exactly what would happen.

Personally, I agree with him, I don't see much point in a hooker-beating, drug-running, cop-killing simulator, it just doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't a life I'd live, nor one I'd choose for an escapist gaming session.

Stare not into the abyss... :-)

[Sloth]

Who the hell is Warren Spector?

that would have been an awesome troll if it had been the first or second post in the thread.

[The Iron Weasel]

Who the hell is Warren Spector?

Are you THAT new to gaming? :)

[mister_slim]

He's not bashing them, you retards. He just says he would like to see their skill applied to something that can appeal to a wider audience, perhaps.
Yeah, I'd love to see some of their design skill and production values applied to more mature subject matter. They do some very clever things with storytelling and design, but most of it just boils down to cheap button pushing.
The thing is, once a game series called "Grand Theft Auto" becomes hugely successful (ie: GTA3) How do you actually ride that success without carrying on with that game-title? And if you use that game-title, and continue with the anti-hero main character (which fans will naturally expect in a sequel), and keep upping the realism.. How do you portray gang-culture without the language?
I know quite a few people bought Manhunt because it was from Rockstar. That audience would follow them to other games.

[fitbabits]

The thing is, once a game series called "Grand Theft Auto" becomes hugely successful (ie: GTA3) How do you actually ride that success without carrying on with that game-title?
Ask Nintendo - there are people out there who would by a piece of bubble gum wrapped in shit if it had the Ninendo name on it.

[mister_slim]

Ask Nintendo - there are people out there that would by a piece of bubble gum wrapped in shit if it had the Ninendo name on it.
How'd you know about my Nintendo bubblegum?

[fitbabits]

How'd you know about my Nintendo bubblegum?
Because it used to be my Nintendo bubblegum! I traded it for some Microsoft sour apple hard candy. :)

[Shifteh]

The franchise is called Grand Theft Auto, not Happy Happy Bunny Land

Uh, I think that was his point.

He seems to be saying that, instead of just delving further and further into "let's see how violent we can make this" they should go "let's see how awesome we can make this."

You can make a game like GTA without being overly brutal.

Grand Theft Auto means stealing a car, not killing people wholesale.

[TKO]

You can make a game like GTA without being overly brutal.
Grand Theft Auto means stealing a car, not killing people wholesale.
Yes, but GTA has always had a criminal-culture storyline to it. I'm quite happy with that, and happy to see them continue with that theme. IMHO, it's just damn fun! Rockstar pours a huge amount of resources into making these game worlds, I don't see why they should bother with a "GTA: Tree Hugging Hippie Edition" :)

Nothing to stop some other developers trying for a more friendly theme. I think the sad thing is that most *other* companies just try to copy the formula. Big sandbox city, check .. criminal subculture .. check .. yada yada yada.

Oh oh oh, hey! "Super Mario Land: San Luigiville", anyone? hahaha!! :D

[The Iron Weasel]

I bought Manhunt and enjoyed it......was that wrong of me?

[MasterKwan]

Mister Slim, I've already been burned by "It's rockstar so, it's good". That trick doesn't work more than once, not for me anyway. Manhunt was a POS so, I'm alot more careful when buying one of their games. Ditto for "Deus Ex". I had high hopes for the second one, only to have them dashed.

Rockstar was a winning game plan. The times they've strayed from their winning model, they've failed. You can't argue with success. While some of you may not be into random killings, clearly millions of Americans aren't so squemish.

[Kefkataran]

The times they've strayed from their winning model, they've failed. You can't argue with success.

Midnight Club didn't fail, and The Warriors is supposed to be pretty good.

You can't argue with success. While some of you may not be into random killings, clearly millions of Americans aren't so squemish.

It's not about us (or anyone) being squeamish nor about them straying from their formula. The opposite in fact. The suggestion is that they stick to the same style of gameplay but make it focus on an area other than mass-killing or gangster/crime activity.

[bean19]

Midnight Club didn't fail, and The Warriors is supposed to be pretty good.


The Warriors is terrible.

It is a beat 'em up with all these poorly added on elements. . . plus, the beat 'em up portion that is the "main" part of the game is really shallow.

While this game is not getting stellar ratings by any means, I think it is still highly over-rated. I tried to "give it a chance" but when I got to the first stealth mission, it was back in the mail to Gamefly.

[MasterKwan]

I watched my 14 year old play "The Warriors". I thought it looked terrible too. Graphics were shabby, the story was nothing to write home about and I didn't like the brawling at all. I was surpised at the reviews myself. Good thing he game-flyed it.

Kefkataran, it's easy to say "stick to the formula but, without the mass-killings" but, is that the kind of game people want to play? My point was that rockstar HAS tried to do other things than GTA and they didn't do so well.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

Kefkataran, it's easy to say "stick to the formula but, without the mass-killings" but, is that the kind of game people want to play? My point was that rockstar HAS tried to do other things than GTA and they didn't do so well.

The Midnight Club series has sold well, as did Red Dead Revolver, Manunt, State of Emergency, Max Payne ...

Each of the titles listed here has sold over 1 million copies (Max Payne sold over 4 million). Does that qualify as not doing well? As a matter of fact, that company has yet to put out a game that bombed. I'm not saying all of the games listed are good, but they do sell very well.

[bean19]

However, their reputation is begginging to be questioned. You can only release so many games as bad as State of Emergency and The Warriors before people become wary. Also, Red Dead Revolver and Manhunt are only okay titles. Neither good, nor bad.

So that leaves us with the incredible GTA series, and the exemplory Max Payne series as feathers in their hat.

I'm wary of Bioware titles too. . . now that I got burned so badly by Jade Empire. Some of the problems were technology (too many load times), but others (like the basic and far too simple battle system) were flawed design.

The same is true of Lionhead. I love a lot of their games, but I waited a week before picking up Black and White 2. . . and I read 4 different reviews before making the purchase. Ultimately, my decision was based on the fact that the premise is novel, so I wasn't that disappointed when I encountered the flaws that are mentioned in the many reviews. It is still a very good game, if not a great one. Fable and Black & White 2 have me very wary of their games though. . . not that this is stopping me from picking up "The Movies" as soon as it arrives in stores. Being a fanatic gamer, I'm always super excited when a AAA title comes out with an interesting or original premise.

The only two companies that have me devoted right now are Blizzard and Valve. For years and years, you could pick up one of their admittedly rarely released games and have a good time or an amazingly great time with it. I've probably STILL logged more time with TFC and Counter-strike than all other games combined. Okay, I am also pretty likely to pick up anything with Sid Meier's name attached to it, but he has changed companies in the past, so it is the designer, not the developer company that has my devotion.

However, all this could change with one or two bad games. That's all it takes for me to become wary. Not that I won't follow their products with interest and still be more likely to pick them up despite faults. This is obviously true as I purchased Manhunt and Black and White 2 shortly after their release, but I will check reviews, and now that I have Gamefly, I may even rent before I buy (that's how I avoided "The Warriors").

Rockstar has made some great games, but they've made as many average or even bad games. I'll always perk up when I hear about one of their products, but I'll also always wait for a review from Gamespot.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

I'm trying to think of one company I am devoted to honestly. I guess I'm in the minority when I say I did not care for Half Life 2 (Although I see why people like it). Blizzard usually comes out with killer stuff (Although Warcraft 3 didn't do it for me, but Starcraft just wowed the heck out of me).

Every company has their share of games that don't please everyone I guess. I do agree with you though in that some companies, on announcement of a game, make me sit up and take notice.

[TKO]

The suggestion is that they stick to the same style of gameplay but make it focus on an area other than mass-killing or gangster/crime activity.
Mass killing: So vigilante missions should go? (the best sub-game) The gang violence should go too? (a good part of the story gone) And to try to limit most other killing, restrictions would be needed. (there goes the 'sandbox' world without limits)

Gangster/crime activity: No carjacking then? Well that's pretty much nerfed the game already. No pimping? (that's crime and violence)

Sure, I could understand how the game could be less gratuitous and violent without ruining gameplay or sales. But I don't think it would be easy. And as a developer, would you want to try? When you are putting many many millions of dollars into producing the next sequel, what are you gonna do?

[Kefkataran]

It is a beat 'em up with all these poorly added on elements. . . plus, the beat 'em up portion that is the "main" part of the game is really shallow.

Haven't played it myself. :) I've only heard things. I'll take your word for it.

Kefkataran, it's easy to say "stick to the formula but, without the mass-killings" but, is that the kind of game people want to play? My point was that rockstar HAS tried to do other things than GTA and they didn't do so well.

But they haven't tried GTA-style gameplay that isn't extreme in violence or adult content, have they?

Mass killing: So vigilante missions should go? (the best sub-game) The gang violence should go too? (a good part of the story gone) And to try to limit most other killing, restrictions would be needed. (there goes the 'sandbox' world without limits)

Gangster/crime activity: No carjacking then? Well that's pretty much nerfed the game already. No pimping? (that's crime and violence)

Sure, I could understand how the game could be less gratuitous and violent without ruining gameplay or sales. But I don't think it would be easy. And as a developer, would you want to try? When you are putting many many millions of dollars into producing the next sequel, what are you gonna do?

They could just make the game more realistic in what happens when you do violent shit. You could have the option but have their be REAL repurcussions if you choose to go that route. I certainly never said crime and violence needs to be got rid of completely, but does it need to be the focus of most everything you do in the game? Anyways, no one is saying Rockstar NEEDS to do this; it's just a suggestion that could, if done well, quite easily gain the gaming world a little more acceptance.

[mister_slim]

Because it used to be my Nintendo bubblegum! I traded it for some Microsoft sour apple hard candy. :)
Oooh. I like hard candy.

Does it glow in the dark?

[fitbabits]

Oooh. I like hard candy.

Does it glow in the dark?
Yup, it sure does. Kinda peppermint green. :)

[Kelegacy]

Yup, it sure does. Kinda peppermint green. :)
What does Sony make? Taffy? Gummy worms? I'm trying to think what the middle ground would be, if Microsoft has hard candy and Nintendo has gum.

[fitbabits]

What does Sony make? Taffy? Gummy worms? I'm trying to think what the middle ground would be, if Microsoft has hard candy and Nintendo has gum.
It would have to be Laffy Taffy - with a Kuturagi joke/quote on every wrapper. :)

[TKO]

What does Sony make? Taffy? Gummy worms?
Sony has outsourced an extra-sticky taffy which looks rather stylish. But upon investigation it appears that this taffy installs itself in the consumers digestive-tract without their permission, restricting their ability to utilize it for digestive purposes not approved of by Sony TFG, or consume other brands of taffy.

Its behaviour has been analyzed by a nutritionist and determined to be potentially hazardous as, if removal is attempted after consuming other types of taffy, it could unexpectedly rip out the users heart, either killing them, or turning them into a Sony executive.

When asked to comment, Sony executives would only say the sweet was perfectly harmless, since most users didn't know what a heart was anyway.

[Kefkataran]

When asked to comment, Sony executives would only say the sweet was perfectly harmless, since most users didn't know what a heart was anyway.

Damn, those guys are good. They've got a point.

[fitbabits]

Sony has outsourced an extra-sticky taffy which looks rather stylish. But upon investigation it appears that this taffy installs itself in the consumers digestive-tract without their permission, restricting their ability to utilize it for digestive purposes not approved of by Sony TFG, or consume other brands of taffy.

Its behaviour has been analyzed by a nutritionist and determined to be potentially hazardous as, if removal is attempted after consuming other types of taffy, it could unexpectedly rip out the users heart, either killing them, or turning them into a Sony executive.

When asked to comment, Sony executives would only say the sweet was perfectly harmless, since most users didn't know what a heart was anyway.
This is the funniest thing I've read in ages! Thank you, TKO! :D