This year’s E3 “crossed a line of taste”, says Deus Ex and Epic Mickey dev Warren Spector

"Do we really need characters defined by rape?" Jesus Christ has it even been confirmed that rape takes place in the game? It seems likely that they were hinting at it (which would be realistic) rather than it actually taking place. I am assuming that Eidos is using this "controversy" as free publicity. We all want games to be considered as art or at the very least a medium for "mature" stories and yet we all act like overly PC soccer moms whenever we are faced with anything that isn't bloody violence.

Games become blindingly more grotesque and action packed every year, yet we can't allow a mature theme into a game. Your right, it sort of bugs me how immature some are.

Take a look at Law and Order SVU. This show is syndicated on local television channels every damn day. Hell, here it even runs as early as 4 PM. Almost every episode deals with rape or shows a dead body. Bravo developers/journalist/gamers for showing how mature we can be. *insert slow clap here

It's not just about the fact that rape is a part of the game, it's how the devs went about explaining it. They talked about Lara Croft like the only way to define her character was to turn her into some helpless little girl who gets the shit beaten out of her with the possibility of becoming a rape victim if you can't do a little quicktime event. Since when was that needed to define a character and since when did Lara Croft need that at all? Look at Master Chief from Halo. Do we really need him to have some back story where he gets beaten up constantly and, as the devs would say "whenever he thinks he's rising up from the darkest parts of their life that's when we knock em back down again!" That is the problem I have with this Lara Croft reboot, not that rape is something that's not already part of every other form of media, just that it has no reason to be in this particular story. Seriously whenever the devs talk about this game I can't help but think of them as people with some very sick masochistic thoughts in their heads and the Lara Croft series is where they decided to go to let it all out.

"It's not just about the fact that rape is a part of the game, it's how the devs went about explaining it." -This article is not the one that this is brought up on. Although I agree that they explained it badly, it does not mean that just because he explained it horribly means they should back down. The issue is just "is rape needed?" "Since when was that needed to define a character and since when did Lara Croft need that at all?" -It's always needed to define a character, or you have to attachment to them. Lara is being rebooted, so she needs that now more than ever in my opinion. "Look at Master Chief from Halo. Do we really need him to have some back story where he gets beaten up constantly and, as the devs would say "whenever he thinks he's rising up from the darkest parts of their life that's when we knock em back down again!" -Master Chief was taken from his home planet, forced to become a child soldier, since, what was it, six? Then he watched as the other friends/"family" he knew growing up died from augmentation and missions while he has the sole ability of "luck". So yeah, Master Chief has much more added to that as well. Traumatizing? Heck yeah. Here's a quote from someone else's post: "So a character can't be defined by a traumatic experience? Spider-man and Batman are defined by murder. Superman is defined by mass, planetary genocide. It is what gives a character depth." You may think it doesn't do anything for character, but I do disagree on that matter. I believe that those harrowing experiences makes them unique, shows why they act a certain way, and evokes more feelings in the story-line than to just say "Lara was a spoiled brat, thats why she acts the way she does." =/ Just the fact that we have to have this conversation proves how it evokes something within us.

*No attachment This is also why a EDIT button in needed as well.

I think a little variety at E3 would have helped quite a bit. to me, it seemed like every dev. was out there to compete for the most shock-worthy game... which in all honesty, proved to make a stale show. When we look at games like the original Soldier of Fortune, it's pretty clear that grotesque violence hasn't just recently exploded (blowing body parts off off of a corpse, faces and all?). It's a shame that they chose to highlight only the violence, instead of the interesting games that desperately need the publicity. Honestly, it just shows how easily most people are entertained, all it takes is a dude begging for his life, and slow motion blood spatter... I definitely want video games to be considered a form of art, at some point. But, I think that puts me and others in a minority. Most of gamers just really want to blow shit up, or pop heads... And that's cool, take from gaming whatever you want, but it's these people who are holding gaming back. Instead of wowing people with creativity and originality, a lot of gamers are content with a new CoD, or Halo, Crysis... etc. I'm not bashing these games, I'm just saying that most gamers don't want more than that, and that really bugs me. At the same time though, I guess games really can't be considered art until we pass a certain "maturity" threshold, and that's usually done through controversy.

I must admit that the level of gore and violence in this E3 was slightly excessive, especially since it is plain obvious that some of these gory details were purely meant for people to squeal over, rather than to prove a point. Last of Us was a proper form of violence as it was dark, but you can tell there was a purpose behind the brutality. If there is a solid need for the violence then go ahead and I too will probably enjoy it, but putting violence in as crutch to make the process easier should not be done. Unless you are making Mortal Kombat, that franchise was branded as excessive gore material and is the only thing that makes it stand out to a degree when compared to other fighter.

"Do we really need characters defined by rape? Do we really need that? Come on, guys, we can be more creative than that" So a character can't be defined by a traumatic experience? Spider-man and Batman are defined by murder. Superman is defined by mass, planetary genocide. It is what gives a character depth. Was it more creative when what defined Lara were her tits? Don't think so. And there really wasn't an over abundance of violence. most of Microsoft and Sony's conference was boring crap no one cared about (and you know this because no one is talking about any of it), and so all you remember is those other 30 minutes of things that kept your attention. It was same at the publisher conferences as well.

But its still the same thing. You pointed out Batman, Superman, and Spiderman who are all defined by deaths of various scales. Lara was defined by BOOBS changing that to rape would be the the same thing. She is a woman, in media women get raped, its part of the same small girl only tool set which includes BOOBS.

And STILL we have people thinking Lara Croft is "defined by rape" in the Tomb Raider reboot. For god's sake, how many times do we have to drill it into your skulls (Oooo, violence! It's a Mature Rated comment!) that she isn't? Please, Mr. Spector, you can't try to act like you know everything about E3 just because you watched a highlight reel.

This man has earned more respect from me then ususally.