Article of the Day

[malymin]

SUPERHOT VR's Story was Removed. What?

But the thing that really disturbs me is the artistic sanitization. SUPERHOT VR was a work that had disturbing elements. It had the potential to make people uncomfortable. It disgusts me to see things like “discomfort” treated as objectively harmful in art. A self-destructive spiral leading to suicide is disturbing and uncomfortable, but I also found it to be a profound experience. It’s good to consider and interact with discomfort! The death of an unnamed fictional character is not so obscene that it cannot be allowed to be depicted, no matter how immersive the depiction is. Is it okay for these stories to exist? The answer to this question must be yes, but with the SUPERHOT VR cuts, someone is clumsily trying to answer no.

An article about a metanarrative game being stripped of its entire narrative post-release, by its own developers.

Comments

[zenigotchas]

I was worried this was going to be an article that tries to conflate an artist changing their mind with being the same as censorship, but since skimming it, it seems like it's a lot fairer and more well thought out than that. I'm gonna have to read this when I'm less tired and more able to understand it.
(I also just love any art that is supposed to be about the pornography of violence or any discussion about said art)

[malymin]

Let me know when you find the time to read it! (With a clear and well rested head, of course.)

[zenigotchas]

aaaaa I wrote a lot. I'm embarrassed! Please mind any potential redundancy, that happens when I'm socially anxious. And yeah, please mind the social anxiety too!

I decided to give this two reads. (I like to do that with things I get extremely uncomfortable about on the first impression. I read it once, sit with it and then go back in. I think I'm someone who develops more of a nuanced view and sharpened critically driven thoughts if she does that).

So I think if I had to sum up this person's opinion piece it's

a. W taste in video games, my dude. I've never even played it but it sounds like something I'd be very VERY fond of. A creepypasta come to life filled with lots of body horror, psychological horror, and thematic subjects like addiction, violence, power trips, egotism, etc.

b. But... I don't think I would've used the same reasoning they did to support their argument. I'm probably closer to being on the opposite spectrum of how I analyze and dig into art.

c. To give one example, I wouldn't justify NOT censoring SUPERHOT VR by saying art is a consensual experience. I also don't think that having to unlock things is coercive, because (and I understand this is not what they intend) it sounds very humanizing on the part of the art like the art is a living and breathing being, but it isn't, it's just a thing. Consent happens to humans and between humans, you and are I are people, we are consenting to chat, but if I was a waterbottle then neither I nor you would really need consent to have, say, a silly conversation where you were talking to me as if I was a person, nor can any sort of forcing happen in that scenario because objects have no will to force or to be forced against.

I also am just someone who doesn't see art as an inherently social thing, you know? I think this is what the author must feel, but it isn't how I see it. I guess my view of art is more.... Clinical. It's stuff we make physically or digitally or mentally. The song you made up in your head, even if nobody but you sees it, is art, in my eyes. But I can't think of a good way to articulate why without sounding circular by accident like "it's a song because it follows what makes a song a song."

d. Similarly, I did appreciate the balance of censorship vs societal progress. Not every idea is a good one, but also KEEPING something as a physical reminder of what was once socially acceptable is important for the sake of history and the truth. It's why even though some have aged to be horribly racist, we keep those old Looney Tunes shorts as a relic of a much different time, so we DON'T repeat the same actions the older generations did.

e. But I also don't think art is subjective or that the author is dead, you know? I don't think the art becomes its own thing once released into the great wilderness of the world. I think context still matters and the creator gets their final say. Doesn't mean it's not unjust censorship, as it goes back to my second point: I would be on this guy's side of the argument, but my reasoning would just be different. One (but not the only) example: Censoring does nothing because the game has been out for a long time. You won't be saving anyone because if they didn't want it years ago then they shouldn't/wouldn't have bought it. You're just going to waste your time, resources and your own art just to make some sort of statement.

f. Just wanted to add to one of the author's points I liked: But not only is that is this game is interesting and bold for bringing up suicide, but it's not fair of the creator to even say it really SAYS anything about it either (def aything that encourages it). It doesn't tell you suicide is bad, it doesn't tell you it's good, it simply says "wouldn't it be fucked up to develop an addiction that spirals into a suicide?" I think this is not brought up enough in discussions about depictions!

g. Really the ONLY thing I've would've changed is to make it calmer. It's def, in part, a persuasive text and while I agree with this person already, I think their piece would've been more appealing to read if it was less inflammatory in parts.

Anyway this makes me grateful none of my favorite dark games and the like have ever faced this kind of scrutiny from their own creators ([urge to list all of the cool fucked up stuff that would be censored otherwise if their creators were like SUPERHOT's rising]).

I'd be sad if I had them physically changed even though they were fine, dandy and were already enriching my life a lot. It really is interesting to see the creator say he feels like the game was teaching backwards ideas, because for me personally, seeing horror has always made me feel more empathetic and loving afterward, just because I realize how easy it is to cause human pain. It makes me want to rush out there and find the potential victims of irl horrors and spread positivity.

But... As some comments suggested in there, the creator may have had something happen to him personally, because his damage control definitely came off as anxious and guilt ridden. It's not my business to speculate on what one guy was doing or feeling up to that point, but I certainly feel for him, even though I think he did something very wrong to his game and his customers deserve to have the old game restored.

Anyway thanks for reading and posting this.