This was a fascinating read. I remember hearing about some kind of controversy around the game in 2021 but I somehow missed the details. I played SUPERHOT VR in its original form and while I can...
This was a fascinating read. I remember hearing about some kind of controversy around the game in 2021 but I somehow missed the details.
I played SUPERHOT VR in its original form and while I can clearly remember the scenes that Piotr objected to I can't say I had as strong an emotional reaction as either Piotr or the author of this article seem to have had. Mainly I remember being surprised that a mechanic like that was something that Valve was allowing in a VR game on their platform. It being in VR made it feel just real enough that I worried it could be too much for some people.
I do agree with the author on the idea that modifying a product after release is fundamentally something that should not be allowed. I object to anything that reduces or limits the ownership of goods that people have already purchased. I want to state this clearly because I disagree with the framing of much of the rest of what the article says.
The author seems to be implying that Piotr made this change out of a stance of arrogance. While that may be the case, I think that the author either ignored or just missed what in my opinion are clear indications of Piotr suffering from some kind of mental crisis. Much of what Piotr says sounds like the ramblings of someone who has gone through or is in the process of going through extreme mental distress. He makes vague statements and oddly phrased or almost nonsensical justifications. Also, I don't think we can just ignore the timing of the changes to the story - 2021. This was a dark time for a lot of people and IMO it's easy to see how that could exacerbate or possibly even instigate the distress Piotr felt about the darker elements of the game's story. The author of the article never delves into this context and I think it does a disservice to the article as a whole.
No, this kind of mental crisis does not fully justify what Piotr did but if I put myself in his position I can see why he would be distressed by having his name on the work. Without further evidence, I just can't buy the article's ending assertion that characterizes Piotr as some kind of anti artistic expression villain.
I'm in agreement. I don't know Piotr, and I don't like to speculate, but I assume he or someone he knew had some manner of experience with self-harm or poor mental health. As you said, not unheard...
I'm in agreement. I don't know Piotr, and I don't like to speculate, but I assume he or someone he knew had some manner of experience with self-harm or poor mental health. As you said, not unheard of in 2021. What he did, based on his Discord messages, is obviously a personal emotional response first and foremost, not a planned attempt to sanitise the game for market appeal or anything else.
Which is such a shame, since hearing about the story has made me interested in playing this game! If I'd have known earlier that it did something interesting with the medium of VR, I'd have thought more of it than just a VR adaptation of the first game.
The author has a major axe to grind and is guilty of every charge they lever at Piotr. I get being mad about a change, but considering the content and the expression of the content, and the...
The author has a major axe to grind and is guilty of every charge they lever at Piotr. I get being mad about a change, but considering the content and the expression of the content, and the author's own expressed severe discomfort at experiencing said content (shifting the headset to lessen the impact of the experience), there seems to be an ironic lack of empathy for the person who created the moment.
I played SuperHot and a good chunk of MCD, but haven't experienced the VR game. The part where you kill yourself in the first was a huge, incredibly dark moment. I can see where Piotr was coming from with the similar scene in VR, and also don't think it unreasonable for him to not want that as part of his legacy.
I agree that perhaps preserving it should be done somehow, but even in Piotr's responses don't see a mentally ill person or a person in crisis, but a remorseful developer who made a decision people disagree with about controversial game content. He is not conflicted about his decision, he wishes to remove content potentially normalizing suicide from the game he made because he's no longer okay with it.
Side note: I think the first game's scene is sufficiently abstracted as to tell a similar story more "safely," at least without the miming of pointing a gun at one's own head in the real world.
This reminds me of Spec Ops: The Line. That game didn’t have any editorializing after release, but its story plays with the same themes as superhot. The dev seems insistant that the story wasn’t...
This reminds me of Spec Ops: The Line. That game didn’t have any editorializing after release, but its story plays with the same themes as superhot. The dev seems insistant that the story wasn’t an essential part of the game, but it just was. He is wrong. The Line without the story would have been a somewhat competent and slightly interesting modern military shooter, but nothing special. Superhot’s gameplay is far more interesting and unique than The Line, and it can act as a fun standalone experience. But fun games are a dime a dozen. I don’t want more fun games. I want more games that make me think. Superhot VR did that, and doesn’t do it now. That is a sad loss.
Also it is inexcusable to change this for existing purchasers. Want to stop selling it? Fine. Want to remove those scenes for new purchases? Fine (as long as it’s properly communicated). You don’t get to break into my house and forcefully steal my property.
I'm a big fan of the original game, and I loved Mind Control Delete, but I never owned a VR headset, so this drama completely passed me by. I think this blog post is a little long-winded, but it...
I'm a big fan of the original game, and I loved Mind Control Delete, but I never owned a VR headset, so this drama completely passed me by. I think this blog post is a little long-winded, but it does explain what happened, why it happened, and the writer's thoughts on this form of censorship.
In short, the story seems to have been removed due to the personal views of the CEO changing years after the game's release. I think it's an interesting situation for sure, though one that sucks for players. The story in Superhot is usually secondary to the gameplay so while I understand where the CEO was coming from, I disagree with it on principle.
Stephen King regrets writing the book Rage, a book about school shootings, and that's why it is no longer in print or available as an ebook legally. Piotr would have been within his rights to...
Stephen King regrets writing the book Rage, a book about school shootings, and that's why it is no longer in print or available as an ebook legally.
Piotr would have been within his rights to completely stop selling Superhot VR. Is that somehow better?
I'd argue yes. Delisting an item is very different than retroactively removing things from people's purchases. Editting in an example based on Rage. I read Rage some years back in a short story...
I'd argue yes. Delisting an item is very different than retroactively removing things from people's purchases.
Editting in an example based on Rage. I read Rage some years back in a short story compilation book. I expect it to still be present in that book not just because it was physical paper, but also because the book was advertised and purchased with that story in it. It's different if new prints omit it though. Those new prints were purchased under new expectations. People can still be annoyed that it'll be omitted going forward, but at least people are getting to keep the product they paid for.
Oh I'm aware. I'm totally behind people being able to own their own games, including access to vanilla versions. But I'm also in favor of artists re-releasing their own work with modifications....
Oh I'm aware. I'm totally behind people being able to own their own games, including access to vanilla versions.
But I'm also in favor of artists re-releasing their own work with modifications. Even the Star Wars special editions.
The real problem isn't the patching. It's the lack of ownership. Buy your games on GoG and archive your installers.
Call your representative. Digital goods are still goods and should be treated as such. Returns and ownership transfers inclusive.
I only ever played the VR version when it was new, and I felt the scene where you shoot yourself was completely out of place for the sake of edginess. Years later now, I've often seen people who...
I only ever played the VR version when it was new, and I felt the scene where you shoot yourself was completely out of place for the sake of edginess. Years later now, I've often seen people who played the desktop game talk about how it was an important part of the story, and I have no idea what they're talking about. I think the VR version always had a lot of story content cut out, and/or I skipped through the story text because it was a slow interruption while I was standing ready to play in VR and because text was also very hard to read on the original Vive headset which I was using at the time (and I assume most players used back then). I don't feel confident that the author understands how the story was originally presented in the VR version. It's a shame that the VR version's original story isn't still officially available as an option, but I think the newer release is probably a better default experience.
This was a fascinating read. I remember hearing about some kind of controversy around the game in 2021 but I somehow missed the details.
I played SUPERHOT VR in its original form and while I can clearly remember the scenes that Piotr objected to I can't say I had as strong an emotional reaction as either Piotr or the author of this article seem to have had. Mainly I remember being surprised that a mechanic like that was something that Valve was allowing in a VR game on their platform. It being in VR made it feel just real enough that I worried it could be too much for some people.
I do agree with the author on the idea that modifying a product after release is fundamentally something that should not be allowed. I object to anything that reduces or limits the ownership of goods that people have already purchased. I want to state this clearly because I disagree with the framing of much of the rest of what the article says.
The author seems to be implying that Piotr made this change out of a stance of arrogance. While that may be the case, I think that the author either ignored or just missed what in my opinion are clear indications of Piotr suffering from some kind of mental crisis. Much of what Piotr says sounds like the ramblings of someone who has gone through or is in the process of going through extreme mental distress. He makes vague statements and oddly phrased or almost nonsensical justifications. Also, I don't think we can just ignore the timing of the changes to the story - 2021. This was a dark time for a lot of people and IMO it's easy to see how that could exacerbate or possibly even instigate the distress Piotr felt about the darker elements of the game's story. The author of the article never delves into this context and I think it does a disservice to the article as a whole.
No, this kind of mental crisis does not fully justify what Piotr did but if I put myself in his position I can see why he would be distressed by having his name on the work. Without further evidence, I just can't buy the article's ending assertion that characterizes Piotr as some kind of anti artistic expression villain.
I'm in agreement. I don't know Piotr, and I don't like to speculate, but I assume he or someone he knew had some manner of experience with self-harm or poor mental health. As you said, not unheard of in 2021. What he did, based on his Discord messages, is obviously a personal emotional response first and foremost, not a planned attempt to sanitise the game for market appeal or anything else.
Which is such a shame, since hearing about the story has made me interested in playing this game! If I'd have known earlier that it did something interesting with the medium of VR, I'd have thought more of it than just a VR adaptation of the first game.
The author has a major axe to grind and is guilty of every charge they lever at Piotr. I get being mad about a change, but considering the content and the expression of the content, and the author's own expressed severe discomfort at experiencing said content (shifting the headset to lessen the impact of the experience), there seems to be an ironic lack of empathy for the person who created the moment.
I played SuperHot and a good chunk of MCD, but haven't experienced the VR game. The part where you kill yourself in the first was a huge, incredibly dark moment. I can see where Piotr was coming from with the similar scene in VR, and also don't think it unreasonable for him to not want that as part of his legacy.
I agree that perhaps preserving it should be done somehow, but even in Piotr's responses don't see a mentally ill person or a person in crisis, but a remorseful developer who made a decision people disagree with about controversial game content. He is not conflicted about his decision, he wishes to remove content potentially normalizing suicide from the game he made because he's no longer okay with it.
Side note: I think the first game's scene is sufficiently abstracted as to tell a similar story more "safely," at least without the miming of pointing a gun at one's own head in the real world.
This reminds me of Spec Ops: The Line. That game didn’t have any editorializing after release, but its story plays with the same themes as superhot. The dev seems insistant that the story wasn’t an essential part of the game, but it just was. He is wrong. The Line without the story would have been a somewhat competent and slightly interesting modern military shooter, but nothing special. Superhot’s gameplay is far more interesting and unique than The Line, and it can act as a fun standalone experience. But fun games are a dime a dozen. I don’t want more fun games. I want more games that make me think. Superhot VR did that, and doesn’t do it now. That is a sad loss.
Also it is inexcusable to change this for existing purchasers. Want to stop selling it? Fine. Want to remove those scenes for new purchases? Fine (as long as it’s properly communicated). You don’t get to break into my house and forcefully steal my property.
I'm a big fan of the original game, and I loved Mind Control Delete, but I never owned a VR headset, so this drama completely passed me by. I think this blog post is a little long-winded, but it does explain what happened, why it happened, and the writer's thoughts on this form of censorship.
In short, the story seems to have been removed due to the personal views of the CEO changing years after the game's release. I think it's an interesting situation for sure, though one that sucks for players. The story in Superhot is usually secondary to the gameplay so while I understand where the CEO was coming from, I disagree with it on principle.
Stephen King regrets writing the book Rage, a book about school shootings, and that's why it is no longer in print or available as an ebook legally.
Piotr would have been within his rights to completely stop selling Superhot VR. Is that somehow better?
I'd argue yes. Delisting an item is very different than retroactively removing things from people's purchases.
Editting in an example based on Rage. I read Rage some years back in a short story compilation book. I expect it to still be present in that book not just because it was physical paper, but also because the book was advertised and purchased with that story in it. It's different if new prints omit it though. Those new prints were purchased under new expectations. People can still be annoyed that it'll be omitted going forward, but at least people are getting to keep the product they paid for.
Oh I'm aware. I'm totally behind people being able to own their own games, including access to vanilla versions.
But I'm also in favor of artists re-releasing their own work with modifications. Even the Star Wars special editions.
The real problem isn't the patching. It's the lack of ownership. Buy your games on GoG and archive your installers.
Call your representative. Digital goods are still goods and should be treated as such. Returns and ownership transfers inclusive.
I only ever played the VR version when it was new, and I felt the scene where you shoot yourself was completely out of place for the sake of edginess. Years later now, I've often seen people who played the desktop game talk about how it was an important part of the story, and I have no idea what they're talking about. I think the VR version always had a lot of story content cut out, and/or I skipped through the story text because it was a slow interruption while I was standing ready to play in VR and because text was also very hard to read on the original Vive headset which I was using at the time (and I assume most players used back then). I don't feel confident that the author understands how the story was originally presented in the VR version. It's a shame that the VR version's original story isn't still officially available as an option, but I think the newer release is probably a better default experience.