SUPERHOT VR had its whole story patched out. I thought about it slightly too long and fell into rabbit hole. It doesn't make sense, it's bad that it happened, and it prompts a whole bunch of naval-gazing about Art.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
SUPERHOTs story is definitely an odd ball in general. The most common sentiment you can find about it is that the original's story is seen as unnecessary, while MCD actively screws *too much* with the player to the point where it stops being interesting.
Didn't know that they patched out the story of the VR title - to be frank, I find it more than a bit bizarre and makes me somehow think less of the developer. MCD fucks with the player beyond what is reasonable, but the VR game doing it is suddenly too much?
Interesting article, and well written. I'm not sure I completely agree with your conclusions about removing things from art being objectively bad, though. People having bought the art having it changed makes things more complex but...
At the same time I don't think the artist has an obligation to sell or continue to support art which they object to in some way. Maybe the best way to handle this would have been to preserve the old version in a beta branch but I don't think the artists should be required to.
It brings to mind the controversy a few years back when Skullgirls removed a handful of panty shots. Does that change the game for people who bought it? Yes. Is it a bad thing? I don't really think so?
That is two totally different versions of censorship imo.
The panty shots did nothing to change the game story wise or gameplay wise. With this, removing the story is literally removing some of the original intent of the game. If you don't agree with a work anymore, it's still somewhat (c)
selfish to deny access to the original version, because even though *you* don't like it anymore, there are people that your art affected personally. (There are some exceptions like if the original art was harmful, but I don't think this applies here)
It was way more than just some animations that wouldn't fly anymore.
They also changed a story CG to be less obvious because "police violence makes us squeamish" (even though well, it's done by villains and is a bad thing in-story; the character it happens to is an ex-cop, he quit over it) (cont.)
There's a huge difference between continuing to sell/support art, and removing it from the hands of people who not only already own a copy of it, but paid for the privilege. That's kind of the primary complaint of the article.
Like, what's the logical endpoint here in terms of "ownership" of the things we buy? If they can do this, can my copy of Crusader Kings 3 someday be replaced by a copy of "Rattler Race" from Windows 95? This concerns consumer rights, and when it comes to media distributed online, we have none.
i always appreciate how thorough your research is, so many stories like this go without proper digging into the meat and important aspects get lost to the ether of "news story that everyone talks about for a week" focusing solely on the surface details despite how relevant deeper details can be
great article, clearly written. I had no idea, never played VR. it is so so so weird to me, especially *as a programmer* (tho not a game dev), to see this framed as "the story is wrong *and* unimportant, only the technical challenges of programming matter". could not be more wrong on that
Superhot VR and Beat Saber were the greats of the first "golden age" of VR imo, and the two games that convinced me to buy a WMR set with my first paycheck. Some of my most cherished gaming memories. This is sad.
I remember playing Superhot, and dropping it midway through because of the story. It was violating some deep principle within me. I even thought about refunding it but didn't in the end.
Never used VR myself, but that's wild. Guy's going full George Lucas.
"Han shot first, showing that he's selfish and dangerous, but gets redeemed by Luke and co."
"Greedo shot first, because Han has always been a good guy."
Good piece.
Really feels like the artist either has a mental breakdown, a "religious experience", or was too bothered by parents getting upset that they did this... Which is more disturbing to me then if the reason was simply "I want to market to everyone so we removed it".
I played this game not realizing a story had been present and patched out, and even then I felt its absence. It's really frustrating to learn that I'd missed out on something like that on my first try.
I'd lean on the side of art belongs to the people not the artist once released. At the same time I understand why it would tear you up knowing children/parents and depressed folk were jumpscared with an edgy idea you came up with randomly without thinking
Great article, this level of about face turn feels like a religious/13 step program style changing of perspective which is utterly bizarre. I'm gonna give this another full read to properly digest but more than anything else this is absurd.
Former speedrunner of superhot 1 here, although I was only ever tangentially involved with the official discords. Thanks for writing this, it was a really wild thing to be around for and I'm glad it's been preserved in some form
Nothing I can think of except that it is likely possible to use Steam's depot downloading feature to revert to a previous version of the game? This is a method we use for the first game to run on a specific patch. I thought about trying to do it for SHVR but never ended up doing it
It's a neat tidbit that kinda slots into a grey area between piracy and an official solution, I'm not sure if I'd want to be quoted without actually knowing if it works or not (I know it does for MCD and I don't see why SHVR would be different but again, haven't tried it for myself)
every time I see some incredible work on the internet and the author follows me I am legally obligated to follow back, them's the rules. absolutely stellar post
Love love loved this write up and the thinking behind it, one of my favorite games essays of the year
What might explain it: around late 2020 Meta was seeing a higher adoption of Oculus sell through to kids, Superhot was still one of the top 10 vr games on their store, & early 2021 saw a TOS change
My assumption at the time was Meta was worried about a controversy/liability of a game where you do that thing you do in Superhot VR, made clear their new “no self harm” clause would be enforced, and informed devs that they would be subject to removal
The self-harm TOS thing makes sense because that's not something that's been covered much in games before… but the young userbase? What the hell is the ESRB for anyway?
The ESRB is primarily for devs who want to put physical copies of their games in retail stores. This used to be almost all of the industry, now it’s not. Many digital storefronts have no hard requirements for ESRB ratings, so many devs don’t bother.
That doesn't explain the dev's commentary on finding the story fundamentally objectionable though. If it was just due to TOS, surely he could have said "Meta forced our hands in this, we had to remove the story" and people would have likely been far more understanding of it.
Maybe? He could be genuine in expressing that message within the game/art was one he no longer found worth communicating, or it could be cover for "hey this game makes like Actual Money Well Past Launch & That Is Worth More Than Keeping It". Part of what I love about the essay is that exploration
Maybe, but to me the way he justifies his decision doesn't read like the words of someone who doesn't fully believe in that justification. It could of course be that TOS was a factor that pushed him to actually take the decision, but there does seem to be a genuine believe behind it.
nice thought-provoking article. people often tolerate/demand patches to "destroy" aspects of their games (bugfixes) and we have accepted systems to automate/require it. here's an extreme case. many artists over the years have destroyed their works, but now we allow corps to destroy our prints too.
i find what the dev did to be quite fascinating, but if e.g. Steam had a universal way to rollback versions to whatever past version (maybe it does? PS4 doesn't) it's a non-issue. I've tried to avoid patching some games due to helpful glitches i didn't want to lose, and the platforms make it tough!
But SUPERHOTs story feels very on the nose now how we watch people give up their humanity and morals in the race to make machines that destroy and distort the world we live in.
We've seen people destroy themselves over crypto
We've seen people destroy themselves over NFTs
We've seen people destroy themselves over Metaverses
Now we are watching people destroy themselves over AI.
Honestly, I do think I get why they did it, even if I don't think it was the best way to do so.
SUPERHOT VR is one of the most common "demo what makes VR special to your friends and family" games, and those scenes are absolutely in "your mom is too uncomfortable to continue playing" territory.
But this is so easily fixable. In fact SUPERHOT VR has a specially labeled "guest mode" that re-enables the tutorial and starts at the beginning. I'd be surprised if story segments hadn't *already* been disabled in guest mode!
Ah, yep, that's what I suggested in the second half of my comment, but bsky's moderation blocked it.
I do know for a fact that those scenes were still in that mode though, because the "my mom was made too uncomfortable to keep playing" was something that I personally ran into.
While removing the scenes where you need to kill yourself from the party/demo mode, or at *most* disabling the story by default would have been better options, I do also understand not wanting to risk anyone catching a friend off-guard by placing them in one of those scenes.
Awesome work digging and analyzing all that Discord chat!
I'll posit another theory that's not covered by your article: personal liability.
Maybe he faced some situation involving self-harm that was very close to heart and is afraid that it could've been inspired by the game, and wants none of it
All of the excuses that the creator offers seems to point out that he changed the mind on the subject, and that could be caused by something traumatic happening.
Maybe he's afraid someone will sue him for "promoting" self-harm?
I can understand the discomfort with selling—supporting—something you've come to be morally opposed to. Even with a toggle, beta branch, and whatnot, you're still selling it.
Imo, the best way to handle this would've been to stop selling the original game and create a new Steam ID for the new version under the same name. And of course, giving previous owners access to it for free.
That way, the original would remain accessible to those who bought it, and the developer could continue selling a version they're comfortable with. Similar situations have happened before, fwiw. The big issue is that this is for Steam. I'm not sure how it'd work on other platforms.
Man, I had no clue that they removed the story! I worked at a VR arcade as a teen, and one of the most popular games was SUPERHOT. I regularly remember parents being upset with the games instructions (and also often feeling a bit uncomfortable myself having to explain to a child what to do next).
It definitely "makes sense" that if the devs had heard similar remarks or complaints from others it could lead to the removal. At the same time, I think it's a disastrous choice, that really impacts how the game lands.
That would make sense! The one I worked at didn't like paying for the arcade builds (we were just running a pc with steam on it instead), so it had that section in full.
one of the more impactful moments in VR for me was realizing I could shoot myself near the end of Boneworks. I'd spent so long in the game that I genuinely hesitated, usually if the immersion isn't right you get bored and try things sooner.
When I think of my memories of other games they feel like memories of playing a game. When I think of my memories of Boneworks and other VR titles they feel like memories of being in a place.
I (literally) broke my knee playing superhot vr. the story meant a lot to me and its removal has always pissed me off to an unreasonable degree. thank you for talking about it.
Fairly sure the Stellar Blade devs weren't outright misogynistic. The controversy was manufactured by neo-gamergaters and not the devs themselves (although they still made a very fetishistic game I guess)
In their now-defunct gacha game Destiny Child, they fired artists who simply retweeted feminist tweets
Nobody ever brought it up on English web (aside from r/K*takuInActi*n celebrating it, which, I'm not linking that) so here's a Korean news article that mentions it
I really hope that's the case. It's a known issue right now in Korean social politics so completely possible. I don't have my same network on Bsky as I did Twitter so just a bit harder to stay informed. Fingers crossed. 🤞🏿
Comments
It just comes across as uncommitted IMO.
The panty shots did nothing to change the game story wise or gameplay wise. With this, removing the story is literally removing some of the original intent of the game. If you don't agree with a work anymore, it's still somewhat (c)
They also changed a story CG to be less obvious because "police violence makes us squeamish" (even though well, it's done by villains and is a bad thing in-story; the character it happens to is an ex-cop, he quit over it) (cont.)
Finally, they removed one of the primary identifiers of a playable characters design because it was a red armband (not replaced by anything). (cont.)
"Han shot first, showing that he's selfish and dangerous, but gets redeemed by Luke and co."
"Greedo shot first, because Han has always been a good guy."
Really feels like the artist either has a mental breakdown, a "religious experience", or was too bothered by parents getting upset that they did this... Which is more disturbing to me then if the reason was simply "I want to market to everyone so we removed it".
What might explain it: around late 2020 Meta was seeing a higher adoption of Oculus sell through to kids, Superhot was still one of the top 10 vr games on their store, & early 2021 saw a TOS change
still doesn’t explain removing steam branch
Obviously having to kill yourself multiple times in the game could trigger sensitive issues. But it wasn't played for shock factor.
We've seen people destroy themselves over NFTs
We've seen people destroy themselves over Metaverses
Now we are watching people destroy themselves over AI.
it's ironic that Piotr's actions disturbed and upset me way more than engaging with self destructive themes through art ever did
SUPERHOT VR is one of the most common "demo what makes VR special to your friends and family" games, and those scenes are absolutely in "your mom is too uncomfortable to continue playing" territory.
I do know for a fact that those scenes were still in that mode though, because the "my mom was made too uncomfortable to keep playing" was something that I personally ran into.
I'll posit another theory that's not covered by your article: personal liability.
Maybe he faced some situation involving self-harm that was very close to heart and is afraid that it could've been inspired by the game, and wants none of it
Maybe he's afraid someone will sue him for "promoting" self-harm?
Personally, i think that preserving the original vision of a project matters, even if you dont really agree with that vision anymore.
In a way, old projects can functions as time capsules of who we used to be and it would be a shame to erase that away.
Or like is it something else that got removed
But also why even was it.
So more a case of ignorance than malice I think
Nobody ever brought it up on English web (aside from r/K*takuInActi*n celebrating it, which, I'm not linking that) so here's a Korean news article that mentions it
https://www.seoulfn.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=512504
II just remember that a lot of the concrete stories at the time ended up getting debunked, so I'm a bit weary when I hear unconfirmed rumors and such.