Slashdot Mirror
Videogame Regulation Is Everyone's Business
Thanks to the International Game Developers Association for their editorial discussing why game developers should collectively take a stand against negative views of gaming. The writer, IGDA program director Jason Della Rocca, suggests: "The perception that games are 'bad' for us stubbornly persists, and we have yet to find effective ways to change people's minds on this issue. Game makers may be biased toward games' 'good' qualities, but you'd be surprised how many developers simply don't care about the issue of public perception, don't have an informed opinion, or believe it is all a big waste of time - even to the extent of questioning the need to fight government regulations." He concludes with a message to game developers: "In the bigger picture, resolve to push boundaries and innovate... We need not put a stop to games with violence, but we need other avenues beyond violence as a design crutch."
Someone should tell Microsoft's Xbox gaming division.
I don't mind games with violence, but I wish they would ban games that suck.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Gaming is just like watching movies or reading books. It's entertainment that is usually engaging enough to command all your attention. For some reason, however, most people get really surprised when I draw this comparison, and only those who are willing to think about it for a minute agree with me. Maybe the IGDA should target the people who are willing to think first and add some intellectual challenge back into games.
This type of thing has happened over and over again. Some new form of entertainment comes along, the current generation loves it, but the older generation does not understand it, and blames it for all the evils of society. In the end, the old people die off, and the form of entertainment becomes validated as the generation, who grew up with it, take over the control of society; only to repeate the same mistake with the new form of entertainment their own kids play. This is one of the problems with the long life spans we have now, the older generations get to hold on to the reins of power for too long, there is no way to take them from the older generation, and they don't die off soon enough to get out of the way of the progress of the younger generation. Or maybe I am just bitter because I think that 80 year old senators don't have a clue about video games, and are just knee-jerk reacting to the problem.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
"Politicians are acting in their constituents' best interest, and there's nothing I can do."
Does anyone really think that politicians act in anyone's interest but their own?
Meet the new sig, same as the old sig
This one is easy: if you don't like a game, don't play it. Now can we move on to more important things?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
To quote Jack Van Impe:
"Nineteen hundred seventy-four is the year that they are now planning for
sex on the streets in every major city from coast to coast. And -get ready
for a shock- the 'music' that they're planning to use to crumble the morals
of America is this rotten, filthy, dirty, lewd, lascivious JUNK called
'rock and roll.' It isn't just the lyrics, it's the BEAT! I preached it to
my conversion story which you can get (?) how this 'beat' gets them 400
teenage girls in Detroit interviewed as to why they had illegitimate babies,
they said 'not just the words, the BEAT.' The fertility rites of the jungles
are the same beats (drums on lectern) incorporated in this 'modern rock.'
-------------
Epilogue: this "beat" now dominates Christian music.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This seems like a bit of a catch-22 to me. The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay. But it's hard to talk devs out of making violent games when they've been selling so well of late. Further, even if the percentage of violent games out there were to suddenly shrink to almost zero, I don't think it would help perception all that much - after all, the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway.
They're GOOD for children to play! Improved hand-eye coordination, visual skills, and possibly critical thinking skills.
0 530020205.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003May/bga2003
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester found that people who play fast-paced action video games have improved visual skills when compared to those who don't play. According to the study, people who played such video games were able to able to better track objects appearing simultaneously, and processed fast-changing visual information more efficiently.
This benefits a wide range of activities, from playing sports to driving. Also, (although I can't find any studies on it) it makes sense that children who play certain types of games (puzzle/strategy games) would develop better critical thinking skills than those who spend their time watching TV or playing hide-and-go-seek.
Obviously, children shouldn't be staying inside every hour of every day just to play games, but they're definitely not worthless, and are actually more beneficial than a lot of recreational activities.
Apparently, vegetarians should stop watching Matlock, too. I guess Matlock doesn't eat babies.
Matthew Elton
Department of Philosophy
University of Stirling
1. An Absurd Question?
Many video games feature animated agents that the player attacks with the aim of maiming or
killing. Less dramatically the animated agents may be treated instrumentally, herded or goaded
with no regard for potential suffering, injury, or death. Such activity would be utterly
unacceptable if directed at people. And for many, but clearly not all, it would be repugnant if
directed at animals. For simplicity, if not accuracy, let me call those who do take the latter
attitude ?vegetarians?. In this paper I want to raise the question of whether such vegetarians
ought to refrain from playing video games on the grounds that the animated agents in the game
require of us the same sort of treatment as animals do in our natural environment. Should, that
is, vegetarians play video games?
My answer may strike some readers as absurd, for I shall argue, with some important
qualifications, that vegetarians should not play video games. That is, I shall argue that
between real animals and some of the animated agents that feature in video games there are no
differences that make a moral difference, and hence no ground for a difference in treatment. Of
course, many readers may share with me the overwhelming intuition that there must be some
relevant difference, and this may suggest that there is something awry with my arguments.
But if this is so, I shall at least have shown that the relevant difference is not obvious, and,
hence, that the vegetarian has work to do in justifying her playing of video games.
If you can't see where this is going already, you can view the rest here
The ______ Agenda
Yes, being unjustly biased against games is just a bunch of crap, and I wish it would stop. Yet, people keep saying that they're addictive, violent, unwholesome, etc. What about books? I know there's a lot of crap out there in literature, and yet, parents are proud of their kids when they continuously are reading "Animorphs", "Secret of Droon", etc., and for what reason? "Oh, it improves his/her reading skills". Ahem. You do reading in video games. (Okay, Doom, or other games don't contain very much text in them at all, but consider RPGs, for one genre) But then they argue the crap about violence and addiction and games inspiring people to do bad things and all of that. Books contain all of these things. My own Mother, one who isn't all that pleased with video games admits to being addicted to reading books. And there are certainly more books out there than games, and books contain many more kinds of things in them, (good or bad) whether it be fiction or non-fiction, and yet, in their eyes, books are good, video games are bad. Now, I'm not trying to condemn books in any way--all I'm saying is that books contain the same stuff that they are condemning video games for.
I love NetHack.
games like Neverwinter Nights?
There is a sliding scale for "violence" in the options menu, and you can password protect it.
Problem solved - no censorship, all it takes is active parenting.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Thanks to the International Game Developers Association for their editorial discussing why game developers should collectively take a stand against negative views of gaming
Shouldn't the game publishers and console makers be the ones fighting this fight? After all they have the money to buy lobbyists to influence politicians.
There is no doubt that children (under 17) shouldn't be playing video games that depict things that would get a movie a R or NC-17 rating. It's up to the video game companies to rate the games, and the parents and retailers to monitor what the children buy. The same as it is for movies, magizines, etc.
Asking the developers to fight this battle is like asking a camera man to fight against movie ratings. While every persons voice counts, the money the publishers and console makers have is what is really needed for politics...vast amounts of cash.
Many of us identify as gamers. Many of us find ourselves in the position of having to defend our lifestyle choice to other people, as if our hobby were removing the hinges from public doors or planting cannibis around the local elementary school.
Penny Arcade's latest comic shows this perception, in that we now have something to point to and say "see, we're not bad people." Why do we have to donate generously and publically to charity just to prove we aren't beasts, as if the donation somehow atones for our pasttime? It's not like community theater actors have to go outside and rake the leaves so that people will say "they may be evil, but at least they rake the leaves."
I'm a game developer. In conversation when I mention being a game developer to non-gamers I'm instantly shunned. Obviously I'm selling violence and sexual debasement to children, along with the worst devil of all, Idleness. Pointing out that the last game I worked on was intended for adults in their mid 30's just makes them think I'm selling old smut to children. Pointing out the one before that was a non-violent basketball game? I'm blamed for frat parties.
It's prejudiced crap, and we shouldn't have to put up with it.
The ______ Agenda
I think this should be taken up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Anime, a group devoted to the protection of animated characters (digital and drawn).
They came into being back in 1983 when the founder was playing Ms. Pac-Man and cried when she saw Inky being eaten. This later led to a protest campaign against "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" when it was realized that animated characters were erased during the production of the film.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Do you want to get rid of all that's morally reprehensible in gaming?
Simply stop Akklaim from producing any more games.
And kill the Akklaim marketing department.
Problem solved.
Like the software industry dictates the kinds of games that are made. Game makers will make whatever the public wants because that's what brings home the bacon. Yet an other case of industy and politicians thinking backwards... that somehow _they_ drive the market. Follow the cash and you'll find the truth.
Hrm...
In Soviet Russia, you drive the market!
or is it
In Soviet Russia, the market drives you!
(ow, my head hurts)
-=sig=-
My Mom brings home the bacon, as she does all of the shopping.
As if I haven't posted too many times in this topic already. A good article from the BBC News, except for the unnecessary bit at the end demonizing games.
Pensioners catch the gaming bug
Increasing numbers of over 60s are picking up joysticks to play video games, says a games company.
Nicknamed "grey gamers", they are buying the more diverse games around, like strategy and historical titles.
"Because of the breadth of games now with more universal appeal, they are more enjoyable and social these days," said Codemasters' Richard Eddy.
The games company see the trend as a "natural evolution" for silver surfers who have become more tech-savvy.
Grandma Croft?
Codemasters found out there was a huge audience of "grey gamers" when they profiled the age ranges of users on their website.
"Over 50,000 ticked the over-35 box, so we contacted a few websites and local papers to say we would love to hear from more mature gamers."
They had over 250 e-mails from older gamers who enthused about their electronic hobby, usually associated with the younger generation.
The type of games that get grannies and grandpas going are the ones that require lateral thinking and problem-solving rather than shoot-em-ups, apparently.
Others which focus on football management skills, snooker and Great Escape-type adventures are also popular.
"They find it a very creative use of their leisure time, something that contributes to their active environment," Mr Eddy said.
And as technologies get more familiar and consoles find a permanent home by the TV, gaming becomes something the whole family can do together, said Mr Eddy.
June and Raymond Gill, 75, see no harm in it and regularly exercise their thumb action on game pads.
"We've been playing for 15 years, having been introduced to computer games by our son," said Mrs Gill.
"It keeps your brain active and we spend about two or three hours playing most days."
Mis-spent age
But some worry it is a sign that older people are becoming increasingly isolated.
"It seems to me that computer games are repetitive, isolating, and all the evidence is that older people need to be stimulated and challenged.
"I can't see this as a way of doing it," writer Jill Smith told the BBC's Today programme.
Instead of being a sociable activity, Ms Smith said playing games could simply be replacing watching TV alone.
Emma Soames, editor of Saga magazine said it was no different to knitting or playing card games.
"Just as there are people who mis-spent their youth in snooker halls, now they are spending their middle age in Mario land," she said.
The gaming industry is big business in the UK, with more spent on computer and video games than on cinema tickets, as well video and DVD rentals, said Codemasters.
From BBC News
The ______ Agenda
Tarzan is studied in nearly all major english literature programs. Pac Man is probably the first Videogame with a serious sociological dialog surrounding it, albeit one spawned by a raver joke.
If Disney's Tarzan has re-pulped the novel, then feel free to subsitute Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the above observation.
The ______ Agenda
Possibly the same happens on any platform if you list games and pick out offensively violent ones?
I have a Xbox but not huge numbers of games for it, so I speak from ignorance - but can "Kung fu Chaos" really be "nonviolent"?
"Whacked" and "Grabbed by the Ghoulies" are titled in such a way to sound violent; and "High road to revenge" sounds karmically unhelpful.
Sports sims are sports sims - any platform with a large presence of this genre has "non-violent" games.
I think the problem is that the games "featuring" violence are more accessible to an audience that are used to playing them. That makes it an easier market to attract. I doubt it's very platform-specific, though it may be more developer-specific.
Microsoft's in-house team have an interest in pushing as broad a portfolio of game styles as they can economically manage, while Rockstar and the like are simply in this for the money and the fun of trying to outrage people.
I don't think I'm disagreeing - but I'm not sure that I'm agreeing either.
Some interesting pieces of the code:
Basically, they mandated that America produce nothing but boring superhero comics for several decades, which is why comics tended to become more popular in Europe and Japan than in America.
Could something similar happen to games? The one big advantage games have in the 00s that comics didn't in the 50s is that comics were explicitly targeted to juveniles, which is why there was such public furor over them, while the more violent games made today are (supposedly) aimed at people in their 20s and up.
An industry effort to make more quality games rather than relying on the same old violence cliches could only be a good thing, but I don't think it will really prove necessary--games companies just have to keep emphasizing that they are not trying to sell to kids. (Hey, it works for the tobacco companies--which even with the settlement are rolling in the dough.)
Even if games never leave this sophomoric violent stage, any public attempt to ban them will run into the same problem that is run into when trying to ban guns in America--most people want to eliminate guns, but too many of the people who want to keep guns are single-issue voters.
Don't worry. In 10 years time you or someone like you will be publically lauded and starring in your own TV show "Gamer Eye for a straight Guy"
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Here in the South, we have People for the Eating of Tastey Animals - especially on BBQ day here in Memphis. So rather than protect the animals, we should kill them humanely and roast their corpses.
How can any self respecting game designer follow their own artistic vision without regaurd to public opinion?
It's not funny, but it is lip-smacking and finger-licking good.