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."

Comments

A small observation

[NetDanzr]

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.

Re:A small observation

[cgenman]

Watching movies, watching TV, and reading comic books were once looked down upon as deeply as playing games is today. In fact, all visceral escapist entertainment seems to start that way... from radio shows to tango.

From what I've seen, this won't change until the generations change. A group of people who grew up on videogames will necessarily have a different perception of the situation than a person to whom videogames were what "kids do." Of course, we need to draw more girls into the fold if we want to make that transition happen faster.

All we can do is continue to make the best, most enjoyable games possible. Tarzan was once considered pulp, just as Pac Man was. Fighting bad perceptions is important too, but in perspective one more Myst would do a lot more than any number of screaming developers to change public opinion. 20 years from now, we will probably be debating the social ramafications of Dune 2, and everyone will have "always" loved good games.

Insert obligatory Penny Arcade link.

Same thing, different product.

[Sylver Dragon]

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.

Re:Same thing, different product.

[Sylver Dragon]

I think one thing we should do is put an age limit on our representatives. At the moment, you must be at least a certain age to serve in the senate, or as president. Sure, they are pretty low numbers, but they do exist. Why not have a maximum age? Why not accept the fact that as people age, thier ability to learn tends to decrese? Perhaps they do have some advantage in experience, but they also have that whole fear of the unknown working against them, and as they start pushing 75-80, there is going to be a lot of new stuff that has been developed, that they don't understand.

Misperception?

[PreviouslySeen]

"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?

This one's easy.. Then we can move on.

[AtariAmarok]

This one is easy: if you don't like a game, don't play it. Now can we move on to more important things?

My comment

[jonathan_the_ninja]

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.

how about

[theMerovingian]

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.

Re:how about

[gl4ss]

so.. after you turn the violence off you don't need to kill anyone in the game? how you get the experience??

-

-yes i know that it's most probably just a matter of turning off the blood&etc.. but that doesn't really alter the nature of the game, and if that were the case(that violence is simply matter of red pixels) then there couldn't be books that are quite 'disturbing'(and violent) to say the least.. violence(and other things, like sex) are not just about what you show on the screen, you could have a terribly violent game without showing one drop of blood.

Some of us can't move on

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Hrm...

[Aelfy]

Thats exactly it. If violent games sell really well, then it doesn't take a business genius to decide its a good investment to make more.
Contrary to what it seems, devs come up with *loads* of great quality game ideas with innovative gameplay elements. Its the publisher that turns them down - its too much of a financial risk (unless you are an established "name", or have a prestiged lead designer).

Do not for one minute think that game developers can't come up with fresh ideas any more. Its purely a numbers game. Soul-less clones sell well and thats what the common man wants. Its sad, but its a lot like films. If you want innovation, look for the arthouse developments that self-publish over the web. Big development outfits can't afford the risks they take.

Re:Paleeeze

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Follow the cash to corporate gaming monoliths like Electronic Arts and Vivendi, or follow the cash to see the narrow demographic (young males) to which most games today are sold, or follow the cash to see that 90% of games lose money, and you start to wonder exactly how well games makers are following what the public wants.

I suspect that corporate boardrooms are simply bad at choosing game projects, and the software industry DOES dictate the kinds of games that are made, because they simply have no ability to determine what the public wants at all.

Re:Hrm...

[MMaestro]

"the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway."

What do you mean? We only do have a few violent games out right now. We have,

GTA3/VC
Postal 2
True Crime Streets of LA
Manhunt
And the already aged Soldier of Fortune 2 (the ways you could 'kill' a person's body makes it notable enough not counting the different weapons).

Out of this list of (relatively) recent games, only GTA3/VC (and maybe Manhunt but the sales reports haven't come in yet) sold really well and thats because the media virtually sold half the copies alone by giving it air time every other week. (Its been a year since VC came out and people are STILL bitching about it). Until I start seeing more developers other than Rockstar Games make more 'violent' games, I'm gonna take all these video game regulation complaints as seriously as Mr. Potato Head being the new lead character in GTA4.